Quran Contradictions, Difficulties and Errors - By Sam Shamoun

March 16, 2018 | Author: Gilbert Hanz | Category: Quran, Muhammad, Monotheistic Religions, Abrahamic Religions, Religious Belief And Doctrine


Comments



Description

Quran Contradiction: Should Jews and Christians follow the Bible or the Quran? The Quran instructs both Jews and Christians to follow the guidance given to them in the Torah/Law and the Injil/Gospel: But how do they come to you for decision while they have the Taurat (Torah), in which IS the (plain) Decision of Allah; yet even after that, they turn away. For they are not (really) believers. S. 5:43 Hilali-Khan What makes this text interesting is that it discourages the Jews (and presumably the Christians) from turning to Muhammad for guidance since they have the Torah which contains the plain decision of Allah! And We caused Jesus, son of Mary, to follow in their footsteps, confirming that which was (revealed) before him in the Torah, and We bestowed on him the Gospel wherein IS guidance and a light, confirming that which was (revealed) before it in the Torah - a guidance and an admonition unto those who ward off (evil). Let the People of the Gospel judge by that which Allah hath revealed therein. Whoso judgeth not by that which Allah hath revealed: such are evil-livers. S. 5:46-47 Pickthall Here Christians are told to consult the Gospel since it is guidance and light. Hence, the foregoing verses are basically telling the Jews and Christians that they do not need Muhammad‘s Quran since they have all that they need in the Law and the Gospel. The Quran goes on to tell Muhammad to judge by the revelation given to him: And We have revealed to you the Book with the truth, verifying what IS before it of the Book and a guardian over it, therefore judge between them by what Allah has revealed, and do not follow their low desires (to turn away) from the truth that has come to you; for every one of you did We appoint a law and a way, and if Allah had pleased He would have made you (all) a single people, but that He might try you in what He gave you, therefore strive with one another to hasten to virtuous deeds; to Allah is your return, of all (of you), so He will let you know that in which you differed; And that you should judge between them by what Allah has revealed, and do not follow their low desires, and be cautious of them, lest they seduce you from part of what Allah has revealed to you; but if they turn back, then know that Allah desires to afflict them on account of some of their faults; and most surely many of the people are transgressors. S. 5:48-49 Shakir The above references explicitly say that Allah appointed for every one a specific law (shariah) and way, since his purpose wasn‘t that all the people should be united as one. This implies that each group received laws that contained major differences between them, that none of the prescribed ways that Allah gave are identical with one another, and that this is one of the reasons why the nations became divided. In the words of Ibn Kathir: … Allah has sent down various laws to all previous Messengers, but they all agreed upon the same creed (Tawheed)… All the former religions of the previous Prophets have different laws with regard to orders and interdictions. One thing could be lawful in a religion but unlawful in another, vice versa. And a law could be lenient in one but harsh in another. However, the last Shari‘ah sent down to the seal of all Prophets, Muhammad, has abrogated all the former religions and laws [sic], and Allah has prescribed it to mankind and Jinns, to Arabs and non-Arabs. Allah‘s verse, <Had Allah willed He would have made you one nation, but that He may try you in what He has given you > means that He has ordained different laws in order to test His servants accordingly, and to reward them or punish them according to their deeds… (Tafsir Ibn Kathir: Surat An-Nisa‟, ayat 148 to 176, Surah Al-Ma‟idah, ayat 1 to 81, abridged by Sheikh Muhammad Nasib Ar-Rafa‗i [Al-Firdous Ltd., London, 2000: First Edition], Part 6, p. 182) Ibn Kathir clearly saw the problem in what the Quran states and tried to somehow resolve the dilemma. The references of Sura 5:43 and 47 do not say that these specific injunctions to the Jews and Christians to follow their own Scriptures are for the period of time before Muhammad‘s advent and that Muhammad‘s Quran has now come to abolish/abrogate these other laws. On the contrary, the verses expressly exhort the Jews and Christians to abide by the Torah and the Gospel, despite the fact that the Quran has already arrived. Note, once again, what Sura 5:43 actually says: But how do THEY come to YOU for decision while THEY have the Taurat (Torah), in which is the (plain) Decision of Allah; yet even after that, they turn away. For they are not (really) believers. Hilali-Khan Notice the reference to the Jews coming to Muhammad, i.e "how do THEY come to YOU," showing clearly that this is referring to an event which took place at Muhammad's time. Thus, this injunction to the Jews that they should consult the Torah instead of turning to Muhammad cannot be referring to the time before the Quran was composed. Clearly, Ibn Kathir is wrong. He tried to resolve this problem by claiming that this competition is only for the past, but now it is only the Quran that is to be followed. But that is not what the Quran says. This now brings us to a dilemma resulting from what the Quran says elsewhere, one which Ibn Kathir clearly saw and tried to reconcile. Muhammad is told to judge the Jews and Christians by the revelation given in the Quran, and that the Quran confirms the previous Scripture, namely the Torah and Injil. The Quran even commands Jews and Christians to follow the Quran: O children of Israel! call to mind My favor which I bestowed on you and be faithful to (your) covenant with Me, I will fulfill (My) covenant with you; and of Me, Me alone, should you be afraid. And believe in what I have revealed, VERIFYING THAT WHICH IS WITH YOU, and be not the first to deny it, neither take a mean price in exchange for My communications; and Me, Me alone should you fear. S. 2:40-41 Shakir And when there came to them a Book from Allah VERIFYING THAT WHICH THEY HAVE, and aforetime they used to pray for victory against those who disbelieve, but when there came to them (Prophet) that which they did not recognize, they disbelieved in him; so Allah's curse is on the unbelievers. S. 2:89 Shakir These next two texts enjoin the Jews and Christians to do what is commanded in God‘s revelations, i.e. the Torah, the Injil etc., Had they PERFORMED the Torah and the Gospel, and what was sent down to them from their Lord, they would have eaten both what was above them, and what was beneath their feet. Some of them are a just nation; but many of them -- evil are the things they do. Say: ‗People of the Book, you do not stand on anything, until you PERFORMED the Torah and the Gospel, and what was sent down to you from your Lord.‘ And what has been sent down to thee from thy Lord will surely increase many of them in insolence and unbelief; so grieve not for the people of the unbelievers. S. 5:66, 68 Arberry Yet these assertions introduce several problems. First, there are many issues in which the Quran does not confirm the previous revelation, but expressly contradicts it (e.g, contradicting the laws in the Torah, the core of the message of the Gospel, in addition to many smaller contradictions between Quran and Bible). Second, how can Muhammad judge Jews and Christians by the Quran and then expect these groups to judge by their own Scriptures, not by the Quran? How can the Jews and Christians perform what is commanded in the Torah, the Injil and all the rest of God‘s revelations when the Quran contradicts many of the teachings and injunctions found in the Holy Bible? After all, what happens when a command of the Quran contradicts an express directive of the Torah and the Injil? What are the Jews and Christians supposed to do when this occurs? Are they to follow what the Quran says, thereby contradicting the Quran‘s own command to follow the directives of their own religious Scriptures? Or should they follow the guidance and light of their own revelation and simply ignore the Quran? Third, Muhammad himself is commanded to consult the previous Scripture if he has any doubt regarding the Quran‘s veracity: If thou wert in doubt as to what We have revealed unto thee, then ask those who have been reading the Book from before thee: the Truth hath indeed come to thee from thy Lord: so be in no wise of those in doubt. S. 10:94 Y. Ali This presupposes that the Bible is the criterion over the Quran, and therefore implies that the Bible must determine whether the Quran is true or not, what parts can be believed and which should not be accepted etc. This therefore means that every time that the Quran contradicts the instructions and prohibitions of the Holy Bible then the Quran must be rejected. Thus, if Muhammad had passed judgment that contradicted the Torah and Injil then the Jews and Christians would be forced to reject his decision since this is what the Quran says they must do! Here is a summary of all the problems that arise from what the Quran teaches so as to help the readers see more clearly the major dilemma caused by the Quran‘s conflicting instructions: 1. Jews (and Christians?) are told not to go to Muhammad for decision, but follow the decision given by Allah in the Torah/Law. 2. Jews and Christians are commanded to follow the guidance of their own religious Scriptures, the Torah and Injil/Gospel respectively. 3. The Bible determines whether the Quran is true or not. 4. Muhammad must judge Jews and Christians by the Quran which was sent down to confirm and protect the previous Scriptures. 5. Jews and Christians are also commanded to follow the guidance of the Quran. 6. The Quran fails to confirm the previous revelation, the Torah and the Injil, since it blatantly contradicts many of the teachings found in these Scriptures. 7. This causes problems for the Jews and Christians since the Quran commands them to follow the guidance of their own Scriptures which they cannot do if they must follow what the Quran teaches. 8. This means that the Jews and Christians must either reject the Quran whenever it contradicts the Holy Bible, or reject the Holy Bible whenever it contradicts the Quran. 9. Yet to reject the Quran in order to uphold the directives of the Holy Bible is to go against the Quran‘s insistence that they should follow it. 10. At the same time, to reject the directives of the Holy Bible in order to uphold the Quran is to reject what the Quran says about following the Holy Bible and its own claim that the Jewish and Christian Scriptures are the criteria determining the authenticity (or lack thereof) of the Quran! Sam Shamoun Qur'an Contradiction Does Allah Command Evil and Abomination or Doesn‟t He? The Quran says that Allah doesn‘t command indecency and abomination: And whenever they commit an indecency they say, 'We found our fathers practising it, and God has commanded us to do it.' Say: 'God does not command indecency; what, do you say concerning God such things as you know not?' S. 7:28 Surely God bids to justice and good-doing and giving to kinsmen; and He forbids indecency, dishonour, and insolence, admonishing you, so that haply you will remember. S. 16:90 In fact, the Quran says it is Satan who does: O men, eat of what is in the earth lawful and good; and follow not the steps of Satan; he is a manifest foe to you. He only commands you to evil and indecency, and that you should speak against God such things as you know not. S. 2:168-169 The Quran further says that Allah does not destroy any city unjustly: That is because thy Lord would never destroy the cities unjustly, while their inhabitants were heedless. S. 6:131 Yet we are told elsewhere that Allah does indeed command wickedness and indecency: And when We desire to destroy a city, WE COMMAND its men who live at ease, AND THEY COMMIT UNGODLINESS therein, then the Word is realized against it, and We destroy it utterly. S. 17:16 Carefully notice the wording of the text; Allah commands and the people commit ungodliness. In other words, it is Allah‘s command that leads the people to commit indecency which then results in their destruction! Egyptian Christian writer and scholar, Dr. Labib Mikhail, commented on the theological ramifications of the above text and shows how the literal meaning is that Allah is commanding the people to commit evil in order to destroy them: I have to mention, as one who mastered the Arabic as my first language and who has read the different versions of the Koran, that some of who translated the Koran into English were not honest; they tried to deceive the English speaking reader. Here are a few examples of their deception. (4) In Surat Al-Isra we read this Arabic verse in the Koran, where Allah is saying: Wa eza aradna an nohlika kariatan amarna motrifiha fafasako feha fahaqa Alliah alkowl fadamarnaha (Surat Al-Isra 17:16) The correct translation of this verse should be: And when we (Allah) decide to destroy a village, we send a definite command to those who lead a life of luxury in it to commit lewdness, and thus the word of torment is justified against them. Then we destroy it with complete destruction. This means that when Allah wants to destroy a village that he will command the elite of that town to commit gross sins. Then after that he will punish them because they obeyed his commands. (Mikhail, Islam, Muhammad and the Koran: A Documented Analysis [Blessed Hope Ministry, Springfield VA; Second edition, Revised and Expanded 2002], pp. 111, 112113; online edition) Another Christian writer, the late ‗Abdallah Abd al-‗Fadi, said in reference to these passages: Does God desire to destroy the people he created? Would He really command people who live at ease in a certain place to commit ungodliness, so that they would be worthy of punishment, together with the poor who live among them? Is this compatible with God‘s justice, holiness and faithfulness? How could anyone ascribe to God such infamy, injustice and ungodliness? Besides, the Qur‘an contradicts this statement in many other places… (Al-‗Fadi, Is the Qur‟an Infallible? [Light of Life, P.O. Box 13, A-9503 Villach, Austria], p. 131) Al-‗Fadi proceeded to quote the very same texts cited above. Since both these gentlemen are/were Arab Christians and know/knew Arabic, one cannot accuse them of failing to understand or properly exegeting the Arabic text of the Quran. The Quran does not provide specific examples of the particular sins or ungodliness that Allah would command people to perform if he wants to destroy a city. Nevertheless, the above is a clear contradiction on an abstract level. Does God command indecency or does he not? The Quran makes both statements. Two further observations: First, one perverse consequence of S. 17:16 is that the people in that city are ultimately punished and destroyed for obeying Allah’s commands given to them, not for disobedience to the commands that they had received. Second, looking at the Torah in comparison to the Quran, there is at least one behavior that the Holy God of the Bible has forbidden explicitly, which he even called detestable, but which Allah has made an explicit command for the Muslims. This is what the Bible says: "If a man marries a woman who becomes displeasing to him because he finds something indecent about her, and he writes her a certificate of divorce, gives it to her and sends her from his house, and if after she leaves his house she becomes the wife of another man, and her second husband dislikes her and writes her a certificate of divorce, gives it to her and sends her from his house, or if he dies, then her first husband, who divorced her, is not allowed to marry her again after she has been defiled. That would be detestable in the eyes of the LORD. Do not bring sin upon the land the LORD your God is giving you as an inheritance." Deuteronomy 24:1-4 "God says, 'If a husband divorces his wife and she goes from him and belongs to another man, will he still return to her? Will not that land be completely polluted? But you are a harlot with many lovers; Yet you turn to Me,' declares the LORD. Lift up your eyes to the bare heights and see; Where have you not been violated? By the roads you have sat for them Like an Arab in the desert, And you have polluted a land with your harlotry and with your wickedness." Jeremiah 3:1-2 Here, the God of the Holy Bible prohibits a man from remarrying a divorcee who has remarried and either been divorced again or widowed. Contrast this to the following Quranic command: Divorce is twice; then honourable retention or setting free kindly. It is not lawful for you to take of what you have given them unless the couple fear they may not maintain God's bounds; if you fear they may not maintain God's bounds, it is no fault in them for her to redeem herself. Those are God's bounds; do not transgress them. Whosoever transgresses the bounds of God -- those are the evildoers. If he divorces her finally, she shall not be lawful to him after that, until she marries another husband. If he divorces her, then it is no fault in them to return to each other, if they suppose that they will maintain God's bounds. Those are God's bounds; He makes them clear unto a people that have knowledge. S. 2:229-230 Muslim tradition even goes so far as to say that the woman must engage in sexual intercourse with the man before she can return to her former husband: Narrated 'Aisha: Rifa'a Al-Qurazi divorced his wife irrevocably (i.e. that divorce was the final). Later on 'Abdur-Rahman bin Az-Zubair married her after him. She came to the Prophet and said, "O Allah's Apostle! I was Rifa'a's wife and he divorced me thrice, and then I was married to 'Abdur-Rahman bin AzZubair, who, by Allah has nothing with him except something like this fringe, O Allah's Apostle," showing a fringe she had taken from her covering sheet. Abu Bakr was sitting with the Prophet while Khalid Ibn Said bin Al-As was sitting at the gate of the room waiting for admission. Khalid started calling Abu Bakr, "O Abu Bakr! Why don't you reprove this lady from what she is openly saying before Allah's Apostle?" Allah's Apostle did nothing except smiling, and then said (to the lady), "Perhaps you want to go back to Rifa'a? No, (it is not possible), unless and until you enjoy the sexual relation with him ('Abdur Rahman), and he enjoys the sexual relation with you." (Sahih Al-Bukhari, Volume 8, Book 73, Number 107) Yahya related to me from Malik from al-Miswar ibn Rifaa al-Quradhi from az-Zubayr ibn Abd ar-Rahman ibn az-Zubayr that Rifaa ibn Simwal divorced his wife, Tamima bint Wahb, in the time of the Messenger of Allah, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, three times. Then she married Abd ar-Rahman ibn az-Zubayr and he turned from her and could not consummate the marriage and so he parted from her. Rifaa wanted to marry her again and it was mentioned to the Messenger of Allah, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, and he forbade him to marry her. He said, "She is not halal for you until she has tasted the sweetness of intercourse." (Malik's Muwatta, Book 28, Number 28.7.17) Yahya related to me from Malik from Yahya ibn Said from al-Qasim ibn Muhammad that A'isha, the wife of the Prophet, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, said when asked whether it was permissible for a man to marry again a wife he had divorced irrevocably if she had married another man who divorced her before consummating the marriage, "Not until she has tasted the sweetness of intercourse." (Malik's Muwatta, Book 28, Number 28.7.18) The man who makes the woman lawful for her former husband is called Muhallil: Yahya related to me from Malik that he had heard that when asked whether it was permissible for a man to return to his wife if he had divorced her irrevocably and then another man had married her after him and died before consummating the marriage, al-Qasim ibn Muhammad said, "It is not halal for the first husband to return to her." Malik said, about the muhallil, that he could not remain in the marriage until he undertook a new marriage. If he had intercourse with her in that marriage, she had her dowry. (Malik's Muwatta, Book 28, Number 28.7.19) Allah calls permissible what Yahweh calls shameful and abominable. Here is another instance of Allah permitting indecency, lewdness: Permitted to you, upon the night of the Fast, is to go in to (alrrafathu) your wives; -- they are a vestment for you, and you are a vestment for them. God knows that you have been betraying yourselves, and has turned to you and pardoned you. So now lie with them, and seek what God has prescribed for you. And eat and drink, until the white thread shows clearly to you from the black thread at the dawn; then complete the Fast unto the night, and do not lie with them while you cleave to the mosques. Those are God's bounds; keep well within them. So God makes clear His signs to men; haply they will be godfearing. S. 2:187 The word alrrafathu, which comes from rafath, refers to obscene, immoral behaviour and conduct. The word is used in this manner in the following citation: The pilgrimage is (in) the well-known months, and whoever is minded to perform the pilgrimage therein (let him remember that) there is (to be) no lewdness (rafatha) nor abuse nor angry conversation on the pilgrimage. And whatsoever good ye do Allah knoweth it. So make provision for yourselves (Hereafter); for the best provision is to ward off evil. Therefore keep your duty unto Me, O men of understanding. S. 2:197 Pickthall ... Let there be no obscenity, nor wickedness, nor wrangling in the Hajj ... Y. Ali ... abstain from lewd speech, from all wicked conduct, and from quarrelling ... Asad Renowned Sunni expositor Ibn Kathir commented on the meaning of Rafath in Sura 2:197: Prohibition of Rafath (Sexual Intercourse) during Hajj Allah said: ... <He should not have Rafath> This Ayah means that those who assume the Ihram for Hajj or `Umrah are required to avoid the Rafath, meaning, sexual intercourse. Allah's statement here is similar to His statement: <It is made lawful for you to have Rafath (sexual relations) with your wives on the night of the fast.> (2:187) Whatever might lead to sexual intercourse, such as embracing, kissing and talking to women about similar subjects, is not allowed. Ibn Jarir reported that Nafi` narrated that `Abdullah bin `Umar said, "Rafath means sexual intercourse or mentioning this subject with the tongue, by either men or women." `Ata' bin Abu Rabah said that Rafath means sexual intercourse and foul speech. This is also the opinion of `Amr bin Dinar. `Ata' also said that they used to even prevent talking (or hinting) about this subject. Tawus said that Rafath includes one's saying, "When I end the Ihram I will have sex with you." This is also the same explanation offered by Abu Al-`Aliyah regarding Rafath. `Ali bin Abu Talhah said that Ibn `Abbas said, "Rafath means having sex with the wife, kissing, fondling and saying foul words to her, and similar acts." Ibn `Abbas and Ibn `Umar said that Rafath means to have sex with women. This is also the opinion of Sa`id bin Jubayr, `Ikrimah, Mujahid, Ibrahim An-Nakha`i, Abu Al-`Aliyah who narrated it from `Ata' and Makhul, `Ata Al-Khurasani, `Ata' bin Yasar, `Atiyah, Ibrahim, Ar-Rabi`, Az-Zuhri, As-Suddi, Malik bin Anas, Muqatil bin Hayyan, `Abdul-Karim bin Malik, Al-Hasan, Qatadah and Ad-Dahhak, and others. (Source; italic and underline emphasis ours) The late Maulana Muhammad Ali wrote: 197b. Three things are prohibited in pilgrimage, rafath, fusuq and jidal. Rafath means foul, unseemly, immodest or obscene speech (LL). Fusuq, according to a saying of the Prophet, signifies abusing (Rz). Jidal signifies contending in an altercation or disputing or litigating (LL). The pilgrimage represents the final stage of spiritual progress, and hence the pilgrim is enjoined not to speak words which should be a source of annoyance to anybody. Perfect love of God requires perfect peace with man; hence no offence should be caused to any man. The doing of good to others is recommended instead in the words whatever good you do, Allah knows it. (Source: *, *) Now intercourse itself is obviously not obscene or lewd when done within the confines of marriage between a husband and wife. God is the one who created us as sexual beings and sanctioned sexual intimacy in the first place. It is therefore obvious that the Quran is referring to and sanctioning obscene sexual acts, lewd sexual behavior, acts that are unnatural and abnormal. In this verse, the Quran does not use the common word for intercourse, nikkah (e.g. S. 2:230, 4:22, 33:53; cf. this article), but rafath. In other words, Allah is explicitly permitting Muslim men to commit obscene, lewd conduct with their wives! As the following source says: The Arabic word rafath is defined by Abu Ubaida and other reliable Arabic commentaries as "behaving in an obscene manner". But translators of the Quran into English have been biased. The original Arabic verse does not just use the expression, "go unto your wives," but succinctly and explicitly states: "go and behave in an obscene manner with your wives." (The True Guidance: Commentary on Quranic Verses [Light of Life, P.O. Box 13, A-9503 Villach, Austria], part 5, pp. 40-41) [All Quranic quotations are taken from A.J. Arberry's translation unless noted otherwise.] Sam Shamoun Quran Contradiction: Can Angels take away life? Sam Shamoun The Quran, by way of rebuking the Christians and idolaters, claims that none of those individuals that they called upon and worshiped could intercede, create, give life, or cause to die: Is He then Who creates like him who does not create? Do you not then mind? … And those whom they call on besides Allah have not created anything while they are themselves created; Dead (are they), not living, and they know not when they shall be raised. S. 16:17, 20-21 Shakir And they have taken besides Him gods, who do not create anything while they are themselves created, and they control not for themselves any harm or profit, and they control not death nor life, nor raising (the dead) to life. S. 25:3 Shakir No intercessor will they have from those whom they made equal with Allah (partners i.e. their socalled associate gods), and they will (themselves) reject and deny their partners. S. 30:13 Hilali-Khan And those whom they invoke besides God HAVE NO POWER OF INTERCESSION;only he who bears witness to the Truth, and they know (him). If thou ask them, who created them, they will certainly say, God: How then are they deluded away (from the Truth)? (God has knowledge) of the (Prophet's) cry, "O my Lord! Truly these are people who will not believe!" S. 43:86-88 The Quran also rebukes and warns individuals from venerating and calling on angels, which presupposes that angels were being worshiped: And he commanded you not that ye should take the angels and the prophets for lords. Would he command you to disbelieve after ye had surrendered (to Allah)? S. 3:80 Pickthall Say: Cry unto those (saints and angels) whom ye assume (to be gods) beside Him, yet they have no power to rid you of misfortune nor to change. Those unto whom they cry seek the way of approach to their Lord, which of them shall be the nearest; they hope for His mercy and they fear His doom. Lo! the doom of thy Lord is to be shunned. S. 17:56-57 Pickthall According to the Quran, some of those nearest to Allah include both Jesus and the angels: Behold! the angels said: "O Mary! God giveth thee glad tidings of a Word from Him: his name will be Christ Jesus, the son of Mary, held in honour in this world and the Hereafter and of (the company of) those nearest to God; S. 3:45 Y. Ali The Messiah does by no means disdain that he should be a servant of Allah, nor do the angels who are near to Him, and whoever disdains His service and is proud, He will gather them all together to Himself. S. 4:172 Shakir Thus, we can conclude from the foregoing that Sura 17:56-57 is referring to the veneration given to Christ and the angels by unbelievers. Ibn Kathir confirms this exegesis in his comments on Sura 17:56: <Say: "Call upon those whom you pretend> Al-`Awfi reported from Ibn ‗Abbas, "The people of Shirk used to say, ‗we worship the angels and the Messiah and ‗Uzayr,‘ while these (the angels and the Messiah and ‗Uzayr) themselves call upon Allah." … <Those whom they call upon, desire) Al-Bukhari recorded from Sulayman bin Mahran AlA‘mash, from Ibrahim, from Abu Ma‘mar, from ‗Abdullah … <Those whom they call upon, desire a means of access to their Lord,> "Some of the Jinn used to be worshipped, then they became Muslims.'' According to another report: "Some humans used to worship some of the Jinn, then those Jinn became Muslim, but those humans adhered to their religion (of worshipping the Jinn)." (Source; bold emphasis ours) Ibn Kathir wrote regarding another text (cf. Sura 21:98-103) that: <Verily, those for whom the good has preceded from Us.> It was said that this referred to the angels and ‗Isa, and others who are worshipped instead of Allah. This was the view of ‗Ikrimah, Al-Hasan and Ibn Jurayj. Muhammad bin Ishaq bin Yasar said in his book of Sirah: "According to what I have heard, the Messenger of Allah sat down one day with Al-Walid bin Al-Mughirah in the Masjid, and An-Nadr bin Al-Harith came and sat down with them. There were also other men of Quraysh in the Masjid. The Messenger of Allah spoke, then An-Nadr bin Al-Harith came up to him and the Messenger of Allah spoke to him until he defeated him in argument. Then he recited to him and to them, … <and therein they will hear not.> Then the Messenger of Allah got up and went to sit with ‗Abdullah bin Al-Zab‘ari As-Sahmi. Al-Walid bin Al-Mughirah said to ‗Abdullah bin AlZab‘ari, "By Allah, An-Nadr bin Al-Harith could not match the son of ‗Abd Al-Muttalib in argument. Muhammad claims that we and these gods that we worship are fuel for Hell."' ‗Abdullah bin Az-Zab‘ari said: "By Allah, if I meet with him I will defeat him in argument. Ask Muhammad whether everyone that is worshipped instead of Allah will be in Hell with those who worshipped him, for we worship the angels, and the Jews worship ‗Uzayr, and the Christians worship Al-Masih, ‗Isa bin Maryam." Al-Walid and those who were sitting with him were amazed at what ‗Abdullah bin Az-Zab‘ari said, and they thought that he had come up with a good point. He said this to the Messenger of Allah, who said … (Source; bold, italic and underline emphasis ours) To summarize what we have learnt thus far, the Quran rebukes unbelievers for worshiping beings that cannot intercede, create, give life, or cause death. Some of these entities that the unbelievers were worshiping included the angels, with the implication therefore being that none of these angelic creatures are able to intercede, create life or take it away. In fact, one Muslim used some of the very references cited above to prove that Jesus could not create anything, leading him to allegorize those Quranic references which say that he could: "... The act of khalq (creating) in the sense of creation cannot be attributed to any being except Allah. The Quran has laid the greatest stress upon this point. It again and again speaks of the Divine Being as the Creator of everything, so that there is nothing of which any one else may be said to be a creator. And of those who are taken as gods by any people, it says in particular that they do not create anything, while they are themselves created (16:20; 25:3)." (Ali, Holy Qur'an - Arabic Text, English Translation & Commentary [Ahmadiyya Anjuman Isha'at Islam Lahore Inc. USA 1995], f. 49: http://www.muslim.org/englishquran/ch003-59.pdf; bold and underline emphasis ours) And: "To understand the significance of this passage it is necessary to bear in mind that the chief characteristic of Jesus' speeches is that he spoke in parables and preferred to clothe his ideas in allegorical language... It is perfectly intelligible if taken as a parable, but quite incomprehensible as a statement of fact. If on the one hand a prophet's dignity is much above such actions as the making of clay birds, on the other hand the act of creation is not attributable to any but the Divine Being..." (Ibid.; bold emphasis ours) The above logic, if it is to be consistent, must also apply to the belief that angels can create. Yet the Quran plainly teaches that angels actually bring death upon persons, which means that they do indeed cause death, thereby contradicting itself! Verily, those whom the angels cause to die while they are wronging their own souls, the angels will say to them: ‗What were you after?‘ They will say: ‗We were treated as weak in the land.‘ The angels will say, ‗Was not ALLAH's earth spacious enough so that you could have emigrated therein?‘ It is these whose abode shall be Hell, and an evil destination it is; 4:97 Sher Ali Those whom the angels CAUSE TO DIE while they are unjust to themselves. Then would they offer submission: We used not to do any evil. Aye! surely Allah knows what you did. … Those whom the angels CAUSE TO DIE in a good state, saying: Peace be on you: enter the garden for what you did. S. 16:28, 32 Shakir Say, `The angel of death that has been put in charge of you will cause you to die; then to your Lord will you be brought back.' S. 32:11 Sher Ali The Islamic narrations go so far as to even say that angels are used to create a person‘s soul while still in the womb: 'Abdullah b. Mas'ud reported: Evil one is he who is evil in the womb of his mother and the good one is he who takes lesson from the (fate of) others. The narrator came to a person from amongst the Companion of Allah‘s Messenger (may peace be upon him) who was called Hudhaifa b. Usaid Ghifari and said: How can a person be an evil one without (committing an evil) deed? Thereupon the person said to him: You are surprised at this, whereas I have heard Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him) as saving: When forty nights pass after the semen gets into the womb, Allah sends the angel and gives him the shape. Then he creates his sense of hearing, sense of sight, his skin, his flesh, his bones, and then says: My Lord, would he be male or female? And your Lord decides as He desires and the angel then puts down that also and then says: My Lord, what about his age? And your Lord decides as He likes it and the angel puts it down. Then he says: My Lord, what about his livelihood? And then the Lord decides as He likes and the angel writes it down, and then the angel gets out with his scroll of destiny in his hand and nothing is added to it and nothing is subtracted from it. (Sahih Muslim, Book 033, Number 6393) Abu Tufail reported: I visited Abu Sariha Hudhaifa b. Usaid al-Ghifari who said: I listened with these two ears of mine Allah‘s Messenger (may peace be upon him) as saying: The semen stays in the womb for forty nights, then the angel gives it a shape. Zubair said: I think that he said: One who fashions that and decides whether he would be male or female. Then he (the angel) says: Would his limbs be full or imperfect? And then the Lord makes them full and perfect or otherwise as He desires. Then he says: My Lord, what about his livelihood, and his death and what about his disposition? And then the Lord decides about his misfortune and fortune. (Sahih Muslim, Book 033, Number 6395) Here is another version that is translated from the Arabic: Abdullah ibn Masud said: "The Messenger of Allaah (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him), who is the most truthful (of human beings) and his being truthful (is a fact) told us: ‗The constituents of one of you is gathered in his mother‘s womb for forty days, then it becomes a clot of blood within another period of forty days. Then it becomes chewed lump of flesh, and forty days later, Allah sends His angel to it to breathe into it the spirit. The angel comes with instructions concerning four things, so the angel writes down his livelihood, his death, his deeds and whether he will doomed or blessed." (Sahih Muslim, Book 33, Number 6893 (??), text and reference are quoted as given in this Muslim article) Moreover, the Quran and ahadith teach that angels do intercede: And We did not send before you any apostle but We revealed to him that there is no god but Me, therefore serve Me. And they say: The Beneficent God has taken to Himself a son. Glory be to Him. Nay! they are honored servants. They do not precede Him in speech and (only) according to His commandment do they act. He knows what is before them and what is behind them, and they do not intercede except for him whom He approves and for fear of Him they tremble. And whoever of them should say: Surely I am a god besides Him, such a one do We recompense with hell; thus do, We recompense the unjust. S. 21:25-29 Shakir Note that this reference says that at least some of those honored servants who were worshiped as gods or considered children of God will indeed intercede! That this clearly includes angels can be seen from the following references: Those who sustain the Throne (of God) and those around it Sing Glory and Praise to their Lord; believe in Him; and implore Forgiveness for those who believe: "Our Lord! Thy Reach is over all things, in Mercy and Knowledge. Forgive, then, those who turn in Repentance, and follow Thy Path; and preserve them from the Penalty of the Blazing Fire! And grant, our Lord! that they enter the Gardens of Eternity, which Thou hast promised to them, and to the righteous among their fathers, their wives, and their posterity! For Thou art (He), the Exalted in Might, Full of Wisdom. And preserve them from (all) ills; and any whom Thou dost preserve from ills that Day, - on them wilt Thou have bestowed Mercy indeed: and that will be truly (for them) the highest Achievement". S. 40:7-9 Y. Ali The heavens wellnigh are rent above them, when the angels proclaim the praise of their Lord, and ask forgiveness for those on earth. Surely God -- He is the All-forgiving, the Allcompassionate. S. 42:5 Arberry ... "Surely! Allah wrongs not even of the weight of an atom (or a smallest ant) but if there is any good (done) He doubles it." (4.40) The Prophet added, "Then the prophets AND ANGELS and the believers will intercede, and (last of all) the Almighty (Allah) will say, 'Now remains My Intercession. He will then hold a handful of the Fire from which He will take out some people whose bodies have been burnt, and they will be thrown into a river at the entrance of Paradise, called the water of life. ..." (Sahih al-Bukhari, Volume 9, Book 93, Number 532s) Let us now take a moment to reflect on the implications of the above references by summarizing all of the points: 1. The Quran says that the beings that the unbelievers were calling upon cannot intercede, create anything or cause death. 2. Some of these beings that the unbelievers worshiped included the angels. 3. The Quran, obviously forgetting what it said elsewhere, asserts that angels can cause persons to die. 4. Certain Islamic narrations state that Allah uses an angel to create the soul of a human being, and to give it its shape during its formation in the womb. They also teach that angels do in fact intercede for others. 5. The unbelievers were therefore justified in worshiping angels even by the Quran's own criteria, since they are conscious beings that can create life and cause death. 6. Hence, not only are the hadiths contradicting the Quran, but the Quran is also contradicting itself. Further Reading http://answering-islam.org/Quran/Contra/jesus_creator.htm http://answering-islam.org/Shamoun/sura3_7.htm Further discussion: Our answer to a Muslim response. Dishonest? May 18, 1999: Another change becomes necessary. On Friday, May 14, Adnan Khan started to demand that I remove the quotations from his below messages and when I didn't react immediately (I was not home during most of the weekend) by Sunday it was already turning into blackmailing of what he would do if I will not remove it. It is not my habit to accomodate threats and blackmail. Note also his newsgroup statement that he thinks he has the right to use any email sent to him the way he sees fit. He may, but others may not. Nevertheless, I have now shortened the quote and only excerpted the below complaint to conform to fair use guidelines of quoting for the purpose of discussing the content. For further background on this discussion, see here. June 4, 1998: Since I have done a number of updates and changes on this part of the site, I have also added a few remarks on this page. They are inserted in [...] brackets and printed in smaller font. The text itself is still my old response. October 28, 1996 The formulation on the original Qur'an contradictions page was: A red star * after the title indicates that a Muslim response to this topic is available or included. I said "available" not "existing in the whole wide world throughout the centuries of Islamic history". But some people are trying hard to give everything a Christian says the worst possible interpretation and even worse than possible. I think the above sentence was rather clear. The below is the exposition why I am a dishonest villain according to a Muslim [This was before I knew Adnan Khan better, and before he started his own site. Today I know he is not a true Muslim. Originally the complaint was left anonymous but I see no need anymore to protect his identity either. Everyone can see from his pages and postings that this complaint is true to his nature.] Read and "enjoy" the reasoning. [Note also his refusal to link to the Al-Kadhi rebuttal.] ... yet even I know answers to some of so called contradiction. For example you wrote that "*" means that answer is available from Muslim side. There is one contradiction you mention where you wrote that ... You called it contradiction but you did not gave Muslim response, even though many Muslims know about it. Sorry to say but this example shows your dishonesty because I am sure you know about this Muslim response yet you did not mention it. You mention other responses but you did not mention this widely known response and made it look like that there is no response from Muslim side. I wounder how many more such dishonesties and deception are there on your web. ... My response: I have heard this response [originally given by Adnan Khan, but now deleted to cut down on the quoted text - the response wasn't the important part anyway, it was the attitude and argument for dishonesty I am concerned with here], and I think it is weak for several reasons, but I have not excluded it as you accuse me. I said that I will display any response by a Muslim who asks me to include his response. And no Muslim has written up a response to this one yet. That is the only reason that it isn't there. I am in no obligation to present all the responses I have heard somewhere. If you want this response to be on the pages, then write it up in html-form and I will add it. Can I ask you if in any of the many Islamic web pages that give Bible contradiction lists compiled by Muslims, if they ever display Christian answers? Do they even offer to display them? Why do you call me dishonest if I go much further in my offers to Muslims than any Muslim does in his offers to Christians? Why this double standard? May I suggest that you write to the 20 something Islamic web pages that have Bible contradiction lists and complain about their dishonesty? Why am I dishonest if Muslims don't do their part of the discussion and give me these answers? Why are Muslims perfectly just and honest if they refuse to give even a link to Christian answers to their attacks? Muslims seem to have in general a very strange concept of honesty and justice. That is my observation over and over again. And I find this very sad. To which the perfectly logical response was: It is better not to display any answers then to display half answers. If you do not give any answere that would be fine, but if you give a response to some of them and say that no answer is available about other contradiction and give an impression that there is no response at all about these issues that would be dishonest. ... You dont have to give any link, but to give half response is more dishonest then to give no response. I didn't say there are no answers existing anywhere. I only said they have not been made available to me AND I am giving the invitation to send me an answer. Your whining is an embarrassment to yourself and nothing else. The problem is not that I am dishonest, but that Muslims are honest by definition because they are Muslims and whatever a Christian does is dishonest because he is a Christian. If I don't give answers, then Muslims complain that I don't display the Muslim side [I have lots of complaints about that], and if I do display them I am dishonest because I don't display everything any Muslim has ever said through the whole history of Islam. Is it my duty to do your own homework? I provide a forum for discussion giving both sides a hearing. Muslims only do propaganda and usually the webmasters don't even answer when I ask if they would be so kind to put up link to a response. But if I don't do exactly as whoever demands, then I am a bad person. I think a lot of Muslims have to grow up and stop this childish behavior. It is bad enough that the Christians are oppressed with violence in the Islamic countries. But I won't let myself be pushed around by every whim of the Muslims that come to the West and think they can demand this and that and we are unjust and dishonest if we don't exactly do what they say. If you do even only act towards Christians in your countries in a way similar to what I am offering here, then the situation of Christians there would improve beyond comparison to what it is now. And honestly, I do not see what else I can do to make it more fair and honest than what I have already done. Do you really mean I should take off ALL Muslim answers because you were to lazy to write answers to every of the displayed problems? [To this day, Adnan Khan has never written any answers himself. But he is still complaining regularly. ] Qur'an Error: Israel‟s Response to the Covenant The Quran erroneously states that when God made a covenant with Israel through Moses, the people responded by saying that they disobey: There came to you Moses with clear (Signs); yet ye worshipped the calf (Even) after that, and ye did behave wrongfully. And remember We took your covenant and We raised above you (the towering height) of Mount (Sinai): (Saying): "Hold firmly to what We have given you, and hearken (to the Law)": They said: "We hear, and WE DISOBEY:" And they had to drink into their hearts (of the taint) of the calf because of their Faithlessness. Say: "Vile indeed are the behests of your Faith if ye have any faith!" S. 2:92-93 Y. Ali God‘s true Word, the Holy Bible, teaches otherwise: "When Moses went and told the people all the LORD's words and laws, they responded with one voice, ‗Everything the LORD has said we will do.‘ Moses then wrote down everything the LORD had said. He got up early the next morning and built an altar at the foot of the mountain and set up twelve stone pillars representing the twelve tribes of Israel. Then he sent young Israelite men, and they offered burnt offerings and sacrificed young bulls as fellowship offerings to the LORD. Moses took half of the blood and put it in bowls, and the other half he sprinkled on the altar. Then he took the Book of the Covenant and read it to the people. They responded, „We will do everything the LORD has said; WE WILL OBEY.‟ Moses then took the blood, sprinkled it on the people and said, ‗This is the blood of the covenant that the LORD has made with you in accordance with all these words.‘" Exodus 24:3-8 This is reiterated here: "‗Now fear the LORD and serve him with all faithfulness. Throw away the gods your forefathers worshiped beyond the River and in Egypt, and serve the LORD. But if serving the LORD seems undesirable to you, then choose for yourselves this day whom you will serve, whether the gods your forefathers served beyond the River, or the gods of the Amorites, in whose land you are living. But as for me and my household, we will serve the LORD.‘ Then the people answered, ‗Far be it from us to forsake the LORD to serve other gods! It was the LORD our God himself who brought us and our fathers up out of Egypt, from that land of slavery, and performed those great signs before our eyes. He protected us on our entire journey and among all the nations through which we traveled. And the LORD drove out before us all the nations, including the Amorites, who lived in the land. We too will serve the LORD, because he is our God.‘ Joshua said to the people, ‗You are not able to serve the LORD. He is a holy God; he is a jealous God. He will not forgive your rebellion and your sins. If you forsake the LORD and serve foreign gods, he will turn and bring disaster on you and make an end of you, after he has been good to you.‘ But the people said to Joshua, ‗No! We will serve the LORD.‘ Then Joshua said, ‗You are witnesses against yourselves that you have chosen to serve the LORD.‘ ‗Yes, we are witnesses,‘ they replied. ‗Now then,‘ said Joshua, ‗throw away the foreign gods that are among you and yield your hearts to the LORD, the God of Israel.‘ And the people said to Joshua, „We will serve the LORD our God AND OBEY HIM.‟ On that day Joshua made a covenant for the people, and there at Shechem he drew up for them decrees and laws. And Joshua recorded these things in the Book of the Law of God. Then he took a large stone and set it up there under the oak near the holy place of the LORD. ‗See!‘ he said to all the people. ‗This stone will be a witness against us. It has heard all the words the LORD has said to us. It will be a witness against you if you are untrue to your God.‘" Joshua 24:14-27 Regardless whether one holds to or rejects the inspiration of the Holy Bible, there is one fact which even liberal critical scholarship wouldn‘t contest or disagree with; the Pentateuch and the book of Joshua were written much closer in time to the events of the Exodus and the conquest of Canaan. These documents are therefore more reliable than the Quran, which comes roughly two thousand and one hundred (2100) years after the time of Israel‘s Exodus. The Pentateuch and Joshua are also the official historical documents that the Jews have always turned to in regards to their origin and sacred history, not the Quran. And who would be better qualified to know the history of Israel than the Israelites themselves? Even the Quran itself exhorts Muslims to turn to the Jews when seeking information regarding Israel‘s sacred history: And verily We gave unto Moses nine tokens, clear proofs (of Allah's Sovereignty). Do but ask the Children of Israel how he came unto them, then Pharaoh said unto him: Lo! I deem thee one bewitched, O Moses. S. 17:101 Pickthall Thus, when the Quran disagrees with the Pentateuch in regards to Israel‘s history, the Quran is in error, a point which cannot be debated on historical or logical grounds. There is an additional error within the Quran relating to this subject. It seems that Muhammad was receiving information from the Jews who were actually twisting and distorting their sacred history without him realizing it until it was too late. Note again the wording of surah 2:93: And when We made a covenant with you and raised the mountain over you: Take hold of what We have given you with firmness and be obedient. They said: We hear and disobey (samiAAna waAAasayna). And they were made to imbibe (the love of) the calf into their hearts on account of their unbelief Say: Evil is that which your belief bids you if you are believers. Shakir And now compare this with the following verse: Of the Jews there are those who displace words from their (right) places, and say: "We hear and we disobey (samiAAna waAAasayna)"; and "Hear what is not Heard"; and "Ra'ina"; with a twist of their tongues and a slander to Faith. If only they had said: "What hear and we obey"; and "Do hear"; and "Do look at us"; it would have been better for them, and more proper; but God hath cursed them for their Unbelief; and but few of them will believe. S. 4:46 Pickthall The statement in the latter passage, i.e. who displace words from their (right) places, and say ..., implies that Muhammad became aware that the Jews had lied to him regarding what was actually written in the Bible regarding Israel‘s acceptance of the covenant. Yet, it was too late for Muhammad to do anything about it since he had already uttered the words of surah 2:93 to the Jews, claiming that these were revelation from Allah. He could not, therefore, recant his position without causing further embarrassment. As noted Christian Apologist John Gilchrist writes: Whereas the Meccans had simply ridiculed his message and generally resorted to sheer abuse of their kinsman, the Jews were able to trace many of these teachings to their own folklore and produce more damaging evidence against him. As Muhammad could not read their scriptures they were able to constantly provoke him with their knowledge and often frustrated him with subtle twists of phrases which he could not immediately detect but which entertained the Jewish bystanders. For example, Exodus 24.7 states that the Jews at Sinai answered Moses "All that the Lord has spoken we will do, and we will be obedient", but in the Qur'an we discover that the Jews, when commanded to hearken to God's Law on the Mount, allegedly answered "We hear and we disobey" (Surah 2.93). Muhammad later discovered that his informants had subtly misled him on this point and the Qur'an duly censures them for this particular deception: Of the Jews there are those who displace words from their (right) place and say: "We hear and we disobey". Surah 4.46 It was too late, however, to rectify the unfortunate error that they had succeeded in introducing into the text of the Qur'an. As Muir continues, "Mahomet evidently smarted at this period under the attacks of the Jews" (The Life of Mahomet, p. 179). Other authors comment in a similar vein: It was not that the Jews refused to recognise Muhammad as a prophet, nor even that they engaged in political intrigue against him, serious as such attitudes and actions were. Much more serious was the Jewish attack on the ideational basis of Muhammad's preaching. It had been claimed that the Qur'an was a message from God and thus inerrant; and it had also been claimed that there was a large measure of identity between the Qur'anic message and what was to be found in the previous scriptures. If the Jews, then, maintained that there were errors and false statements in the Qur'an (because it disagreed with their Bible) and that therefore it could not be a message from God, they were threatening to destroy the foundations of Muhammad's whole religious movement. (Watt, What is Islam?, p. 102). (Source: www.answering-islam.org/Gilchrist/Vol1/1c.html) If a Muslim rejects the connection between surahs 2:93 and 4:46, he is still left with this problem: the Quran is wrong about the response of the Israelites to God regarding obeying the covenant. That they failed to live up to the covenant stipulations is a given, but this is different from claiming that they vocally disavowed to obey the covenant of God. Sam Shamoun Asif Iqbal wrote a Muslim response to the above. Israel‟s Response to the Covenant "We obey" or "We disobey"? Regarding the making of God‘s covenant with Israel the Torah reports: "When Moses went and told the people all the LORD's words and laws, they responded with one voice, ‗Everything the LORD has said we will do.‘ Moses then wrote down everything the LORD had said. He got up early the next morning and built an altar at the foot of the mountain and set up twelve stone pillars representing the twelve tribes of Israel. Then he sent young Israelite men, and they offered burnt offerings and sacrificed young bulls as fellowship offerings to the LORD. Moses took half of the blood and put it in bowls, and the other half he sprinkled on the altar. Then he took the Book of the Covenant and read it to the people. They responded, „We will do everything the LORD has said; WE WILL OBEY.‟ Moses then took the blood, sprinkled it on the people and said, ‗This is the blood of the covenant that the LORD has made with you in accordance with all these words.‘" Exodus 24:3-8 Contrary to the above, and roughly 2100 years after the event, the Quran suddenly claims that the people responded by saying that they will disobey: There came to you Moses with clear (Signs); yet ye worshipped the calf (Even) after that, and ye did behave wrongfully. And remember We took your covenant and We raised above you (the towering height) of Mount (Sinai): (Saying): "Hold firmly to what We have given you, and hearken (to the Law)": They said: "We hear, and WE DISOBEY:" And they had to drink into their hearts (of the taint) of the calf because of their Faithlessness. Say: "Vile indeed are the behests of your Faith if ye have any faith!" S. 2:92-93 Y. Ali The contradiction is obvious. The people EITHER said that they will obey, OR they said that they will disobey. These are not parables or allegorical texts. These are straight-forward statements about historical events (embedded in an exhortation in the case of the Quran). Their meaning is plain and not "open to interpretation", and the Quran made a very clear historical error in its reference to the event. There are a number of other passages in the Bible and in the Quran which are connected with this issue. Sam Shamoun wrote a detailed paper on the Quran's error regarding the Israelites' response to God's offer of the covenant (www.answeringislam.org/Quran/Contra/disobey.html). Muslim writer Asif Iqbal then thought up a response to Shamoun‘s article which he first submitted to the site "Understanding Islam" (here, 7 January 2005). Apparently it so impressed the editors of "Bismika Allahuma" that they published it on their site as well (here, 25 January 2005). The following is our evaluation of Iqbal‘s article. The reader is advised to first carefully read the original article and the Muslim response before proceeding with our critique and rebuttal. Our article will consist of two major parts: 1. Exposing the major logical fallacies of Iqbal’s response (by Jochen Katz) 2. The Incoherence of the Quranic Account (by Jochen Katz) 3. A detailed discussion of Iqbal’s arguments (by Sam Shamoun) 1. The major logical fallacies of Iqbal‘s response Looking at the main ideas and logical structure of the Muslim response article, it becomes apparent that Asif Iqbal's "rebuttal" is one big smoke screen trying to divert attention from the problem instead of clarifying it. The main errors in Iqbal‘s reasoning are in three categories. A. Words and Deeds Two elements need to be kept separate in this event of God offering Israel his Covenant: Israel‘s immediate verbal response Israel‘s later deeds Bible Quran We will obey We will disobey disobedience disobedience All of us know from experience that many people say one thing and do another. It is rather common among politicians to promise one thing before the elections and do something else after being elected. That is why very few people trust politicians. However, this is not merely found in politics. It happens in most families that the parents ask or command the children to do something and the children respond, "Yes, we will do it", but, at the end of the day, they haven‘t done it. Often people have good intentions to obey, but then something else happens, they forget or otherwise become unwilling or unable to do what they originally promised. In other instances people may be deliberately lying, i.e. making a promise without any intention to keep it. In any case, it is a very common human trait to agree in word when standing in front of an authority, but later to disobey in deeds. When discussing Israel‘s response to God's offer of the covenant we need to keep these two questions separate: What did the Israelites SAY (immediately)? What did the Israelites DO (later)? The Quran agrees with the Bible that the Israelites disobeyed God in their later deeds. The Quran contradicts the Bible regarding their immediate verbal response to God's commands. Israel‘s immediate verbal response according to the Torah: We obey. Israel‘s immediate verbal response according to the Quran: We disobey. Apparently attempting to make the reader forget the contradiction in the reported verbal response of the Israelites, Iqbal makes an effort to emphasize the similarities between the Bible and the Quran regarding the later disobedience of the Israelites. He states: The Qur'an then says (which is confirmed by the Old Testament as well), that even after watching such an overwhelming show of Yahweh's might, the Israelites rebelled against the covenant of Yahweh soon afterwards. This raises the obvious question in the mind of a hearer that how the could [sic] Israelites have done such a thing? (bold emphasis mine) We fully agree that Bible and Quran both report the later disobedience of the Israelites. However, this is completely irrelevant. The issue under discussion is the error of the Quran regarding Israel‘s immediate verbal response to the offer of God‘s covenant. The point of contention is not what they later DID, but what they first SAID. It is fascinating to see Iqbal jumping directly from (a) the awesome display of God‘s power [Bible and Quran agree in principle that this happened, though they disagree on the details of what happened] to (c) Israel‘s later disobedience [as already stated above, Bible and Quran agree on the disobedience], but leaving out (b) Israel‘s immediate response to God‘s offer of the covenant! Isn‘t that the point this discussion is all about? In the second paragraph the Muslim author raises yet another irrelevant question. Speculating about a possible motivation for the disobedience of the Israelites (i.e. why they may have done what they have done) is not going to erase the error of the Quran regarding their initial verbal response either. It merely adds yet another question and a different topic: What the Israelites first said ---- what the Israelites later did ---- why the Israelites later did what they did ... The question was and still remains: What did the Israelites say? Iqbal‘s response is not a solution to the problem. It is merely an attempt of diverting the attention away from the problem. B. Past and Present Muslims would vigorously protest if we were to argue: In the light of the terrorist activities of Osama bin Laden and al-Qaida we conclude that Muhammad and his companions were terrorists. They would immediately point out that we cannot judge people of the past by what some people are doing today. We cannot conclude that a group of people living centuries ago has acted a certain way simply because some other people in another country, another cultural environment, and in another time did this as well. Such a conclusion is wrong in general and it is still invalid if the second group are remote descendents of the first. However, that is exactly Iqbal's main logical fallacy, comprising the bulk of his article. It can be seen, for example, here: This verse says that some of the Jews of Medina were used to playing on the resemblance between words, thereby reversing the meanings of the commands either to suit themselves or to make fun of the addressee. In light of this statement when we look at the response of the Israelites to Yahweh's covenant as given in the Old Testament, ... (bold and underline emphasis mine) This is an utterly wrong and irresponsible method of interpreting texts, or rather, manipulating texts. Whatever some Jews may have done in Muhammad's time (ca. AD 625) had no influence on what the Israelites did or said in Moses' time (roughly 1450 BC). Just as Muslims do not want Muhammad and his companions to be judged by the words and deeds of contemporary terrorists, 1400 years after the death of Muhammad, so later events in the history of the Jews have no relevance whatsoever for the question what historically happened in Moses' time. This is merely another desperate diversion tactic. However, Iqbal‘s reasoning is actually quite revealing since this twisted interpretation follows a pattern established by Muhammad himself. Muhammad often projected his own experiences back into the stories taken from the Bible. That is one reason why the Quran is not revelation, but forgery. This issue is discussed in considerable detail in the article "I am ALL the Prophets". C. Defending the Quran by contradicting the Quran? Iqbal concludes his article with this paragraph: In any case, both the Old Tastament (sic) and the Qur'an state in unequivocal terms that the Israelites did violate the covenant after promising to abide by it. Iqbal is back to the theme of emphasizing similarities between the two books as if those similarities would prove that the Quran is not in error in those instances where it disagrees with the Bible. However, one may have to read the above sentence a second and third time to discover that Iqbal just contradicted the Quran. Let me quote it again with extra emphasis: In any case, both the Old Tastament (sic) and the Qur'an state in unequivocal terms that the Israelites did violate the covenant after promising to abide by it. Where exactly does the Qur'an state in unequivocal terms that "the Israelites did violate the covenant after promising to abide by it"? The whole article was about the problem that the Quran contains the erroneous claim that the Israelites responded to God with "We hear, and WE DISOBEY" (S. 2:93). Iqbal has not presented any verse from the Quran in which the Israelites are reported as responding with a promise to obey. Simply claiming that both books state the same (and therefore there is supposedly no error in the Quran) will not be sufficient. The contradiction is still there. Iqbal has not given any evidence that Sura 2:93 means the opposite of what it says at face value. Finally, I want to point out one aspect which I find surprising and encouraging in Iqbal‘s article. When discussing discrepancies between the Bible and the Quran, Muslims usually argue that the Quran is correct (without seeing any need to question that assumption), and if the Bible disagrees, then the Bible must be false or corrupted. In this case, however, the Muslim author apparently takes the correctness of the statement in the Torah as a given, and seeks to harmonize the Quran with the Torah. After a considerable amount of exegetical gymnastics, Iqbal arrives at the conclusion that the Quran means, or meant to say, the opposite of what it clearly states. In other words, the Bible reports the answer of the Israelites correctly, but the Quranic statement somehow got corrupted since it is now giving the impression to mean the opposite of what it is supposed to mean. 2. The Incoherence of the Quranic Account Sam Shamoun‘s original article about the Quranic error regarding Israel‘s response to the Covenant argued this case solely on the basis of external, historical reasons, i.e. it concluded that this is an error in the Quran because other documents that are historically more reliable (the Torah), contradict the Quran on this issue. In this section, I will present a number of internal reasons why the Quranic version does not make sense and must be rejected. Let me quote again the Quranic account, adding extra emphasis on some important pronouns: There came to YOU Moses with clear (Signs); yet YE worshipped the calf (Even) after that, and YE did behave wrongfully. And remember We took YOUR covenant and We raised above YOU (the towering height) of Mount (Sinai): (Saying): "Hold firmly to what We have given YOU, and hearken (to the Law)": THEY said: "We hear, and WE DISOBEY:" And THEY had to drink into their hearts (of the taint) of the calf because of THEIR Faithlessness. Say: "Vile indeed are the behests of YOUR Faith if YE have any faith!" S. 2:92-93 Y. Ali Iqbal presents the following as background for this story: Here, the Qur'an first recalls to the Jews of Medina a Talmudic tradition according to which Yahweh had suspended the Mount Sinai over the Israelites and given them the option of either the acceptance of the covenant or sudden death: "...in commenting on the verse: "And they stood at the netherpart of the mountain” (Exodus 19:17), R. Dimi b. Hama said:“This teaches us that the Holy One, blessed be He, suspended the mountain over Israel like a vault, and said unto them: 'If ye accept the Torah, it will be well with you, but if not, there will ye find your grave.'" (Talmud, Avodah Zarah 2b) "And they stood under the mount” (Exodus 19:17): R. Abdimi b. Hama b. Hasa said: “This teaches that the Holy One, blessed be He, overturned the mountain upon them like an [inverted] cask, and said to them,'If ye accept the Torah, 'tis well; if not, there shall be your burial.'" (Talmud, Shabbath 88a) I agree with Iqbal that this passage is first of all addressed to the Jews of Medina who rejected Muhammad as a genuine prophet of God. Clearly, the Jews of Medina never met Moses, who lived some 2100 years before their time. Therefore, the statement, "There came to YOU Moses …", is not literally true, but we can accept that it addresses the Israelites collectively, i.e. it speaks to and about the Jews of Medina as standing in a tradition with their ancestors. Since most of this passage is using the direct address "you", it is all the more striking to find a switch from the second person to the third person for two sentences: "(Saying): ‗Hold firmly to what We have given YOU, and hearken (to the Law)‘: THEY said: „We hear, and WE DISOBEY:‟ And THEY had to drink into their hearts (of the taint) of the calf because of THEIR Faithlessness." Clearly, the pronoun THEY refers to the Israelites in Moses‘ time only. The current listeners are not included here. This makes sense, since they were not there, did not respond to God directly, and were not those who were punished for the worship of the Golden Calf. We agree that the Quran still seeks to make the connection between the old Israelites and the Jews of Medina accusing them that they are "just like their ancestors". However, the statement "They said: ‗We hear, and we disobey‘" in this passage refers only to the Israelites of Moses‘ time. Here is an outline of what supposedly happened according to the Quran, part of which is stated explicitly, and other elements are assumed implicitly: Explicit: God puts before Israel a covenant which includes the obligation that the Israelites have to obey certain laws and commandments. Implicit: Israel doesn‘t seem to be too motivated to enter into that covenant. God puts some pressure on the Israelites by suspending a mountain above them, threatening the Israelites that either they accept the covenant, or they will be buried under this mountain. (This is confirmed by the Talmudic texts, which Iqbal accepts as the correct background to the story.) Explicit: The Israelites respond: We will disobey. Implicit: The covenant is given to Israel despite their reply and announcement that they will not obey. Explicit: Israel later worships the Golden Calf and is punished for this. Here are some of the problems: 1. What happened to that mountain? Upon the very simple alternative, obedience or death, the answer is: We will disobey! Did God merely put that mountain down on the ground again, being frustrated that his threat had not worked, but without doing what he promised? In the Quranic version God is displayed as not being true to his word: either he was not serious with his threat in the first place, or he was too weak to do what he said. 2. Why did Israel receive the covenant anyway? Instead of dying in the desert, the Israelites are given the promised land, God continues to send them many prophets even after the time of Moses (e.g., David, Solomon, Elijah, Elisha, another unnamed prophet at the time of Saul, John the Baptist, and most importantly, Jesus). Even in the Quran, the majority of its stories about the past are stories of God‘s history with Israel. Not only did God not kill them as threatened, they receive the covenant, and everything else is just as if they had said, "Yes, we obey." The answer allegedly given in 2:93 does not fit together with the rest of the Quran. [Side remark: They are even punished for the idolatry of worshipping the Golden Calf as if they had just agreed to the covenant which included the command not to worship anyone but God, i.e. God holds them accountable to the laws of the covenant. This also assumes that the covenant was enacted.] 3. Was Israel able to deceive God? Iqbal seemingly wants to connect this story with the behaviour of the Jews of Medina who supposedly tricked, or at least tried to trick, Muhammad with playing on words. Now, granted, some people are really clever with words and they may certainly be able to trick other human beings, even prophets, to make them believe they said they will obey, although they really had said they will disobey. If the Israelites in this story had stood only before Moses, just like the Jews in Medina stood only before Muhammad, this would have been possible. However, this is not an option in this case, since it was not Moses who held that mountain over them and, after being deceived by their clever words, put it down and went ahead with the covenant because he falsely assumed they had agreed to it. No, the Israelites answered directly to God. To assume that they were able to trick God into believing they had agreed, although they had in reality said that they will disobey, implies that God is not all-knowing. What is worse, this means that he is not even able to understand correctly what people say with an audible voice. And given all the history that God continued to have with the Israelites later on, he only seems to have found out that he had been tricked by the time Muhammad came along (2100 years later). There is absolutely no evidence that he cancelled the covenant with Israel before that time. Jesus, the last prophet before Muhammad, was still sent to the Jews. Does Iqbal find that scenario credible? Does any Muslim find that to be a credible story? I certainly find this rather incoherent and an insult to an almighty and all-knowing God. Thus, even without looking at the Bible, that story doesn't make sense. This is an error in the Quran not only because it contradicts the Bible, but also because the internal evidence found within the Quran testifies against the Quran. To these main three reasons based on the attributes of God, I want to add a fourth one: 4. The psychological impossibility. There is one more aspect that makes this story highly unlikely, not to say impossible. One just doesn‘t say "I will disobey you" into the face of God, or would you? Most people would not even dare say such words into the face of their employers, or as soldiers in the face of their superior officers. However, in our case there was not just some human authority figure standing before them. There may be a few very courageous (or should we call them suicidal?) people who would show defiance in the face of a mountain hanging over them, but certainly not a large group of people, i.e., a whole nation. The vast majority certainly said (shaking in their boots): We obey. Anything else is simply inconceivable. [And if anyone dared shouting, "I will disobey," those around him would probably have quickly shut his mouth, even killed him, in order to avoid getting buried under that mountain. Don‘t underestimate mass-panic.] Muhammad Asad, Muslim translator and commentator on the Quran, probably understood this quite well, and therefore added a footnote to the phrase "We have heard, but we disobey" in Surah 2:93, saying: It is obvious that they did not actually utter these words; their subsequent behaviour, however, justifies the above metonymical expression. Asad is obviously rather uncomfortable with this Quranic statement. However, despite Asad‘s attempt to rationalize it away, the Quran clearly states that THEY SAID it. The Quran could easily have stated: They said, "We hear and we obey" but they lied and were disobedient. But the Quran does not state anything to that effect, it states that they responded by SAYING, "we will disobey", in the face of God and despite a mountain hanging over them. These are four strong reasons, mostly based on the attributes of God, partly on the psychology of human beings, why the version of the event that is put forth by the Quran is not credible. 3. A detailed discussion of Iqbal‘s arguments … to follow shortly … Quran Contradiction Who Was the First Muslim? According to several passages in the Quran, Muhammad was the first Muslim: Say: Shall I choose for a protecting friend other than Allah, the Originator of the heavens and the earth, Who feedeth and is never fed? Say: I am ordered to be the first to surrender [aslama] (unto Him). And be not thou (O Muhammad) of the idolaters. S. 6:14 Pickthall Say, verily my Lord hath directed me into a right way, a true religion, the sect of Abraham the orthodox; and he was no idolater. Say, verily my prayers, and my worship, and my life, and my death are dedicated unto God, the Lord of all creatures: He hath no companion. This have I been commanded: I am the first Moslem (Wa 'Ana 'Awwalu Al-Muslimin). S. 6:161163 Sale He hath no associate. This am I commanded, and I am the first of the Muslims. S. 6:163 Rodwell Say (O Muhammad): Lo! I am commanded to worship Allah, making religion pure for Him (only). And I am commanded to be the first of those who are muslims (surrender unto Him). S. 39:11-12 Pickthall This is contradicted by both the Quran and various Islamic traditions which refer to the presence of true believers both before and during Muhammad‘s alleged "call" to prophethood. The Quran mentions that Adam, Noah, the Patriarchs, the twelve tribes of Israel, Moses, Jesus etc., were all believers and many of them even messengers who lived a long time before Muhammad: Behold, thy Lord said to the angels: "I will create a vicegerent on earth." They said: "Wilt Thou place therein one who will make mischief therein and shed blood?- whilst we do celebrate Thy praises and glorify Thy holy (name)?" He said: "I know what ye know not."… And behold, We said to the angels: "Bow down to Adam" and they bowed down. Not so Iblis: he refused and was haughty: He was of those who reject Faith. We said: "O Adam! dwell thou and thy wife in the Garden; and eat of the bountiful things therein as (where and when) ye will; but approach not this tree, or ye run into harm and transgression."… When learnt Adam from his Lord words of inspiration, and his Lord Turned towards him; for He is Oft-Returning, Most Merciful. S. 2:30, 34-35, 37 We have sent thee inspiration, as We sent it to Noah and the Messengers after him: we sent inspiration to Abraham, Isma'il, Isaac, Jacob and the Tribes, to Jesus, Job, Jonah, Aaron, and Solomon, and to David We gave the Psalms. S. 4:163 We gave him Isaac and Jacob: all (three) guided: and before him, We guided Noah, and among his progeny, David, Solomon, Job, Joseph, Moses, and Aaron: thus do We reward those who do good: S. 6:84 And when Ibrahim and Ismail raised the foundations of the House: Our Lord! accept from us; surely Thou art the Hearing, the Knowing: Our Lord! and make us both submissive (muslimayni) to Thee and (raise) from our offspring a nation submitting (ommatan muslimatan) to Thee, and show us our ways of devotion and turn to us (mercifully), surely Thou art the Oft-returning (to mercy), the Merciful. Our Lord! and raise up in them an Apostle from among them who shall recite to them Thy communications and teach them the Book and the wisdom, and purify them; surely Thou art the Mighty, the Wise. And who forsakes the religion of Ibrahim but he who makes himself a fool, and most certainly We chose him in this world, and in the hereafter he is most surely among the righteous. When his Lord said to him, Be a Muslim (aslim), he said: I submit myself (aslamtu) to the Lord of the worlds. And the same did Ibrahim enjoin on his sons and (so did) Yaqoub. O my sons! surely Allah has chosen for you (this) faith, therefore die not unless you are Muslims (illa waantum muslimoona). Nay! were you witnesses when death visited Yaqoub, when he said to his sons: What will you serve after me? They said: We will serve your God and the God of your fathers, Ibrahim and Ismail and Ishaq, one God only, and to Him do we submit (wanahnu lahu muslimoona). S. 2:127-133 Shakir When Jesus found Unbelief on their part He said: "Who will be My helpers to (the work of) Allah?" Said the disciples: "We are Allah's helpers: We believe in Allah, and do thou bear witness that we are Muslims. S. 3:52 Ibrahim was not a Jew nor a Christian but he was (an) upright (man), a Muslim (musliman), and he was not one of the polytheists. S. 3:67 Shakir They are not all alike; of the followers of the Book there is an upright party; they recite Allah's communications in the nighttime and they adore (Him). They believe in Allah and the last day, and they enjoin what is right and forbid the wrong and they strive with one another in hastening to good deeds, and those are among the good. And whatever good they do, they shall not be denied it, and Allah knows those who guard (against evil). S. 3:113-115 Shakir Then will Allah say: "O Jesus the son of Mary! Recount My favour to thee and to thy mother. Behold! I strengthened thee with the holy spirit, so that thou didst speak to the people in childhood and in maturity. Behold! I taught thee the Book and Wisdom, the Law and the Gospel and behold! thou makest out of clay, as it were, the figure of a bird, by My leave, and thou breathest into it and it becometh a bird by My leave, and thou healest those born blind, and the lepers, by My leave. And behold! thou bringest forth the dead by My leave. And behold! I did restrain the Children of Israel from (violence to) thee when thou didst show them the clear Signs, and the unbelievers among them said: ‗This is nothing but evident magic.‘ And behold! I inspired the disciples to have faith in Me and Mine Messenger: they said, 'We have faith, and do thou bear witness that we bow to Allah as Muslims.‘" S. 5:110-111 Lo! it is from Solomon, and lo! it is: In the name of Allah, the Beneficent, the Merciful; Exalt not yourselves against me, but come unto me as those who surrender (muslimeena). ... So, when she came, it was said (unto her): Is thy throne like this? She said: (It is) as though it were the very one. And (Solomon said): We were given the knowledge before her and we had surrendered (wakunna muslimeena) (to Allah). ... It was said unto her: Enter the hall. And when she saw it she deemed it a pool and bared her legs. (Solomon) said: Lo! it is a hall, made smooth, of glass. She said: My Lord! Lo! I have wronged myself, and I surrender (aslamtu) with Solomon unto Allah, the Lord of the Worlds. S. 27:30-31, 42, 44 Pickthall Apart from various groups being called guided, having the right faith, or even having been given inspiration, we have at least Abraham and the disciples of Jesus being explicitly called Muslims (3:52, 67, 5:111). Certainly both Abraham and the disciples of Jesus lived long before Muhammad. In fact, the Quran claims that all believers were essentially Muslims: And strive in His cause as ye ought to strive, (with sincerity and under discipline). He has chosen you, and has imposed no difficulties on you in religion; it is the cult of your father Abraham. It is He Who has named you Muslims, both before and in this (Revelation); that the Messenger may be a witness for you, and ye be witnesses for mankind! So establish regular Prayer, give regular Charity, and hold fast to Allah! He is your Protector - the Best to protect and the Best to help! S. 22:78 Would that not qualify them as being Muslims and believers even before Muhammad? Certainly, this would make Adam the first believer, the first Muslim, wouldn‘t it? Excursus: The Quran says that every person is created in a natural state of religion, which the hadith interprets as Islam. In other words, every human being is born Muslim! Then set your face upright for religion in the right state -- the nature made by Allah in which He has made men; there is no altering of Allah's creation; that is the right religion, but most people do not know -- S. 30:30 Shakir Narrated Abu Huraira: Allah's Apostle said, "Every child is born with a true faith of Islam (i.e. to worship none but Allah Alone) but his parents convert him to Judaism, Christianity or Magianism, as an animal delivers a perfect baby animal. Do you find it mutilated?" Then Abu Huraira recited the holy verses: "The pure Allah's Islamic nature (true faith of Islam) (i.e. worshipping none but Allah) with which He has created human beings. No change let there be in the religion of Allah (i.e. joining none in worship with Allah). That is the straight religion (Islam) but most of men know, not." (30.30) (Sahih Al-Bukhari, Volume 2, Book 23, Number 441) Narrated Abu Huraira: The Prophet said, "Every child is born with a true faith of Islam (i.e. to worship none but Allah Alone) and his parents convert him to Judaism or Christianity or Magianism, as an animal delivers a perfect baby animal. Do you find it mutilated?" (Sahih Al-Bukhari, Volume 2, Book 23, Number 467) Again, doesn‘t this show that every person who lived before Muhammad was already a Muslim, at least for some time, even though many of them may have deviated from the path later on? Ibn Ishaq mentions four persons during Muhammad‘s time who were said to be followers of the religion of Abraham: One day when the Quraysh had assembled on a feast day to venerate and circumambulate the idol to which they offered sacrifices, this being a feast which they held annually, four men drew apart secretly and agreed to keep their counsel in the bonds of friendship. They were Waraqa b. Naufal, Ubaydullah b. Jahsh, whose mother was Umayma d. 'Abdu'l Muttalib, Uthman b. al-Huwayrith and Zayd b. 'Amr. They were of the opinion that their people had corrupted the religion of their father Abraham, and that the stone they went round was of no account, it could neither hear nor see, nor hurt nor help. ‗Find yourselves a religion,‘ they said, ‗for by God you have none.‘ So they went their ways seeking the ‗Hanaffiya‟ -- the religion of Abraham. (The Life of Muhammad, trans. Alfred Guillaume [Oxford University Press Karachi], p. 99; underlined emphasis ours) Interestingly, the Quran calls Abraham a Hanif: Ibrahim was neither a Jew nor a Christian, but he was a true Muslim Hanifa, and he was not of the Mushrikin. S. 3:67 Ibn Kathir(*) Say: "Truly, my Lord has guided me to a straight path, a right religion, the religion of Ibrahim, a Hanif." S. 6:161 Ibn Kathir(*) Al-Bukhari records Muhammad‘s run in with one of these so-called Hanifs: Narrated 'Abdullah: Allah's Apostle said that he met Zaid bin 'Amr Nufail at a place near Baldah and this had happened before Allah's Apostle received the Divine Inspiration. Allah's Apostle presented a dish of meat (that had been offered to him by the pagans) to Zaid bin 'Amr, but Zaid refused to eat of it and then said (to the pagans), "I do not eat of what you slaughter on your stone altars (Ansabs) nor do I eat except that on which Allah's Name has been mentioned on slaughtering." (Sahih Al-Bukhari, Volume 7, Book 67, Number 407) Amazingly, it was one of these very Hanifs that convinced Muhammad that he was a prophet of God: Khadija then accompanied him to her cousin Waraqa bin Naufal bin Asad bin 'Abdul 'Uzza, who, during the PreIslamic Period became a Christian and used to write the writing with Hebrew letters. He would write from the Gospel in Hebrew as much as Allah wished him to write. He was an old man and had lost his eyesight. Khadija said to Waraqa, "Listen to the story of your nephew, O my cousin!" Waraqa asked, "O my nephew! What have you seen?" Allah's Apostle described whatever he had seen. Waraqa said, "This is the same one who keeps the secrets (angel Gabriel) whom Allah had sent to Moses. I wish I were young and could live up to the time when your people would turn you out." Allah's Apostle asked, "Will they drive me out?" Waraqa replied in the affirmative and said, "Anyone (man) who came with something similar to what you have brought was treated with hostility; and if I should remain alive till the day when you will be turned out then I would support you strongly." But after a few days Waraqa died and the Divine Inspiration was also paused for a while. (Sahih Al-Bukhari, Volume 1, Book 1, Number 3) These sources make it quite evident that Muhammad was by no means the first believer. It doesn‘t stop here. The Quran elsewhere claims that Moses was the first to believe: When Moses came to the place appointed by Us, and his Lord addressed him, He said: "O my Lord! show (Thyself) to me, that I may look upon thee." Allah said: "By no means canst thou see Me (direct); But look upon the mount; if it abide in its place, then shalt thou see Me." When his Lord manifested His glory on the Mount, He made it as dust. And Moses fell down in a swoon. When he recovered his senses he said: "Glory be to Thee! to Thee I turn in repentance, and I am the first to believe." S. 7:143 According to the Quran, to be a believer is to be a Muslim since there is no other religion acceptable before Allah: The true religion with God is Islam. Those who were given the Book were not at variance except after the knowledge came to them, being insolent one to another. And whoso disbelieves in God's signs. God is swift at the reckoning. S. 3:19 Arberry Whoso desires another religion than Islam, it shall not be accepted of him; in the next world he shall be among the losers. S. 3:85 Arberry And, as the above verses showed, the Quran claims that all the prophets and messengers were Muslims. Hence, for Moses to be the first believer means that he was also the first Muslim. In fact, people can be called Muslims without being Mu'mineen (believers) yet, but certainly not vice versa since the Quran states: The Arabs said, "We are Mu'mens (believers)." Say, "You have not believed; what you should say is, ‗We are Muslims (submitters),‘ until belief is established in your hearts." If you obey GOD and His messenger, He will not put any of your works to waste. GOD is Forgiver, Most Merciful. S. 49:14 R. Khalifa We obviously can‘t have two "firsts." Either Muhammad was the first to believe or Moses was the first. Some Muslims get really ingenious and claim that these passages are simply stating that Muhammad and Moses were the first to believe from their respective generations. Others claim that these passages actually mean that these individuals were the first amongst their contemporaries to receive the message: The Quran refers to every messenger as the first believer among his people. This is quite logical since the messenger is the first to receive the message. Muhammad is spoken of as the first Muslim/Believer among his people, since the revelation came to him before all others. When we read the story of Moses in Sura 7, we read how he refered[sic] to himself as the first of the believers. Obviously Moses did not mean that he is the first believer of all time, but what he meant is that he was the first to believe from among his own people: (Source) This last explanation is simply erroneous since nothing in the passages state that "first" here means that they were the first to receive the message. In fact, the Quran itself refutes this claim since we find in the case of Moses that both his mother and brother Aaron were believers who had received inspiration: We have sent thee inspiration, as We sent it to Noah and the Messengers after him: we sent inspiration to Abraham, Isma'il, Isaac, Jacob and the Tribes, to Jesus, Job, Jonah, Aaron, and Solomon, and to David We gave the Psalms. S. 4:163 Then after them sent We Moses and Aaron to Pharaoh and his chiefs with Our Signs. But they were arrogant: they were a people in sin. S. 10:75 And, out of Our Mercy, We gave him his brother Aaron, (also) a prophet. S. 19:53 In the past We granted to Moses and Aaron the criterion (for judgment), and a Light and a Message for those who would do right,- S. 21:48 He said: "O my Lord! I do fear that they will charge me with falsehood: "My breast will be straitened. And my speech may not go (smoothly): so send unto Aaron. And (further), they have a charge of crime against me; and I fear they may slay me." Allah said: "By no means! proceed then, BOTH OF YOU, with Our Signs; We are with you, and will listen (to your call). So go forth, BOTH OF YOU, to Pharaoh, and say: 'We have been sent by the Lord and Cherisher of the worlds 'Send thou with us the Children of Israel.‘" S. 26:12-17 (Cf. S. 20:2941; 23:45; 25:35; 28:33-35; 37:114-120) And We inspired the mother of Moses, saying: Suckle him and, when thou fearest for him, then cast him into the river and fear not nor grieve. Lo! We shall bring him back unto thee and shall make him (one) of Our messengers. S. 28:7 Although one could perhaps argue that God spoke to Moses slightly earlier than to Aaron, in the case of Moses‘ mother, she clearly received divine inspiration (and believed and obeyed it) before God spoke to Moses. The Holy Bible states: "Then the anger of the LORD burned against Moses, and He said, ‗Is there not your brother Aaron the Levite? I know that he speaks fluently. And moreover, behold, he is coming out to meet you; when he sees you, he will be glad in his heart. You are to speak to him and put the words in his mouth; and I, even I, will be with your mouth and his mouth, and I will teach you what you are to do. Moreover, he shall speak for you to the people; and he will be as a mouth for you and you will be as God to him‘… Now the LORD said to Aaron, „Go to meet Moses in the wilderness.‘ So he went and met him at the mountain of God and kissed him. Moses told Aaron all the words of the LORD with which He had sent him, and all the signs that He had commanded him to do." Exodus 4:14-16, 27-28 In fact, the immediate context of Sura 7:143 shows that Aaron was already a believer at this time: They said, 'We believe in the Lord of all Being, the Lord of Moses and Aaron… And We appointed with Moses thirty nights and We completed them with ten, so the appointed time of his Lord was forty nights; and Moses said to his brother Aaron, 'Be my successor among my people, and put things right, and do not follow the way of the workers of corruption.'… And when Moses came to Our appointed time and his Lord spoke with him, he said, 'Oh my Lord, show me, that I may behold Thee!' Said He, 'Thou shalt not see Me; but behold the mountain -- if it stays fast in its place, then thou shalt see Me.' And when his Lord revealed Him to the mountain He made it crumble to dust; and Moses fell down swooning. So when he awoke, he said, 'Glory be to Thee! I repent to Thee; I am the first of the believers.' S. 7:121-122, 142 The sorcerers‘ response presupposes that Aaron was there assisting Moses and was therefore a believer; the fact that Moses assigns him as his successor further assumes this point. It is quite evident in light of the foregoing that God spoke with Aaron around the same time he had spoken with Moses. This means that Moses was neither the first believer, nor necessarily the first person that God spoke with. Furthermore, we already saw that both the Quran and Islamic sources plainly show that Muhammad was by no means the first believer. The Quran also shows that there were other believers besides Aaron during the time of Moses: A believer, A MAN from among THE PEOPLE OF PHARAOH, who had concealed his faith, said: "Will ye slay a man because he says, ‗My Lord is Allah‘? - when he has indeed come to you with Clear (Signs) from your Lord? And if he be a liar, on him is (the sin of) his lie: but, if he is telling the Truth, then will fall on you something of the (calamity) of which he warns you: truly Allah guides not one who transgresses and lies! O my people! Yours is the dominion this day: Ye have the upper hand in the land: but who will help us from the Punishment of Allah, should it befall us?" Pharaoh said: "I but point out to you that which I see (myself); Nor do I guide you but to the Path of Right!" Then said the man who believed: "O my people! Truly I do fear for you something like the Day (of disaster) of the Confederates (in sin)! - Something like the fate of the People of Noah, the Àd, and the Thamüd, and those who came after them: but Allah never wishes injustice to His Servants. And O my people! I fear for you a Day when there will be Mutual calling (and wailing),- A Day when ye shall turn your backs and flee: no defender shall ye have from Allah: any whom Allah leaves to stray, there is none to guide. And to you there came Joseph in times gone by, with Clear Signs, but ye ceased not to doubt of the (Mission) for which he had come: at length, when he died, ye said: 'No messenger will Allah send after him.' Thus doth Allah leave to stray such as transgress and live in doubt,- (Such) as dispute about the Signs of Allah, without any authority that hath reached them, very hateful (is such conduct) in the sight of Allah and of the Believers. Thus doth Allah seal up every heart of arrogant tyranical"… The man who believed said further: "O my people! Follow me: I will lead you to the Path of Right. O my people! This life of the present is nothing but (temporary) enjoyment: it is the Hereafter that is the Home that will last. "He that works evil will not be requited but by the like thereof: and he that works a righteous deed - whether man or woman - and is a Believer- such will enter the Garden (of Bliss): therein will they have abundance without measure. And O my people! How (strange) it is for me to call you to Salvation while ye call me to the Fire! Ye do call upon me to blaspheme against Allah, and to join with Him partners of whom I have no knowledge; and I call you to the Exalted in Power, Who forgives again and again! Without doubt ye do call me to one who has no claim be called to, whether in this world, or in the Hereafter; our return will be to Allah: and the Transgressors will be Companions of the Fire! Soon will ye remember what I say to you (now), My (own) affair I commit to Allah: for Allah (ever) watches over His Servants." Then Allah SAVED HIM from (every) evil that they plotted (against him), but the brunt of the Chastisement encompassed on all sides THE PEOPLE OF PHARAOH. In front of the Fire will THEY be brought, morning and evening: and (the sentence will be) on the Day when the Hour comes to pass: "Cast ye the people of Pharaoh into the severest Penalty!" S. 40:28-35, 38-46 Y. Ali The presence of an Egyptian believer shows that Moses wasn‘t the first believer of his generation. This person must have been a believer for a while since he knows of the prophets sent to the people of Ad and Thamud, of Noah, Joseph, and those that came later. The problem worsens since this last passage contradicts the following Sura: "(Pharaoh) said: ‗If thou takest any god other than me, I will certainly put thee in prison!‘ (Moses) said: ‗Even if I showed you something clear (and) convincing?‘ (Pharaoh) said: ‗Show it then, if thou tellest the truth!‘ So (Moses) threw his rod, and behold, it was a serpent, plain (for all to see)! And he drew out his hand, and behold, it was white to all beholders! (Pharaoh) said to the Chiefs around him: ‗This is indeed a sorcerer well-versed: His plan is to get you out of your land by his sorcery; then what is it ye counsel?‘ They said: ‗Keep him and his brother in suspense (for a while), and dispatch to the Cities heralds to collect- And bring up to thee all (our) sorcerers well-versed.‘ So the sorcerers were got together for the appointment of a day well-known, And the people were told: ‗Are ye (now) assembled?- That we may follow the sorcerers if they win?‘ So when the sorcerers arrived, they said to Pharaoh: ‗Of course - shall we have a (suitable) reward if we win?‘ He said: ‗Yea, (and more),- for ye shall in that case be (raised to posts) nearest (to my person).‘ Moses said to them: ‗Throw ye- that which ye are about to throw!‘ So they threw their ropes and their rods, and said: ‗By the might of Pharaoh, it is we who will certainly win!‘ Then Moses threw his rod, when, behold, it straightway swallows up all the falsehoods which they fake! THEN did the sorcerers fall down, prostrate in adoration, Saying: „We believe in the Lord of the Worlds, The Lord of Moses and Aaron.‟ Said (Pharaoh): ‗Believe ye in Him before I give you permission? Surely he is your leader, who has taught you sorcery! But soon shall ye know! Be sure I will cut off your hands and your feet on opposite sides, and I will crucify you all!‘ They said: „No matter! For us, we shall but return to our Lord! Only, our desire is that our Lord will forgive us our faults, SINCE WE ARE THE FIRST TO BELIEVE.‘" S. 26:29-51 Here it is the magicians that are the first ones who came to faith! This contradicts the earlier passages claiming that Muhammad was the first to believe, and that Moses was the first to believe. Even if one wants to restrict it to mean only the first ones among the Egyptians, it contradicts 40:28 quoted above which reports about another Egyptian believer. Moreover, Moses had grown up among the Egyptians (from early infancy until well into his adulthood), he had even been adopted by the wife of the Pharaoh (according to the Quran), so he was certainly counted as an Egyptian by them, not as a foreigner. Now, someone may say that first here doesn‘t mean historically the first to believe, but that Muhammad was first in the sense of being the foremost of believers, the most prominent in position. After all, the Quran does mention that Allah has chosen some prophets above others: And those Messengers, some We have preferred above others; some there are to whom God spoke, and some He raised in rank. And We gave Jesus son of Mary the clear signs, and confirmed him with the Holy Spirit. And had God willed, those who came after him would not have fought one against the other after the clear signs had come to them; but they fell into variance, and some of them believed, and some disbelieved; and had God willed they would not have fought one against the other; but God does whatsoever He desires. S. 2:253 And thy Lord knows very well all who are in the heavens and the earth; and We have preferred some Prophets over others; and We gave to David Psalms. S. 17:55 The problem with this view is that the Quran does not explicitly present Muhammad as the premier prophet or messenger. A careful analysis of the Quran actually shows that both Jesus and Moses are in fact greater. Note, for instance, what is said about Jesus‘ supposed family and ancestral line (we say supposedly since Jesus wasn‘t a descendant of Imran): God chose Adam and Noah and the House of Abraham and the House of Imran above all beings, the seed of one another; God hears, and knows. When the wife of Imran said, 'Lord, I have vowed to Thee, in dedication, what is within my womb. Receive Thou this from me; Thou hearest, and knowest.' And when she gave birth to her she said, 'Lord, I have given birth to her, a female.' (And God knew very well what she had given birth to; the male is not as the female.) 'And I have named her Mary, and commend her to Thee with her seed, to protect them from the accursed Satan.' … And when the angels said, 'Mary, God has chosen thee, and purified thee; He has chosen thee above all women. S. 3:33-36, 42 Here, Jesus‘ mother is exalted above all women with her father Imran being chosen above all else. The text seems to be narrowing down the line of those whom Allah chose above the rest, i.e. beginning with Adam, Noah, then chooses Abraham and his descendants, and from all of Abraham‘s descendants chooses the family or house of Imran above the rest. The claim that Mary is exalted above all women supports this understanding of the passage, i.e. that from all of Abraham‘s seed Imran and his household, which according to the Quran includes Jesus, were chosen above them all. Furthermore, there are other things which the Quran says about Jesus which makes him vastly superior to Muhammad. For the data demonstrating this, we encourage the reader to consult the following articles: http://answering-islam.org/Shamoun/messiah.htm http://answering-islam.org/Responses/Osama/sinless_jesus.htm Even in the above texts where it is stated that Allah has preferred some to others, the author of Quran didn‘t mention Muhammad but Jesus and David. Thus, based on the immediate contexts themselves, we can safely say that Jesus and David were definitely two of the messengers preferred above the others. But we can‘t say this of Muhammad. Besides, one still has to deal with the problem of Moses being the first believer, which could also be understood as implying that he was the most prominent, thereby contradicting the claim that Muhammad was. Even the hadiths say that Muhammad wasn‘t as great as Moses: Narrated Abu Huraira: "A man from the Muslims and a man from the Jews quarreled, and the Muslim said, ‗By Him Who gave superiority to Muhammad over all the people!‘ The Jew said, ‗By Him Who gave superiority to Moses over all the people!' On that the Muslim lifted his hand and slapped the Jew. The Jew went to Allah's Apostle and informed him of all that had happened between him and the Muslim. The Prophet said, ‗Do not give me superiority over Moses, for the people will fall unconscious on the Day of Resurrection, I will be the first to regain consciousness and behold, Moses will be standing there, holding the side of the Throne. I will not know whether he has been one of those who have fallen unconscious and then regained consciousness before me, or if he has been one of those exempted by Allah (from falling unconscious).‘" (See Hadith No. 524, Vol. 8) (Sahih Al-Bukhari, Volume 9, Book 93, Number 564) The hadith also has Muhammad admitting that Abraham was the best creature, not him: Anas b. Malik reported that a person came to Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him) and said: O the best of creation; thereupon Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him) said: He is Ibrahim (peace be upon him). (Sahih Muslim, Book 030, Number 5841) The Muslim may say that Moses and Muhammad were the most prominent amongst their respective contemporaries. In other words, Moses and Muhammad were both the first in the sense of being preeminent over their respective generations. But even this explanation is problematic since the context shows that, at least as far as Muhammad is concerned, first can only mean the first one (in time) to submit to the unity of Allah: Say: Shall I choose for a protecting friend other than Allah, the Originator of the heavens and the earth, Who feedeth and is never fed? Say: I am ordered to be the first to surrender (unto Him). And be not thou (O Muhammad) of the idolaters. S. 6:14 Pickthall Say: "Verily, my Lord hath guided me to a way that is straight,- a religion of right,- the path (trod) by Abraham the true in Faith, and he (certainly) joined not gods with Allah." Say: "Truly, my prayer and my service of sacrifice, my life and my death, are (all) for Allah, the Cherisher of the Worlds: No partner hath He: this am I commanded, and I am the first of those who bow to His will. S. 6:161-163 Y. Ali In S. 6:14 the temporal aspect is obvious. "First" in Sura 6:161-163 has to be understood in a temporal sense as well, since the text speaks of having been guided to a way that is straight, to the right religion, presupposing that he was on a different way before. So there is a change in time in regard to his beliefs, and he is supposed to be the first one who bows to Allah‘s will. The reference to Abraham, the true in faith (6:161) may be taken as an indication that 6:163 is referring to Muhammad being the first Muslim of his time, or among his people, as otherwise it would be in contradiction to the statement only two verses earlier. More importantly, the Quran shows that Moses wasn‘t the most prominent of his time since there was someone named Al-Khadir who was greater: And remember the time when Moses said to his young companion, `I will not cease pursuing my course until I reach the junction of the two seas, though I may have to journey on for ages. But when they reached the place where the two seas met, they forgot their fish and it made its way into the sea going away quickly. And when they had gone beyond that place, he said to his young companion, `Bring us our morning meal. Surely, we have suffered much fatigue on account of this journey of ours.' He replied, `Didst thou see, when we betook ourselves to the rock for rest and I forgot the fish - and none but Satan caused me to forget to mention it to thee - it took its way into the sea in a marvelous manner? He said, `That is what we have been seeking.' So they both returned, retracing their footsteps. Then they found a servant of OURS, upon whom WE had bestowed mercy from US, and whom WE had taught knowledge from Ourselves. Moses said to him, `May I follow thee on condition that thou teach me some of the guidance which thou hast been taught?' He replied, `Thou canst not have patience with me; And how can thou have patience about the things the knowledge of which thou comprehendest not?' He said, `Thou wilt find me, if ALLAH please, patient and I shall not disobey any command of thine.' He said, `Well, if thou wouldst follow me, then ask me no questions about anything till I myself speak to thee about it.' So they both set out till, when they embarked in a boat, he made a hole in it. Moses said, `Hast thou made a hole in it to drown those who are in it ? Surely, thou hast done a grievous thing.' He replied, `Did I not tell thee that thou canst not have patience with me?' Moses said, `Take me not to task for what I forgot and be not hard on me for this lapse of mine.' So they journeyed on till when they met a young boy; he slew him. Moses said, `What! hast thou slain an innocent person without his having slain anyone ! Surely, thou hast done a hideous thing.' He replied, `Did I not tell thee that thou couldst never bear with me patiently?' Moses said, `If I ask thee concerning anything after this, keep me not in thy company, for then thou shalt have got sufficient excuse from me.' So they went on till, when they came to the people of a town, they asked its people for food, but they refused to receive them as their guests. And they found therein a wall which was about to fall and he repaired it. Moses said, If thou hadst so desired, thou couldst have taken payment for it.' He said, `This is the parting of the ways between me and thee. I will tell thee the meaning of that which thou wast not able to bear with patience; As for the boat, it belonged to certain poor people who worked on the sea and I desired to damage it, for there was behind them a king who seized every boat by force; And as for the youth, his parents were believers, and we feared lest on growing up he should involve them into trouble through rebellion and disbelief; So we desired that their Lord should give them in exchange one better than he in purity and closer in filial affection; And as for the wall, it belonged to two orphan boys in the town, and beneath it was a treasure belonging to them, and their father had been a righteous man, so thy Lord desired that they should reach their age of full strength and take out their treasure, as a mercy from thy Lord and I did it not of my own accord. This is the explanation of that which thou could not bear with patience.' S. 18:60-82 Sher Ali Therefore, not only is it a mere assumption that first here refers to prominence or preeminence, this assertion directly contradicts the context of the passages which clearly define first to mean the first one submitting to and believing in the unity of Allah (at least in the case of Muhammad). They are also at tension with the Quran‘s reference to a servant from Allah who was more knowledge and greater than Moses. And, as we saw above, Muhammad was definitely not the first one to submit to Allah since the so-called Hanifs, which we already mentioned, were said to be monotheists following the religion of Abraham. Let us summarize all the problems thus far: 1. The Quran claims that Muhammad was the first believer/submitter. 2. Both the Quran and Islamic sources show that there were true believers both before Muhammad’s birth and during his lifetime, specifically before his alleged call to faith and prophethood, demonstrating that the latter was far from being the first. 3. The Quran also claims that Moses was the first to believe. Since you cannot have two firsts, this is a clear-cut contradiction. Moreover, Abraham is explicitly called a Muslim and he lived a long time before both of them. 4. This last claim, i.e. Moses being the first to believe, is negated by passages mentioning persons during Moses’ time that also believed, i.e. the Egyptian of Sura 40 who knew of God’s messengers/prophets such as Joseph. 5. Sura 26 contradicts Sura 40 since we are told that Pharaoh’s magicians were the first to believe. To make matters worse, the claim that some of Pharaoh‘s magicians believed in Moses contradicts S. 10:83 which says that none believed in him except some of Moses‘ own people! (Cf. this article.) Our analysis leads us to conclude that first cannot mean preeminence or prominence, but must mean the first in time, either in all of history or within the respective generations. Yet either understanding results in contradictions to other statements of the Quran which show that neither Moses nor Muhammad was the first to believe even during their generations. And it becomes even more complicated ... There seems to be evidence which shows that the Quran views Abraham as the first Muslim. We saw that in several places believers are called to embrace the religion of Abraham, that Islam is the belief system which Abraham espoused and exhorted his children to walk in (cf. 2:132-132; 3:67; 4:125; 6:161; 22:78). The constant emphasis on Islam being the religion of Abraham — as opposed to Adam, Noah etc. —, may mean that the Quran‘s author assumed that the faith actually started with him. This understanding can be inferred from the following text: And strive in His cause as ye ought to strive, (with sincerity and under discipline). He has chosen you, and has imposed no difficulties on you in religion; it is the cult of your father Abraham. It is He Who has named you Muslims, both before and in this (Revelation); that the Apostle may be a witness for you, and ye be witnesses for mankind! So establish regular Prayer, give regular Charity, and hold fast to God! He is your Protector - the Best to protect and the Best to help! S. 22:78 Y. Ali The implication of the above is that Allah started using the term Muslim for believers during the time of Abraham, and that is why it is called his faith or cult. Not coincidentally Abraham is the first one among all the prophets and messengers who are mentioned in the Quran that is expressly called a Muslim! The following are the occurrences of the words Muslim, Muslims, surrender (i.e. aslama, aslamoo, aslimoo, oslima, aslamtu) so that the readers can investigate this issue for themselves: 2:112, 128, 131-133, 136; 3:20, 52, 64, 67, 80, 83-84, 102; 4:92, 125; 5:44, 111; 6:14, 163; 7:126; 10:72, 84, 90; 11:14; 12:101; 15:02; 16:89, 102; 21:108; 22:34, 78; 27:31, 42, 81, 91; 28:53; 29:46; 30:53; 33:35; 37:103; 39:12, 54; 40:66; 41:33; 43.69; 46:15; 49:14, 17; 51:36; 66:05; 68:35; 72:14 Now lest we be accused of misunderstanding the text or distorting the teaching of the Quran, note what the following Muslim author says about this very issue: The misunderstanding and poor interpretation here stems from their lack of understanding of the word Islam (Submission). In spite of the fact that God tells us in the Quran that Islam (Submission to God Alone) is as old as Abraham WHO WAS THE FIRST MUSLIM (see 2:128, 2:131, 2:133) AND WHO WAS THE FIRST TO NAME US MUSLIMS (22:78), still the Muslim scholars today insist that Islam is confined to being the religion of the Quran!!! By creating such a false statement, the Muslim scholars claim to be the custodians of the message! In 3:67 God specifically tells us that Abraham was neither Jewish nor Christian, but a monotheist Muslim. God also tells us in 5:111 that Jesus and the Disciples were Muslim. In 27:44 tells us that Solomon was Muslim and in 5:44 we are told of all the prophets who were given the Torah and who were all Muslim. What all these verses are confirming is that there are Muslims who followed the Torah and the Bible and who knew nothing of the Quran. These Muslims were submitters to God Alone, Lord of the universe. (Source; capital emphasis ours) In the above quotation there seems to be a misunderstanding regarding S. 22:78. One probably has to understand this verse in the sense that it was not Abraham but Allah who gave the believers the name "Muslims". Still, we would agree that these passages give the impression that this happened first at the time of Abraham, i.e. Abraham and his descendants are the first ones who are explicitly called Muslims in the Quran. If this is the case then we have several more contradictions which the Muslims must work through. Abraham being the first Muslim would contradict the statements that Moses and/or Muhammad were the first believers/Muslims. This also contradicts the fact that there were other prophets and messengers before Abraham, such as Adam and Noah, who obviously were believers otherwise they couldn‘t be Allah‘s spokespersons! That is, unless we are to understand from this that even though Noah and others were believers before Abraham, their religion wasn‘t Islam. They actually had a different religion. If the foregoing conclusion regarding Abraham is correct then Muslims have a lot of problems that they must deal with. Sam Shamoun and Jochen Katz The Confusion Concerning Identity of the Spirit and Gabriel in the Quran Sam Shamoun Another Muslim website (*) has taken aim at trying to refute some of the long list of Quran contradictions found on our site (*). The first thing that one notices about this site is that although they are clearly trying to refute our web page they fail to produce a link to our site or section in general, or even a link to the specific article which they are seeking to refute. As the Lord Jesus permits and enables us to do so, we will be addressing some of their responses and ignore those which we feel have already been addressed on our site. In this present article, I will interact with their response (*) to our question whether it was Gabriel or the Holy Spirit that supposedly revealed the Quran to Muhammad (*). One thing that will immediately stick out from our discussion of this rebuttal is how casual the author is in assuming his position without bothering to prove it. For instance, the author will cite references that he thinks support his view without first proving that his understanding of these texts is necessarily correct. He will cite a passage where he thinks the word Ruh (Arabic for Spirit) refers to a human soul, but never explains why he thinks it does. He basically assumes what he has yet to prove, which makes it a little frustrating to deal with his points since there is not much to refute apart from highlighting the circular nature of his argumentation. The author proceeds to cite a list of references where Muslim commentators have understood texts using the words "Holy Spirit," "Trustworthy Spirit" as referring to Gabriel. The author then cites and comments on the following narrations: Al-Bukhari recorded `A'ishah saying that the Messenger of Allah erected a Minbar in the Masjid on which Hassan bin Thabit (the renowned poet) used to defend the Messenger of Allah (with his poems). The Messenger of Allah said, "O Allah! Aid Hassan with Ruh AlQudus, for he defended Your Prophet."(fn. Fath Al-Bari 10:562). Abu Dawud recorded this Hadith in his Sunan (fn. Abu Dawud 5:279) as did At-Tirmidhi who graded it Hasan Sahih (fn. Tuhfat Al-Ahwadhi 8:137). Further, Ibn Hibban recorded in his Sahih that Ibn Mas`ud said that the Prophet said, "Ruh Al-Qudus informed me that no soul shall die until it finishes its set provisions and term limit. Therefore, have Taqwa of Allah and seek your sustenance in the most suitable way."(fn. See As-Sunnah 14:304). (Tafsir Ibn Kathir, Abridged, Darussalam Publishers & Distributors, 2000, vol. 1, pp. 288289) These narrations demonstrate that the correct understanding of the title "Ruh Al-Qudus" (Holy Spirit) is that it was a title of Angel Jibreel. In another place, Allah refers to him as Ruh Al-Ameen (the Trustworthy Spirit). Concerning this, Ibn Kathir records: (Which the trustworthy Ruh has brought down.) This refers to Jibril, peace be upon him. This was the view of more than one of the Salaf: Ibn `Abbas, Muhammad bin Ka`b, Qatadah, `Atiyyah Al-`Awfi, As-Suddi, Ad-Dahhak, Az-Zuhri and Ibn Jurayj. (fn. At-Tabari 19:396). This is an issue concerning which there is no dispute . (Tafsir Ibn Kathir, Abridged, Darussalam Publishers & Distributors, 2000, vol. 7, pp. 275-276) Hence, it becomes clear that those who are close to Allah are honored by Him with numerous titles, and so of the titles of Angel Jibreel is Ruh Al-Qudus and Ruh Al-Ameen. RESPONSE: Here is what we mean by circular reasoning. Apart from citing a few sources which believe the same way as the author does, what evidence has he given to prove that Ruh Al-Qudus ("Holy Spirit") and Ruh Al-Ameen ("Faithful Spirit") are some of the titles of Gabriel? No evidence whatsoever. Take another example, namely his reference to Hassan being assisted by the Ruh Al-Qudus. Does that particular narration identify the Spirit as Gabriel? Not at all. So where is the author getting this from? How is he proving that these texts refer to Gabriel? The last example is even worse. He cites a narration from Ibn Kathir where Gabriel is identified as the trustworthy Spirit who brought down the revelation, i.e. the Quran. Those reading the Quran should see why this argument is fallacious, since it erroneously assumes that Allah used only one entity to bring down the message. The reality is that the Quran itself asserts that Allah used several entities to convey the revelation, not just one: Say ‗Whoever is an enemy to Gabriel‘ - for he it is who has caused it to descend on thy heart by the command of ALLAH, fulfilling that revelation which precedes it, and is a guidance and glad tidings to the believers. S. 2:97 Sher Ali By THOSE who bring down the Reminder, S. 77:5 Pickthall Then I swear by the angels who bring down the revelation, Shakir The Reminder refers to the Quran: And they say: O you to whom the Reminder has been revealed! you are most surely insane: S. 15:6 Shakir He sendeth down the ANGELS with the Spirit of His command unto whom He will of His bondmen, (saying): Warn mankind that there is no God save Me, so keep your duty unto Me. S. 16:2 Pickthall Say: The Holy spirit has revealed it from your Lord with the truth, that it may establish those who believe and as a guidance and good news for those who submit. S. 16:102 Shakir These passages say that the Holy Spirit, Gabriel, and the angels (plural!) all brought down the Quran. In light of this, since there is more than one entity that supposedly conveyed the inspiration to Muhammad on what grounds then does the author thereby assume that Gabriel is the trustworthy Spirit? We will have a lot more to say about these references shortly.{1} He continues: 2. Critics attempt to prove that the spirit does not refer to Jibreel by quoting verses of the Qur'an that contain the word Ruh (spirit) but could not possibly be referring to Angel Jibreel because of the context. In these cases, the critics fail to realize that the word Ruh has several different usages in the Qur'an with a wide range of meanings. The word Ruh most commonly refers to the human soul in religious literature, especially the Qur'an and the Sunnah. However, it sometimes refers to other than the human soul as Shaykh Abu Bilal Mustafa AlKanadi explains: Just as the term "nafs" has several different connotations, so does the term "ruh." It is never used to refer to the physical body (badan) alone or to the soul when it is inside the body. Rather, it has various other usages in the Arabic language and in religious literature. (fn. See al-Tahawiyyah, pp. 444-445 and Kitab al-Ruh, pp.295-296). In the following words of Allah to His Messenger (saws), it is used to mean revelation, specifically the Qur'an: "And thus We revealed to you a spirit [i.e., the Qur'an] by Our command." (Surah al-Shura, 42:52) In other places in the Qur'an the word "ruh" is used to designate the Angel Jibreel, whom Allah entrusted with the conveyance of divine revelation. For example: "Verily, this [Qur'an] is a revelation of the Lord of the Worlds brought down by the trustworthy spirit [i.e., Jibril]." (Surah al-Shu'ara; 26:192-193) RESPONSE: To begin with, we do not deny that the term Ruh can have a broader range of meaning. Our point was, as the author himself noted, that there is no specific context within the Quran which identifies the Ruh as Gabriel. To, therefore, raise the issue of Ruh having a broad range of meanings is nothing more than a straw man and a red herring. Furthermore, none of the texts cited lead us to conclude that Ruh means something other than the Holy Spirit. Note for instance Sura 42:52 again: And thus We revealed to you a Spirit by Our command. All that this passage is saying is that Allah commanded the Spirit to reveal himself or make known the revelation, no more no less. This is quite similar to what the following texts say: He sends the angels with the Spirit to carry His orders to whichever of His servants He wants so that they would warn people that He is the only God and that people must have fear of Him S. 16:2 Muhammad Sarwar They ask thee concerning the Spirit (of inspiration). Say: "The Spirit (cometh) by command of my Lord: of knowledge it is only a little that is communicated to you, (O men!)" S. 17:85 Y. Ali Thus, the Quran is simply emphasizing the point that it is Allah that commands the Spirit to come down and reveal the inspiration. Hence, Sura 42:52 is not identifying the Quran or the revelation as a spirit. We already discussed Sura 26:192-193 so there is no need for us to repeat ourselves. After mentioning the point that the word Ruh can refer to the senses and forces in the human body, but failing to provide any Quranic reference to support this position, he then writes: Finally, the term "ruh" is sometimes used in an extremely restricted sense - to designate the spirit of faith which results from one's knowledge of Allah, from turning to him in repentance and from seeking Him with love and aspiration. This is the spirit (i.e. consciousness of God) with which Allah strengthens His obedient, chosen servants as stated in the following Qur'anic verse: "For those, Allah has written faith upon their hearts and strengthened them with a spirit from Him." (Surah al-Mujadilah, 58:22) In this manner, knowledge is a "ruh" ("spiritual force"), as is sincerity, truthfulness, repentance, love of Allah and complete dependence upon Him. People differ in respect to these types of spiritual forces. Some are so overcome by them that they become "spiritual" beings. Thus it is said, "So and so has spirit." Others lose the power of such spiritual forces, or the greater portion thereof, and thus become earthly, bestial beings. (fn. For more details, see Lawami' al-Anwar, pp. 31-32; al-Tahawiyyah, p. 445 and Kitab al-Ruh, p. 297). About them it may be said, "So and so has no spirit; he's empty like a hollow reed," and so on. (Mustafa Al-Kanadi, Mysteries of the Soul Expounded, Al-Hidaayah Publishing & Distribution 2003, pp.21-23) RESPONSE: The author astonishingly claims that Sura 58:22 is speaking of the spirit of faith DESPITE THE FACT THAT THIS SAME TEXT DISTINGUISHES FAITH FROM THE SPIRIT! The two are not seen as being one and the same, but as two different entities or qualities which Allah bestows on believers. Notice the clear wording of the passage: You will not find any people of faith in God and the Day of Judgment who would establish friendship with those who oppose God and His Messenger, even if it would be in the interest of their fathers, sons, brothers, and kinsmen. God has established faith in their hearts AND supported them by a Spirit from Himself. S. 58:22 Sarwar Allah establishes faith in the hearts of believers AND STRENGTHENS THEM WITH A SPIRIT FROM HIMSELF, clearly showing that the Spirit here doesn‘t refer to faith. Yusuf Ali correctly realized the implications of this text in trying to understand what or who the Spirit truly is: … Cf. ii 87 and 253, where it is said that God strengthened the Prophet Jesus with the holy spirit. Here we learn that all good and righteous men are strengthened by God with the holy spirit. If anything, the phrase used here is stronger, „a spirit from Himself‟. Whenever any one offers his heart in faith and purity to God, God accepts it, engraves that faith on the seeker's heart, and further fortifies him with the DIVINE Spirit, which we can no more define adequately than we can define in human language the nature of God. (Ali, The Meaning of the Holy Quran, p. 1518, fn. 5365; bold and capital emphasis ours) {2} It is not hard to see why Ali could dare call this Spirit Divine and say that it cannot be adequately defined, thereby likening it to the very nature of God. After all, the only way that the Spirit can be with all believers to strengthen them is if he has the specific attributes of omnipotence and omnipresence, that he is all-powerful and all-present. Yet only God is omnipotent and omnipresent, therefore proving that the Spirit is God. At the same time the Quran also shows that the Spirit is distinct from Allah, which means that there are either two Gods or that Allah is multipersonal! The author resumes his analysis: Thus, when the term Ruh appears in the Qur'an, it may refer to the human soul, it may refer to Angel Jibreel, it may refer to attributes of faith which God blesses someone with, or it may refer to the Qur'an. We cannot, as critics incorrectly do, conclude that since some verses of the Qur'an use ruh in one sense, therefore all verses must conform to that same meaning of the word ruh. Such a notion would be illogical as it ignores the various meanings already associated with the word, as well as the explanation found in the Ahadith and the understanding of the early Muslim scholars. The verses cited with the word Ruh include the following: 15:29 "When I have fashioned him [Adam] (in due proportion) and breathed into him a Ruh from Me, fall ye down in obedience[sic] unto him." 21:91 And (remember) her [Mary] who guarded her chastity: We breathed into her a Ruh from Us, and We made her and her son a sign for all peoples. 32:9 But He fashioned him [the human] in due proportion, and breathed into him the Ruh from Him. And He gave you (the faculties of) hearing and sight and feeling (and understanding): little thanks do ye give! 38:72 "When I have fashioned him (in due proportion) and breathed into him a Ruh from Me, fall ye down in obeisance unto him." 66:12 And Mary the daughter of 'Imran, who guarded her chastity; and We breathed into (her body) a Ruh from Us; and she testified to the truth of the words of her Lord and of His Revelations, and was one of the devout (servants). In all the above verses, the word Ruh can easily be understood as a reference to the human soul. Allah informs us that He breathed the Ruh into Adam, and into Mary (to give life to Jesus), just as He breathes the Ruh into every human being. ... RESPONSE: Here is another example of circular reasoning. The author has assumed, without proof, that all the above references refer to Allah creating the soul of a person. In reality these passages are speaking of Allah using his own Spirit to create living beings, that the Spirit is the Agent that Allah uses to animate his creatures. Just as the late Maulana Muhammad Ali correctly noted in his comments on Sura 15:29: 29a. This shows that man is made complete when the Divine spirit is breathed into him. It should be noted that the Divine spirit (Ar. ruh) does not mean here the animal soul in man, but the Spirit of Allah, that gives him perfection. (Source; bold and underline emphasis ours) He repeats this point in his note on Sura 32:9: 9a. This verse shows that the spirit of God is breathed into every man. This points to a mystical relation between human nature and Divine nature. The word ruh does not here mean the animal soul, because the animal soul is common to man and the animal kingdom. It is something that distinguishes man from the animal world. It is due to the spirit Divine that he rules creation and its due to the same Divine spirit in him that he receives a new life after death – a life which he lives in God and with God – the meeting with God or liqa Allah, as it is called in v. 10. (Source; bold and underline emphasis ours) Here is another Muslim that unapologetically speaks of there being a Divine Spirit! The above Quranic texts are merely echoing the biblical teaching that man became a living being, a living soul, when God breathed into him the Holy Spirit: "then the LORD God formed man of dust from the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living being." Genesis 2:7 "The spirit of God HAS MADE ME, and the breath of the Almighty gives me life." Job 33:4 What this essentially means is that God‘s own Holy Spirit was the Agent that God used to make man a conscious being, as opposed to inanimate clay. In other words, the Spirit is God‘s Life force that imparts life to all of God‘s creatures, just as the following texts state: "When you send forth your Spirit, they are created; and you renew the face of the earth." Psalm 104:30 "For the palace will be forsaken, the populous city deserted; the hill and the watchtower will become dens for ever, a joy of wild asses, a pasture of flocks; until the Spirit is poured upon us from on high, and the wilderness becomes a fruitful field, and the fruitful field is deemed a forest." Isaiah 32:14-15 "If the Spirit of him who raised Jesus from the dead dwells in you, he who raised Christ Jesus from the dead will give life to your mortal bodies also through his Spirit which dwells in you." Romans 8:11 Furthermore, cross-referencing Suras 21:91 and 66:12 with Sura 19:16-19 provides additional support for our position that the Spirit in these references does not refer to man‘s soul: And mention Marium in the Book when she drew aside from her family to an eastern place; So she took a veil (to screen herself) from them; then We sent to her Our spirit, and there appeared to her a well-made man. She said: Surely I fly for refuge from you to the Beneficent God, if you are one guarding (against evil). He said: I am only a messenger of your Lord: That I WILL GIVE YOU a pure boy. She said: When shall I have a boy and no mortal has yet touched me, nor have I been unchaste? He said: Even so; your Lord says: It is easy to Me: and that We may make him a sign to men and a mercy from Us, and it is a matter which has been decreed. S. 19:16-21 Shakir Allah‘s Spirit appears to Mary as a man and promises to give her a son, implying that he will be the one to create Jesus in his mother‘s womb. An analysis of Suras 21:91 and 66:12 shows how the Spirit accomplished this task: And (remember) her [Mary] who guarded her chastity: We breathed into her a Ruh from Us, and We made her and her son a sign for all peoples. S. 21:91 And Mary the daughter of 'Imran, who guarded her chastity; and We breathed into (her body) a Ruh from Us; and she testified to the truth of the words of her Lord and of His Revelations, and was one of the devout (servants). S. 66:12 It is obvious why Allah breathed the Spirit into Mary‘s body, since this was the way in which she was going to get pregnant! In other words, the Spirit gave Mary a son by being breathed into her, at which point he then caused her to conceive the baby Jesus. Thus, the Spirit that appeared to Mary is the same Spirit which later entered her body to create a living being in her womb! This shows that the Spirit here cannot be a reference to man‘s created soul, but to God‘s own Spirit as Creator and Life-giver. In fact, the author himself indirectly concedes this point when he will later try to prove that the Muslim commentators‘ claim that Gabriel actually breathed into Mary‘s body doesn‘t make him God. This presupposes that he accepts the view that it was indeed Gabriel who actually breathed into Mary. This is significant because according to the same commentators who identified Gabriel as the entity that breathed into Mary, Gabriel was also that same Spirit of Surah 19 who announced the birth of Christ to her: <She placed a screen before them;> This means that she hid herself from them and concealed herself. Then, Allah sent Jibril to her… <and he appeared before her in the form of a man in all respects.> [19:17] This means that he came to her in the form of a perfect and complete man. Mujahid, Ad-Dahhak, Qatadah, Ibn Jurayj, Wahb bin Munabbih and As-Suddi all commented on Allah‘s statement… <then We sent to her Our Ruh,> "It means Jibril." … <She said: "Verily, I seek refuge with the Most Gracious from you, if you do fear Allah."> This means that when the angel (Jibril) appeared to her in the form of a man, while she was in a place secluded by herself with a partition between her and her people, she was afraid of him and thought that he wanted to rape her. Therefore, she said… <"Verily, I seek refuge with the Most Gracious from you, if you do fear Allah." He said: "I am only a messenger from your Lord…"> This means that the angel said to her in response, and in order to remove the fear that she felt within herself, "I am not what you think, but I am the messenger of your Lord." By this he meant, "Allah has sent me to you." It is said that when she mentioned the (Name of the) Most Beneficent (Ar-Rahman), Jibril fell apart and returned to his true form (as an angel). He responded… ‗I am only a messenger from your Lord, to provide to you the gift of a righteous son.‘ … <He said: "Thus said your Lord: ‗That is easy for Me (Allah)…‘"> This means that the angel said to her in response to her question, "Verily, Allah has said that a boy will be born from you even though you do not have a husband and you have not committed any lewdness. Verily, He is Most Able to do whatever He wills." … <and a mercy from Us,> This means, "We will make this boy a mercy from Allah and a Prophet from among the Prophets. He will call to the worship of Allah and monotheistic belief in Him… (Tafsir Ibn Kathir; online source; bold and underline emphasis ours) Note what this implies. The Spirit, whom the commentators identify as Gabriel, says he will give Mary a Son, and the commentators also state that Gabriel was the one who breathed into Mary to get her pregnant. This demonstrates that Muslims themselves realized that the wording of Sura 19:19 meant that the Spirit is the Creator of Jesus, that he was sent for the purpose of causing a virgin maiden to conceive supernaturally. For instance, notice what the translator Maulana Abdul Majid Muhammad Daryabadi said regarding S. 21:91: 207. (through Our arch-angel Gabriel). 208. (which caused her conception). (Tafsir-Ul-Qur‟an Translation and Commentary of the Holy Qur‟an [Darul-Ishaat Urdu Bazar, Karachi-1, Pakistan; First Edition, 1991], Volume III, p. 151) He repeats this again in his notes on Sura 66:12 (Ibid., Volume IV, p. 384, ff. 471-472). Daryabadi is saying here that Allah breathed through Gabriel to cause Mary‘s conception, which basically implies that Gabriel created Jesus. The writers at www.Islamqa.com agree: 1. Allaah commanded Jibreel to blow through the neck of Maryam's garment, and this breath went down and by the will of Allaah entered her womb, so it became a soul that Allaah had created. Allaah has explained how He created 'Eesaa (peace be upon him), as He said (interpretation of the meaning): "And she who guarded her chastity [Virgin Maryam (Mary)], We breathed into (the sleeves of) her (shirt or garment) [through Our Rooh - Jibreel (Gabriel)]" [al-Anbiya' 21:91] Then Allaah explains that the Rooh reached her womb, as Allaah says (interpretation of the meaning): "And Maryam (Mary), the daughter of 'Imraan who guarded her chastity. And We breathed into (the sleeve of her shirt or her garment) through Our Rooh [i.e. Jibreel (Gabriel)]". [alTahreem 66:12] The aayah (interpretation of the meaning): "(The angel) said: 'I am only a messenger from your Lord, (to announce) to you the gift of a righteous son'" [Maryam 19:19] - indicates that the one who blew into her was Jibreel, who does not do anything except by the command of Allaah. (Question #6333: How was 'Eesaa (peace be upon him) created?; underline emphasis ours) Thus, the commentators were right that Sura 19:19 implies that the Spirit was sent to create Jesus. Where they were mistaken was in assuming that the Spirit was Gabriel, a position which is quite damaging to the Quran as we will later see. The author proceeds with his discussion: ... There is some confusion because the arabic[sic] phrase attributes the Ruh to Allah, which lead some translators to render the verses as "[God's] Spirit". However, the reason the soul is attributed to God is because it is the creation of God and belongs to Him. This is exactly the same as the Qur'anic verse that says: 91:13 But the Messenger of Allah [Prophet Saalih pbuh] said to them: "It is a She-camel of Allah [Ar. Naaqat-Allahi]. And (bar her not from) having her drink!" Just as the miraculous camel presented to the Thamud, which was the creation of Allah and one of His special signs, is attributed to Allah, so is the Ruh which is blown into every human being. Both are attributed to Allah as a sign of their miraculous nature and the fact that they are the direct creation of Allah. RESPONSE: Yet again the author has assumed what he has yet to prove! He assumes that the Spirit is created much like the camel of Thamud, thereby explaining the genitive on the basis that since it is a creation of Allah it therefore belongs to him. On the contrary, the evidence that we have seen thus far proves that the Spirit is not a creature, but the Creator, and that the genitive should therefore be understood in the same manner as the following: And ordain for us good in this world, as well as in the next; we have turned to Thee with repentance.' ALLAH replied, `I will inflict MY punishment on whom I will; but MY mercy encompasses all things; so I will ordain it for those who act righteously and pay the Zakaat and those who believe in Our Signs - S. 7:156 Sher Ali Those who disbelieve in the revelations of Allah and in (their) Meeting with Him, such have no hope of My mercy. For such there is a painful doom. S. 29:23 Pickthall And certainly apostles before you were rejected, but they were patient on being rejected and persecuted until Our help came to them; and there is none to change the words of Allah, and certainly there has come to you some information about the messengers. S. 6:34 Shakir And if anyone of the idolaters seeks protection of thee, grant him protection so that he may hear the Word of ALLAH (kalama Allahi); then convey him to his place of security. That is because they are a people who have no knowledge. S. 9:6 Sher Ali Perfected is the Word of thy Lord in truth and justice. There is naught that can change His words. He is the Hearer, the Knower. S. 6:115 Pickthall For them are glad tidings in the present life and also in the Hereafter - there is no changing the words of ALLAH - that indeed is the supreme achievement. S. 10:64 Sher Ali And recite that which hath been revealed unto thee of the Scripture of thy Lord. There is none who can change His words, and thou wilt find no refuge beside Him. S. 18:27 Pickthall Say, `If every ocean become ink for the words of my Lord, surely, the ocean would be exhausted before the words of my Lord were exhausted, even though WE brought the like thereof as further help.' S. 18:109 Sher Ali And were every tree that is in the earth (made into) pens and the sea (to supply it with ink), with seven more seas to increase it, the words of Allah would not come to an end; surely Allah is Mighty, Wise. S. 31:27 Shakir Allah‘s mercy, his words etc., are qualities that he eternally possesses. Likewise, the Spirit is one of those qualities, aspects, entities etc., which eternally resides with Allah. The Spirit is clearly not a creation of Allah‘s. The author now quotes Muhammad Asad on verses 21:91 and 4:171: AND [remember] her who guarded her chastity, whereupon We breathed into her of Our spirit [This allegorical expression, used here with reference to Mary‘s conception of Jesus, has been widely - and erroneously - interpreted as relating specifically to his birth. As a matter of fact, the Quran uses the same expression in three other places with reference to the creation of man in general - namely in 15: 29 and 38:72, "when I have formed him… and breathed into him of My spirit" and in 32: 9, "and thereupon He forms [lit., "formed"] him fully and breathes [lit., "breathed‘‘] into him of His spirit". In particular, the passage of which the last-quoted phrase is a part (i.e., 32: 7 - 9) makes it abundantly and explicitly clear that God "breathes of His spirit" into every human being. Commenting on the verse under consideration, Zamakhshari states that "the breathing of the spirit [of God] into a body signifies the endowing it with life‘‘: an explanation with which Razi concurs. (In this connection, see also note on 4: 171.) (Asad, Message of the Qur'an, The Book Foundation 2003) Note Zamakhshari‘s words carefully: … Zamakhshari states that "the breathing of the spirit [of God] into a body signifies the endowing it with life‟‟: an explanation with which Razi concurs … This is precisely what we said above, that God endows man with life through the agency of his Spirit, implying that the Spirit is the Life force which animates God‘s creation. And on verse 4:171, Muhammad Asad notes: As regards the expression, "a soul from Him" or "created by Him", it is to be noted that among the various meanings which the word ruh bears in the Qur‘an (e.g., "inspiration" in 2: 87 and 253), it is also used in its primary significance of "breath of life", "soul", or "spirit": thus, for instance, in 32: 9, where the ever-recurring evolution of the human embryo is spoken of: "and then He forms him [i.e., man] and breathes into him of His spirit" - that is, endows him with a conscious soul which represents God's supreme gift to man and is, therefore, described as "a breath of His spirit". In the verse under discussion, which stresses the purely human nature of Jesus and refutes the belief in his divinity, the Qur‘an points out that Jesus, like all other human beings, was "a soul created by Him". (Asad, Message of the Qur'an, The Book Foundation 2003) Thus, there is no conflict between these verses and the verses about Angel Jibreel as these describe the Ruh as a soul being breathed into human beings. It is simply another meaning of the word Ruh. RESPONSE: Asad‘s comments do not address anything but actually distort the facts. In the first place, Sura 4:171 does not say that Jesus is a soul from or created by Allah. That is a blatant perversion of what the Arabic really teaches, since it actually says that Jesus is A SPIRIT FROM Allah! People of the Book, do not exaggerate in [practising] your religion and tell nothing except the Truth about God. Christ Jesus, the son of Mary, was merely God's messenger and His word which He cast into Mary, and a spirit [proceeding] from Him. T.B. Irving The text explicitly identifies Christ as the Word of Allah which was cast into Mary and a Spirit which proceeded from him. The natural reading and obvious implication of these statements is that the Quran‘s author truly believed that Jesus existed as a Spirit even before Mary had conceived his human body. The only reason anyone would seek to deny this would be due to an a priori position which says that Jesus could not have had a prehuman existence and/or that the Quran is theologically consistent. Secondly, the Quran itself proves that Jesus IS DEFINTELY NOT "like all other humans," since no other human is said to be a Spirit from Allah, no other human being is said to be the Word of Allah, no other human is said to have been conceived in the womb of a virgin maiden, and no other human being‘s mother is said to have been chosen above all women. Thus, Jesus is clearly UNLIKE any other human being even by the Quran‘s teachings! As it stands, there is A HUGE conflict between these verses and the verses about Angel Gabriel as none of the texts cited by the author describe the Ruh as a soul that is breathed into human beings. It is simply NOT another meaning of the word Ruh. The author now seeks to deal with the deification of Gabriel whom Muslims claimed was the one that breathed into Mary: 3. Some Qur'anic commentators also mentioned about verses 21:91 and 66:12 that Angel Jibreel was sent to Mary to breathe the Ruh into her, by God's command. Some people have erroneously concluded from this interpretation that Jibreel is must be the speaker when the verse says "We breathed into her of Our Spirit" because he is the one who breathes the soul into her. This conclusion is false because the Qur'an often attributes the actions of the Angels to God Himself, as explained in previous articles, such as Who Takes the Soul at the Time of Death. The Angels act by the command of Allah and they themselves belong to Allah, hence Angel Jibreel's action of breathing the Ruh into Mary would be attributed to Allah. In fact, in all the verses which state that God breathes the Ruh into human beings, it is reasonable to assume that this occurs through the work of the Angels, the servants of Allah. This is similar to the hadith: Abdullah ibn Masood said: "The Messenger of Allaah (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him), who is the most truthful (of human beings) and his being truthful (is a fact) told us: ‗The constituents of one of you is gathered in his mother‘s womb for forty days, then it becomes an Alaqah within another period of forty days. Then it becomes a Mudghah, and forty days later, Allaah sends His angel to it to breathe into it the Ruh. The angel comes with instructions concerning four things, so the angel writes down his livelihood, his death, his deeds and whether he will doomed or blessed." (Sahih Muslim Book 33, #6893). For an explanation of the embryological terms involved in the hadith, please read here. From this hadith we can see that the standard process in the creation of all human beings involves an angel who breathes the soul into the human body, even though the action is still attributed to Allah who states that He breathes the soul into the body. RESPONSE: The author‘s comments are brimming with errors and mistakes. First, the author assumes that Suras 21:91 and 66:12 refers to Allah breathing the human soul into a person. We have already seen why this is incorrect since these texts are referring to Allah‘s Spirit being breathed into Mary in order to create life in her womb. These passages are not speaking of the human spirit which Allah creates, but to Allah‘ very own Spirit as Creator and Life-giver. Second, his appeal to the hadith actually backfires against him since there it explicitly mentions an angel. Yet none of the Quranic texts say that Allah breathed of his Spirit into Mary by using an angel, or specifically through Gabriel. Hence, this hadith shows that if the Quran wanted to indicate that Allah used an angelic intermediary to cause Mary to conceive then it could have simply done so by explicitly mentioning either the word angel or the name Gabriel. Third, the only reason why the author assumes that the Quran attributes the actions of an angel to Allah is because there are verses which say that Allah performs a specific act but then mentions angels doing that same specific function as well. Take for example the author‘s appeal to his article regarding who takes the souls of individuals at death. The author reasons that since the Quran says that Allah and the angels take the souls of the deceased this therefore implies that the actions of one can be attributed to the other. The reader should be able to see the problems with the author‘s assertion. The first problem is that the author assumes that these texts are conciliatory and not contradictory. The other major problem is that this particular example ends up working against the author. For instance, the Quran does indeed mention that angels are involved in taking the souls of the deceased, BUT IT NEVER SAYS THAT ANGELS ARE USED TO CREATE A PERSON‘S SOUL. In fact, if the Quran hadn‘t stated that the angels take a person‘s soul the author would have never known this. Hence, the author‘s statements are nothing more than a classic example of circular reasoning since he assumes that the Spirit that was breathed into Mary was Gabriel, and further assumes that the hadith that he cited doesn‘t conflict with the Quran. This now leads us to our next point. The Quran, by way of rebuking the Christians and idolaters, claims that none of those that they called upon and worshiped could create, give life, or cause to die: Is He then Who creates like him who does not create? Do you not then mind? … And those whom they call on besides Allah have not created anything while they are themselves created; Dead (are they), not living, and they know not when they shall be raised. S. 16:17, 20-21 Shakir And they have taken besides Him gods, who do not create anything while they are themselves created, and they control not for themselves any harm or profit, and they control not death nor life, nor raising (the dead) to life. S. 25:3 Shakir The Quran even rebukes and warns individuals from venerating and calling on angels, which presupposes that angels were being worshiped: And he commanded you not that ye should take the angels and the prophets for lords. Would he command you to disbelieve after ye had surrendered (to Allah)? S. 3:80 Pickthall Say: Cry unto those (saints and angels) whom ye assume (to be gods) beside Him, yet they have no power to rid you of misfortune nor to change. Those unto whom they cry seek the way of approach to their Lord, which of them shall be the nearest; they hope for His mercy and they fear His doom. Lo! the doom of thy Lord is to be shunned. S. 17:56-57 Pickthall According to the Quran, some of those nearest to Allah include both Jesus and the angels: Behold! the angels said: "O Mary! God giveth thee glad tidings of a Word from Him: his name will be Christ Jesus, the son of Mary, held in honour in this world and the Hereafter and of (the company of) those nearest to God; S. 3:45 Y. Ali The Messiah does by no means disdain that he should be a servant of Allah, nor do the angels who are near to Him, and whoever disdains His service and is proud, He will gather them all together to Himself. S. 4:172 Shakir Thus, we can conclude from the foregoing that Sura 17:56-57 is referring to the veneration given to Christ and the angels by unbelievers. Ibn Kathir confirms this exegesis in his comments on Sura 17:56: <Say: "Call upon those whom you pretend> Al-`Awfi reported from Ibn ‗Abbas, "The people of Shirk used to say, ‗we worship the angels and the Messiah and ‗Uzayr,‘ while these (the angels and the Messiah and ‗Uzayr) themselves call upon Allah." … <Those whom they call upon, desire) Al-Bukhari recorded from Sulayman bin Mahran AlA‘mash, from Ibrahim, from Abu Ma‘mar, from ‗Abdullah … <Those whom they call upon, desire a means of access to their Lord,> "Some of the Jinn used to be worshipped, then they became Muslims.'' According to another report: "Some humans used to worship some of the Jinn, then those Jinn became Muslim, but those humans adhered to their religion (of worshipping the Jinn)." (online source; bold emphasis ours) Ibn Kathir wrote regarding another text (cf. Sura 21:98-103) that: <Verily, those for whom the good has preceded from Us.> It was said that this referred to the angels and ‗Isa, and others who are worshipped instead of Allah. This was the view of ‗Ikrimah, Al-Hasan and Ibn Jurayj. Muhammad bin Ishaq bin Yasar said in his book of Sirah: "According to what I have heard, the Messenger of Allah sat down one day with Al-Walid bin Al-Mughirah in the Masjid, and An-Nadr bin Al-Harith came and sat down with them. There were also other men of Quraysh in the Masjid. The Messenger of Allah spoke, then An-Nadr bin Al-Harith came up to him and the Messenger of Allah spoke to him until he defeated him in argument. Then he recited to him and to them, … <and therein they will hear not.> Then the Messenger of Allah got up and went to sit with ‗Abdullah bin Al-Zab‘ari As-Sahmi. Al-Walid bin Al-Mughirah said to ‗Abdullah bin AlZab‘ari, "By Allah, An-Nadr bin Al-Harith could not match the son of ‗Abd Al-Muttalib in argument. Muhammad claims that we and these gods that we worship are fuel for Hell."' ‗Abdullah bin Az-Zab‘ari said: "By Allah, if I meet with him I will defeat him in argument. Ask Muhammad whether everyone that is worshipped instead of Allah will be in Hell with those who worshipped him, for we worship the angels, and the Jews worship ‗Uzayr, and the Christians worship Al-Masih, ‗Isa bin Maryam." Al-Walid and those who were sitting with him were amazed at what ‗Abdullah bin Az-Zab‘ari said, and they thought that he had come up with a good point. He said this to the Messenger of Allah, who said … (online source; bold, italic and underline emphasis ours) Let us now take a moment to reflect on the implications these references have on the author‘s position. The Quran rebukes unbelievers for worshiping beings that cannot create nor give life nor cause death. The author, however, is trying to prove that Allah uses angels to create life, and even cited a hadith to support this view. Instead of solving the dilemma, the author has actually ended up falsifying the Quran by his comments. This now leaves him with one of two options: He must either accept the fact that he and the hadith he narrated are correct regarding angels creating life, which means that the Quran is wrong. Or he must accept that the Quran is right that angels cannot create, which means that both he and his narration are wrong. It gets even worse for the Quran and for the author. The Quran plainly teaches that angels bring death upon a person, which means that they do indeed cause death! Verily, those whom the angels cause to die while they are wronging their own souls, the angels will say to them: ‗What were you after?‘ They will say: ‗We were treated as weak in the land.‘ The angels will say, ‗Was not ALLAH's earth spacious enough so that you could have emigrated therein?‘ It is these whose abode shall be Hell, and an evil destination it is; 4:97 Sher Ali Those whom the angels CAUSE TO DIE while they are unjust to themselves. Then would they offer submission: We used not to do any evil. Aye! surely Allah knows what you did. … Those whom the angels CAUSE TO DIE in a good state, saying: Peace be on you: enter the garden for what you did. S. 16:28, 32 Shakir Say, `The angel of death that has been put in charge of you will cause you to die; then to your Lord will you be brought back.' S. 32:11 Sher Ali These references directly contradict the ones stating that those whom the unbelievers call upon cannot cause death since they clearly can. Before we proceed further into our discussion it is vital that we summarize the problems that have been raised in this particular section: 1. The Quran says that the beings that the unbelievers were calling upon cannot create and cannot cause death. 2. Some of these beings that the unbelievers worshiped included the angels. 3. The author cited a hadith which says that Allah uses an angel to create the soul of a human being during its formation in the womb. 4. The Quran even teaches that angels can cause persons to die. 5. Therefore, not only are the hadiths contradicting the Quran, but the Quran is also contradicting itself. The author seeks to interact with the passages where the Spirit is distinguished from the angels: 4. Other passages used by critics to argue that the Holy Spirit is not Gabriel include: 78:38 The Day that the Spirit and the angels will stand forth in ranks, none shall speak except any who is permitted by (God) Most Gracious, and He will say what is right. And the hadith: "Narrated Aisha: The Messenger of Allah (peace_be_upon_him) used to pronounce while bowing and prostrating himself: All Glorious, all Holy, Lord of the Angels and the Spirit." (Sahih Muslim, Book 4, Number 0987) It is claimed that since these quotes distinguish between the Spirit and the Angels, therefore the Holy Spirit cannot possibly be an angel. However, it has been mentioned in previous articles that this is the Qur'anic style which distinguishes between Jibreel and the Angels because of his great rank: 2:98 Whoever is an enemy to Allah and His angels and apostles, to Gabriel and Michael,- Lo! Allah is an enemy to those who reject Faith. This verse mentions Angle[sic] Gabriel and Angel Michael seperately[sic] from the other angels, but we know that they are angels themselves. This is simply the Qur'anic style of emphasis. This was explained in the article The Number of Groups on the Day of Resurrection. RESPONSE: The passage of Sura 2:98 serves to refute the author‘s position. Note the wording of the text carefully: Whoever is an enemy to Allah AND His angels AND apostles, to Gabriel and Michael,- Lo! Allah is an enemy to those who reject Faith. The text refers to several different groups, i.e., Allah who is different from the angels who are different from the apostles who are different from Allah etc. This next reference says something similar: If you both turn to Allah, then indeed your hearts are already inclined (to this); and if you back up each other against him, then surely Allah it is Who is his Guardian, AND Jibreel AND the believers that do good, AND the angels after that are the aiders. S. 66:4 Shakir Again, there is no denying that the above reference has several different groups in view, i.e. Allah is different from the believers and the angels, and the angels are different from the believers etc. In light of this fact, how does the author KNOW that Gabriel is an angel of great rank? How does he know that Gabriel and Michael are angels? Where does the text or the Quran exactly identify them as angels? Gabriel and Michael may be jinni as far as the Quran is concerned, or it could be that Gabriel is a jinni whereas Michael happens to be a human apostle. After all, doesn‘t the Quran itself teach that Allah has raised up messengers from among men and jinn? "O ye assembly of JINNS and men! came there not UNTO you messengers FROM AMONGST YOU, setting forth unto you My Signs, and warning you of the meeting of this Day of yours?" They will say: "We bear witness against ourselves." It was the life of this world that deceived them. So against themselves will they bear witness that they rejected Faith. S. 6:130 In light of these considerations, couldn‘t one make the case that Gabriel is indeed a jinni? How does the author know whether or not he was a jinni when the Quran doesn‘t explicitly say what he was? One way in which the author can know is by consulting the Holy Bible, which the Quran says one should do in case there is any doubt: And if thou (Muhammad) art in doubt concerning that which We reveal unto thee, then question those who read the Scripture (that was) before thee. Verily the Truth from thy Lord hath come unto thee. So be not thou of the waverers. S. 10:94 Pickthall Michael and Gabriel are clearly identified as angels in the Holy Bible: "And there appeared to him an angel of the Lord standing on the right side of the altar of incense. And Zechari'ah was troubled when he saw him, and fear fell upon him. But the angel said to him, ‗Do not be afraid, Zechari'ah, for your prayer is heard, and your wife Elizabeth will bear you a son, and you shall call his name John‘… And Zechari'ah said to the angel, ‗How shall I know this? For I am an old man, and my wife is advanced in years.‘ And the angel answered him, ‗I am Gabriel, who stand in the presence of God; and I was sent to speak to you, and to bring you this good news.‘" Luke 1:11-13, 18-19 "But when the archangel Michael, contending with the devil, disputed about the body of Moses, he did not presume to pronounce a reviling judgment upon him, but said, ‗The Lord rebuke you.‘" Jude 1:9 "Now war arose in heaven, Michael and his angels fighting against the dragon; and the dragon and his angels fought, but they were defeated and there was no longer any place for them in heaven." Revelation 12:7-8 Yet the problem the author will have by appealing to the Bible is that the previous revelations also make a clear differentiation between Gabriel and the Holy Spirit: "In the sixth month the angel Gabriel was sent from God to a city of Galilee named Nazareth, to a virgin betrothed to a man whose name was Joseph, of the house of David; and the virgin's name was Mary. And he came to her and said, ‗Hail, O favored one, the Lord is with you!‘ But she was greatly troubled at the saying, and considered in her mind what sort of greeting this might be. And the angel said to her, ‗Do not be afraid, Mary, for you have found favor with God. And behold, you will conceive in your womb and bear a son, and you shall call his name Jesus. He will be great, and will be called the Son of the Most High; and the Lord God will give to him the throne of his father David, and he will reign over the house of Jacob for ever; and of his kingdom there will be no end.‘ And Mary said to the angel, ‗How shall this be, since I have no husband?‘ And the angel said to her, ‗The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you; therefore the child to be born will be called holy, the Son of God.‘" Luke 1:26-35 Gabriel tells Mary that she will conceive by the Holy Spirit, not by himself, which shows that he is not the Holy Spirit. He isn‘t the only angel to make a distinction between God‘s Holy Spirit and the angels: "Now the birth of Jesus Christ took place in this way. When his mother Mary had been betrothed to Joseph, before they came together she was found to be with child of the Holy Spirit; and her husband Joseph, being a just man and unwilling to put her to shame, resolved to divorce her quietly. But as he considered this, behold, an angel of the Lord appeared to him in a dream, saying, ‗Joseph, son of David, do not fear to take Mary your wife, for that which is conceived in her is of the Holy Spirit;‘" Matthew 1:18-20 Here is another unnamed angel who clearly distinguishes himself from the Holy Spirit who caused Mary to conceive supernaturally while still a virgin. Interestingly, there is one Muslim commentary that quotes Gabriel making a distinction between the Holy Spirit and himself. Renowned Muslim exegete and linguist al-Zamakhshari wrote regarding Sura 19:16-22 that: To a distant place: to a place behind the mountain (Zion), which was far away from her relatives. Others say (that she moved away) to the other end of the country (dar). (Furthermore) it is reported that she was engaged to one named Joseph, a son of a paternal uncle. When people began to say that she became pregnant through prostitution, Joseph feared that the king would kill her, so he fled with her. On the way he became convinced that he should kill her. But Gabriel then came and said: ‗The pregnancy was brought about by the Holy Spirit. So do not kill her!‘ Joseph did no harm to her. (Helmut Gätje, The Qur'an and its Exegesis [Oneworld Publications, Oxford 1996], pp. 122-123; bold and underline emphasis ours) Al-Zamakhshari was clearly confused since here he has Gabriel differentiating himself from the Holy Spirit, but earlier in his commentary he identified Gabriel as the Spirit who caused Mary to conceive! Furthermore, here is a set of verses where the reader can see that the entity that is mentioned separately from the angels clearly ISN‘T AN ANGEL: Or you should cause the heaven to come down upon us in pieces as you think, or bring Allah AND the angels face to face (with us). S. 17:92 Shakir The messenger believes in what has been revealed to him from his Lord, and (so do) the believers; they all believe in Allah AND His angels AND His books AND His messengers; We make no difference between any of His messengers; and they say: We hear and obey, our Lord! Thy forgiveness (do we crave), and to Thee is the eventual course. S. 2:285 Shakir; cf. 4:136 (As for) these, their reward is that upon them is the curse of Allah AND the angels AND of men, all together. S. 3:87 Shakir; cf. 2:161 Nay! when the earth is made to crumble to pieces, And your Lord comes AND (also) the angels in ranks, S. 89:21-22 Shakir The author conveniently omits to mention these texts and focuses on a passage which he thinks supported his position, when in fact all this did was to demonstrate the circular nature of his reasoning. He assumes that the Quran says that the Spirit is Gabriel, and that it teaches that Gabriel is an angel, and on that basis produces a text which he feels proves his point that just because the Spirit is distinguished from the angels doesn‘t mean that he isn‘t an angel also. The author takes for granted that all his assumptions are sound and then proceeds to read these texts in light of his presuppositions. As the readers can see by now, the problem is that the author has failed to prove that any of his assumptions are correct. His article is nothing more than a classic example of eisegesis and circular reasoning, assuming what he has yet to prove and then reading these presuppositions into the text without having a warrant for doing so. Hence, until the author has clear evidence proving that the Spirit is indeed an angel we must conclude that his example fails to prove his case. If anything one can argue that the Lord who is coming in Sura 89:22 is actually the Spirit! After all, the literal reading of the above reference says that the Lord and the angels are coming in ranks, as can even be seen from the following versions: And thy Lord cometh, and His angels, rank upon rank, Y. Ali And thy Lord shall come with angels, rank on rank, Pickthall And your Lord comes with the angels in rows, Hilali-Khan There is even one text that refers to Allah coming in the clouds with angels: They do not wait aught but that Allah should come to them in the shadows of the clouds along with the angels, and the matter has (already) been decided; and (all) matters are returned to Allah. S. 2:210 Shakir And now compare the above with what the following verses say about the Spirit coming down with the angels and standing in ranks with them: The Day that the Spirit and the angels will stand forth in ranks, none shall speak except any who is permitted by (Allah) Most Gracious, and He will say what is right. S. 78:38 Y. Ali In it the angels and the Spirit descend, by the leave of their Lord, upon every command. S. 97:4 Arberry The only reason anyone would want to object to the Spirit being the Lord who comes with the angels is due to an a priori philosophical and/or theological commitment. If a person has already assumed that the Quran cannot possibly be teaching that Allah‘s Spirit is in fact God and Lord then he or she will clearly reject this interpretation. But this rejection would not be based on what the Quran says, but on what a person thinks the Quran teaches regarding the nature of Allah and Islamic monotheism. As Christians who accept the Holy Bible as God‘s authoritative revelation, we see no problem with God‘s Holy Spirit being identified as the Lord since this is what the Holy Scriptures teach: "Now the Lord IS THE Spirit, and where the Spirit OF the Lord is, there is freedom. And we all, with unveiled face, beholding the glory of the Lord, are being changed into his likeness from one degree of glory to another; for this comes from the Lord WHO IS THE SPIRIT. 2 Corinthians 3:17-18 The Spirit is identified as the Lord and at the same time belongs to the Lord! The author continues: Another hadith is also quoted in order to prove that Jibreel is distinct from Ruh Al-Qudus. It contains a poem composed by the companion of the Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him), Hassan ibn Thabit (rd). In the last two lines of his poem, he says: "Whether anyone amongst you (the Quraysh) chooses to satirise the Messenger of Allah, or praise him, or help him, it is all the same, And Gabriel who is the Emissary of Allah, is with us, and indeed the Ruh Al-Qudus has no match" (Sahih Muslim, The Book of Companions of the Prophet, 6550, ARABIC SOURCE) In the above poem of Hassan ibn Thabit, the last line has been misunderstood to be differentiating between Angel Jibreel and Ruh Al-Qudus. This misunderstanding is partly due to the poor translation of this hadith which renders the last phrase as: "And Gabriel, the Apostle of Allah is among us, and the Holy Spirit who has no match." Either of the two underlined words can be removed to restore the true meaning of the arabic[sic] phrase. This poetic description can be illustrated using many examples: "The King has arrived, and his Majesty shall now attend to your needs" - Here "the king" and "his majesty" refer to the same person. "Don't worry, the police are here. The guardians of justice will protect you" - Again, the police are being poetically described as 'the guardians of justice'. These examples should demonstrate that this hadith of Hassan ibn Thabit does not distinguish between Angel Jibreel and Ruh Al-Qudus as critics claim. Rather, it merely describes the titles of Angel Jibreel. RESPONSE: In order to illustrate why the author‘s appeal to the Arabic doesn‘t prove his case, but actually begs the question, notice what happens when we take the same text and substitute the words Gabriel and Holy Spirit with some other names and see if his logic applies: And Abraham who is the Emissary of Allah, is with us, and indeed Gabriel has no match. And Jesus the Messiah who is the Emissary of Allah, is with us, and indeed Allah has no match. And Moses who is the Emissary of Allah, is with us, and indeed Michael has no match. And John and Jesus who are the Emissaries of Allah, are with us, and indeed the Holy Spirit has no match! As the foregoing demonstrates, the Arabic can just as clearly be understood to be referring to two distinct entities that had come to assist Hassan in composing poems to mock the unbelievers. After all, the Quran does say that Allah inspires even angels: When thy Lord inspired the angels, (saying): I am with you. So make those who believe stand firm. I will throw fear into the hearts of those who disbelieve. Then smite the necks and smite of them each finger. S. 8:12 Pickthall And also states that angels come down with the Spirit of revelation: He sendeth down the angels with the spirit by His command upon whomsoever of his bondmen He willeth: warn that there is no god but I, wherefore fear Me. S. 16:2 Daryabadi We have indeed revealed this (Message) in the Night of Power: And what will explain to thee what the night of power is? The Night of Power is better than a thousand months. Therein come down the angels and the Spirit by Allah’s permission, on every errand: S. 97:1-4 Y. Ali What these texts seem to be suggesting is that the angels come down to instruct the messengers and prophets by inspiration from the Spirit. Thus, the foregoing considerations lead us to conclude that the hadith is simply indicating that the Holy Spirit inspired Gabriel to assist Hassan in composing poetry. Putting it simply, the Arabic text of Sahih Muslim doesn‘t make as clear a differentiation between Gabriel and the Spirit as the English translation we cited did. But neither does the Arabic conclusively show that Hassan was identifying Gabriel as the Holy Spirit. This means that a Muslim must turn to his religious book and see which interpretation is more consistent with the overall teachings of the Quran. Having examined the relevant Quranic evidence we conclude that the author has failed to achieve his task and that the name ‗Ruh Al-Qudus‘ HAS NOT BEEN ESTABLISHED as a title of Angel Gabriel. The author hasn‘t been able to provide any evidence to indicate otherwise.{3} Hence, in light of these considerations one must either translate the hadith regarding Hassan to mean that Gabriel and the Holy Spirit are distinct, or assume that they are one and the same which would therefore mean that the hadith stands in clear contradiction to the plain teachings of the Quran. We submit that the English translation which we presented is correct that they are not one and the same, and therefore in full agreement with what the Quran teaches. And in light of the mass confusion and differing opinions that exist amongst Muslim scholars regarding the precise identity and meaning of the terms "Holy Spirit," "the faithful Spirit" etc., is it any wonder that Muhammad gave the following answer when he was asked about the Spirit‘s identity? They will question thee concerning the Spirit. Say: ‗The Spirit is of the bidding of my Lord. You have been given of knowledge nothing except a little.‘ S. 17:85 Arberry Even this verse has confused many a translator as the following versions indicate: And they ask you about the soul. Say: The soul is one of the commands of my Lord… Shakir They ask you about the revelation. Say, "The revelation comes from my Lord… Khalifa AND THEY will ask thee about [the nature of] divine inspiration. Say: This inspiration [comes] at my Sustainer‘s behest… Asad Talk about confusion! Further Reading http://answering-islam.org/Responses/Saifullah/t5_73.htm http://answering-islam.org/Shamoun/gabriel.htm http://answering-islam.org/Responses/Osama/spirit1.htm http://answering-islam.org/Responses/Osama/spirit2.htm Notes {1} The readers may be wondering how we can maintain that there is a contradiction in the Quran since one place says the Holy Spirit revealed it whereas another place says it was Gabriel in light of our admission that the Quran mentions several entities that were used to convey the message. The answer can be found in the introductory comments on the Quran contradictions page itself. One purpose for having this page is not so much to try and prove that the Quran has errors which cannot be satisfactorily harmonized, but to show Muslims what happens when one adopts their critical method of reading the Bible to the Quran. If a Muslim wants to read the Bible in an unsympathetic manner with the sole purpose of trying to find as many errors to discredit the Bible then this can also be done with the Quran. Just as Muslims expect Christians to read the Quran with understanding, trying to find ways to reconcile what seem to be contradictions, Christians also expect that Muslims will treat the Holy Bible in the same way. {2} In some more recent versions of Yusuf Ali's English translation, the notes have been changed (tampered with), in an obvious attempt of making Ali sound more in line with what some perceive to be Islamic orthodoxy. For instance, compare the version of Ali's quote which we presented with the following CD Rom version of his commentary: … Cf. ii 87 and 253, where it is said that ALLAH strengthened the Prophet Jesus with the holy spirit. Here we learn that all good and righteous men are strengthened by ALLAH. If anything, the phrase used here is stronger, 'a spirit from Himself'. Whenever any one offers his heart in faith and purity to ALLAH, ALLAH accepts it, engraves that faith on the seeker's heart, and further fortifies him with HIS HELP, which we can no more define adequately than we can define in human language the nature of ALLAH. (ALIM CD-ROM Version; capital emphasis ours) This version of Ali's commentary has changed God to Allah, and divine Spirit to his help, as well as omitting the words, "with the holy spirit" from the clause, "strengthened by Allah." The Muslims obviously had a hard time with Ali calling God's Spirit divine, or with his claim that believers are strengthened with the Holy Spirit. Such editing is not unusual for Muslims, and for more examples of this kind we recommend reading the following articles: http://www.mostmerciful.com/savelife-of-aminalawal-part2.htm http://al-islam.org/tahrif/yusufali/index.htm {3} According to Moiz Amjad of understanding-islam.com, in his response to this same contradiction article, the Quran would be contradicting itself regarding whether it was Gabriel or the Holy Spirit who brought down the revelation if one of the following two things could be proven: ... It can only amount to a contradiction if: 1. The Qur'an had given two different (contradicting) names of the angel, who revealed the Qur'an to Mohammed (pbuh); or 2. There is a sound basis to believe that anyone by the name of 'Gabriel' could not be the 'Holy Spirit'. (The Three Contradictions in Al-Baqarah 2: 97 & Al-Nah'l 16: 101 - 103; source) Since we have presented the sound basis proving that the entity named Gabriel cannot be the Holy Spirit, then the Quran must be contradicting itself according Mr. Amjad's own proposed methodology of showing whether there is a contradiction in this particular case. Moses and the Samaritan The Qur'an says that the calf worshipped by the Israelites at mount Horeb was molded by a Samaritan (Sura 20:85-87, 95-97). Yet the term `Samaritan' was not coined until 722 B.C., which is several hundred years after the events recorded in Exodus. Thus, the Samaritan people could not have existed during the life of Moses, and therefore, could not have been responsible for molding the calf. In the story of incident with the golden calf we read He [Allah] said, "We have tempted thy people since thou didst leave them. The Samaritan has led them into error." Then Moses returned ... ... and we cast them [(gold) ornaments], as the Samaritan also threw them, into the fire." (Then he brought out for them a Calf, a mere body that lowed; and they said, "This is your god, and the god of Moses, whom he has forgotten.") ... Moses said, "And thou, Samaritan, what was thy business?" ... -- Sura 20:85-88, 95 How can a Samaritan have led the Israelites astray at the time of Moses [about 1400 B.C.] when the city of Samaria was founded by King Omri in about 870 B.C. (see 1 Kings 16:24)? But "the Samaritans" as a distinct people only emerged after the exile of the Northern kingdom of Israel and the resettlement of the area under king Sargon II in after 722 B.C. with non-Israelites which then adopt a syncretism [mixture] between the religion of the Jews and their own polytheistic background. Hence, it is historically impossible that a Samaritan could have led the Israelites into idolatery in the time of Moses. This is another time compression of at least 500, but rather 700 years. It is interesting to notice that while Yusuf Ali attempts to change this word to "Samiri" and Pickthall to "As Samirii." Arberry in the English, and Kasimirski in the French both correctly translate it "Samaritan." Yusuf Ali, in his footnotes, "bends over backwards" to explain his choice by suggesting that the name could mean "Shemer," which denotes a stranger, or "Shomer," which means a watchman, the equivalent of "Samara" in Arabic, which he implies is close enough to the Samari he is looking for. But the Arabic simply does not give Ali the leeway to concoct other meanings for this word. To be consistent with the Arabic he should keep his translation consistent with the text, as Arberry and Kasimirski have done. According to Thomas Patrick Hughes' "Dictionary of Islam", page 564, al-Baidawi says [about as-Samiri] that his name is Musa ibn Zafar, of the tribe of Samaritans. Where does this confusion come from? There are two main passages in the holy scriptures that deal with calf idols. After the reign of Solomon the children of Israel were divided in the Southern kingdom of Judah and the Northern kingdom of Israel, but still the only legitimate place of worship was the temple in Jerusalem. Probably in order to legitimize his rule, Jerobeam I also instituted places of worship in his kingdom and put up a calf in each of them (1 Kings 12:26-33). But God clearly denounced this as pagan through his prophets (v. 30; 3 Kings 10:29; 17:16; 2 Chronicles 13:8). Samaria then later became the capital of this (Northern) kingdom of Israel. But there is one very clear passage in the prophet Hosea which might be the root of the confusion between the two "calf worship" incidents, the one in the desert at Moses time, and the other in the kingdom with capital Samaria. Throw out your calf-idol, O Samaria! My anger burns against them. How long will they be incapable of purity? They are from Israel! This calf - a craftsman has made it; it is not God. It will be broken in pieces, that calf of Samaria. -- Hosea 8:5-6 The Qur'anic account continues in 20:97 [in excerpts] with (Moses) said [to the Samaritan]: "Get thee gone! But thy (punishment) will be that thou wilt say, 'Touch me not'; ... Now look at thy god, of whom you hast become a devoted worshipper: We will certainly burn it in blazing fire and scatter it broadcast in the sea!" See the close connection between the two accounts. It is "that calf of Samaria" [Hosea] and the Samaritan was its "devoted worshipper" [Qur'an]. And in both accounts God announces to destroy it. But there is one more parallel with the Samaritans in the Bible and the Samiri/Samaritan in the Qur'anic story. His punishment will be that he is "untouchable", which means "impure" - exactly the way the Jews viewed the Samaritans because of their idolatery, starting in Ezra's time and up to today. These parallels are very clear. And it is also clear that there were no Samaritans until 700 years after Moses. Muhammad has travelled around in the Middle East and would have known about the Samaritans as well as the contempt of the Jews for the Samaritans and that they are "untouchable" (impure) because of their idolatery (syncretistic religion). The only thing Muhammad does is trying to explain this contempt of the Jews for the Samaritan(s) but makes the mistake to connect it to the wrong golden calf. One last question to ponder: If "as-Samirii" does not mean "the Samaritan", how else would you express "the Samaritan" in Arabic? There is still to this day a small Samaritan community in the Middle East. How are they called in Arabic? Every once in a while, knowledgable Arab Muslims who have not been contaminated yet by the apologetics around this issue naturally confirm that "as-Saamiri" indeed means "the Samaritan". It never crossed their mind that this would mean anything else: [1] Further discussion: Our answer to a Muslim response Glory to (Allah) Who did take His Servant for a journey by night, From the Sacred Mosque to the Farthest Mosque. -- Sura 17:1 Problem: The Farthest Mosque (Al-Masjid-ul-Aqs-a) was built many years after the death of Muhammad. It is utterly impossible that Muhammad visited it on his Night Journey. "When the Arabs conquered Jerusalem they found the Temple Mount abandoned and filled with refuse. ... `Umar ordered it cleaned and performed a prayer there. The sanctuary [the Dome of the Rock] ... was built by Caliph `Abd al-Malik ibn Marwan around 72/691."[1] The al-Aqsa mosque proper, also located on the Temple Mount was as well built at the end of the 7th Century.[2] The Temple of Solomon had been completely destroyed in 70 AD, i.e. 550 years before the alleged time of the Miraj in 622 AD, the twelfth year of Muhammad's mission. A Temple that didn't exist anymore does not provide any better solution to this problem than a Mosque which wasn't built yet. At the time this verse was revealed [about 622] Jerusalem was not in the hand of the Muslims but in Christian hand and there was no Mosque at all in this place (not even a church). The Dome of the Rock and the Al Aqsa Mosque (both on the site of Solomon's Temple which had been destroyed A.D. 70 by the Romans) were only began to be build 53 years after the death of Muhammad. Could it be that later history was "projected back" into the text of the Qur'an and is this one indication that the text of the Qur'an was changed (or even completely written only) long after Muhammad's time when these historical realities were not clear to the writer? For this reason some Muslims are quick to acknowledge that the "Farthest Mosque" has to refer to something else than what is known under this name today. In Yusuf Ali's commentary on this verse we read: "The Farthest Mosque must refer to the site of the Temple of Solomon in Jerusalem..." So, it is interpreted to be not the building itself, but only the site, the location where it had been. I might be wrong, but this seems to be contradicted by a hadith and Muhammad's understanding that Al-Masjid-ul-Aqs-a is something that is built, not just a location. Al-Masjid-ul-Haram after all was a building. Sahih Bukhari, Volume 4, Book 55, Number 636: Narrated Abu Dhaar: I said, "O Allah's Apostle! Which mosque was built first?" He replied, "Al-Masjid-ulHaram." I asked, "Which (was built) next?" He replied, "Al-Masjid-ul-Aqs-a (i.e. Jerusalem)." I asked, "What was the period in between them?" He replied, "Forty (years)." He then added, "Wherever the time for the prayer comes upon you, perform the prayer, for all the earth is a place of worshipping for you." This hadith actually introduces yet another problem. Abraham supposedly (re)built the Kaaba, (and Abraham lived about 2000 BC) and the Temple was built by Solomon in about 958-951 BC, then Muhammad gave another historically false information based on a major confusion about the time when these people lived. Side remark: Farthest? If it is not just a name, but actually supposed to describe a distance then from the perspective of Mekka or Medina, Mosques in Bagdad for example were sure farther away than Jerusalem and this is wrong too. No "mosque" and not "farthest". But should the Temple itself or Churches qualify to be called "mosques" then for sure, it was not the farthest. The Hagia Sophia, originally a church and also converted into a Mosque later is in Istanbul and much farther away. Also one might ask the question: If Islam supposedly was the original religion of mankind, why were there not many mosques all around and one so very near to Mekka has to be called "farthest"? References: 1. Cyril Glassé, The Concise Encyclopedia of Islam, Harper & Row, 1989, p. 102 2. ibid., p. 46 Qur'an Contradiction: Alexander the Great, a Muslim? According to the Quran (Surah 18:89-98) Alexander the Great was a devout Muslim and lived to a ripe old age. Historical records however show that Alexander the Great died young at 33 years of age (356 - 323 B.C.), and believed he himself was divine, forcing others to recognize him as such. In India on the Hyphasis River (now Beas) Alexander erected twelve altars to twelve Olympian gods. Once again the Quran shows errors in historical and religious fact. A Muslim's Response by Shaahin Amiri-Sharifi Date: Sun Nov 24 22:04 EST 1996 hi this is to answer: --Alexander the Great, a Muslim? --regarding "zol qarnayn" in quran, some though of him as the same person as alexander the great, which seems not to be correct. others believ this name is to refer to "Cyrus" the great, king of iran in 2500 years ago, the great savoir of jews, which seems to be more exact. about "zol qarnayn" being "muslim", quran calls abraham (ibrahim in quran) a muslim, too! in quran it is said that the religion is one religion to god, islam. meaning that islam is not a religion brought by prophet mohumed (pbuh) unprecedentedly, what our prophet did, was to bring the "final" version of it to people. so jesus (pbuh) was a muslim and moses (pbuh) a muslim too. being in the right religion in any time is equivalent to be a muslim. shaahin From [email protected] Thu Feb 27 21:02 EST 1997 From: [email protected] (Ali Arshad) Subject: Errors in the Qur'an About Zul-Qayrnoon, Muhammad Ali says (p586): {The word qarn means a horn, as also a generation or a century and dhul qarnain literally means the two-horned one, or one belonging to the two generations or two centures. The reference here seems to be to the two horned ram of Daniel's vision (dan. 8:3), which he interpreted as the Kindoms of Media and Persia, which were combined into a single kindom under one ruler, Cyrus, who is erroneousy called Darius in the Bible. The reference in Daniel's vision is, however, not to Cyrus but to Darius I Hystaspes (521-485 B.C.), "who allowed the Jews to rebuild their temple, and is reffered to in Ezra 4:5,24;5:5;6:1;Hag1:1;2:10;Zech 1;7, and probably in Neh 12:22. His liberality towards the Jews is in complete accord with what we know otherwise of his general policy in relgious matter towards the subject nations" That the "two horned ram" of Daniel's vision is the king of Media and Persia is made plain in Daniel's book, where the interpretation of the dream is given in the following words: "The ram which thou sawest having two horns are the Kings of Media and Persia" (Dan8:20). The reference in the Qur'an in the history of Dhulqarnain is to Darius I: "Darius was the organizer of the Persian Empire. His conquests served to round off the boundaries of his realm in Armenia, the Causcasus and India, and along the Turanian steppes and the highland of Central Asia" (Jewish En., Darius I). The following remarks in the En. Br. strengthen this view: "Darius in his inscriptions apears as a ferven tbeliever in the true relgion of Zoroaster. But he was also a great statesman an dorganizer. The time of conquest had come tp an end; the wars which Darius undertook, like those of Augustus, only served the purpose of gaining strong natural frontiers for the empire and keeping down the barbarous tribes on its border. Thus Darius subjgated the wild nations of Caucasus. for the same reason he fought against the Sace and other Turanian tribes." The references in this quotation to Darius being a fervent believer in the true religion of Zoroaster, to his subduing the barabarous tribes on the border, to his gaing stron natural fronties for the empire, and to his fighting against the Sacae clearly point him out as the Dhul Qarnain of the Qur'an. The three journeys alluded to seem to have been undertaken with the object of stregthening the fronties of the empire, the mostimportant of thes being that spoken of in v.93, the part of the frontier between the Caspian and the Black Seas, where the Caucasus afforded a natural protection against the attacks of the Scythians. Darius goes first westward to the Black sea (v.85, 86). Then he undertakes an eastward journey-- the land of the rising sun. the description of the people found here, a people who had no shelter from the sun, is a description of the barbarous aboriginal tribes on the shores of the Caspian. The En. Br. says in the article on Media: "The names in the assyrian inscriptions prove that the tribes in the Zagros and the northern parts Media were not Iranians nor Ind-Eurpoeans, but an aboriginal population, like the early inhabitanbt of Armenia, perhaps connected with the numerous tribes of the Caucasus. we can see how the Iranian elemt gradually became dominant: prinecs with Iranian names occasionally occr as the ruler of these tribes. But the galae, Tapuri, Cadusii, Amardi, Utii and other tribes in Northern Media and on the shores of Caspain, were not Iranians."} Maududi says: {Early commenators on the Qur'an were generally inclined to believe that it referred to Alexander. The characteristics attribute to Dhul Qarnayn, however, hardly apply to Alexander. In the light of the latest historical evidence, contemporary commentators on the Qur'an are inclined to believe that Dhul Qarnayn signifies the Persian Emperor, Cyrus. This, in any case, seems more plausible. Nevertheless, the info available to date does not enable us to form a definitive opinion concerning Dhul Qarnayn's id. Four points: 1) The title "The Two-Horned' was at least familiar to the Jews. This is eviden tfrom the fact they they had instigated the Makkan unbelievers to ask the Prophet about him. One must, therefore, inevtiably turn to Jewish literature to find out who this person was or to establish whiat was the kingdom know as 'The Two-Horned.' 2)(in summary of Maududi) there are only a few people who fit this description 3) The title of Dhul Qarnaynmay be used for a ruler who, being concerned with the defence of his kingdom from the assaults of Go and magog, had a strong protective wall construceted across a mountain pass. Who were they, and where is the wall? 4)He is a God concious person. (Maududi then goes on to find evidence on each point).} Note that Greeks were hated by the Arabs, as evidenced by the verse about laden eyed people going to Hell, which literally translates into gray-blue eyes. Rodwell points this out as a hatred for the Greeks. My feeble 16 yr. old mind, which should be doing his homework, so is hurrying, cannot recall the verse. I don't have a problem to call Abraham a Muslim in the generic sense of somebody who is a believer in the one true God and submits himself to this God. But Alexander the Great is proven to be an idolator and even claimed deity for himself and cannot by the widest stretch of imagination be called a Muslim. Because of the facts on Alexander that came to be known more and more, Muslims want to deny this identity and come up with many theories. The renowned Encyclopaedia of Islam, New Edition, Vol. IV, 1978 states Al-ISKANDAR. It is generally agreed both by Muslim commentators and modern occidental scholars that Dhu 'l-Karnayn, "the two horned", in Sura XVIII, 83/82-98 is to be indentified with Alexander the Great. The renowned Muslim commentators, the two Jalals, say regarding S. 18:83 that: And they, the Jews, question you concerning Dhū'l-Qarnayn, whose name was Alexander; he was not a prophet. Say: 'I shall recite, relate, to you a mention, an account, of him', of his affair. (Tafsir al-Jalalayn; online source; underline emphasis ours) Plentiful evidence is presented in "The Qur'an: Is It A Miracle?" in the chapters starting with "The Gate". Two Pharaohs who crucified? Various passages tell the story that Pharaoh's sorcerers believe in the signs and message of Moses, and then Pharaoh tries to threaten them with these words (Shakir's translation): I will certainly cut off your hands and your feet on opposite sides, then will I crucify you all together. [Surah 7:124] Said he: You believe in him before I give you permission; most surely he is the chief of you who taught you the magic, so you shall know: certainly I will cut off your hands and your feet on opposite sides, and certainly I will crucify you all. [Surah 26:49] In the story of Joseph, about 400 years earlier we also read of another crucifixion in this passage: O my two mates of the prison! as for one of you, he shall give his lord to drink wine; and as for the other, he shall be crucified, so that the birds shall eat from his head, the matter is decreed concerning which you inquired. [Surah 12:41] We have, however, no record that Egyptians used crucifixion as punishment in the time of Moses (1450 BC, conservative date; 1200 BC at the latest) or even Joseph (1880 BC, conservative date). Crucifixion only becomes a punishment much later in history and then first in another culture before it has been taken over by the Egyptians. Such threats by a Pharaoh at these times are historically inaccurate. [Muslim response], [Our answer] One authoritative reference is: "Crucifixion, an important method of capital punishment, particularly among the Persians, Seleucids, Jews, Carthaginians, and Romans [was practiced] from about the 6th century BC to the 4th century AD. Constantine the Great, the first Christian emperor, abolished it in the Roman Empire in AD 337, out of veneration for Jesus Christ, the most famous victim of crucifixion. ... [The earliest recording of a crucifixion was] in 519 BC [when] Darius I, king of Persia, crucified 3,000 political opponents in Babylon" (Encylopaedia Britannica, 1993, Vol. 3, page 762, WWW EB). Some further detail is given in "The Eerdman's Bible Dictionary", Rev. Ed., 1975: CROSS ... Crucifixion is first attested among the Persians (cf. Herodotus, Hist. i.128.2; iii.132.2, 159.1), perhaps derived from the Assyrian impalement. It was later employed by the Greeks, especially Alexander the Great, and by the Carthaginians, from whom the Romans adapted the practice as a punishment for slaves and non-citizens, and occasionaly for citizens guilty of treason. Although in the Old Testament the corpses of blasphemers or idolaters punished by stoning might be handged "on a tree" as further humiliation (Deut. 21:23), actual crucifixion was not introduced in Palestine until Hellenistic times. The Seleucid Antiochus IV Epiphanes crucified those Jews who would not accept hellenization (Josephus Ant. xii.240-41; cf 1 Macc. 1:44-50), ... Two young men? In the story about Joseph, we read about his imprisonment as punishment for the incident with the wife of Aziz: And there entered with him two young men in the prison. One of them said: "Verily, I saw myself (in a dream) pressing wine." The other said: "Verily, I saw myself (in a dream) carrying bread on my head and birds were eating thereof." (They said): "Inform us of the interpretation of this. Verily, we think you are one of the Muhsinûn (doers of good)." [Hilali/Khan Translation] -- Surah 12:36 In Genesis 40 the story is told in detail and there we learn that those two men were the chief cupbearer and chief baker of the Pharaoh. There are two difficulties in the above ayah. First, it contradicts the Torah which in Genesis 39:19-40:3 makes clear that Joseph had been in this prison already for some considerable time before these two men were arrested and put into the same prison. The Qur'an claims they entered prison together with Joseph. Second, even though their age is not mentioned in the Bible, it is highly unlikely that these senior staff of the court of Pharaoh (chief cupbearer and chief baker) were both "youths" as the Qur'an states them to be. Were they utterly destroyed? Surah al-Furqan 25:35-38 (Shakir's translation): And certainly We gave Musa the Book and We appointed with him his brother Haroun an aider. Then We said: Go you both to the people who rejected Our communications; so We destroyed them with utter destruction. And the people of Nuh, when they rejected the apostles, We drowned them, and made them a sign for men, and We have prepared a painful punishment for the unjust; And Ad and Samood and the dwellers of the Rass and many generations between them. Pickthall Each (of them) We warned by examples, and 25:39 each (of them) We brought to utter ruin. Yusufali To each one We set forth Parables and examples; and each one We broke to utter annihilation (for their sins). Shakir Sher Ali Rashad Khalifa To each of these groups, we delivered sufficient examples, before we annihilated them. And to each And to every one one WE set We gave examples forth examples; and every one did and each one We destroy with WE utterly utter destruction. destroyed. It is generally agreed between Muslims and Christians that the people of Noah were completely destroyed by a flood. We know very little about Ad and Samood (Thammud) or "the dwellers of the Rass" but I will not contest that they completely disappeared, since we don't know today of any who are their descendents. Often it is not even clear who they even were. However, both Muslims and Christians agree that Moses and Aaron were sent to Israel and to the Egyptians with their message. The Qur'an summarizes the section 25:35-39 in ayah 39 with the statement that all those mentioned were completely destroyed. But neither Israel nor the people of Egypt were completely destroyed. It seems the writer of the Qur'an got carried a way with his doomsday warnings and made this point by far too strong when we look at history and to the people of Israel and the Egyptians. They have continued to exist from the time of Moses to this day. The Egyptians were not utterly destroyed. They lost one or more army units which were chasing after the Israelites under the command of Pharaoh, and which were drowned by a miracle from God as reported in both the Bible and the Qur'an. But most of the Egyptian people were not touched, nor even most of the leaders of Egypt, since it is unlikely that they all went with the army that went after the Israelites. This is a plain historical error. Should we think it was God who overlooked the continued existence of the Egyptians when formulating those verses? Hardly! Even Muhammad should not have overlooked it, but he got to carried away in his attempt to scare the Meccans into accepting his message (see the punchline of this section in Surah 25:41-42). Qur'an Contradiction: A Tower of Burnt bricks in Egypt? How did it get there? And Pharaoh said: O chiefs! I know not that ye have a god other than me, so kindle for me (a fire), O Haman, to bake the mud; and set up for me a lofty tower in order that I may survey the god of Moses; and lo! I deem him of the liars. [Sura 28:38] This is a very interesting verse for several reasons. This command of Pharaoh is a problem for the authenticity and accuracy of the Qur'an since at the time of Moses Egyptians didn't construct buildings out of burnt clay, i.e. this is a historical contradiction. See the dictionary entry on Bricks for more details. The next question would be to ask, where this motive comes from. Interestingly, there is a well-known story which fits these details. In Genesis 11:3-4a we read: They said to each other, "Come, let's make bricks and bake them thoroughly." They used brick instead of stone, and bitumen for mortar. Then they said, "Come let us build ourselves a city, with a tower that reaches heaven, ..." The original story of Moses and Pharaoh as reported in the Torah, the book of Exodus, reports historically accurate of the Israelites being forced to make bricks with straw (which are then sun-dried). This story has no mentioning of a tower for Pharaoh to reach God. It seems that the author of the Qur'an confused or for other reasons conflated these two stories from the Torah, the Exodus of Israel and the tower of Babel. But there is a third element. Where does Haman come from? He is a well-known enemy of the Jewish people, a court official of the Persian king Ahasueros [Xerxes], a man who like theh Egyptian Pharaoh tried to eliminate the Israelites [Esther 3:8-9] - only several hundred years later. And indeed, Haman did build something high, for in Esther 5:14 we read: His wife and all his friends said to him, "Have a gallows built, seventy-five feet high, and ask the king in the morning to have Mordecai hanged on it. Then go with the king to the dinner and by happy." This suggestion delighted Haman, and he had the gallows built. Thus we have a conflation of not only two, but even three historical events into the version the Qur'an puts before us. It might never become clear how or why this confusion arose, but the different elements are easily discerned. Muslims like to argue, that there is no reason that Pharaoh should not also have had a master builder named Haman on his staff, even if he is not mentioned in the Bible. However, the problem of the burnt bricks makes it difficult to uphold the historicity of the account. The source of the unhistorical details are then identified as conflation with the story of the tower of Babel. This makes it far more likely that the mentioning of Haman here is just one more confusion and conflation than to appeal to the ad hoc explanation that there might just be another Haman. In particular, as such conflations are quite common in the Qur'an. Who is going to pay the bill for the "promise in overdraft?" According to the Qur'an, Allah gives the following rules in regard to dividing of the inheritance: 4:11 Allah charges you, concerning your children: to the male the like of the portion of two females, and if they be women above two, then for them two-thirds of what he leaves, but if she be one then to her a half; and to his parents to each one of the two the sixth of what he leaves, if he has children; but if he has no children, and his heirs are his parents, a third to his mother, or if he has brothers, to his mother a sixth, after any bequest he may bequeath, or any debt. Your fathers or your sons you know not which out of them is nearer in profit to you. So Allah apportions; surely Allah is All-knowing, All-wise. 4:12 And for you a half of what your wives leave, if they have no children; but if they have children, then for you of what they leave a fourth, after any bequest they may bequeath, or any debt. And for them a fourth of what you leave, if you have no children; but if you have children, then for them of what you leave an eighth. after any bequest they may bequeath, or any debt. If a man or woman have no heir direct [i.e. children or parents], but have a brother or a sister, to each of the two a sixth; but if they are more numerous than that, they share equally a third, after any bequest they may bequeath, or any debt not prejudicial; a charge from Allah. Allah is All-knowing, All-clement. 4:176 They will ask thee for a pronouncement. Say: 'Allah pronounces to you concerning the indirect heirs. If a man perishes having no children, but he has a sister, she shall receive a half of what he leaves, and he is her heir if she has no children. If there be two sisters, they shall receive two-thirds of what he leaves; if there be brothers and sisters, the male shall receive the portion of two females. Allah makes clear to you, lest you go astray; Allah has knowledge of everything. This whole text looks rather difficult to me, but that is a common feature of nearly all legal texts. I chose the translation by Arberry because Yusuf Ali was even more difficult to follow. When things are complex it is always good to start with easy examples. Here that means, just a few people to distribute the inheritance among. There are numerous simple cases which are not clear how to deal with them at all, since they are not covered under the instructions given. For example, if I have only one daughter, verse 4:11 says that she gets half [seemingly no matter who else might inherit]. The verse also states the general rule that a son inherits double of what a daughter inherits. Does that mean an only son would get all? Even if there are still parents which should also get a share? Also, it is regulated that one daughter would get half, and more than two daughters will [equally] share in 2/3. How much would two daughters get among them? The average between 1/2 and 2/3? [There is actually controversy, and in Sunni law, the vast consensus is to understand "more than two" to mean "two or more" even though that is not what the Arabic says. Therefore two daughters would get 2/3 of the estate. Only "Ibn Abbas, the companion of the Prophet Muhammad (pbuh), is of the view that two daughters have to get one half share, equal to one daughter's share." (Kavakci, "Islamic Inheritance Law", p. 22) ] But since these cases are just not directly dealt with in the Qur'an, let us not speculate about it and only look at the cases for which we are explicitely given instructions and see whether these are consistent.   Supposed I was already a widower and have only one daughter. When I die my one daughter gets half according to verse 11. What happens to the rest? Similar is the situation in which I have one daughter and one or more wives: My daughter gets 1/2 (S. 4:11), my wives share 1/8 (S. 4:12), i.e. 5/8 are distributed. What happens to the other 3/8 of the estate? This example does does not raise a new question, but it is very important because that is the situation at Muhammad's own death, leaving one daughter (Fatimah) and several wives. Amazingly, Muhammad's wealth is not distributed according to the Qur'an! The problem becomes clearer when we add a brother. In the Qur'an, siblings are only mentioned as heirs when no children exist. In this case Sunni and Shia have gone different ways what to do with the surplus. Shias will give all to the daughter (see #2740), Sunnis will give the rest to the nearest male relative, in this case the brother. Both are true to the Qur'an. The Qur'an does not say what to do in this and many other cases. The instructions are incomplete. Other examples of the Shia / Sunni difference: If a man leaves a wife and the two parents. The Shia will give the wife 1/4 and then distribute the remainder as 1/3 for the mother and 2/3 for the father, i.e. they will receive 1/4 and 1/2 of the original estate (see #2741). Sunnis will give the wife 1/4, the mother 1/3 and the father as the nearest male relative the rest, i.e. 5/12. This is not a contradiction to the Qur'an, since no verse is directly contradicted in either method, but it shows that the Qur'an is far from clear in its instructions. A widower leaves his father and one daughter. According to the Qur'an, the father receives 1/6, the daughter receives 1/2. The remaining 1/3 is given to the daughter by the Shia (see #2743), while it is received by the father as the "universal heir" in the Sunni jurisprudence. For the Sunni law see Dr. Kavakci, "Islamic Inheritance Law", p. 16. The Shia will give a wife 1/8, the only daughter 7/8, and the sister nothing, while in Sunni law the wife will 1/8, the daughter 1/2, and the sister as universal heir will receive 3/8 (the baqi) (see Dr. Kavakci, page 52).  Suppose my wife has no relatives at all [e.g. being a war orphan] and she dies before we are blessed with any children. According to verse 12, I get half of her property. Who gets the other half of her property? Only half of the inheritance is regulated according to the Qur'an. The same situation with switched roles, my wife would get a quarter, but who gets the other 3/4 of my property? Note: See the link to the actual Islamic law (Shia version) at the end of the document. If there is only one heir, then this heir gets everything. But this is NOT consistent with what the Qur'an actually says. What is the point of the Qur'an giving specific rules if they are not obeyed (because they are just not workable)? Some Sunni schools would put the surplus into the state treasury, if there is no male relative to take the rest. One step more difficult. Suppose we do have children.  I die and leave my wife and one daughter but I have no other relatives, which means that my daughter gets 1/2 = 4/8 [verse 11] and my wife gets 1/8 [verse 12] leaving again 3/8 unaccounted for. In all these [and several more such] cases the question is: Who gets the rest? I agree this can be taken care of by donating it to charities or the local Masjid. But the problem is the Qur'an does not tell us what to do with it. Can the rest also be distributed among the wife and children? But that procedure would make their shares different from what has been specified in the Qur'an! What is the point of specifying clear shares and then abandoning the instructions? Anyway, as long as the shares add up to less than one, things can be settled still "relatively easily." People get at least the share they are supposed to get [according to the Qur'an]. More problematic is the following certainly not uncommon situation:  If I (as the male head of the family) die and leave behind (in the order given in the verses above): 3 daughters, 2/3 (2/9 each) verse 11 2/3 + both parents, 1/3 (1/6 each) verse 11 1/3 + my wife, 1/8 verse 12 1/8 = then they will receive according to which adds up to 1 + 1/8 Where is the extra 1/8 going to come from? Is the local Muslim community [the "fund for balancing out the inheritance shares that don't add up"] going to pay it? After all, if they would be getting the left-overs from the cases when the sum is less than one in the examples above, that would only be fair. Shia solve this problem by paying the spouses first, i.e. the wife receives 1/8 and then the other shares are taken from the remainder (which adds up correctly), see #2778 in this Shia legal code. The Sunni schools decrease all shares proportionally (Awliyyah). Both have found ways to work around the problem, but in both "solutions", some or all heirs do not receive the shares specified by the Qur'an. Other examples where shares add up to more than one ("solved" by proportional redistribution), as found in "Islamic Inheritance Law" by Dr. Yusuf Ziya Kavakci, page 54-56 and "The Reliance of the Traveller" by Nuh Ha Mim Keller, section L8.2: Husband, 1/2 verse 12 1/2 ------------Husband, 1/2 + sister, 1/2 + mother 1/3 = 8/6 = 4/3 = 1 + 1/3 + two sisters 2/3 (1/3 each) verse 176 2/3 = will receive according to which adds up to 7/6 = 1 + 1/6 Problems of this sort can be found many. Another one would be: Mother (1/6), brother & sister (2/3 distributed 2:1 to brother:sister) and 1/4 for the wife is more than one.  One son and one daughter. 4:11 says that one daughter will get half and a son will get double a daughter's share, which would be everything. 150% of the available property is distributed and we haven't even looked at the parents and spouse yet. Well, even though it doesn't say so, let us assume that 4:11 doesn't only speak about 2/3 for more than two daughters but the 2/3 share holds every time when there are two or more children as many Muslims interpret it. But then the last mentioned case above would still be the same problem for any number of children since the children get 2/3, the parents get 1/3 and then there is nothing left for the wife which is supposed to get 1/8.  When a man dies and leaves behind a mother, wife and one sister only, then according to 4:11 the mother gets 1/3 (because he has neither children nor a brother), the wife gets 1/4 according to 4:12 (because they have no children) and the sister gets 1/2 according to 4:176 (because he has no children). Not only do we have again distributed more than there exists [1/12 in overdraft], we also have the very strange result that the direct heirs [people of direct relationship = spouse, children, parents] get each less than the indirect heir which is his sister. It becomes even worse if he has more than one sister since they then get 2/3 instead of 1/2 and we get even more into overdraft. Anybody who has ever dealt with dividing out an inheritance will know how easily that can get nasty and how this can poison family relationships if people think they have been cheated. Promising certain people a definite share but not being able to pay them this share because more was promised than is available is the surest recipe for disaster. And there seems to be an awareness of this in the Qur'an since it does repeatedly in further verses stress the necessity of being just. And in these there verses we have been looking at, we have the explicit statement at the end of 4:176 that "Allah makes clear to you, lest you go astray" as well as in 4:11-12 it says that "So Allah apportions" and "so Allah charges you" and (because?) He is the "All-wise". I am not sure there are many commands on the Qur'an which are explicitely given to make things clear and which are so completely unclear and contradictory and impossible to fulfill. Do we really want to charge God that he didn't know what he was saying and that He is the author of confusion and contradiction? Or would it be more consistent with the confidence in God's wisdom to assume that this is NOT from God?  According to 4:12 and 4:176 the siblings of the person who died only then share in the inheritance if there are no direct heirs (i.e. parents or children according to Muslim understanding - see Yusuf Ali's translation and footnote), but in 4:11, the portion of the mother depends on the existence of brothers, which makes only sense if these brothers get the part that is taken from the mother. If they do not get it, and we suppose the shares added up to one without the existance of brothers, then who gets this sixth that was taken away from the mother by the pure existance of these brothers? It either does not add up with or without the existence of this brother if he does not get this sixth of the mother.  Last problem for now: 4:12 says that in case there are no direct heirs [parents or children] then "brother or a sister, to each of the two a sixth" while 4:176 says in the same situation that "they shall receive two-thirds of what he leaves" [double of what 4:12 says]. Now this has not been overlooked by the commentators and they try to get around this with some acrobatics, here Razi's comments on this issue: "that brother or a sister, to each of the two a sixth; in 4:12 'here the brother or a sister means a brother or a sister from the mother, for Sa'ad ibn Abi Waqqas used to read, '...brother or a sister from the mother'. They have judged this way because at the end of the Sura Allah ta'ala said, 'They will ask thee for a pronouncement. Say: 'Allah pronounces to you concerning the indirect heirs. 4:176' thus He established that the two sisters receive two-thirds, for the brothers all the money, but here [4:12] established that the brothers and sisters will have the third, which means that the brothers and sisters here [4:12] is not the same as in 4:176. The bothers and sisters here [4:12] those from the mother only, but there 4:176 the brothers and sisters from the father and mother or from the father." This is a very handy way of getting around the problem. But also notice they appeal to another reading of the Qur'an to explain the contradiction. Indeed if this reading exist there will be no problem (for this specific contradiction - we had many more above though), but this will raise another problem: The present Qur'an is not all of the Qur'an, or more clearly, the Qur'an is corrupted because parts have been lost. But if indeed verse 12 speaks about half-siblings through the mother only, and verse 176 about full siblings or half-siblings through the father only, then this creates another overdraft problem similar to the one found in "Islamic Inheritance Law" by Dr. Kavakci, page 55: Wife, 1/4 v.12 Mother, 1/3 v.11 2 full sisters, 2/3 v.176 3 half-sisters from Mother 1/3 together v.12 adding up to (3 + 4 + 8 + 4) / 12 = 17/12 Thus, making a difference between the siblings in verse 12 and 176 does not really solve the problems. "Try to learn the knowledge of faraid! Teach this knowledge to the youth! The knowledge of faraid is half of (all) religious knowledge. It will be this knowledge that my Umma will forget first." A hadith, by Ibn Maja and Dara Qutni. "Faraid" is the calculation of inheritance. Given the prime importance of this topic, it is an even worse problem to find contradictions on this issue in the Qur'an. I know Muslims have found ways to solve their actual inheritance problems in real life. But if we take the information from the Qur'an only, then it does just not work out. To the very least, the instructions on inheritance do contradict the Sura 41:2-3 where we read: "A revelation from the Most Gracious, Most Merciful; a Book, whereof the verses are explained in detail; a Qur'an in Arabic, for people who understand." Even though it goes on in the next verses to talk about "people who do not understand and who turn away", and I agree that deeper insights into the Word of God are only given to those willing to listen with an open heart, the rules of simple arithmetic are not depending on spiritual disposition. Even if one would not put standards of perfection on these rules as it is fitting for revelation from God, but only think it to be from Muhammad, it is strange that this successful business man, in charge of whole caravans for a number of years, was not able to correctly add up a few fractions. Furthermore it seems that I can bequeath whatever I have to whomever I will, since bequests [and debts] are to be taken care off before the rest is distributed to the nearer or wider family. That this can lead to rather gross injustices (e.g. not leaving any support to your elderly parents) does not need to be explained in great detail. This only may lead to injustice (not contradiction - which is the issue we are concerned with here) but doesn't change any of the mathematical problems above since these bequests might only change the amount of what is left to divide, but has no effect on the (relative) shares. The Muslim law is that one can only bequeath up to 1/3 to heirs not part of the legal heirs [but this is not mentioned in the Qur'an and another quite important issue which is not part of "what was made clear"]. There are some other passages talking about justice in dividing up inheritance or the amount you bequeath to somebody in relationship to other people / kin you are obligated to, but since they do not mention numbers for the shares, they do not throw any more light on the situation. If you want to check them out: 2:180-182, 2:233, 2:240, 4:33. Only 2:240 actually says something specific about amounts. But there it is an absolute amount and not a relative amount of shares as in 4:11-12,176. But comparing 4:12 where a widow usually [since usually there will be children] gets 1/8 this commanded of "one year's maintenance for her" will nearly always be higher or lower than the 1/8 share depending on the size of the property left behind by the deceased. It would be an incredible accident if that would hit 1/8 exactly. So, in the reality of practical life this is yet another contradiction in the Qur'an. [According to Yusuf Ali's footnote on 2:240, many commentators for this reason consider 2:240 abrogated by 4:12. But that is a cheap way to resolve contradictions. These are both in the Qur'an and 4:82 does not say that there are no discrepancies in the unabrogated part, but extends this claim over the complete Qur'an.] Muslim responses by Randy Desmond, Misha'al Al-Kadhi and Khalid, The Learner nothing for the wife by an anonymous Muslim, and yet another "solution" by Shabir Ally. My response: All those above Muslim reactions either follow some school of Muslim jurisprudence and explain what should done in the problem cases, or they propose own methods which have nothing to do with Islamic reality. But they only explain what is to be done when the Qur'an does not distribute all the estate or more than is available. However, in doing so they import data from the outside (hadith, personal opinions, ...) and the issue of our discussion is whether the Qur'an is sufficient and consistent in itself. The conclusion is that the Qur'an is not logically consistent. In particular, the rule that one party (usually the spouse) is given their share first and then the remainder is distributed according to the given shares, is not found in the Qur'an but imported from the outside. And it is NOT the way the four schools of fiqh are doing it. Furthermore, it does not solve all the problems either. It is not possible to obey the laws as given. None of of the responders solves the problem that shares adding up to more than the available estate is a logical internal contradiction in the Qur'an. None of the proposed solution methods of real life can be derived from the text of the Qur'an. The Qur'an contradiction remains. Human rules are necessary to overrule the word that is claimed and believed to be divine. Added comment: "The Learner" was seemingly very much bothered with my continuing nonresponse to his writings on this issue and wrote yet another note on the inheritance issue. I have to say, that in my opinion everything necessary is presented. If he wants to know what are those hadith mentioned in my private email reply to him (never intended for publication) then I am sure he has access to more Islamic literature on inheritance laws than I do, and I have already listed the titles which I used. This topic is not promising many new insights and I have no desire to spend more of my time on it unless substantial new data is brought to my attention. He considers the issues solved and stated why, I consider it still a contradiction and gave my reasons why. We will just have to agree to disagree and leave it at that. The reader is invited to make up his own mind about the arguments presented by both sides. A further contradiction in the inheritance laws is the above not mentioned verse of Sura 4:7 To the men a share of what parents and kinsmen leave and to the women a share of what parents and kinsmen leave, whether it (the property) be little or much, a share apportioned. determining that men and women should each get an equal share (the parallel construction makes that obvious) clearly contradicting the instruction in 4:11, saying Allah charges you, concerning your children: to the male the like of the portion of two females, ... That is was a contradiction was recognized by all commentators and the general "solution" is that verse 7 is abrogated (mansukh) and verse 11 is the one abrogating (nasikh) it. Would it not be contradictory there would not have been the necessity to created the category of abrogated verses. Jalalu 'd-Din in his Itqan gives a list of 20 verses which are acknowledged by all commentators to be abrogated and also gives the respective abrogating verses. The above pair of 4:7 & 4:11 is pair No. 20 in this list. Islamic Inheritance Law [Shia source]: Rules Regarding Will (Wasiyyat) and the same. Check out how this fits or doesn't fit the Qur'an as the verses describe it above. And why the injustice in #2783 & #2784? It seems again that the women draw the short straw. #2789: How on earth do you divide a sword in equally in two halves? Isn't half a sword pretty worthless and two half swords just as worthless? And the same division procedure for a Qur'an? Isn't that a rather irreverent thing to do? Info: #2715 and #2719 give the rule that at most 1/3 can be given as a bequest to a person which is usually not an heir. Note: Most of my problem cases from above is still not solved in these elaborate rules under preservation of the shares given in the Qur'an. Al-Fara'id On-line (A web site dedicated to the calculation of inheritance) Go there and put in the examples I gave and observe how the people in the end do not get the share that is indicated in the Qur'an, how the shares add up to more than one and how they account for it by adjustments. Since this web site is ever so often not reachable, I saved the above and more examples in an extra file at this site. Further Islamic web sites dealing with inheritance:  A few points regarding inheritance  Introduction to Fara`idh (Inheritance) There is another aspect in the Qur'anic instructions on inheritance which is not a logical contradiction but which seems to contradict justice. Usually Muslims argue that the shares of a male are double than that of a female not because a male is worth more, but because the male has the duty to support his family while the female can spend it all on herself without the need to share. This sounds good initially but let us look at some examples again. Imagine the situation that a man dies and leaves no direct heirs but only a brother and a sister. His sister might be a widow with children, without support from others, but she has to feed her children. The brother might be a rich business man and bachalor who has nobody to take care of but himself. Nevertheless, the brother will get 2/3 and the sister will get 1/3 of the estate. If "the duty to support the family" is the true reason, then shares would be distributed according to actual need and duty. But this is not talked about in these verses at all nor is this embodied in the actual practice of Islamic law. The male does get double the female no matter what their respective financial situation is and how many people depend on them. He might voluntarily give money to the needy relative. But the inheritance law does not say so, and he does not have to. If the reason really is "the man has to support the family" then a widow should get as much as a married man since she now has to support her family. A male batchalor should get as much as a single female who is without children since he has nobody to support but himself just like her. But the whole theory of "responsibility of support" breaks down in the case of the death of your spouse. Imagine a man and a woman where both are about 45 years old, who have married relatively late, e.g. at about the age of 30 and who have a number of children, some of them still young. Suppose also that both have worked or for some other reason have similar estates they leave behind when dying. If the woman dies, the man gets 1/4 of the inheritance. If the man dies the woman gets 1/8 of the inheritance. But in both cases the surviving partner will have to feed and educate the children and even though the husband has good chances to marry again, a 45 year old widow has far fewer chances to find another husband. Why would the woman receive only half the amount of inheritance the man would get but actually in the average situation the woman would be in greater need to have the money to be able to feed her children? I don't think this is splitting hairs. I am sure this is not an artificial and uncommon situation. And it seems very unjust. And it does look like the men are worth more than the women. It is their "maleness" that defines the size of their shares to be double than the womens' shares, not the actual situation of need to support a family. Muslim Responses by Randy Desmond Date: Thu, 9 Jan 1997 I haven't responded for a while to this contradiction list and wasn't planning to anytime soon, except a Muslim from England emailed me and said that this web site's proposed contradictions had given him problems at one time. So my intent is to respond simply for the Muslims out there who may be bothered by what this web site proposes. May God protect us from the decieving promises of Satan and his followers. I had talked to a scholar about this question a while ago. I forgot the terms the scholar had used and the exact meanings of those terms. So anyone wishing more information should seek it through those who know. I am not a scholar - just a very concerned Muslim. And eventhough I do not like putting up my answer without full knowledge, I think it is more important to stress to my fellow brothers and sisters in Islam (and in the human race) that these contradictions have no basis in reality and can easily be refuted by those who have the knowledge. There seems to be two cases which are misunderstood by the author of this "contradiction". First, there is the case of the inheritance portions summing to less than one. Second is the misunderstood portioning of inheritance which would seem to total more than one. The case of portions of total less than one Sahih Bukhari, Volume 8, Book 80, Number 724: Narrated Ibn 'Abbas: The Prophet said, "Give the Fara'id (the shares of the inheritance that are prescribed in the Qur'an) to those who are entitled to receive it. Then whatever remains, should be given to the closest male relative of the deceased." The case of portions seeming to total more than one 4:11 - parents and children 4:12 - spouse and "no direct heirs" 4:176 - "no direct heirs" = neither descendants or ascendants The unfounded assumption, based on an English translation, is that these three verses MUST be taken in tandem when calculating inheritance. However, we can equally wonder why the ordering of shares starts with children then parents then wife then indirect heirs. Could there not also be a priority here? So as to not bore the reader by refuting every single case brought up. I will simply highlight the faults in the three examples which are used to stress this contradiction claim. Certainly the issues are not ignored in doing so. First, notice that in the calculation of "a man dies leaving three daughters, both parents, and his wife" the total of the inheritance sums to exactly one BEFORE taking into account the wife's share. Please also notice the wife's share is part of the NEXT verse. Next, for one son and one daughter, that example misinterpreted the part of 4:11 which is talking about only one child as an heir which is a daughter. Then attempts to add a son which couldn't exist if there is only one daughter and no other child is not possible. Next, notice that claims are put forth that when a man dies leaving only his mother, his wife, and two sisters, the total is 1/3 + 1/4 + 2/3 = 15/12. The problem is that Jochen is adding apples(mother) and oranges(sisters). The mother is a "direct heir" the sister is not. Notice the clause in 4:12 and 4:176: The person who has died has no descendants or ascendents. Now, in anticipation of Jochen jumping on an incomplete response, I have not answered the issue of diffentiation between indirect heirs in 4:12 and 4:176. I haven't looked into it nor asked about it. I honestly do not know who Razi is either. So please give me some information if you have some. Unfortunate for the author of the contradiction, I can not presume his point is correct knowing all of the other points are baseless as is his whole list of proposed contradictions. So let me suggest that for those who want to know the truth of the matter, go seek answers from those who know better. This response completely side-steps my proposed cases. I am not that naive. My questions were chosen very carefully. Total summing to less than one: Giving undistributed inheritance to the nearest male relative. So, the above would mean that if I only have a daughter and a male cousin of an uncle, i.e. only one very remote male relative (and not other male relative whatsoever), this remote male relative would get half the inheritance? As much as my daughter? That is what this hadith would suggest. According to my taste, this is not justified. [Neither do I know of any country's civil or religious law where things are dealt with that way.] But then, maybe I am not the one to define what is justice. More important that is not how Islamic law has decided to handle the case. I don't know why the "Muslim responses" so often only look at a small part of my page and pick on that instead of reading all the details I provide and these details are given because they are an important part of the argument. I purposefully gave the following link and have to give it again: In Islamic Inheritance Law, #2737 (i) refutes this solution. Everything is given to the daughter which is the common sense solution of justice, but that is not what the Qur'an says. Furthermore, it helps to answer the questions which were posed instead of inventing your own question that is easier to answer. Left-over inheritance shares can only be given to the nearest male relative if there is a nearest male relative. When I state a certain group of relatives then I mean these are the only relatives. I.e. a nearest male relative is only of relevance if there is one, and in my first case the only relative is the daughter without any other male relative, however remote. Who gets the money? The question is not answered in the Qur'an (nor the hadith as it seems) nor was it answered by the above response. Total summing to more than one: This is so involved that I have to quote the whole thing and answer paragraph for paragraph. 4:11 - parents and children 4:12 - spouse and "no direct heirs" 4:176 - "no direct heirs" = neither descendants or ascendants The unfounded assumption, based on an English translation, is that these three verses MUST be taken in tandem when calculating inheritance. However, we can equally wonder why the ordering of shares starts with children then parents then wife then indirect heirs. Could there not also be a priority here? Sure there could be a priority, if you invent one. But it is not indicated in the Qur'an. It does not say, first give to these and from what is left over give the following shares to those. Basically you accuse me, that reading the text in its plain meaning is an "unfounded assumption". But in reality it is you who introduces invisible extra assumption to repair the problems. The most I could agree to is to allow reading the text in sequential order, i.e. give out the shares in the order they are mentioned in the verses 11 and 12. But the problem is still there as you will realize just two paragraphs down in your argument. Futhermore, if you strictly do priority ordering in the order the persons are mentioned, interpreting in each case "and from what is left, to this person the following share", then you obviously will never use up all the inheritance and have left overs. So you do have to use group some together and there seems to be no indication of grouping nor of order explicitely mentioned in the text. Some possible groupings (parallel) and priorities (sequential order) will solve some of my problem question, but no such system solves them all. So as to not bore the reader by refuting every single case brought up. I will simply highlight the faults in the three examples which are used to stress this contradiction claim. Certainly the issues are not ignored in doing so. They certainly have been ignored. Please bore me with explaining the questions I brought up. And I am sure that many of the Muslim readers here would also like to see answers to the questions instead of making up your own questions. Let me now respond to your "highlights". First, notice that in the calculation of "a man dies leaving three daughters, both parents, and his wife" the total of the inheritance sums to exactly one BEFORE taking into account the wife's share. Please also notice the wife's share is part of the NEXT verse. Exactly. You stated the problem, but what is your answer? After you have given the daughters and the parents their share, it already is all used up "BEFORE taking into account the wife's share" as you aptly observe. Where then is the wife's share going to come from? You could say [even though you don't], that you have to give the share of the wife first and then the rest is given to parents and children which would in this case sum to one. But you would again have to make an even more strenuous assumption, namely that you actually have to read the verses backwards, starting with 4:12 before you go to 4:11. This will help in this case, but not in all cases and is surely far from obvious. These would be two extra assumptions not stated anywhere in the text, namely that they are to be taken sequential instead of parallel and backward instead of forward in order of mentioning. Next, for one son and one daughter, that example misinterpreted the part of 4:11 which is talking about only one child as an heir which is a daughter. Then attempts to add a son which couldn't exist if there is only one daughter and no other child is not possible. If there are two children, one daughter and one son, then surely there is only one daughter. Or is the son also a daughter? In the original article it has already been stated that I don't insist on this literal interpretation though and can accept the customary Muslim reading. Hence there was no need to quibble about that anyway. Next, notice that claims are put forth that when a man dies leaving only his mother, his wife, and two sisters, the total is 1/3 + 1/4 + 2/3 = 15/12. The problem is that he is adding apples(mother) and oranges(sisters). The mother is a "direct heir" the sister is not. Notice the clause in 4:12 and 4:176: The person who has died has no descendants or ascendents. That is not what it says. It says he has no children. I am adding fractions, not "apples and oranges". This response is pretty confused and even contradicting what you said in the beginning of your own response. Several points: As we find in 4:11, obviously the indirect heirs (in this case the brother) do influence the shares of the direct heirs (in this case the mother) since we read: "... and to his parents to each one of the two the sixth of what he leaves, if he has children; but if he has no children, and his heirs are his parents, a third to his monther, or if he has brothers, to his mother a sixth, ..." [So where is this sixth from the mother going if not to the brother? This is one of the questions the Muslim who respondend didn't want to bore us with]. Therefore, what is the problem in principle that mother and sisters can both inherit since mother and brother can both inherit at the same time? 4:176 states: "Say: 'Allah pronounces to you concerning the indirect heirs. If a man perishes having no children, but he has a sister, she shall receive a half of what he leaves, ..." Now, this verse is about the indirect heirs. It does not say [this is the unfounded assumption of this Muslim response] that indirect heirs ONLY receive shares if there are NO direct heirs. With this assumption he contradicts himself in the solution he proposed to the very first problem. When there is only one daughter (a direct heir) she will get half, he wanted to give away the second half to the nearest male relative (an indirect heir). Either indirect heirs can inherit even if there are direct heirs, or they cannot. But please stick to one rule. If we agree that indirect heirs can inherit even when direct ones are present, this is a valid reading of the verse, since the verse only talks about the share of indirect heirs in case there are no children [not: in case there are no parents]. This would actually fit in with 4:11 and the brother inheriting together with the mother if there are no children. In any case, my suggested example does not violate any of the explicitely stated conditions. And the only condition mentioned in the Qur'an so that sisters can inherit is that there are no children. I honestly do not know who Razi is either. So please give me some information if you have some. Unfortunate for the author of the contradiction, I can not presume his point is correct knowing all of the other points are baseless as is his whole list of proposed contradictions. So let me suggest that for those who want to know the truth of the matter, go seek answers from those who know better. Yes, I agree, do go to those who know and ask them the difficult questions. And go to your Imam and ask who Razi is. He is after all one of the most famous Qur'an commentators. And the quote mentioned in the article on inheritance is in his Qur'an commentary in the obvious place, i.e. the verses under consideration. Given that you have sidestepped each and every one of the questions posed on this issue, I find it not very wise on your part to call "baseless" my whole list of observations on Qur'an contradictions. I want to repeat again. Experts on Islamic law are just as intelligent as everybody else and they have found ways to distribute inheritance to the heirs in generally accepted ways. The point of contention is not the practice of the Sharia but the observation that the shares in the Qur'an do not add up correctly and it is impossible to obey the Qur'an as it is without making many further outside assumption or blatantly change the shares and disregard the fractions prescribed in the Qur'an. This might be a good place to remind everybody of the purpose in regard to these contradiction pages. I do not for a moment expect that a Muslim will forsake Islam because a few fractions don't add up correctly. There are a number of question in regard to the Bible for which I do not know a fully satisfactory answer. And I will admit that I don't know, should you ask me one of these. But I hate pretense of having answers if there are none. And I hate the often pridefully displayed and claimed superiority of the Qur'an over the Bible. If these contradictions pages help Muslims to become more humble and realistic and especially stop claiming the corruption of the Bible because they found a few difficult passages, then the goal of this page has been reached. If we all realize that we are finite human beings and that we might not understand everything about God and his word, and begin with openess and humility to listen to each other, then this would be a great success. May God bless you all in your search for truth and quest to understand and worship the one true God. I seek to follow and obey the truth as I perceive it. I am willing to listen to you. I pray for willingness on the side of Muslims to also listen to the Christians and not dismiss everything because "something doesn't add up". Muslim Response by Randy Desmond Date: Thurs, 13 Mar 1997 Your response to my response to your proposed contradiction (whew!) is asking me to respond once more. I cannot refuse seeing that (1) you have accused me of answering my own question instead of your original proposed contradiction, and (2) you have misunderstood the response to your questions, and (3) I just got a new Arabic dictionary which sheds some light on some of the words in the verses. If my original response "completely side-steps" the contradiction you are proposing, tell me how? You didn't tell how, but you did responded to my points. So let's try to establish some common ground. Aren't you proposing that the verses on inheritance are contradictory? Yes or no? Don't we have to establish that "fact" first before we entertain any other questions? Yes or no? Assuming you agree that a contradiction of these verses must be established first, I want to show you that, in reality, they do not. But before I dive in, I just want to say that eventhough I do not like your approach (just as you do not like some Muslims' approach to the Bible), you have raised some interesting questions owing to the translation of the Qur'an in English and lack of explanations in those translations. These questions have really helped me in my faith as a Muslim. They have made me do research which has given me greater conviction in the way of life of Islam as revealed by Allah to Prophet Muhammad (Peace be upon him). Let me re-write portions of the verses subsituting Arabic words next to the English translations. 4:11 ...Your fathers or your sons; you know not which out of them is nearer in profit to you. Fariidatin from Allah; surely Allah is Allknowing, All-wise. 4:12 ...If a man or woman have no heir direct [i.e. children or parents], but have a brother or a sister, to each of the two a sixth; but if they are more numerous than that, they share equally a third, after any bequest they may bequeath, or any debt not prejudicial; Wasiyatin from Allah. Allah is All-knowing, All-clement. I subsituted the Arabic words in for a reason: the Qur'an is in clear Arabic (not English). It is the Arabic from which the meanings are derived. So let's look at it more closesly. Regard to me assigning a priority of the shares of 4:11 over 4:12, you had said, "Sure there could be a priority, if you invent one. But it is not indicated in the Qur'an." I can't blame you for that because of my lack of explanation, but I can support that claim by simply defining two terms that Allah uses in these verses. First, in 4:11, the instructions of shares to children and parents are called fariidatun. Fariidatun means an obligatory ordinace from Allah. Second, in 4:12, these instruction of shares are called wasiyatun. Wasiyatun means an order/command/recommendation. The definition is of an entirely different semantic feel. Hence, a priority is implied (if not outright stated). Again, it is the Arabic which needs to be understood, not the (mis)translations. Please don't think I am side-stepping your original questions about the distribution of shares. If you look back at those questions, they have presuppositions. Namely, (1) that the Qur'an explicitly says what to do with all the inheritance of one who dies and (2) that the Qur'an says how to aportion all the shares of inheritance explicitly and (3) that The Qur'an aportions all shares in inheritance and (4) All the portions of inheritance mentioned in the Qur'an are to be taken in tandem when distribution to inheritors is taking place. There is subtlety in the difference of these presuppositions. Do you agree that your questions do, in fact, presuppose these points? If I just attempt to answer those questions, I would first have to agree to those presuppositions. And I may be able to agree with some or none of them. That is what is sometimes a problem with your proposed contradictions. I have to address the presuppositions (which seem to be false in most cases) before I can give the clear answer. Please notice that I am not saying that the original questions with respect to shares of inheritance are invalid within the Islamic framework of the Qur'an, Hadith, and Sunnah. That is not the case, and answers can be sought. However, that is not the point of this discussion. The point is the relevency of the questions with respect to proving a contradiction within the Qur'an. Is that not true? I admit that my response is incomplete (I don't address the aportioning of shares to colaterals). I also admit that I don't have requisite knowledge to answer all your concerns. But that is a limitation on me, not the Qur'an or Islam. I said what I know and try not to go talk about things I don't know about. Another Mulslim response was given by Misha'al Al-Kadhi. And it just doesn't add up: Sura 4:11-12 and 4:176 state the Qur'anic inheritance law. If a man dies and leaves three daughters, his two parents and his wife then they will receive the respective shares of 2/3 for the 3 daughters together, 1/3 for the parents together [both according to verse 4:11] and 1/8 for the wife [4:12] which adds up to more than the estate available. A second example is, that when a man leaves only his other, his wife and two sisters, then they receive 1/3 [mother, 4:11], 1/4 [wife, 4:12] and 2/3 [the two sisters, 4:176], which again adds up to 15/12 of the available property. To the above Misha'al Al-Kadhi wrote an elaborate answer which essentially confirms (instead of rebuts) my claims: The verses dealing with inheritance are not as our current author may imagine only these couple of verses. There are many other verses in different locations throughout the Qur'an dealing with this issue. They range over the chapters of Al-Baqarah(2), Al-Nissa(4), AlMaidah(5), Al-Anfal(8), etc. This is to say nothing about the many multiples of that in the Sunnah (Sayings of the prophet, pbuh). Out of these many verses and sayings of the prophet has been developed the science of "Al-Fara'id" which is a very vast issue and which can not be collected in a single paragraph. Suffice it to say that the question appears to display a complete unawareness of any aspects of the discipline of Al-Fara'id, its basis, its subdivisions, its special cases, the rules of "Awl" and "Usbah," the laws of "Usool" of the Fara'id, the laws of "Hajb wa Hirman," and many other issues relating to this matter. This particular example falls under the laws of "Awl" which regulate the cases when the inheritor's shares exceed or "overshoot" the sum of the total inheritance, and in which case the inheritance is recalculated according to the laws of Awl and redistributed. In the above two cases, the distribution would be "Parents: 4/27 each, wife:1/9, daughters:16/27" and for the second case, "Mother:4/15, Wife:3/15, Sisters:8/15." The books of Fiq contain specific examples of Awl, such as the Awl of Umar ibn alKhattab, however, the interested reader can study this issue further by referring to any number of references on Islamic Fiq. There are yet other cases when the number of inheritors and their shares do not sum to a whole 100%, in which case the laws of "Usbah" come into play in order to distribute the unclaimed shares which have no corresponding people to receive them. Then there are the laws of "Hajb wa Hirman," which encompass still other special cases of inheritance and block normally deserving relatives from inheriting in special extraordinary cases." Our current author objects to Islamic law and wishes it to conform to his tastes. ... Thank you Mr. Al-Kadhi for confirming exactly what I claimed in my article. There are cases in which the shares assigned by the Qur'an overshoot the available estate, i.e. the shares sum to more than one (which you call "awl"), and cases where the shares assigned by the Qur'an do not exhaust the estate, i.e they sum to less than one (for which you provided the technical term "usbah"). I stated in my original article that I am of no doubt that the Muslims have found ways to deal with these contradictions in the Qur'an and as you state above, there are rules for recalculation of the shares. I never questioned this. You very skillfully affirmed that those problem cases exist and that the Qur'an gives rules which are impossible to follow in real life. That is all I claimed and you gave a learned confirmation for this in your response. I never questioned that Muslims are able to deal with the practical issues of life. But this is one instance where the author of the Qur'an shows incompetence at a very basic level. And this is one of many observations which throw doubt on the claim that God is the author of the Qur'an. That you may see I am not distorting Mr. Al-Kadhi's response and have not left out anything relevant to my original claim here is his full response to my claim. Shabir Ally on Contradictions in the Qur'an A good while ago, Shabir Ally has taken it upon himself to tackle our section of Qur'an Contradictions. For nearly two years already, we read on his site Islam Answers Back the following claims which are as boastful as they are false: A Christian missionary web-site contains a list of what are claimed to be internal contradictions in the Qur’an. The list contains forty-nine numbered items authored by Jochen Katz. Readers may access this list at . Here is a reply to each item of Katz’s list. ... (Source: Shabir Ally's introduction to his section of Answers to Alleged Contradictions in the Qur'an, bold emphasis mine) However, Shabir Ally actually responds on his site only to the first one of those 49 contradictions he is refering to, i.e. the one on conflicting inheritance shares. I have waited nearly two years with answering to Shabir Ally's response regarding the first contradiction in our list, because I wanted to see how his answers would be developing further. Nothing has happened since. This statement was an obvious lie from the very beginning on and it still is. He could have said, "I intend to reply to each item, insha'Allah", and readers would have observed how slow he is in making good on those intentions, but at least he would have been honest. In the next part, Part 1 of his section, Shabir Ally repeats: The contradiction list he provides does not contain a single real contradiction among the 49 claims. However, repetition does not turn claims into facts. We are still waiting that Shabir Ally substantiates his claims. The rest of this long "Part 1", Shabir Ally spends in attacking my person, my hostile approach, my evil motives and methods, praising his own motives and approaches etc. and in the process makes many words without resolving even one aspect or detail of the contradictions of the Qur'an. Basically, he commits the ad hominem fallacy. We see no necessity to respond to that page at this time. The reader will easily recognize its irrelevance. In Part 2, Shabir Ally repeats yet again: A Christian missionary web-site has a list of what are claimed to be internal contradictions in the Qur’an. The list contains forty-nine numbered items authored by Jochen Katz. Readers may access this list at www.answering-islam.org. Here is a reply to each item of Katz’s list. We will see that not a single item on the list is a genuine contradiction in the Qur’an. ... Now we move on to consider and demolish Katz‘s claims one by one. After being incredibly verbose on many irrelevant issues, it seems Shabir Ally finally arrived at dealing with the actual problem. I personally do not understand Arabic (yet), but gladly there are others who do. I am grateful to the friend who wrote the below response to what Shabir Ally himself identified as the "primary claim #1." Maybe at some other time, we come back to the rest of the Alleged Answers to Contradictions in the Qur'an offered by Shabir Ally. Jochen Katz Shabir Ally : PRIMARY CLAIM #1: Inheritance shares totalling more than 100% REPLY: Adding two unknowns ―Katz misunderstood what he read in the Qur‘an. The verses he refers to do not say what the parents will receive in this case. Nor does it say what the wife will receive in this case.‖ Response: 4:11 deals with the case of the children and the parents. Part of 4:12 deals with the case of wives and husbands. We shall see what the shares of everyone are and to how much they add up, whatever the meaning of the terms is. Let‘s first give the whole Arabic text of these verses : ّ ُُ ِ ُ َ َ َ َ َ ُُ ِّْْ‫11. يُىصيكم ّللا ُ فِي أَوالَدكم نِهذكز مخم حظِّ األُوخَيَيْه فَإِن كهَّ وِساء فَىق احىَتَيه فَهَهُهَّ حُهُخَا ما تَزك وإِن كاوَتْ واحًََ فَهَها انى‬ َ َ َ ُ ْ ِ ِ َ َّ ْ ُ ِ ْ ِ َ ِ ْ ْ َ ْ ِ ُ ُ ْ َ َ ً‫وألَبَىيً نِكم واحَ مىهما انسَُس مما تَزك إِن كا نَ نًَُ ونََ فَإِن نَّم يَكه نًَُّ ونََ وورحًَُ أَبَىايُ فَألُمً انخُّهُج فَإِن كانَ نًَُ إِخىًٌ فَألُم‬ َ َ َّ ِ ُ ُّ ٌ َ ِ ِّ ِ ِّ َ ْ َ ِ َ َ ٌ َ َ ُ ْ ِّ ٍ ِ َ ِّ ُ ِ ْ َ َ ْ ْ ُ ُ َ ْ ْ ُ ُّ ّ ِّ َ ِ ُ ُ َ ُْ ُ ٍ َْ ْ َ َ ّ ‫انسَُس مه بَعَ وصيَّة يُىصي بِها أَو ديه آبَآؤكم وأَبىاؤكم الَ تََرُونَ أَيهم أَقزب نَكم وَفعا ف َريضة مهَ ّللاِ إِنَّ ّللاَ كانَ يهِيما حكيما‬ ْ َ ِ َ ِ ٍ ِ َ ِ ْ ِ ُ ُّ ْ َ‫21. ونَكم وِْ ُُ ما تَزك أَسواجكم إِن نَّم يَكه نَّهُهَّ ونََ فَإِن كانَ نَهُهَّ ونََ فَهَكم انزبُع مما تَزكهَ مه بَعَ وصيَّة يُىصيهَ بِها أ‬ ُ ْ َ ‫َ و ديه‬ ٌ َ ْ ُْ َ ِ ٍ ِ َ ِْ ِ ْ َ َّ ِ ُ ُّ ُ ُ ٌ َ ُْ ُ َ ْ َ َ َ ٍ َْ ْ َ‫ونَهُهَّ انزبُع مما تَزكتُم إِن نَّم يَكه نَّكم ونََ فَإ ِن كانَ نَكم ونََ فَهَهُهَّ انخُّمهُ مما تَزكتُم مه بَعَ وصيَّة ت ُىصُىنَ بِها أ‬ َ ‫َ و ديْه وإِن كانَ رجم‬ ٌ َ ُْ ٌ َ ُْ ُ ْ ٍ ِ َ ِ ْ ِّ ْ َ َّ ِ ُ َ ْ ْ َ َّ ِ ُ ُّ ٌ ُ َ َ َ ٍ َ ْ ْ ْ ٌ َ َ ُ ُْ َ َ ِ َ ْ َْ َ َ ُ َ ‫يُىرث كالَنَة أَو امزأًٌَ ونًَُ أَخ أَو أُختٌ فَهِكم واحَ مىْهما انسَُس فَإِن كاوُىا أَكخَز مه ذل ِك فَهم شزكاء فِي انخُّهُج مه بَعَ وصيَّة‬ ُ ُّ ٍ ِ َ ِْ ِ ِ َ َ ْ َ ُ ِّ ٍ ِ َ ِّ ُ ‫يُىصى بِهآ أَو ديْه غيْز مضآر وصيَّة مهَ ّللاِ وّللاُ يهِيم حهِيم‬ َ ٌ َ ٌ َ ّ َ ّ ِّ ِ َ ٍّ َ ُ َ َ ٍ َ ْ َ The Arabic word ―ََ‫ ‖ ون‬has been interpreted by almost all the distinguished Muslim scholars َ (Cf. The Exegesis of At-Tabari) as meaning ―children‖. Now, if Mr Ally thinks that he knows better than all the Muslim scholars of the past, one could follow him and see where one can get: Shabir Ally : ―To arrive at his understanding, Katz insists that he must take the Qur‘anic statements in the most literal sense. Yet the text even when taken in a literal manner does not support his misunderstanding. The Qur‘an does not literally prescribe what the parents will receive in the case which Katz proposes. It is true that the Qur‘an literally prescribes that the parents will share 1/3 when a man dies leaving one child (4:11). But the case which Katz proposes is different. Katz‘s case involves three daughters, and the literal Qur‘anic prescription involves only one child. Hence Katz‘s proposed numerical discrepancy is built on his confusing one case for another.‖ Response: Suppose that ―Walad‖ ―ََ‫ ‖ ون‬means ―one child‖. One has but to understand it the same way ٌ َ َُ ْ wherever it occurs in the verses, in both positive and negative forms. Here ―ََ‫‖ فَإِن نَّم يكه نًَُّ ون‬ ٌ َ َ‫― ‖ إِن نَّم يَكه نَّكم ون‬if you have not one child‖ of ―but if he has not one child‖ of 4:11 and ―َ َ ْ ُ ُ ْ ٌ 4:12 imply that this is the case in particular when a man leaves 3 daughters (not one child) and a wife and both a mother and a father. So lets turn back to the case given by Katz, namely : 3 daughters, 2 parents and a wife. ُ The 3 daughters will get 2/3 because of ―‫― ‖ فَإِن كهَّ وِساء فَىق احىَتَيه فَهَههَّ حُهُخَا ما تَزك‬and if they َ َ َ ُ ِ ْ ْ َ ْ َ be women above two, then for them two-thirds of what he leaves‖. ُ ُ ْ The mother will get 1/3 according to ―‫― ‖ فَإِن نَّم يَكه نًَُّ ونََ وورحًَُ أَبَىايُ فَألُمً انخُّهُج‬but if he has ِ ِّ َ ِ َ َ ٌ َ not one child, and his parents inherit of him, a third to his mother‖. From the last passage, it‘s clear that the father should get ―something‖ but it‘s not specified ُ ْ ―how much‖, so let‘s call it x (a certainly non zero value). From ― ‫ََ نَههَّ انزبُع مما تَزكتُم إِن نَّم يَكه‬ ُ ْ ْ َ َّ ِ ُ ُّ ََ‫― ‖ نَّكم ون‬and for them a fourth of what you leave, if you have not one child‖ we ٌ َ ُْ conclude that the wife should get ¼. 3 daughters 2/3 Mother 1/3 Father X>0 Wife ¼ 4:12 Total 1+¼+x 4:11 Shabir Ally : 4:11 4:11 - “If we were to follow the Qur’anic prescriptions literally, in Katz’s case the wife’s share is also not specified. The Qur’an literally prescribes a 1/8 share for the wife if the husband leaves only one child. But Katz’s case involves three daughters. And the number three happens to be more than the number one.” Response: There are two cases : “one child” and not “one child” (many children). The verses 4:11 and 4:12 deal with both cases. If “walad” is to be taken as “one child” then 4:12 tells clearly how much to give when this is not the case (not “one child”): the wife should beyond any doubt get ¼. Shabir Ally : “Katz thinks that the stated shares in this case would be 2/3 + 1/3 + 1/8, whereas in fact since two of these shares are not actually stated in the Qur’an, the shares are 2/3 + ? + ? = ?” Response: One has but to think that the shares in this case would be 2/3 + 1/3 + ¼ + x which is more than the available property! Shabir Ally : “Since the Qur’an does not make a statement on this specific case, it is impossible for the Qur’an to be wrong.” Response: The Quran actually does whatever the meaning of ―walad‖ is : ―one child‖ or ―many children‖, see above. Shabir Ally : “The details of this case is left to the comprehensive nature of the Islamic Shariah which does not depend on the Qur’an alone.” Response: We already knew that the Book of Allah is incomplete! Suggestion of one Muslim: From: H786N ([email protected]) Subject: Quranic inheritance Newsgroups: soc.religion.islam Date: 1998/06/19 The error pointed out regarding the inheritance distribution is not accurate. The Quranic verse verse 4:12 clearly says that the wife will get 1/8 of what remains...... after payment of ANY LEGACY and DEBTS. In other words if there be three daughters and both parents alive, then the wife will not get any thing after distribution of the legacy, just as many other relatives do not get anything if there are other heirs alive. The requirements for others, that is parents and children applies only after the debts are paid. I hope you will clarify this point. Reference: The the newsgroup archives. My response on the newsgroup was: From: Jochen Katz ([email protected]) Subject: Re: Quranic inheritance Newsgroups: soc.religion.islam Date: 1998/06/20 In article <[email protected]>, [email protected] (H786N) writes: } The error pointed out regarding the inheritance distribution is not accurate. } The Quranic verse verse 4:12 clearly says that the wife will get 1/8 of what } remains...... after payment of ANY LEGACY and DEBTS. In other words if there be } three daughters and both parents alive, then the wife will not get any thing } after distribution of the legacy, just as many other relatives do not get } anything if there are other heirs alive. The requirements for others, that is } parents and children applies only after the debts are paid. I hope you will } clarify this point. It wasn't very clear, but I assume that you were talking about the problem presented at the Qur'an Contradictions web page http://answering-islam.org.uk/Quran/Contra/i001.html You are the first to suggest that the wife should go empty. I added your suggestion to the other responses. Warm regards, Jochen Katz The inheritance shares to my examples as discussed in the contradiction section on calculated by the Islamic web site Al-Fara'id On-line: One wife, one daughter: The Result of Inheritance Calculation There is no differences opinion (ikhtilaf) among the Salafus Shalih against this problem Inheritors Daughters Wifes Masalah Number Share 1 1 1/2 1/8 Basic 4 1 8 Radd 14 2 16 Tashhieh 14 2 16 Dalil  Dalil 7  Dalil 12 Remarks Interestingly: The redistribution gives the wife the Qur'anic share only and gives everything else to the daughter. Contrary to this, in the next example the with overshoot shares, the share of 1/8 of the wife is diminished like everybody else's share as well. 3 daughters, mother, father, (one) wife: The Result of Inheritance Calculation There is no differences opinion (ikhtilaf) among the Salafus Shalih against this problem Inheritors Daughters Number Share 3 2/3 Basic 16 Radd Tashhieh 48 Dalil  Dalil 6  Dalil 8 Father 1 1/6 4 12  Dalil 19  Dalil 8  Dalil 12 Ashabah Remarks Mother Wifes Masalah 1 1 1/6 1/8 4 3 24 - 12 9 81 Mother, one wife, one sister: The Result of Inheritance Calculation There is no differences opinion (ikhtilaf) among the Salafus Shalih against this problem Inheritors Mother Wifes Sister Masalah Number Share 1 1 1 1/3 1/4 1/2 Basic 4 3 6 12 Radd - Tashhieh 4 3 6 13 Dalil  Dalil 9  Dalil 12  Dalil 14 Remarks An extra example: Mother, wife, sister from both parents, sister from mother only, sister from father only: The Result of Inheritance Calculation There is no differences opinion (ikhtilaf) among the Salafus Shalih against this problem Inheritors Mother Wifes Number Share 1 1 1/3 1/4 Basic 4 3 Radd Tashhieh 4 3 Dalil  Dalil 9  Dalil 12  Dalil 14 Sister 1 1/2 6 6  Dalil 15  Dalil 15 Remarks Sister of the same Father Sister of the same Mother Masalah 1 1/6 2 - 2 1 1/6 2 12 - 2 17  Dalil 13 How many angels were talking to Mary? Since the resurrection of Jesus is the main proof for his claims in regard to his deity, many have tried to disprove this account by pointing to contradictions in it. Since Muslims deny the crucifixion they obviously also have to deny the resurrection. One of the favorite items on the list of Bible contradictions, presented by atheists and Muslims alike, is therefore that in the Gospel according to Mark, chapter 16 [also Matthew 28], the women encounter at the grave on Jesus a man [angel] which is read to mean one and only one angel, while according to Luke, chapter 24 [also John 20], it is explicitely stated that they encountered two angels. I am not concerned about atheists here, but it is most interesting to see that these Muslims do not know their own Qur'an since otherwise they wouldn't make so much noise about things like this. There are (at least) two passages in the Qur'an relating the announciation of Jesus' birth to Mary. Behold! the angels said: "O Mary! Allah has chosen thee ... Behold! the angels said: "O Mary! Allah gives thee glad tidings ... -- Sura 3:42 & 45 Then we sent to her Our angel, and he appeared before he as a man in all respects. She said: "I seek refuge from thee to (Allah) Most Gracious: (Come not near) If thou dost fear Allah." -- Sura 19:17-18 How many angels came to Mary? The Arabic uses the plural form, which means there were no less than three angels, but can also mean that there were actually four, or a thousand, or a million etc.! Why does Mary only seek refuge from one of the angels as she only addresses one in Sura 19:18? Were the others not like men and threatening to her? Incidentally, this problem in the Qur'an is much harder to resolve for Muslims than the Biblical one for Christians, since in the Qur'an Mary addresses this one angel and it is clear she only speaks to one angel which would be strange if there are three or more around her. In the Bible the angels are not directly addressed by the women. Hence nothing establishes that there is only one. Mark and Matthew might have only mentioned the one who is prominent and who is the one talking while Luke and John make clear there were actually two of them. After meeting the President and Vice-President on the street somewhere, I might come home and only say, I saw the President today. Nothing in such a statement precludes that I also met the second in command and maybe more people too. I am happy to accept this same explanation for the Qur'an, but it is less convincing than for the Bible. One would have to explain why Mary twice addresses only one of them and also does not fear the other angels. Muslim responses to the above are available from Randy Desmond, Misha'al Al-Kadhi, The Learner, Mahmoud Hussein, Ahmad al-Majed. Muslim Response by Randy Desmond Date: Thu, 9 Jan 1997 There is an assumption that the author of the contradiction makes which I can not verify. That assumption is that 3:42-45 and 19:17-18 are the same occasion. Is it not reasonable that Mary (may God be pleased with her) was informed of what was to happen more than once? Keep in mind assumptions which do not contradict the Qur'an and allow an uncontradictory solution, like the one I am entertaining with respect to the number of times Mary was informed angelic beings, may not be the actual truth (and I am not saying that Mary was told this information once, twice, or many times), but nevertheless those assumptions which illustrate that a contradiction has not been proven are just as valid as assumptions which lead to contradictions. Therefore, the contradiction has not been proven at all, and with that I leave it with the following: God knows best how many times Mary was told this information and who told her. So according to the criteria of proving a contradiction, the contradiction author's argument fails. If the reader is wondering what the criteria of proof of contradiction is, see my response to this web site's page on "Heavens or Earth, Which was created first?" In that response I detail how to determine whether or not a proposed contradiction has proven its point. We observe that even the responding party is uncomfortable with his own proposed solution. I don't have much more to add. I don't have to prove contradictions in the Qur'an. I leave it to the reader to judge how credible the suggestion of multiple announcements is. After all, this would indicate the lack of belief on the part of Mary to the first announcement. Read the whole passage and observe that both times Mary reacts to the announcement of the son with the same question of "How can this be, having never been with a man". Can we really believe she would have forgotten such a momentous encounter with angelic messenger(s) and the explanation given then to the very same question? Misha'al Al-Kadhi gave another response which was incredibly verbose (more than a dozen pages) ... maybe in the hope that the reader would be so overawed by his "scholarship" just because of the mere volume of it? Maybe he hoped nobody would read to the end and realize the crucial flaws in his argument? Anyway, I tortured myself, and here is the essence of it as well as the rebuttal. His full argument is available at this site. Mr. Al-Kadhi's arguments are indented. This is why to this day we find the Queen of England, French dignitaries, and most Arab leaders referring to themselves, or referred to by others in the plural sense. This is wrong already in English or French and is just as wrong in Arabic. Because in Arabic when using the "royal we" it takes a plural *verb*, but never a plural *noun*. That is exactly as in English, and it was Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher who announced the birth of a granddaughter by saying: "We are a grandmother," but she did not and could NEVER say "We are grandmothers". And it is the same in Arabic. Only the verb can be plural, not the noun. In the above text the noun is plural: "angels". A similar case to the above is the one presented by our current author. The first three verses (Aal-Umran(3):42-45) do indeed use the word "angels." However, this plural form of the word is used to describe only one angel, specifically, angel Gabriel. Such constructs are used in the Arabic language as a symbol of dignity and respect for that person. This is a popular Arabic grammatical construct called "al-majaz al-mursal" which falls under the subheading of Arabic grammar titled "Balaghah" ... Wrong again because: "Al majaz al mursal" means "A word used in a different way than its original like saying "the fire has eaten the wood" the word "eaten" here is not in the normal use as eating is for human and animals but not for fire. There are two kinds of Majaz: 1- majaz aqli `logical metaphor' 2- majaz lughawi `lingustic metaphor' (Quote translated from "Student reference in the Arabic language" by Raajee al Asmar, Beirut 1995 pg 381) "Majaz mursal" is a type of the latter. "If there is no similarity between the new word and the referent (original word), it's called "majaz mursal". An example would be: I have drunk one glass". There is no similarity between the glass and what is in it; we drink what is in it not the glass itself (example also found in the above quoted text). I cannot see how the above falls under this heading. Continuing where we left off: ... and which we can not get into here since it requires a basic knowledge of the Arabic language and its grammar. Suffice it to say that there are at least two quick clues to this matter which even non-Arabic speaking people can appreciate. The first one is that in the first set of verses, verses 46-48 say: "The angels said... Mary said... HE replied" meaning that we are speaking about an angel designated as "he" and not "they," in the same very verses themselves. In the orginal Arabic text of the Qur'an it is clear that the "He" refers to God. At-Tabari in his comment on this verse 3:47 says: "Allah said to her "Even so; Allah createth what he willeth" But even if it should refer to one angel here (against the witness of at-Tabari), then it only means that his particular answer to Mary's question was spoken by only one angel, and the others might have been silent. Plural nouns still can't be interpreted to be singular. Secondly, a similar construct can be found elsewhere in the Qur'an which can hopefully clarify this construct to non-Arabic speakers. For example, in Al-Nahi(16):120 we read: "Verily Abraham was a nation obedient to Allah and he was not of the polytheists." We notice here that prophet Abraham (pbuh) is described as a "nation." Does this mean that he is literally a few hundred thousand people? No. This is an Qur'anic term of exaltation and elevation for Abraham above all humans such that he is higher in regard and reward with God than an entire nation of mortals. In the same manner, the status of the angel Gabriel with God is of a similar stature among the angels. There are many other similar constructs in the Arabic language, many of which are applied to angel Gabriel in more than one location in the Qur'an to set him apart from all other angels.... I found this a lot these days: Muslims use Yusuf Ali's translation when they like what he says and they ignore it when they don't like it. If we look at Ali's translation of this verse, we see that he says: Sura 16:120 - "Abraham was indeed a model..." Jalal as-Suyuti in his comment on this verse says: "Umma" - which Al Kadhi translates as nation - means "Imaman", i.e. a model/example/leader: Truly Abraham was a community, a leader (imām), a [good] example, comprising [in his character] all the good traits, obedient to God, a hanīf, inclining towards the upright religion, and he was not of the idolaters; (Tafsir al-Jalalayn) Ibn Abbas interprets similarly: (Lo! Abraham was a nation) a leader who was emulated (obedient to Allah, by nature upright) sincerely surrendered to Allah, (and he was not of the idolaters) he did not follow the idolaters in their religion; (Tanwîr al-Miqbâs min Tafsîr Ibn ‗Abbâs) Moreover, the Quran may be using the word "Umma" in reference to Abraham being the federal head of a community of believers. The plural may be including the multitudes of believers from the descendants of Abraham, with Abraham standing in their place as their corporate head. This concept is not foreign to either the Holy Bible or the Quran since both books teach the concepts of federal headship and corporate solidarity, just as the following texts demonstrate: "One might even say that Levi, who collects the tenth, paid the tenth through Abraham, because when Melchizedek met Abraham, Levi was still in the body of his ancestor." Hebrews 7:9-10 When thy Lord drew forth from the Children of Adam - from their loins - their descendants, and made them testify concerning themselves, (saying): "Am I not your Lord (who cherishes and sustains you)?"- They said: "Yea! We do testify!" (This), lest ye should say on the Day of Judgment: "Of this we were never mindful": Or lest ye should say: "Our fathers before us may have taken false gods, but we are (their) descendants after them: wilt Thou then destroy us because of the deeds of men who were futile?" S. 7:172-173 Yet such a usage provides no support for al-Kadhi's argument, since "Umma" is being used for Abraham and his seed whereas "angels", according to al-Kadhi, refers to Gabriel alone. It is also possible that Sura 16:120 contains a grammatical error, that the author wrongly used a plural for a singular subject. That this is a plausible interpretation can be readily seen from the fact that the Quran contains dozens of grammatical errors, see this section. Whatever the case maybe, Sura 16:120 does not support al-Kadhi's position. Al-Kadhi continues: Getting back to our current example, we find that in both of the quoted verses angel Gabriel is referred to through popular Arabic constructs of respect and exaltation. In the first it is demonstrated in the use of the plural construct, in the second it is demonstrated in the use of his official title of "Holy Spirit," where we see that the verse says that "We (God) sent unto her (Mary) Our Spirit (Gabriel)..." So why doesn't the Qur'an say then: "We sent unto her our spirits"? Since elsewhere the singular word malaak (angel) becomes malaa'ika (angels)? The one with the highest honor among the angels is left in the singular? Furthermore, it does only say "Spirit" and not "Holy Spirit". Even in English is not too much of a stretch to understand the intent. If a president has a highly esteemed ambassador whom he has entrusted with a significant task, and this president wishes to bestow upon this ambassador and his message an air of importance, then he would not say "I have sent some guy...." or "I have sent one of my people.." since this would reflect badly on that ambassador as someone who is not even worthy to remember his name or his service. It would also reflect badly on the message itself since it would imply that the message was of such little importance that it was entrusted to someone of such little merit. Rather, one way to convey an air of dignity and importance to the messenger as well as the message would be to mention the man's office, such as to say "I sent my ambassador.." Another way would be to directly exalt him such as saying "I sent my most trusted and faithful aid..." And finally, in Arabic one could use the plural form such as to say "I sent THEM (him).." ... etc. etc. without end ... and without substance ... It should be clear by now that Mr. Al-Kadhi knows more about skillful propaganda than he knows Arabic. No, we do NOT say "I sent THEM (him).." in Arabic. I wish he could find for me one single example of someone saying "we sent our ambassadors" when he means one man. This is a propaganda trick and plain false. "Bring your proof if you are truthful," is the charge of the Qur'an to you. I have heard statements made by Arab leaders or even individuals using the pronoun "WE" for just themselves. I have heard individuals addressing leaders, religious people, or even government employees, with "YOU" (in the plural form, like "Sie" in German or "Vouz" in French), or with words like "your majesty" or "excellency" in the plural form. But I never heard anybody using the third person pronoun in the plural form even if the third person was a king or president. Arabs may address a president or anybody by the word "Hadratoukom", "Seyadatoukom", Jalalatoukom" ... but when mentioning those people as a third person, it is never said, "Hadratouhom, "Seyadatouhom", or Jalalatouhom", but in the singular third person form, i.e. "Hadratouhou", "Seyadatouhou" or "Jalalatouhou", regardless of the importance of that third person. The use of the plural form when talking about the angel in 3:42 & 45 does not make any sense unless the Qur'an really means that there were more than one angel speaking with Mary. The Verse 47 in Sura 3 uses the verb "Qala" in the singular form refering to one angel. And my Arab friend who wrote up this rebuttal, concludes: Finally: it is *our* opinion that his argument does not hold water (or should that be *their* argument, or arguments, doesn't or don't hold water or waters) ?? My conclusion: The difficulty remains. I still think it is relatively weak in comparison to some of the others on this site, but it is nevertheless real. The response by Mr. Al-Kadhi though is worth pondering well since it shows what amount of false propaganda some people are ready to produce in order to defend the indefensible and to deceive those whom they think cannot see through their schemes. The rebuttal fraud was worse then the difficulty we started out with. It certainly would have deserved an entry in the "Dictionary of Misinformation" by Tom Burnam, Thomas Y. Crowell Company, 1975. Muslim Response by Mahmoud Hussein Date: Wed, 27 May 1998 Date: Wed, 27 May 1998 12:09:27 +1000 From: COMP1001 Student <[email protected]> Organization: School of Computer Science, UNSW To: [email protected] Subject: Errors on your web page I am a muslim living in Sydney, Australia, my name and contact address are listed below. I am writing to you with reference to your web page titled "Difficulties in the Qur'an" ( http://answering-islam.org/Quran/Contra/ ). I am some what concerned that even after I have written to you explaining your errors, that they will remain on the page. So I have picked one such error ( under internal contradictions (2), referring to the amount of angels that visited Mary {may God be pleased with her}), after explaining the error I would prefer a response and for the site to be corrected. I will then, time permitting, go through as many as your claims as possible and debunk them one by one. I would appreciate that this letter be posted in it's entirety on the site, and just the correction. In the name of God, Most Gracious, Most Merciful. Your claim was that ( under the heading of "how many angels were talking to Mary") in one section of the Qurán {3:42-45} it was said that several angels visited Mary ( may God be pleased with her ), then in another section {19:17-21} it quoted that only one angel visited her. In your haste, and excitement in thinking that you have found an error, you let the simple response to this claim jump up and fly over your head. This response is also given by M. A. Yusef in his commentary associated with verse { 19:17-21}. The answer is basically this; that the Qurán is referring to two separate situations. When the glad tidings of the birth of a son was first revealed to her, by several angels, she was confused as in her words "no man has touched me"{3:42-45}. She then asked her Lord for clarification, in reply he sends one angel to answer her query{19:17-21}. The angel again gives her the glad tidings of a son named Jesus, who will be a mightier prophet and messenger of God, and tells Mary ( may God be pleased with her ) even though no man had touched her that when God decrees a matter, "He but says 'be' and it is". So as you can see the error you claim you found in the Qurán, is but your error; as are all the errors you claim on your site. So if you want me to go through as many errors as one simple soul is able to I will, or if you have a special request i.e. request some in particular errors which you think are infallible; I will also sort out those for you. All you have to do is to respond to this letter, and display it in full on the web-site I am referring to. And if you do not, you know that in your heart you are propagating lies, and damned lies at that! And you should always remember ( even as a Christian ) we believe in a day in which all falsehood and truth is delta with by God, the All Knowing. And even if you able to hide your lies now, on that day you will be questioned why you lied, claiming truth as falsehood, and you shall get the punishment due to you....... unless you repent. This is of course the Day of Judgement. Mahmoud Hussein. University of New South Wales. e-mail address:- [email protected]. If this doesn't work try putting a "u" infront of the number; or [email protected]. Comment: What is the purpose of the accusations and threats? Can we not talk about this like civilized people? Have you not clearly seen that I offer to display or link to any answer? I already had three other answers here. Sure I will add yours. Even when you insult me. It is displayed exactly as received. Muslim Response by Ahmad AL-MAJED Date: 16 may 1999 Assuming that it was one occasion is not correct at all. Thus, if u have two men talking to you today and only one man the next day is logical. Furthermore, the two subjects were completely different in the two different versus.I do not understand why u r choosing this as a contradiction!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! "The Learner" (Moiz Amjad) responds in a lengthy article at his own website Understanding Islam. Regarding this response please also read the answer by Shamoun. Numerical discrepancies in the Qur'an Does Allah's day equal to 1,000 (Sura 22:47, 32:5) or 50,000 years (Sura 70:4)? Observe how similar 32:5 and 70:4 are worded (in English - I don't know the Arabic) "ascend unto him in a day the measure whereof is [fifty] thousand years [of your reckoning]." Maybe it originally was "fifty thousand" in both and "fifty" dropped out in one place? A corrupted manuscript? Or does God just not know how to relate the length of his days to human years? How many gardens are there in paradise? ONE: 39:73, 41:30 [the Garden], 57:21 [a Garden], 79:41 [the Garden], or MANY: 18:31, 22:23, 35:33, 78:32 [each time: "Gardens"]? The plural "Gardens" has to refer to at least three because if it/they were two, then the Arabic would use the dual form of the noun. Therefore this is a discrepancy of at least 200% from "one" to "several". Sura 56:7 mentions three distinct groups of people for judgement. But 90:18-19, 99:6-8, etc. mention only two groups There are conflicting views on who takes the souls at death. Sura 32:11 reads "Say: THE Angel of Death, put in charge over you, will (duly) take your souls. Then shall ye be brought back to your Lord", i.e. on specific angel is in view. Sura 47:27 says "But how (will it be) when THE angels take their souls at death?", which again presupposes their specific identity and a greater number than one. But then Sura 39:42 doesn't speak of angels anymore at all: "It is Allah that takes the souls (of men) at death." Sura 73:15-16 says that one messenger was sent to Pharaoh, while Sura 10:75 speaks of two (Moses and Aaron). 73:15 only says "a" (not a stress on "one") messenger, but the comparison of this messenger to Muhammad, who is sent just in the same way makes a strong point for the "one", since Muhammad undoubtedly was only one in his time. And verse 16 affirms this by saying "the" messenger. Also 7:103 also speakes only of sending Moses. The Qur'an states: 35:1 Praise be to Allah, Who created (out of nothing) the heavens and the earth, Who made the angels, messengers with wings,- two, or three, or four (pairs): He adds to Creation as He pleases: for Allah has power over all things. According to Sura 35:1 angels have 2, 3, or 4 pairs of wings. This is contradicted by several hadith which state that Gabriel had 600 wings. Bukhari, Volume 4, Book 54, Number 455: Narrated Abu Ishaq-Ash-Shaibani: I asked Zir bin Hubaish regarding the Statement of Allah: "And was at a distance Of but two bow-lengths Or (even) nearer; So did (Allah) convey The Inspiration to His slave (Gabriel) and then he (Gabriel) Conveyed (that to Muhammad). (53.9-10) On that, Zir said, "Ibn Mas'ud informed us that the Prophet had seen Gabriel having 600 wings." See also Volume 6, Book 60, Number 379 & 380. Muslim Responses Further debate of the issues. Muslim Responses by Randy Desmond Date: Fri, 27 Sep 1996 08:56:15 PDT Resolving the proposed "Days" conflict: Surah:Verse 22:47 32:5 Context This verse talks about the unbelievers wanting God to hasten on their punishment. Then it says "a day in the sight of your lord is like a 1000 years of your reckoning. In the end will all affairs go up to Him in a day equal to 1000 years of your reckoning. 70:4 The angels and the spirit ascend to Him in a day equal to 50,000 years of your reckoning. For the presented arguement to be correct, these verses would have to be talking about the same things at the same time from the same points of view. Angels are not affairs. A day in God's sight is not a day for which the angels ascend. At best we could say that the day when all affairs go up to Him is the same length as a day in God's sight. So please notice that the days which differ in terms of years of our reckoning are not even related to the same subject matter. The only inherently obvious connection between these verses is the fact that the days are reckoned in human years. It should then be clear that there is no contradiction among these verses at all. Now in whose sight is this time period "a day"? Isn't it the natural thing to see that the statement of "a day" always means "a day in the sight of your lord"? It certainly is not a day in the sight of "affairs" which do not have "sights" at all. The day is the measurement in the sight of the person "addressed" which in each case is Allah. First it is the unbelievers which want to hasten Him, in the other verses it is affairs or angels which ascend to Him. I think the above answer misses the point. I am not comparing angels and affairs. I am comparing time periods. If I say it takes me one day to climb Mount Vernon, and then I say it takes a mule one day to climb Mount Vernon, wouldn't you conclude that that I am talking about the same sort of day, even though two very different subjects take this length of time to climb the same mountain? In fact, if time is not a fixed reference then it is useless. If we make an appointment on the phone to meet in an hour at a restaurant and you wait three hours until I finally come, trust me, you wouldn't be very happy if I say "Well, that was one hour in my time. What is your problem?" We are different people and we have different understandings of what "one hour" means. It takes you one hour of your time to get there and it takes me one hour of my time to get there. It is not my fault that our "hours" are not compatible. I hope you see that your above proposed solution doesn't solve the problem. It is not that the time of different actions is measured, but it is the problem that God's day which is used to measure these actions is sometimes (supposedly) equal to 1,000 and sometimes to 50,000 human years. The Qur'an sets up a contradictory equation like 1 "God Day" = 1,000 human years and 1 "God Day" = 50,000 human years. The matter of what is measured with this time line of "God Days" has no bearing on the question. The answer I gave hits the point right smack-dab in the middle, and I will explain where Jochen's reasoning is flawed. He mention's "In fact, if time is not a fixed reference then it is useless." Well, all those "day"s mentioned in the verses are reckoned to human years. Is that not a fixed reference? Isn't time relative? Is a day on the moon the same as a day on earth? mars? What about other galaxies? Notice the problem is once again context. No, nothing smack-dab... : But this day is "Allah's" day, isn't it? You didn't answer that point. And do you now really want to make Allah move around to change his timeframe? God is always everywhere and I don't think his timeframe changes. You are getting in dangerous water with your rather far fetched explanations now. Are all the "day"s mentioned God's day? Only one verse says that a day of 1000 years of our reckoning is a day in the sight of God. The Qur'an already answered that. I mentioned that in my initial response, and it was answered. You accuse me of far fetched explanations and wanting to move God around. What? I only illustrated that time is relative. Where did I imply God physically moving around (I seek shelter in God from such thoughts). I was also told by the Arab scholar that "yawm" (day) can mean a timeperiod. It seems only natural that it should be defined. Read my first response again, and think about it. Think about the assumptions you make when "finding" a contradiction. Are those assumptions always true? If not, your contradiction is at best speculation. What about proving there is no contradiction? All I have to do is show that there is some level where there is no contradiction (in facts, context, definitions, etc...), and my assumptions at that level can not contradict with each other or the Qur'an either. You have the harder job. Perhaps we should list all assumptions of these proposed contradictions and see if they are valid, first. An Arab responds: He said that the word for day (Yawm in Arabic) can mean a period of time, and not a literal day. Well, according to my dictionary Yawm means only one of two things: 1. a literal day (from sunrise to sunset or 24 hours) 2. today. It can never mean just an abstract period of time. Dictionary entry: yawm Let us get even more involved here. In the verse about the 50,000 years it must be remembered that Allah is addressing people not angels. Hence the length of the days and their value is measured in human terms, ie. human days. 24 hours ??? Also the word "Amr" in 32:5 cannot be understood in that verse as a word or command in the sense of Allah's spoken word. If it was a command then it does not need 1,000 years to get excuted, for Allah says to the thing "be!" and it is. Hence it does not need to ascend back to Allah. So what is involved here is creatures that take time to descend and ascend. Also some commentators said the 1000 years is twice the distance between heaven and earth [i.e. the time for ascending (back) to Allah from the receiving of the command, descending for its execution on earth, and the way back.] This understanding is also documented in the famous Mishkat al-Masabih, Vol. IV, Chapter XLIII, Hadith No. 33: The Apostle of Allah and his companions were seated when lo! there came a cloud upon them. The prophet asked: Do you know what it is? They replied Allah and his Apostle know best. He said: these are clouds, these are the water-carrying agencies of the world which Allah drives towards a people who are not gratefull to Him and who do not call Him. Afterward he asked: do you know what is above you? They replied: Allah and his Apostle know best. He said: Verily it is a firmament raised up protected roof and held up wave. Then he asked: Do you know what is (the distance) between you and this? they replied: Allah and his Apostle know best. He said: between you and this, there is five hundred year's (journey). Then he asked: Do you know what is above that? They replied Allah and his Apostle know best. He said: As for two heavens, the distance between them is five hundred years. Then he said likewise till he counted seven heavens, the distance between every two heavens being what is between heaven and earth. He asked next: Do you know what is above that? They replied Allah and his Apostle know best. He said: Above that is the throne, and between it and heaven is the distance of two heavens. He asked next: Do you know what is under you? They replied Allah and his Apostle know best. He said: Verily it is earth. He asked next: Do you know what is below that? They replied Allah and his Apostle know best. He said: Below it there is another earth, between them there is the distance of five hundred years' journey, till he enumerated seven earths, between every two earths is the distance of five hundred years. Then he said: By one in whose hand there stands the life of Muhammad, had you sent a bucket with a rope down the lowest earth, it would have fallen upon Allah. Then He read: He is the First and the Last, and the Open and the Secret, and He has knowledge over every thing. Resolving the proposed "(The/A) Garden(s)" conflict: "The Garden" is "a garden" consisting of many "gardens" each of which can be referenced as "a garden". Fair enough. I think this is a good answer. At least it is a very good answer for a Christian. I am a little baffled though to hear this kind of reasoning from a Muslim. After all this is nearly the same reasoning as Christians have for the Trinity, which is ONE God revealing himself in THREE persons, each of which is is truly God (in His essential being) [and 'referenced' as God in the Holy Bible]. And that is exactly what Muslims usually strongly reject as utter nonsense ... Another response Misha'al Al-Khadi makes as usual a lot of words but say essentially only the same as the above.* I have already stated that I am happy enough with that answer. However, Al-Kadhi's response is as often a cure worse than the problem. His answer starts with the following gem This one is really reaching. For example, in the Bible we read in Genesis 1:1 "In the beginning God created the HEAVEN and the earth." While in Genesis 2:1 the Bible says: "Thus the HEAVENS and the earth were finished, and all the host of them." Similar examples in the Bible are unending. They would take at least five pages to list. So if this is a contradiction in the Qur'an then the same person who makes this claim will have to also claim that this is a contradiction in the Bible as well. There are several errors in such a response. First there is the logical fallacy of saying another book has similar features, therefore it can't be an error in my book. Well, it could be an error in both. Pointing fingers never solves your own problem. Second, Al-Kadhi is wrong about the Bible. He has as usual only read one particular translation of the Bible, the rather outdated KJV ([1], [2], etc.). In the Hebrew it is the same word both times, ha-shamayim = the heavens. I do not know why the KJV translates it this way. The NIV translates it more correctly and no contradiction exists between those two verses. The finger pointing method only left Al-Kadhi with his own problems. Resolving the proposed "Number of Groups for Judgement" conflict: Let's look at the verses that are claimed to contradict... Surah 56:7 And you shall be sorted out into three classes. Continuing in Surah 50 the classes are mentioned; Companions of the Right Hand, Companions of the Left Hand, and those Nearest to God. (Note: those Nearest to God are defined as those foremost in faith) Surah 90:18-19 (18) Such are the Companions of the Right Hand. (19) But those who reject Our signs, they are the Companions of the Left Hand. Here it does not mention the third group. Does that mean the third group does not exist? It does not say "You will be sorted into two groups." In fact, looking at verse 17 of the same surah in conjunction with these verses we see that these verses are plain. They are defining who are the Companions of the Right Hand and of the Left Hand, and not counting the total number of groups for judgement. Surah 99:6-8 (6) On that day will men proceed in companies sorted out to be shown there deeds that they had done. (7) So anyone who has done an atom's weight of good will see it (8) and anyone who has done an atom's weight of evil will see it. This does not mention what the companies are or how they will be sorted, it only mentions what the people will see; their deeds. And it should be pointed out that companies is plural, not singular and not dual. So we can infer from these verses that there are at least three groups. What we then have from these verses respectively is (1) a count of the number of groups and naming of the groups (2) a definintion of two of the groups already mentioned, and (3) a description that there will be at least three groups for Judgement and people will see their deeds. Where is the conflict or contradiciton? Resolving the proposed "Who at the Time of Death" conflict: If you look at the solution of "Messengers to Pharaoah" below, you will notice that it is possible and quite reasonable that an assignment of a task can be done with a chain of command under the one assigned to the task. Let me illustrate it. If a leader is credited with saving his country's economy, did he not assign tasks to the people under him? And did not those under him further assign tasks to complete the work? Then who is it that saved the economy? The leader? Those directly under him? or those workers under the the appointees of the leader? The answer is they all did. Resolving the proposed "Messengers to Pharaoh" conflict: If we look in Surah 20:24, Moses (Peace be upon him) is given the order from God to go to Pharaoh. Reading on, in 20:29, Moses (Peace be upon him) is praying to God that his brother, Aaron (Peace be upon him), would be sent as a helper, and in 20:31-32, Moses (Peace be upon him) qualifies his need of his brother which is to add to Moses(Peace be upon him)'s strength and share in the his task. Please notice that the purpose is to share in Moses(Peace be upon him)'s task. Knowing this, please reread those verses Jochen mentions and verify for yourself that there is no contradiction. Resolving the proposed "Number of Wings on the Angels" conflict: The verse mentioned does not say that the angels have "only" 2 or 3 or 4 pairs of wings. In fact, the Arabic does not say "or" in between the 2,3 and 4. The Arabic says "and" denoting possibilities. Having more wings is just not qualified or disqualified. It is interesting to note that the same verse continues on saying God adds to creation as He pleases. I am wondering if you would apply the same reasoning in verse 4:3. Isn't this the same kind of construction? Muslims have always read the 'Marry women of your choice, two "and" three "and" four' to mean "anything up to four" but more was certainly disqualified. It is a question of consistency in interpretation. Otherwise interpretation becomes completely arbitrary and your interpretation has no claim to be more right than my interpretation if there are no consistent rules and principles. Good point. The Qur'an is first before Hadith. So this is certainly not a contradiction within Qur'an, but does raise a question about compatability with one hadith. And I'm not convinced it is a contradiction between Qur'an and Hadith. Angels are beings of light and can take beautiful forms. Could Gabriel not have changed form? I think from your Biblical experience, you know they do. Muslim Response by Kamran Meer Date: Thu, 07 Aug 1997 Resolving the "Days" Conflict with reference to the Qur'anic Surahs 22:47, 32:5 and 70:4. I want to enlighten readers that the above three verses do not appear contradictory to me because of the following facts: 1. The English translation used by Jochen (I don't know which translation he is using) has an error at the end of Verse 70:4. In Arabic it reads, "khamseen alfa sanatin" (translation: "fifty thousand years"). However, the Verses 22:47 and 32:5 in Arabic both end with: "alfa sanatin mimma ta'addoon" (translation: "one thousand years of your reckoning") which is correct. Note that the omission of the phrase "of your reckoning" (or "from your perspective" or "as you comprehend it") in Verse 70:4 and its presence in Verses 22:47 and 32:5 is of profound significance which becomes apparent when the full verses are read in context, as explained below. 2. First, I will give a full rendering of 22:47 and 32:5 in English (Mohammad Asad's translation, 1980); 22:47, "and they challenge thee to hasten the coming upon them of chastisement: but God never fails to fulfil His promise and, behold, in thy Sustainer's sight a day is like a thousand years of your reckoning." 32:5, "and in the end all shall ascend unto Him on a Day the length whereof will be a thousand years of your reckoning." As one can see, even if taken literally, 22:47 simply states that a day for Allah is the equivalent of a thousand years for humans. However, Muslim scholars read into this the context of the duration of the Day of Judgement (since that is the topic of this verse) which will appear as long as a thousand years to humans. Nevertheless, even if Jochen wants to ignore what Muslim scholars read into 22:47 and wants to insist on "scientific facts", (which is quite fair and not unreasonable), he should at least agree that at minimum, 22:47 is telling us that a day for Allah is the equivalent of a thousand years for humans. In Verse 32:5, again Muslim scholars read into this the context of the duration of the Day of Judgement, however let us take only one of its literal meanings viz. that in the end, the time it will take all to ascend to Allah will be the equivalent of a thousand years for humans. Verse 70:4 when translated (Mohammad Asad, 1980), renders as follows: 70:4, "all the angels and all the inspiration ascend unto Him in a day the length whereof is fifty-thousand years." Now, in 70:4, we can see that the creatures being ascended are specifically mentioned as "angels" and "inspiration", not humans. (Also note that Asad has used "inspiration" as the translation of the Arabic "Ar-rooh" whereas other translators have used "spirit" or "soul" instead. Whichever word one uses, in Arabic "Ar-rooh" denotes not humans but the human spirit or soul or the human mind etc. which does not have physical shape as a human body does yet spirits reside inside the bodies of humans). So therefore if the length of time described in 70:4 is fifty-thousand years without any mention of in whose reckoning or perspective, we should not take it to mean that it must also be in the perspective of humans which is specifically stated only in 22:47 and 32:5. As a matter of fact, this time-frame may very well be in the perspective of "angels" and "spirits", however, just as Allah has not given knowledge to humans about what the angels and spirits are made of, so He may have deliberately ended 70:4 at the figure of fifty-thousand years, for humans to guess (or never know!) what the perspective is. Nevertheless, speaking from the point of view of facts, it is a fact that 70:4 does not contain the words "mimma ta'addoon" as do Verses 22:47 and 32:5, and therefore it is not correct to conclude that these verses are contradictory. In fact after pondering over these verses, one only marvels at the astonishing precision and accuracy with which these verses have been handled by the Qur'an. 3. Before leaving this topic, I would like to take this opportunity to enlighten readers about some of the recent scientific developments in the field of both Nuclear Physics and Astronomy which shed light on the nature of time itself. As of today, most leading physicists and research institutes are unanimous in their conclusion of the fundamental structure of matter and forces, and describe it mathematically by what they call "The Standard Model". I am not going to describe this model here but would only like to say that the nature of time itself has come under great scrutiny as physicists have probed into nuclear structures through giant instruments called "particle colliders". And one of the most profound conclusions of the Standard Model is that time by itself is nothing but is inter-twined with space in a mathematical concept called "space-time", which itself is not an absolute but a relative measurement dependent on the place of the observer in the universe as well as the speed of the observer. It has been observed in the behaviour of sub-nuclear particles that time (or rather space-time) can flow both forward as well as backward and can slow down or speed up. Modern hypotheses in Astronomy point to similar conclusions. (For a fuller account of current developments in these fields, one can refer to such excellent books as James Trefil's "From Atoms to Quarks", (Anchor Books, NY 1994), Chapters 8 & 13, or to "Shadows of Creation" by Michael Riordan & David Schramm, (Oxford University Press, 1993), or to Stephen Hawkings' "A Brief History of Time", (Bantam Books, 1988). One can also visit the web-site of Fermilab, Chicago where most of the ground-breaking research results of particle collision are reported). Net, for humans to simplify the concepts of time and space travel simply because humans are not endowed with the same capabilities that other beings may be endowed with, is not correct. But glimpses into sub-nuclear matter and into the history of the universe do give a clue regarding the abstruseness of these issues and that they may well be outside the scope of human comprehension, or may need further evolution of the science of physics. 4. In the end, I would like to inform readers that the well documented Ascent of Muhammad, pbuh (see Sahih-al-Bukhari, Vol. 1, no. 345 and Vol. 5, no. 227) is also not a mundane phenomenon and could well be the ascent of Muhammad's (pbuh) spirit or soul whose context of space-time may be different to the concept of time of ordinary humans. I will now leave the readers with the following verses of Surah no. 70 of the Qur'an to ponder. "Hence, leave them to indulge in idle talk and play until they face that day of theirs which they have been promised - the Day when they shall come forth in haste from their graves, as if racing towards a goal-post, with downcast eyes, with ignominy overwhelming them: that Day which they were promised again and again." from Surah-al-Ma'arij (literally "The Ways of Ascent") When "the Learner" gives his response to the "One day = 50,000 or 1,000 years" difficulty, he ends the article with this remark: I am sure if Mr. Katz will consider my arguments with an open mind, he shall see that his argument of numerical discrepany, at least in this particular case, holds no ground. I request Mr. Katz to look at the Qur'an with the same mental attitude with which he looks at the Bible... is that asking for too much? That certainly is not too much to ask. I have already stated my view on this issue in the very first paragraph of my introduction to the provided list of Qur'an contradictions. My whole purpose with this part of the web site is to give the Muslim an incentive to approach the Bible with the same mental attitude as he approaches the Qur'an. That is the reason I also have no problem in linking to the Muslim responses to those contradictions. I do not have the goal to bash the Qur'an and to prove with all means possible that it is wrong. I hope that both Muslims and Christians can learn from these discussions. This is something I find lacking on nearly all Islamic web pages that discuss the corruption of the Bible who have not interest to give the Christians the possibility to explain their view. They seemingly have the need to prove the Bible wrong and this need is stronger than the honest search for truth in interaction between different views. It is somewhat ironic that "the Learner" now tries to turn this argument on me as if I had put different standards on the difficult passages in the Bible and in the Qur'an. That is not the case. I am personally willing to accept an explanation as possible even though it might not fully convincing and somewhat ad hoc. I know there are difficult passages in the Bible for which I don't have explanations which are fully satisfactory. I will give the same lenience to reading and understanding the Qur'an. I only hope that Muslims learn from these difficult and certainly at a first look contradictory Qur'an passages, that they need to rethink their attacks on the Bible if they want to be intellectually honest in their "comparative religion" discussions. However, for the sake of full impact of this discussion and to show the Muslims how they make Christians feel with their relentless attacks on our holy book, I am going to give the toughest possible arguments against the Qur'an in some of these exchanges about contradictions, not because I believe they are so incredibly important in content or that this finally establishes the Qur'an as wrong. I believe they are important only to get a proper perspective in these inter-faith debates, to help us to finally talk about the essentials, and to overcome the all too common arguments about peripheral issues in fruitless debates. These essential topics are not some more or less superficial internal contradictions but the deeper theological issues of the nature and character of God, the nature of revelation and the issue how revelation relates to historical reality. "The Learner" also responded to the "garden or gardens" issue and suggested: I do not fully agree with the response of the Muslim, as shall be explained below, but I think that if Mr. Katz really believes that the answer given by the Muslim is a satisfactory one and resolves an apparent contradiction, he should remove the particular contradiction from his "contradictions" page and place it in a "resolved contradictions" page. I really do not think that that is asking for too much. I believe that is exactly what he himself would expect a Muslim to do. No? I believe that we should all -- whether it be me, Mr. Katz, Muslims, Christians, Jews or anyone else -- we should all set high moral and ethical standards for ourselves and then try to meet these standards as far as is possible for us, irrespective of whether or not our (apparent) adversaries are doing so. I think I have mostly answered this issue already in the above explanations regarding my purpose. I want to thank the Learner for his response. I agree, it is a reasonable answer, and resolves this difficulty to my personal satisfaction. Why then do I not remove it from the list? Because the purpose never was to present a list of difficulties which are objectively contradictions so that the Qur'an be proven false and must be rejected on this basis. If that had been my objective, then I agree, I should remove it. But this list has the purpose to aid both Christians and Muslims to discuss Qur'an and Bible from a proper perspective. Others who read these passages might have the same observation of one or many gardens as they read the Qur'an and might use this in their discussions. If it is removed, nobody will know that it is already answered in a good way. If I leave the perceived contradictions and the Muslim responses with possible answers on this web page, then both, Muslims and Christians can refer to this page as a helpful resource. Muslim readers can find good answers to the contradictions in the explanations of the problem provided; answers they might not have been able to find based on their own resources, and Christians can find and understand these answers on the web even if no Muslim could explain it to them. I think this is reason enough to keep the perceived problem with its discussion on this page. It is a help for better understanding. No unethical behavior was ever intended. I have thought at some time to create a "resolved contradictions" section, but I think that would not have the same desired effect, nor would it be easy in many cases to determine when a certain difficulty should be moved from one to the other section. People have different opinions whether an answer is satisfactory or not. Making two such sections, would only fill my mailbox with a large number of Muslim complaints why I have not moved this one or that one, since it is resolved in their opinion, but not necessarily in mine. Therefore, I find the current approach personally most satisfactory. Everyone can find all the passages which "some people might consider contradictory"; they can read the different answers that have been given, and then come to their own conclusion whether this is resolved for them or not. I do not have to make this decision for the reader. I hope these explanations are satisfactory and my course of action is no longer seen as morally questionable or coming from an evil motivation. Jochen Katz Further numerical discrepancies Does Allah's day equal to 1,000 human years (Sura 22:47, 32:5) or 50,000 human years (Sura 70:4)? Muslim Response by ahmad almajed Date: thu, 13 may 1999 the day in which the angels ascend is deferent than the day measurement in the other two verses ( which is 1 day = 1000 earth years ) , being an ARAB , and reading the ARABIC text which is deferent than the English , I say that the day in which the Angels ascend is by it self = 50000 earth years , and that day is the judgment day. let me write my translation of the verse 70:4 : " The Angels and the holy spirit ascend to him (GOD) in a day that equals 50000 years) and this is the correct translation. You see, it does not say here that a day to GOD equals 50000 years of your years as it is the case in the other tow verses please learn ARABIC for about 30 years and then read the ARABIC Quran .Then you would understand. From [email protected] Thu Feb 27 21:02 EST 1997 From: (Ali Arshad) Subject: Internal Contradictions * And it just doesn't add up: Sura 4:11-12 and 4:176 state the Qur'anic inheritance law. If a man dies and leaves three daughters, his two parents and his wife then they will receive the respective shares of 2/3 for the 3 daughters together, 1/3 for the parents together [both according to verse 4:11] and 1/8 for the wife [4:12] which adds up to more than the estate available. A second example is, that when a man leaves only his mother, his wife and two sisters, then they receive 1/3 [mother, 4:11], 1/4 [wife, 4:12] and 2/3 [the two sisters, 4:176], which again adds up to 15/12 of the available property. * Further numerical discrepancies: Does Allah's day equal to 1,000 human years (Sura 22:47, 32:5) or 50,000 human years (Sura 70:4)? This argument was presented even during the Prophet's time. Commentators on the Qur'an for more than a thousand years explained this as demonstrating that time is irrelevant to God. The Qur'an purposely gives different values for the human equivalent of God's day. How many gardens are there in paradise? ONE [as stated in 39:73, 41:30, 57:21, 79:41] or MANY [18:31, 22:23, 35:33, 78:32]? According to Sura 56:7 there will be THREE distinct groups of people at the Last Judgement, but 90:18-19, 99:6-8, etc. mention only TWO groups. Both of these "contradictions" demonstrate that the afterlife is metaphorical and that all comparisons are only for human comprehension. Most modern Muslims believe that there are no distinct levels of the hereafter at all. There are conflicting views on who takes the souls at death: THE Angel of Death [32:11], THE angels (plural) [47:27] but also "It is Allah that takes the souls (of men) at death." [39:42] Angels are many times used as metaphors for the laws of nature. There is no contradiction in these phrases. 32:11 says that the Angel of Death is the one in charge of ones death, not the one who takes the soul out. Also, if an angel takes away the soul of a person, then in all monotheistic religions, this is considered the same as God taking away the soul. This is because all things eventually go back to the original will of God. In other words, if I was to get a 100% in my chemistry test, the Qur'an may also say that God gave me a 100% on the test. Angels have 2, 3, or 4 pairs of wings [35:1]. But Gabriel had 600 wings. [Sahih Bukhari, Volume 4, Book 54, Number 455] Wings of angels are completely metaphorical. Whether the Prophet ever actually claimed that Gabriel had 600 wings is improbable. Any contradiction between Hadith and Qur'an simply means that the Hadith was wrong. The Hadith are simlpy a collection of hearsay quotes of the Prophet, not part of the Qur'an, which is God's literal word. * Six or eight days of creation? Sura 7:54, 10:3, 11:7, and 25:59 clearly state that God created "the heavens and the earth" in six days. But in 41:9-12 the detailed description of the creation procedure adds up to eight days. The "days" are not literal ones. The word used in the Qur'an for a day is 'yaum,' which means aeon, day, long period of time or stage in time. So, even if the Qur'an did have the supposed contradiction, it would just represent different divisions of the time in which the creation occurred. However, the contradiction is not even there. 41:9-12 uses the word 'thumma,' meaning 'moreover:' "...created the earth in two periods...measured out the earth's sustenance in four periods...moreover (thumma)...in two periods." Thumma does not necessarily imply a sequence in time, in Arabic. In this case it means that two things were happening at the same time. The events were juxtaposed in this case. * Heavens or Earth? Which was created first? First earth and then heaven [2:29], heaven and after that earth [79:27-30]. 2:29 "He is the One who created for you everything on earth, then (thumma) turned to the sky and perfected seven universes therein..." This does not imply that the heavens were created after earth, but that the galaxies were still being formed even after earth was created. Also, the word thumma is used again. * Calling together or ripping apart? In the process of creation heaven and earth were first apart and are called to come together [41:11], while 21:31 states that they were originally one piece and then ripped apart. 41:11 "Then He turned to the sky, when it was still gas, and said to it, and to the earth, 'Come into existence, willingly or unwillingly.'..." This is referring to the original state of the solar system. Nowhere does it say that heaven and earth were separate and then came together. * What was man created from? A blood clot [96:1-2], water [21:30, 24:45, 25:54], "sounding" (i.e. burned) clay [15:26], dust [3:59, 30:20, 35:11], nothing [19:67] and this is then denied in 52:35, earth [11:61], a drop of thickened fluid [16:4, 75:37] The Qur'an purposely does this to demonstrate the symbolic nature of our origins. The blood clot, 'nasa,' actually means a small cell or congealed blood. This either refers to the conjuction of the sperm and the ovum or the original cell in creation, from which we evolved from. * Will there be inquiry in Paradise? "neither will they question one another" [23:101] but nevertheless they will be "engaging in mutual inquiry" [52:25], "and they will ... question one another" [37:27]. 23:101 refers to the Day of Judgement, not Paradise. no contradiction. Therefore, there is * Are angels protectors? "NO protector besides Allah" [2:107, 29:22]. But in Sura 41:31 the angels themselves say: "We are your protectors in this life and the Hereafter." And also in other suras is their role described as guarding [13:11, 50:17-18] and protecting [82:10]. The sense of the word protector is different in both cases. God is the only ultimate protector, and by his will only can anything else protect something. A bodyguard is surely a protector, so it would have been ridiculous for the Prophet to make such a statement if he was referring to the same thing. * Is everything devoutly obedient to Allah? That is the claim in 30:26, but dozens of verses speak of the proud disobedience of Satan [7:11, 15:28-31, 17:61, 20:116, 38:71-74, 18:50] as well of many different human beings who reject His commands and His revelations. This is a complete misunderstanding of one of the fundamental principles of Islam. Islam means, 'submission/commitment.' All matter is governed by the laws of Islam. 30:26 is referring to the meaning of the laws as the same thing as the laws of physics, chemistry and other sciences. Our bodies follow natures rules as do the celestial objects. The only two things in the creation which can go against Islam are humans (not the bodies) and the jinn (of which Satan is one of). The goal of a Muslim is to follow the teachings of the Qur'an, thus following the laws of Islam, thus becoming one with nature, and therefore, one with God. This is to be taken metaphorically, of course. The concept of literally becoming part of nature or God is of far eastern religions, such as Hinduism. * Does Allah forgive shirk? This is the worst sin and Allah can't really decide if he will ever forgive it or not. No [4:48, 116], Yes [4:153, 25:68-71]. And Abraham committed this sin of polytheism as he takes moon, sun, stars to be his Lord [6:76-78] and still Muslims believe that all prophets are without any sin. Not if the person does not change before death. All sins can be forgiven by God, even after the death of the person, except for shirk, which can only be changed if the person becomes monotheistic. Otherwise, the Prophet would have also committed shirk. A side note is that mostly uneducated Muslims believe in the infallibility of the Prophets, as it is nowhere mentioned in the Q'uran. * The event of worship of the golden calf: The Israelites repented about worshipping the golden calf BEFORE Moses returned from the mountain [7:149], yet they refused to repent but rather continued to worship the calf it until Moses came back [20:91]. Does Aaron share in their guilt? No [20:85-90], yes [20:92, 7:151]. Certain people repented and certain ones continued to worship the calf according to the Qur'anic story. As for Aaron's guilt, how can one believe that the Qur'an says that he did not share his guilt first, and then two lines later, change. That is completely ridiculous. The Qur'an's position on the story is that Aaron shared no guilt and that is final. In 20:92, Moses asks Aaron if he shared the guilt and in 7:151 he asks for the forgiveness of both of them. Of course Moses did not share in the guilt, yet he asks for forgiveness, also. The Qur'an never puts any blame on Aaron. * Moses and the Injil? Jesus is born more than 1,000 years after Moses, but in 7:157 Allah speaks to Moses about what is written in the Injil [the book given to Jesus]. In 7:157, God is not even speaking to Moses, but to the reader of the Qur'an. * Can slander of chaste women be forgiven? Yes [24:5], No [24:23]. Yes, they can be forgiven. sin. 24:23 simply states the the slander is a bad * How do we receive the record on Judgment Day? On Judgement day the lost people are given the Record (of their bad deeds): Behind their back [84:10], or in their left hand [69:25]. I did not know it was a problem to carry a book in one's left hand and behind the back at the same time! It is a metaphor, anyway. * Can angels disobey? No angel is arrogant, they all obey Allah [16:49-50], but: "And behold, we said to the ANGELS: 'Bow down to Adam'. And THEY bowed down, EXCEPT Iblis. He refused and was haughty." [2:34]. Iblis is not even an angel, he is a jinn! * Three contradictions in 2:97 and 16:101-103 Who brings the revelation from Allah to Muhammad? The ANGEL Gabriel [297], or the Holy Spirit [16:102]? The new revelation confirms the old [2:97] or substitutes it [16:101]? The Qur'an is PURE Arabic [16:103] but there are numerous foreign, non-Arabic words in it. Gabriel and the Holy Spirit are one and the same in Islam. The Qur'an affirms that there God did create the old revelations, but they were changed, so the Qur'an's laws substitute their's. The Qur'an says a plain Arabic tongue, not a pure one. * The infinite loop problem Sura 26:192,195,196: "It (the Qur'an) is indeed a revelation from the Lord of the Worlds, ... in clear Arabic speech and indeed IT (the Qur'an) is in the writings of the earlier (prophets)." Now, the 'earlier writing' are the Torah and the Injil for example, written in Hebrew and Greek. HOW can an ARABIC Qur'an be contained in a books of other languages? Furthermore, it would have to contain this very passage of the Qur'an since the Qur'an is properly contained in them. Hence these earlier writings have to be contained in yet other earlier writings and we are in an infinite loop, which is absurd. That is gross misinterpretation of the verse. The basic rules of the Qur'an are contained in the earlier scriptures, not the Qur'an itself. How could Muhammad make a mistake like that? Even a three year old would not do that. Most people interpret those verses to mean that the prophecy of the Qur'an is in the older scriptures, anyhow. * "An old woman" and God's character About the story of Lot: "So we delivered him and his family, - all exept an old woman who lingered behind." [Sura 26:170-171] And again: "But we saved him and his family, exept his wife: she was of those who lagged behind. [Sura 7:83]. Either this is a contradiction or if indeed Lot's wife is derogatorily called "an old woman" then this does not show much respect for her as a wife of a prophet. Yes, they are the same person. of the city. The wife of Lot was one of the evil people * More problems with the story of Lot "And his people gave NO answer but this: They said, "Drive them out of your city: these are indeed men who want to be clean and pure!" [Sura 7:82 & 27:56]. Yet: "But his people gave NO answer but this: They said: "Bring us the Wrath of Allah if thou tellest the truth." [Sura 29:29]. Obviously these answers are different. The Qur'an never says that these were the same instances. Also, Muslims believe that the quotes of people in the Qur'an are not meant to be exact words, but the general idea. * Did Abraham smash the idols? The accounts of Abraham, Suras 19:41-49, 6:74-83 differ quite a bit from Sura 21:51-59. While in Sura 21 Abraham confronts his people strongly, and even destroys the idols, in Sura 19 Abraham shuts up after his father threatens him to stone him for speaking out against the idols. And he seems not only to become silent, but even to leave the area ("turning away from them all"). So what? One day I might be threatened by some people for speaking out against racism, so I go away in silence. Another day, I may have more courage and yell at the people no matter what they do. By the way, these are true incidents. * What about Noah's son? According to Sura 21:76, Noah and all his family is saved from the flood. But Sura 11:42-43 reports that Noah's son drowns. 21:76 does not claim that his whole family was saved. considered part of his true family, by the Muslims. His son is not even * Was Noah driven out? "Before them *the people of Noah* rejected (their messenger): They rejected Our servant and said, 'Here is One possessed!' And he was driven out." [Sura 54:9] Now, if he is driven out [expelled from their country] how come they can scoff at him while he is buiding the ark since we read "Forthwith he (starts) constructing the Ark: Every time that the Chiefs of *his people* passed by him, they threw ridicule on him." [Sura 11:38] He cannot be both: Driven out and near enough that they can regularly pass by. Yes he can, if they come to inspect what he is doing. Anyhow, the Qur'an does not say that he was driven out, but that he was persecuted. Even if it did say that he was driven out, it does not specify if he was driven out of the town or how long he was driven out for. * Pharaoh's repentance in the face of death? According to Sura 10:90-92, Pharaoh repented "in the sight of death" and was saved. But Sura 4:18 says that such a thing can't happen. The Pharaoh did repent, but it was not accepted. The Qur'an does not say that he was saved, but that his body was preserved. The Qur'an says that he will be punished in many places. * Abrogation? "The words of the Lord are perfect in truth and there is NONE who can change His words." [Sura 6:115] Also see 6:34 But then Allah (Muhammad?) sees the need to exchange some of them ones" [Sura 2:106, 16:101]. And it is not for ignorant people Allah because of such practices! This is looked at in the essay, "Who Goes to Heaven." * Guiding to truth? "Say: 'God - He guides to the truth; and which is worthier to be followed ...?" [Sura 10:35] But how much is left over of this worthiness when we also read: "Allah leads astray whom he pleases, and he guides whom He pleases, ..." [Sura 14:4]. And how do we know in which of Allah's categories of pleasure we fall? How sure can a Muslim be that he is one of those guided right and not one of those led astray? This is interpreted as meaning that God lets certain people go astray, and as a psychological rule, may allow them to even become worse, if they deserve it. However, even the Prophet (pbuh) said that he did not know his fate in the afterlife. * What is the punishment for adultery? Flogging with a 100 stripes (men and women) [24:2], "confine them to houses until death do claim them (lifelong house arrest - for the women) [4:15]. For men: "If they repent and amend, leave them alone" [4:16]. 24:2 contradicts both the procedure for women and men in Sura 4. And why is the punishment for women and men equal in Sura 24 but different in Sura 4? 4:15 says to confine them into their house until another revelation elaborates. This revelation was 24:2. 4:16 goes for both men and women, not just men. justice; and 10:65. for "better to question * Will Christians enter Paradise or go to Hell? Sura 5:69 says "Yes", Sura 5:72 (just 3 verses later) says "No". This is the topic of the essay, "Who Goes to Heaven." * God alone or also men? The Qur'an is "clear Arabic speech." [16:103] Yet "NONE knows its interpretation, save only Allah." [3:7]. Actually, "men of understanding do grasp it." [3:7] 16:103 is irrellevant to this topic. All it states is...well...just what it states. Men of understanding grasp the main message of the Qur'an, but nobody understands that deepest interpretation of the Qur'an except for God. The Prophet (pbuh) supposedly said that every verse has an external and internal meaning. The Sufis take this one step further and say that each verse has seven meanings. * Was Pharaoh Drowned or Saved when chasing Moses and the Israelites? Saved [10:93], drowned [28:40, 17:103, 43:55]. 10:93 is saying that he was preserved. This is referring to his body. The Museum of Cairo holds the mummy of what is said to be the Pharaoh of the Qur'an and Bible. * When Commanded Pharaoh the Killing of the Sons? When Moses was a Prophet and spoke God's truth to Pharaoh [40:23-25] or when he was still an infant [20:38-39]? Both. They were two separate incidents. * When/how are the fates determined? "The night of power is better than a thousand months. The angels and spirit descend therein, by the permission of their Lord, with all decrees." [97:3,4] "Lo! We revealed it on a blessed night." [44:3] To Muslims, the "Night of Power" is a blessed night on which fates are settled and on which everything relating to life, death, etc., which occurs throughout the year is decreed. It is said to be the night on which Allah's decrees for the year are brought down to the earthly plane. In other words, matters of creation are decreed a year at a time. Contradicting this, Sura 57:22 says, "No affliction befalls in the earth or in your selves, but it is in a Book before we create it." This means it is written in the Preserved Tablet, being totally fixed in Allah's knowledge before anyone was created. All of the above is contradicted by "And every man's fate We have fastened to his own neck." This says that man alone is responsible for what he does and what happens to him. [17:13] The belief that yearly decisions are made is not supported by the Qur'an, but is a belief held by uneducated Muslims. I was never taught that, but my religious teacher told me how some people believed that. * Wine: Good or bad? Strong drink and ... are only an infamy of Satan's handiwork. [5:90, also 2:219]. Yet on the other hand in Paradise are rivers of wine [47:15, also 83:22,25]. How does Satan's handiwork get into Paradise? The wine in the afterlife is a metaphor. Anyway, wine is only bad on earth, not in Heaven, because its bad effects are only worldly. Qur'an Contradiction: How many days did Allah need to destroy the people of Aad? The Qur'an speaks in various passages about the people of Aad, and about their destruction by terrible tornado as punishment from Allah for their disobedience. The Qur'an, however, contradicts itself in the number of days this wind endured. Lo! We let loose on them a raging wind on a day of constant calamity, [54:19] Therefor We let loose on them a raging wind in evil days, that We might make them taste the torment of disgrace in the life of the world. And verily the doom of the Hereafter will be more shameful, and they will not be helped. [41:16] And as for A'ad, they were destroyed by a fierce roaring wind, Which He imposed on them for seven long nights and eight long days so that thou mightest have seen men lying overthrown, as they were hollow trunks of palm-trees. [69:6-7] According to Sura 54:19, the wind continued for a single day, while 41:16 uses the plural form indicating at least three days, and 69:7 specifies exactly eight days. Inquiry in Paradise? For when the trumpet is blown, that day there shall be no kinship any more between them, neither will they question one another. -- Sura 23:101 ... this is the Day of Judgement... Nay, but that day they shall submit (to Judgement); and they will turn to one another, and question one another. -- Sura 37:20,26,27 As to the Righteous, they will be in Gardens, ... They will advance to each other, engaging in mutual inquiry. -- Sura 52:17,25 A Muslim's Response by Randy Desmond Date: Fri, 27 Sep 1996 12:48:47 PDT Surah 23:101 is talking about the Judgement. Surah 52:17,25 is talking about the Paradise. This should be very clear from the context, and is certainly not a discrepancy. By the way, the above inconsistency is found in Al-Itqan by as-Suyuti; chapter on contradiction and inconsistency. Sura 37:20,26,27 were inserted later after the Muslim response arrived. That is the reason he didn't comment on this (yet?). If you want to restrict the first one to only the day of Judgement, then there might not be a contradiction. The question is if that is the original sense. It seems that it is more natural to read 23:101 as "from the blowing of the trumpet onwards" since it says "no kinship any more" or do you suggest that kinship is also only dissolved for the Judgement only and is reinstated afterwards? The first and second, the kinship and the questioning, seem to be parallel items and what holds for the first should be holding for the second. Anybody may decide for himself what he thinks is the most reasonable reading of this verse in its context. And afterwards see if it fits the other verse in Sura 52. Quick or Slow Creation? We find in the Qur'an 7:54 Lo! your Lord is Allah Who created the heavens and the earth in six Days, ... Many Muslims in recent days try to become modern in their interpretation and bring the six days into line with cosmology and its currently proposed 15 billion years as age of the universe. So, they claim that the word for day does not only mean day, but can mean period, or even eon. And they even claim that the Qur'an is on this very much in line with science in this regard,[1] even though the earlier commentators and Muhammad himself took the creation days to be literal 24 hours week days. Yet the Qur'an makes another statement about the speed of Allah's creation: 2:117 The Originator of the heavens and the earth! When He decreeth a thing, He saith unto it only: "Be!" And it is. Does this aya not say that God creates instantaneous? Does this really leave room for billions of years of development? Six days are still pretty quick and acceptable in the range of "Be! And it is" given the massive size of the universe and the complexity of life ..., but wouldn't it be quite a stretch to translate Sura 2:117 as "When He decreeth a thing, He saith unto it only: Be! And it finally came to pass after about 10 billion years."? And he said to Adam: "Be! And as evolution went its way, after about 3 billion years, Adam emerged." Again, this can be harmonized with a dose of good will. But these contradiction pages are written for those Muslims who have little good will and who insist on a literal reading of the Bible so that contradictions may emerge. Therefore, insisting on a literal reading of the Qur'an, we manage to do just the same. Notes: 1. For example on Shabir Ally's page. See also our Qur'an and Science section. A Muslim response which forgets to take into account that the understanding of "yawm" as ordinary week days are not just those of fallible scholars, but the understanding of Muhammad himself as pointed out in the link above. The author then added a comment on the above hadith. Qur'an Contradiction: Heaven or Earth, which was created first? He it is Who hath created for you all that is on earth. Then He turned to the heaven, and made them into seven heavens. -- Sura 2:29 Sura 41:9-12 also gives details on the creation process and confirms that the earth was created first and then the heavens. But then we read also: Are you the harder to create, or is the heaven that He built? He raised the height thereof and ordered it; and He has made dark the night thereof, and He brought forth the morn thereof. And after that, He spread out the earth. -- Sura 79:27-30 Further debate on the issue: A Muslim's Response by Randy Desmond Date: Tue, 8 Oct 1996 14:47:13 PDT The reader has to understand two things: First, the word translated "then" is the Arabic word "thumma". It can be rendered "Moreover/Furthermore". Jochen shows this in his web page disputing the number of days of creation. I mention it again in my response to that page. It is also true that "thumma" can be rendered "then" (as in a subsequent "and"). Second, the Arabic word for "he turned" can be rendered as "he turned", " he has turned", or "he had turned". The implication being a past action has occured. See "Written Arabic - An Approach to the Basic Structures" by A.F.L. Beeston (cost about $25.00), Chapter 3, note 22. So what does this mean with respect to the verses quoted by Jochen? It means that Surah 2:29 may be read as follows: He it is Who created for you all that is on the Earth. Furthermore, he had turned to the heaven and had made them into seven heavens. That is an acceptable translation of the Arabic and it does not conflict with Surah 79:27-30. In fact if we assume it "thumma" means "then", the sentance could potentially be awkward. (i.e. "...then he had turned...") So which is the most accurate rendering? I assume there is no contradiction in the Qur'an and so if I can find a legitimate context that renders all the data coherent, I accept that as a proof that contradiction has not been proven. I don't think anyone can claim "contradiction" on anything unless there is no alternative explanation which legitimately explains why a proposed contradiction is not a contradiction. Continuing, if you look at Jochen's page on the number of days of creation you will see that my response to that supports my argument here. Then look at my response to Jochens page on the heavens and earth ripping apart (if my respoonse has been posted - as I write this I'm not sure if it has), you will further see that the whole creation story is cohesive when we take all the data into account. I will grant the reader that this exchange between Jochen and I may be disjointed and a bit confusing, but please, take all the information into account. To say it is contradictory or confusing is not taking into consideration that translations may be the point of confusion and not the Qur'an. If these are the kinds of things Jochen has encountered from Muslims attacking a the Bible, his feelings reflected in his purpose statement are understandable. Although I do question his intent and methods for venting these feelings. It seems questions about these "contradictions" should be asked before accusations ensue (or appending "...more to come..." on the webpage - that is a bit presumptuous). Now, having said all that, I came up with some guide lines we can apply to any book to prove/disprove contradictions. Let me know if you think it is fair. Is there ever a context for which the proposed contradictory statements are not contradictory? If it seems that the statements are still contradictory, ask the following: Have I made any unverified assumptions? Have I considered all possible definitions of the words? Have I considered all possible translations of the words? Have I considered all grammatical syntatic definitions/renderings? Do you agree that if we answer NO to the first two questions and YES to the last three questions, then we would seem to have a contradiction? So if, after considering all of the above information, we still have a contradiction, then we can conclude that there is a problem. (Note: this is addressing internal contradictions of a document, I have not thought whether this is also a relevant guideline for external contradictions). Not being scholars in the matters, we could then even consult scholars in the matters and see what they have to say. If after all this there is still a problem. So be it. Let me also point out that proving contradictions is much harder than disproving them. So, working with the assumption that there is none and conclusively proving a contradiction is a much more credible approach than vice-versa. Now I hope that we can apply these ideas to both the Qur'an and Bible. That is the most fair and I hope it addresses Jochen's concern regarding Muslims which have made attacks on the Bible. We are not in the business of slandering other religions, we are in the business of seeking knowledge and sharing it. Well, that is my opinion. Is it agreeable? God knows best. Not really. Several reasons are discussed in the following articles / responses to other Muslims making similar claims:    THUMMA (Arabic Dictionary Entry) Rebuttal to Zakir Naik: The Quranic Account of Creation and Science Rebuttal to MENJ: Six or Eight Days of Creation? Visited Again (cf. particularly the quotations of Ibn Kathir, Zamakhshari and their discussion) Calling Together or Ripping Apart? Then He turned to the heaven, which was only smoke at that time. He said to the heaven and the earth: "Come ye together, willingly or unwillingly." -- Sura 41:11 Have not the disbelievers seen that the heavens and the earth were one piece and We parted them? And we made every living thing from water. Will they not then believe? -- Sura 21:30 Here does arise the question: Have heaven and earth first been of one piece which Allah then parts, or have they first been far apart so that He has to call them together? Further debate on the issue: Muslim Responses by Randy Desmond Date: Fri, 18 Oct 1996 04:52:00 PDT In Surah 41:11, "come ye together" is, according to the Arabic, like if we were to call to people at the same time (i.e. we would call them together). This is not a melding together. It is not understood that way at all. Nevertheless, I understand why you may jump to that conclusion. I read A. Y. Ali's comment and he understands the verse to be mentioning that the heavens and earth, once created, were meant to be kept together, not separate. However, he doesn't say he understands them to be joined together as one unit as Surah 21:30 says. I really do not know what A. Y. Ali means. Perhaps arranged together? In any case, regardless what A. Y. Ali's interpretation is, the Arabic is clear. Let me stress the point, the Arabic word in Surah 41:11 means "come both of you", and then God asks them to submit. In Surah 21:30, the arabic means "one piece". To summarize, it is only the translation which could even give someone the idea that there is a contradiction. This is a reason why a Muslim does not regard translations of the Qur'an as the Arabic Qur'an itself. Qur'an Contradiction: What was man created from? The very first revelation starts out with providing an ingredient for contradiction: Proclaim! In the name of thy Lord and Cherisher, who created created man, out of a mere clot of congealed blood. -- Sura 96:1-2 Apart from the fact that "a mere blood clot" is scientifically wrong, let us see what further ideas the Qur'an presents on how God creates human beings. It is he who has created man from water -- Sura 25:54 And God has created every living creature from water. -- Sura 24:45 We created man from sounding clay, from mud moulded into shape. -- Sura 15:26 Amongst his signs is this, that he created you from dust. -- Sura 30:20 Blood clot? water? clay? dust? The Qur'an doesn't really seem all that sure what God used and seems to imply that He took just anything he could get his hands on. But this is still not all in this confusion: God createth what He willeth: When he hath decreed a plan, He but saith to it, "Be," and it is! -- Sura 3:47 He just says the word "be" and it is, there is no making a mess with water, clay, blood clots or dust, just a clean "there it is". Right? Sura 4:82 claims that there is no discrepancy in this Qur'an! A Muslim's Response by Randy Desmond Date: Fri, 27 Sep 1996 12:36:30 PDT I I I I I made made made made made a a a a a cake. cake from cake from cake from cake from flour. sugar. eggs. water. Do you think I just "took anything I could get my hands on" to make my cake? (I think leaving out any of those ingredients would no longer render it a cake) Do any of my statements contradict each other? So just like I know what my cake is made from, so does the Qur'an know what man was made from. As for the claim that the Qur'an is scientifically wrong, I also suggest you read what Jochen has referenced. In this link it explains the meanings of the word that has been translated as "clot" and admits that it can have a scientifically viable meaning eventhough it is trying to "prove" it as unscientific. Was there a discrepancy in my making of a cake? If not, then where is the discrepancy in the Qur'an's testimony of what a man is made from? I wonder how you would look if I said "I made a cake from nothing" since Sura 19:67 says But does not man call to mind that We created him before out of nothing? which fits together with the above mentioned "be and it is" (3:47). Although you might mention different ingredients at different verses, but none of those goes together with "nothing". The above "harmonization" is another ad hoc explanation since there is no indication that these verses were giving "some of the ingredients only". They do not read that way. They never say: "We created man from water among other things". And I bet, if today I do say only that "I made a cake from water" that you would still not believe me. And if I say next week "I made a cake from sugar" then you would also find that strange. Because you know that nobody can make a cake from sugar only or from water only. But you would not automatically assume that the water and sugar are supposed to go together. After all, I am telling you so at vastly different times. And these suras are also revealed sometimes with years in between them. Assuming that they belong together and each give only some ingredient, is a rather artificial explanation. What do you think was the truth content of the verses revealed at the beginning if the Muslims didn't know if there even would be any more revelations to give more ingredients? For them these were indeed absolute statement. Just as they appear to us today. There is an assumption on your part, and I also assumed it for my initial response, that what man was created from was an ingredients list. While I do believe four of the six verses you quote do list "ingredients", there is another possibility we left out. What about "from" in the temporal or conceptual sense? Aren't any of these possible? For example... I I I I made made made made a a a a cake. cake from a recipe. cake from batter. cake from a rising thing. And what do you know... Surah 40:67 "He it is who created you from dust, then from a sperm-drop, then from a leech-like clot, then brings you forth as a child ..." Surah 23:12-14 "Verily We created man from a product of wet earth, then placed him as a drop of seed in a safe lodging, then We fashioned the drop a clot, and of the clot We fashioned bones, and We clothed the bones with flesh. Then We produced it as another creation." Now, back to the top of the page, we see 96:1-2 as a stage. We see the ingredients of water, dust, sounding clay and mud in the other verses can be resolvbed with elementarty set theory. And one more thing, does the fact that God can create at will by saying "`Be` and it is" mean he can not form man however he wishes. God is the owner of all. He can do whatever He wants. Saying "I made a cake from water" does not imply that there are anymore or anyless ingredients. If my initial response (or any response) seems so general, does that render my explanation wrong? Well, it does imply that there are NOT any less ingredients. If he says "from water" then we would expect that water is at least a part of it. Otherwise it is just a lie. And you haven't touched at all at the statement in 3:47. Your adding another sentence of making cakes out of "batter" or "a rising thing" doesn't change the argument at all, it only adds a few more ingredients. The "recipe" is not comparable since that is an algorithm and not a (material) ingredient. All the verses cited so far are concerned with the matter out of which man is created. Surah 3:47 states that God created man out of nothing. I did not address this because I thought it was easy to understand. There was no creation before creation, right?. Does it not make sense that man was created from nothing? I would, once again, like to stress that the above verses are not necessarily an ingredients list. There is nothing saying that they can not denote stages. The verse quoted above shows that they may. Okay, I think that is my last comment on it. You now produce a mixed argument that some is "ingredients" and some is "stages". The problem is that you can't see this from the text. They look pretty much all the same: "... created from ..." If you want to explain it that way, that is fine with me. But that is the view of somebody who already is a believer and therefore committed to find some harmonization. Maybe we can have a compromise in the following way: It is possible to give a somehow intelligible harmonization, but it is obvious that the statements seem to be able to be interpreted in many different ways. Therefore we cannot claim on the other hand that the Qur'anic verses give a precise scientific statement about the development of man as many Muslims claim. The verses are far too ambiguous and unclear. This flexible poetic language lends itself to read a lot of different interpretations into it. Some which are favorable to the Muslim understanding and others just as obvious which are less favorable. Therefore: "To you your interpretation and to me mine." In this case, the Qur'an can be neither disproven nor are these statements proof of divine authorship. For using them as proof they would have to be more precise so that they are actually falsifiable. They are just not clear enough to do a scientific evaluation on them. Where is Allah? He it is Who created the heavens and the earth in six Days; then He mounted the Throne. ... (Pickthall Translation) -- Sura 57:4 It was We Who created man, and We know what dark suggestions his soul makes to him: for We are nearer to him than (his) jugular vein. (Yusuf Ali) -- Sura 50:16 Is the throne of Allah at your jugular vein? That question is silly, so it seems. Obviously one can easily understand these verses to mean, that Allah is near to you and to everyone equally since he is not in any location in particular. Allah is "everywhere" in the sense that there is no place that is without his presence. What about the throne? The throne symbolizes the power and sovereignty of Allah's rule. One does not need to understand it as a physical location. And in fact, Yusuf Ali translates it as if it is not an act of sitting down on the throne (which is the literal meaning of the Arabic), but as a metaphorical expression for his power. He it is Who created the heavens and the earth in Six Days, and is moreover firmly established on the Throne (of Authority). ... This would solve the question if each mentioning of Allah's throne could always be understood metaphorically. But what then do we make of this following ayat? And He it is Who created the heavens and the earth in six Days and His Throne was upon the water that He might try you, which of you is best in conduct. ... -- Sura 11:7 Is the water also metaphorical? Even though it may not be entirely clear where this water was (the ocean, the rain clouds, ...?), this seems to be clearly a statement of location for this throne and is no longer metaphorical. Also, the Arabic is past tense, and the question is then: Is the throne still upon the water, and if not, where has it moved to? And then there are these verses: He rules (all) affairs from the heavens to the earth: in the end will (all affairs) go up to Him, on a Day, the space whereof will be (as) a thousand years of your reckoning." -- Sura 32:5 The angels and the spirit ascend unto him in a Day the measure whereof is (as) fifty thousand years: -- Sura 70:4 If Allah is nearer to us than our jugular vein, why is there any need for the "affairs" (?), angels and the spirit to travel at all to reach Allah? Is there any interpretation of Sura 32:5 and 70:4 which does not involve a physical "distance" between the earth and Allah that has to be bridged? Sura 50:16 could be understood that Allah is equally near everywhere, and there is no place you can go to be nearer to Him than were you are at this time. Then why does anyone or anything have to travel to reach Allah? Qur'an Contradiction: Is Evil from Satan, Ourselves, or Allah? 4:78 Say: "All things are from Allah." 4:79 Whatever good, (O man!) happens to thee, is from Allah; but whatever evil happens to thee, is from thyself. 4:82 Do they not ponder on the Qur'an? Had it been from other than Allah, they would surely have found therein much discrepancy. Evil things are without doubt a subset of "all things", and if "all things are from Allah" then the evil things are from Allah as well, and the author of the Qur'an can't pass the guilt on and blame others as done in verse 79. It is interesting that Muhammad would contradict himself within two consecutive verses and then write three verses later that discrepancy is a sign that it is not from God. But this topic isn't over with just yet. 38:41 Commemorate Our Servant Job, behold he cried out to his Lord: "Satan has afflicted me with distress and suffering!" Now we have a third party joining the contest for responsibility. Is evil from ourselves? Is it from Satan? Or is it from Allah? Any two of them contradict each other, but in particular do the first two (4:79, 38:41) contradict the third (4:78) as Allah claimed all things as from himself. In fact, the above passages are only the beginning of the problems raised in the Qur'an and Hadith on the issue of predestination, free will, and the responsibility for sin. How Merciful Is Allah's Mercy? 6:12 He [Allah] has inscribed [prescribed] for himself (the rule of) mercy. 6:35 ... If it were Allah's will, He could gather them together unto true guidance. ... If it is Allah's will that some perish, if it is his will that some are not guided as 6:35 clearly says, how can aya 12 of the same sura be true, that He has prescribed mercy for Himself? Is it merciful to lead astray as it is said in 14:4 Allah leads astray whom he pleases, and he guides whom He pleases, ... More about the contradictory statements in Qur'an and Hadith about predestination and free will. More a curiosity than a contradiction: ... And if you see any mortal, say: Surely I have vowed a fast to the Beneficient, so I shall not speak to any man today. -- Sura 19:26 Is that similar to eat samples of food in order to demonstrate all the things that you are not allowed to eat during fasting? Muslim Response by Randy Desmond Date: Sat, 1 March 1997 ...And if you see any man, say[1] "Surely I have vowed a fast to the Most Gracious, so I shall not converse[2] with any human being today." Look at the Arabic: [1] quuli is translated "say" and means to speak/state/profess/propound/tell. It is a one-way utterance, and not a two way exchange. [2] ukallima is translated in your version as "speak", but a more accurate version is "converse" (as I have translated it). This word implies at least an exchange of words spoken with others. This just goes to show that if your going to profess contradictions in the Qur'an, you'd better make sure before posting them for the world to see. This also goes to show that the Qur'an is only in Arabic and is clear in the Arabic because it is in Arabic (and it is not always so clear when it is translated into other languages). I heard Dr. Jamal Badawi read this verse exactly as I have quoted it and immediately spotted the inconsistency (in his English quote). I am fully satisfied with your explanation. No reason to claim contradictions where there are none. And it shows how helpful this web page is in finding out if something is a contradiction or not. If it is not, then I will soon get a good explanation. If no satisfactory explanation arrives for a long time the more it builds the confidence that it is indeed a problem. This is after all an experimental page without claim to authority. The truth will emerge as the discussion progresses. And that is a good thing. Qur'an Contradiction: Fully Detailed Or Incomplete? E.g., The Statements On Wine The Quran claims to be completely comprehensive in its instructions, being fully detailed: There is not an animal in the earth, nor a flying creature flying on two wings, but they are peoples like unto you. We have neglected nothing in the Book (of Our decrees). Then unto their Lord they will be gathered. S. 6:38 Pickthall Shall I seek other than Allah for judge, when He it is Who hath revealed unto you (this) Scripture, fully explained? Those unto whom We gave the Scripture (aforetime) know that it is revealed from thy Lord in truth. So be not thou (O Muhammad) of the waverers. S. 6:114 Pickthall This is the path of thy Lord, a straight path. We have detailed Our revelations for a people who take heed. S. 6:126 Pickthall This Quran could not possibly be authored by other than GOD. It confirms all previous messages, and provides a fully detailed scripture. It is infallible, for it comes from the Lord of the universe. S. 10:37 R. Khalifa In their history verily there is a lesson for men of understanding. It is no invented story but a confirmation of the existing (Scripture) and a detailed explanation of everything, and a guidance and a mercy for folk who believe. S. 12:111 Pickthall One day We shall raise from all Peoples a witness against them, from amongst themselves: and We shall bring thee as a witness against these (thy people): and We have sent down to thee the Book explaining all things, a Guide, a Mercy, and Glad Tidings to Muslims. S. 16:89 A. Yusuf Ali Nothing could be further from the truth! The Quran fails to provide many important details in relation to key passages. This in turn leaves the reader confused and even perplexed in trying to understand the Quranic narratives and/or specific injunctions. In the words of the late Iranian Scholar Ali Dashti: "The Qor'an contains sentences which are incomplete and not fully intelligible without the aid of commentaries; foreign words, unfamiliar Arabic words, and words used with other than the normal meaning; adjectives and verbs inflected without observance of the concords of gender and number; illogically and ungrammatically applied pronouns which sometimes have no referent; and predicates which in rhymed passages are often remote from the subjects. These and other such aberrations in the language have given scope to critics who deny the Qor'an‘s eloquence. The problem also occupied the minds of devout Moslems. It forced the commentators to search for explanations and was probably one of the causes of disagreement over readings." (Dashti, Twenty-Three Years: A study of the Prophetic Career of Mohammad, Allen and Unwin, London, 1985, pp. 48-49; emphasis ours) "To sum up, more than one hundred Qor‘anic aberrations from the normal rules and structure of Arabic have been noted. Needless to say, the commentators strove to find explanations and justifications of these irregularities. Among them was the great commentator and philologist Mahmud oz-Zamakhshari (467/1075-538/1144), of whom a Moorish author wrote: ‗This grammar-obsessed pedant has committed a shocking error. Our task is not to make the readings conform to Arabic grammar, but to take the whole of the Qor‘an as it is and make Arabic grammar conform to the Qor‘an.‘" (Ibid., p. 50; emphasis) An example of such incoherence and unintelligibility is the Quranic view of strong drinks and wine. The Quran is clearly confused regarding its view of intoxicants as the following passages conclusively demonstrate: And We have not revealed to you the Book except that you may make clear to them that about which they differ, and (as) a guidance and a mercy for a people who believe. And Allah has sent down water from the cloud and therewith given life to the earth after its death; most surely there is a sign in this for a people who would listen. And most surely there is a lesson for you in the cattle; We give you to drink of what is in their bellies -- from betwixt the feces and the blood-- pure milk, easy and agreeable to swallow for those who drink. And of the fruits of the palms and the grapes -- you obtain from them intoxication (sakaran) and goodly provision; most surely there is a sign in this for a people who ponder. And your Lord revealed to the bee saying: Make hives in the mountains and in the trees and in what they build: Then eat of all the fruits and walk in the ways of your Lord submissively. There comes forth from within it a beverage of many colours, in which there is healing for men; most surely there is a sign in this for a people who reflect. S. 16:64-69 Shakir The impression given by this passage is that intoxicants are something good, since the context deals with signs or proofs of God‘s care and provisions for mankind. Nothing is said about the negative affects of intoxicants or whether it is impermissible for believers. O you who believe! do not go near prayer when you are Intoxicated (sukara) UNTIL YOU KNOW (WELL) WHAT YOU SAY, nor when you are under an obligation to perform a bath -- unless (you are) travelling on the road-- until you have washed yourselves; and if you are sick, or on a journey, or one of you come from the privy or you have touched the women, and you cannot find water, betake yourselves to pure earth, then wipe your faces and your hands; surely Allah is Pardoning, Forgiving. S. 4:43 Shakir This verse forbids Muslims from coming to prayers while intoxicated. This gives the impression that drinking before praying is permissible, provided that one doesn‘t get drunk. They ask thee concerning wine (al-khamri) and gambling. Say: "In them is great sin, AND SOME PROFIT, for men; but the sin is greater than the profit." They ask thee how much they are to spend; Say: "What is beyond your needs." Thus doth Allah Make clear to you His Signs: In order that ye may consider. S. 2:219 A. Yusuf Ali Here, wine (which falls under the category of intoxicants) is said to be both sinful and profitable, with the sin being greater. Even this passage stops short of explicitly prohibiting the consumption of wine. Finally: O ye who believe! Intoxicants (al-khamru) and gambling, (dedication of) stones, and (divination by) arrows, are AN ABOMINATION,- OF SATAN‘S HANDWORK: eschew such (abomination), that ye may prosper. Satan's plan is (but) to excite enmity and hatred between you, with intoxicants (al-khamri) and gambling, and hinder you from the remembrance of Allah, and from prayer: will ye not then abstain? S. 5:90-91 A. Yusuf Ali This passage says that intoxicants are the handiwork of Satan! Hence, the Quran goes from describing wine as something good to something completely evil. Now a Muslim may interject here and claim that the verses which permit intoxicants were abrogated. Yet, this is precisely the point. How does a Muslim know that these verses have been abrogated? Where does the Quran explicitly, or even implicitly, state this? Second, how does the Muslim know for certain which verses came first? Does the Quran give the date these "revelations" were allegedly sent down so that we can know which passage came first? After all, one can just as likely claim that S. 16:66-67 was "revealed" last and therefore abrogated S. 2:219 and 5:90-91. How can one know for certain? A Muslim may claim that Muslims don‘t follow the Quran alone, but also consult the hadith literature. If so, then try telling the following Muslims that they need the hadith literature: The Submitters, who present their reasoning in the articles listed on this page: Hadith & Sunna Furthermore, the moment one appeals to the hadiths for clarification of these passages one ends up falsifying the Quran. The Quran is shown to be incomplete and therefore false in its claim of being fully detailed. Further articles on the Incompleteness and Incoherence of the Qur'an. Qur'an Contradiction: To Intercede or Not To Intercede? That is the Question! The Quran has much to say about intercession on the Day of Judgment. In fact, the Quran says contradictory things regarding intercession as the following passages show. 1. There Will Be No Intercession a. The Quran O children of Israel! call to mind My favor which I bestowed on you and that I made you excel the nations. And be on your guard against a day when ONE SOUL shall not avail ANOTHER in the least, neither shall intercession on its behalf be accepted, nor shall any compensation be taken from it, nor shall they be helped. S. 2:47-48 O children of Israel, call to mind My favor which I bestowed on you and that I made you excel the nations. And be on your guard against a day when NO SOUL shall avail ANOTHER in the least neither shall any compensation be accepted from it, nor shall intercession profit it, nor shall they be helped. S. 2:122-123 These two passages make it clear that intercession will not avail ANY person, not just the Israelites, since the references to "NO SOUL" and "ONE SOUL" not availing another naturally includes every human being. O you who believe! spend out of what We have given you before the day comes in which there is no bargaining, neither any friendship nor intercession, and the unbelievers - they are the unjust. S. 2:254 "Not your desires, nor those of the people of the Book (can prevail): Whosoever works evil, will be requited accordingly. Nor will he find, besides God, any protector or helper. If any do deeds of righteousness, - Be they male or female - and have faith, they will enter Heaven, and not the least injustice will be done to them" S. 4:123-124 And warn with it those who fear that they shall be gathered to their Lord - there is no guardian for them, nor any intercessor besides Him - that they may guard (against evil). S. 6:51 Leave alone those who take their religion to be mere play and amusement, and are deceived by the life of this world. But proclaim (to them) this (truth): that every soul delivers itself to ruin by its own acts: it will find for itself no protector or intercessor except Allah: if it offered every ransom, (or reparation), none will be accepted: such is (the end of) those who deliver themselves to ruin by their own acts: they will have for drink (only) boiling water, and for punishment, one most grievous: for they persisted in rejecting Allah. S. 6:70 Say: "Nothing will happen to us except what Allah has decreed for us: He is our protector": and on Allah let the Believers put their trust. S. 9:51 Allah it is Who created the heavens and the earth, and that which is between them, in six Days. Then He mounted the Throne. Ye have not, beside Him, a protecting friend or mediator. Will ye not then remember? S. 32:4 Verily We have revealed the Book to thee in Truth, for (instructing) mankind. He, then, that receives guidance benefits his own soul: but he that strays injures his own soul. Nor art thou set over them to dispose of their affairs. It is Allah that takes the souls (of men) at death; and those that die not (He takes) during their sleep: those on whom He has passed the decree of death, He keeps back (from returning to life), but the rest He sends (to their bodies) for a term appointed verily in this are Signs for those who reflect. What! Do they take for intercessors others besides Allah? Say: "Even if they have no power whatever and no intelligence?" Say: Unto Allah belongeth all intercession. His is the Sovereignty of the heavens and the earth. And afterward unto Him ye will be brought back. S. 39:41-44 Again, what will explain to thee what the Day of Judgment is? (It will be) the Day when no soul shall have power (to do) aught for another: For the command, that Day, will be (wholly) with Allah. S. 82:18-19 The Quran asks: Is he on whom the word of doom is fulfilled (to be helped), and canst thou (O Muhammad) rescue him who is in the Fire? S. 39:19 Pickthall This verse evidently implies that Muhammad cannot save anyone from hell. Amazingly, the Quran says that even prophets and angels can only hope for God‘s mercy: Say: Cry unto those (saints and angels) whom ye assume (to be gods) beside Him, yet they have no power to rid you of misfortune nor to change. Those unto whom they cry seek the way of approach to their Lord, which of them shall be the nearest; they hope for His mercy and they fear His doom. Lo! the doom of thy Lord is to be shunned. S. 17:56-57 Pickthall b. The Hadith Narrated Abu Huraira: The Prophet said, "(On the Day of Resurrection) camels will come to their owner in the best state of health they have ever had (in the world), and if he had not paid their Zakat (in the world) then they would tread him with their feet; and similarly, sheep will come to their owner in the best state of health they have ever had in the world, and if he had not paid their Zakat, then they would tread him with their hooves and would butt him with their horns." The Prophet added, "One of their rights is that they should be milked while water is kept in front of them." The Prophet added, "I do not want anyone of you to come to me on the Day of Resurrection, carrying over his neck a sheep that will be bleating. Such a person will (then) say, ‗O Muhammad! (please intercede for me,)‘ I will say to him. „I can't help you, for I conveyed Allah's Message to you.‟ Similarly, I do not want anyone of you to come to me carrying over his neck a camel that will be grunting. Such a person (then) will say ‗O Muhammad! (please intercede for me).‘ I will say to him, „I can't help you for I conveyed Allah's message to you.‟" (Sahih Al-Bukhari, Volume 2, Book 24, Number 485) Narrated Abu Huraira: When Allah revealed the Verse: "Warn your nearest kinsmen," Allah's Apostle got up and said, "O people of Quraish (or said similar words)! Buy (i.e. save) yourselves (from the Hellfire) as I cannot save you from Allah's Punishment; O Bani Abd Manaf! I cannot save you from Allah's Punishment, O Safiya, the Aunt of Allah's Apostle! I cannot save you from Allah's Punishment; O Fatima bint Muhammad! Ask me anything from my wealth, but I cannot save you from Allah's Punishment." (Sahih Al-Bukhari, Volume 4, Book 51, Number 16) Narrated Um Al-Ala: That when the Ansar drew lots as to which of the emigrants should dwell with which of the Ansar, the name of Uthman bin Mazun came out (to be in their lot). Um Al-Ala further said, "Uthman stayed with us, and we nursed him when he got sick, but he died. We shrouded him in his clothes, and Allah's Apostle came to our house and I said, (addressing the dead 'Uthman), ‗O Abu As-Sa'ib! May Allah be merciful to you. I testify that Allah has blessed you.‘ The Prophet said to me, "How do you know that Allah has blessed him?" I replied, ‗I do not know O Allah's Apostle! May my parents be sacrificed for you.‘ Allah's Apostle said, ‗As regards Uthman, by Allah he has died and I really wish him every good, yet, by Allah, although I am Allah's Apostle, I do not know what will be done to him.‘ Um Al-Ala added, ‗By Allah I shall never attest the piety of anybody after him. And what Allah's Apostles said made me sad.‘ Um Al-Ala further said, "Once I slept and saw in a dream, a flowing stream for Uthman. So I went to Allah's Apostle and told him about it, he said, ‗That is (the symbol of) his deeds.‘" (Sahih Al-Bukhari, Volume 3, Book 48, Number 852) Narrated Kharija bin Zaid bin Thabit: Um Al-'Ala an Ansari woman who had given the Pledge of allegiance to Allah's Apostle said, "'Uthman bin Maz'un came in our share when the Ansars drew lots to distribute the emigrants (to dwell) among themselves, He became sick and we looked after (nursed) him till he died. Then we shrouded him in his clothes. Allah's Apostle came to us, I (addressing the dead body) said, "May Allah's Mercy be on you, O Aba As-Sa'ib! I testify that Allah has honored you." The Prophet said, ‗How do you know that?‘ I replied, ‗I do not know, by Allah.‘ He said, ‗As for him, death has come to him and I wish him all good from Allah. By Allah, though I am Allah's Apostle, I neither know what will happen to me, nor to you.‘" Um Al-'Ala said, "By Allah, I will never attest the righteousness of anybody after that." She added, "Later I saw in a dream, a flowing spring for 'Uthman. So I went to Allah's Apostle and mentioned that to him. He said, ‗That is (the symbol of) his good deeds (the reward for) which is going on for him.‘" (Sahih Al-Bukhari, Volume 9, Book 87, Number 145) These hadiths state that Muhammad cannot and/or will not intercede for Muslims, especially those who failed to pay the Zakat. The preceding passages are quite clear and unambiguous that no intercession will avail any soul on Judgment Day, and that Allah is the only intercessor since all intercession belongs entirely to him. This has led some Muslims to deny that the intercession of prophets and messengers will be permitted on the Day of Judgment. Shaikh Gamal al-Banna, in an article titled The Islamic Concept of God and Prophet, writes: Islam stresses the human character of the Prophet ... Therefore, any kind of mediation is not permissible or recognized in Islam. Prophets are mere messengers of God; they cannot forgive anyone if he commits a sin or exempt him from the punishment he deserves. They cannot also intercede with God on anybody's behalf, for Islam does not recognize the idea of intercession as such." (The Muslim World League Journal, May-June 1983, Volume 10, Number. 8, p. 9) The following Muslim article states: There is a traditional view which exists among present day Muslims regarding the concept of intercession which is based on hadith literature. This view is not supported by the Quran. The Quran repeatedly holds each individual responsible for his or her own conduct ... The true concept of God who is running the affairs of the universe is only contained in the Quran, as it is given by god Himself to mankind. One of the attributes frequently mentioned by god about himself is 'Aziz-ul-Hakeem' which is translated as the Exalted in Power, the Wise. The very concept of intercession means to give someone advantage which one does not deserve and is against the concept of justice. God the Wise can never be expected to do that. This concept if accepted, brings down the whole building block of 'din' as presented in the Quran by god. We all know that a person who accepts intercession in worldly life can never expected to deliver justice. (Source; bold emphasis ours) Another Muslim article, in trying to refute the claim that the Quran contradicts itself regarding this issue, argues: The concept of intercession, which is strictly prohibited in the Quran, is the act of interceding on behalf of another person to have his/her sins forgiven on Judgement Day ... The myth of intercession is one of Satan's most effective tricks to dupe millions of people into idol worship. Millions of Christians believe that Jesus will intercede for them with God, and millions of Muslims believe that Muhammad will not only intercede on their behalf, but will actually take them out of hell! Consequently, these people have made Jesus and Muhammad their Saviours and as a result have idolized them! (Source; bold and underline emphasis ours) Someone may claim that these verses are referring to unbelievers such as the idolaters who will not be given any intercession. This claim cannot be sustained since some of these passages make no mention of idolaters or unbelievers. In fact, some of them are actually directed towards the God-fearing believers (cf. 2:254; 6:51). 2. There Will Be Intercession a. The Quran The next set of passages contradict the preceding passages regarding the permissibility of intercession: Allah! There is no god but He,- the Living, the Self-subsisting, Eternal. No slumber can seize Him nor sleep. His are all things in the heavens and on earth. Who is there can intercede in His presence except as He permitteth? He knoweth what (appeareth to His creatures as) before or after or behind them. Nor shall they compass aught of His knowledge except as He willeth. His Throne doth extend over the heavens and the earth, and He feeleth no fatigue in guarding and preserving them for He is the Most High, the Supreme (in glory). S. 2:255 Verily your Lord is Allah, who created the heavens and the earth in six days, and is firmly established on the throne (of authority), regulating and governing all things. No intercessor (can plead with Him) except after His leave (hath been obtained). This is Allah your Lord; Him therefore serve ye: will ye not receive admonition? S. 10:3 On the day when We shall gather the righteous unto the Beneficent, a goodly company. And drive the guilty unto hell, a weary herd, They will have no power of intercession, save him who hath made a covenant with his Lord. S. 19:85-87 On that Day shall no intercession avail except for those for whom permission has been granted by (Allah) Most Gracious and whose word is acceptable to Him. S. 20:109 And We did not send before you any messenger but We revealed to him that there is no god but Me, therefore serve Me. And they say: The Beneficent Allah has taken to Himself a son. Glory be to Him. Nay! they are honored servants They do not precede Him in speech and (only) according to His commandment do they act. He knows what is before them and what is behind them, and they do not intercede except for him whom He approves and for fear of Him they tremble. And whoever of them should say: Surely I am a god besides Him, such a one do We recompense with hell; thus do, We recompense the unjust. S. 21:25-29 "No intercession can avail in His Presence, except for those for whom He has granted permission. So far (is this the case) that, when terror is removed from their hearts (at the Day of Judgment, then) will they say, ‗what is it that your Lord commanded?‘ they will say, ‗That which is true and just; and He is the Most High Most Great‘." S. 34:23 Those who sustain the Throne (of Allah) and those around it Sing Glory and Praise to their Lord; believe in Him; and implore Forgiveness for those who believe: "Our Lord! Thy Reach is over all things, in Mercy and Knowledge. Forgive, then, those who turn in Repentance, and follow Thy Path; and preserve them from the Penalty of the Blazing Fire! And grant, our Lord! that they enter the Gardens of Eternity, which Thou hast promised to them, and to the righteous among their fathers, their wives, and their posterity! For Thou art (He), the Exalted in Might, Full of Wisdom. And preserve them from (all) ills; and any whom Thou dost preserve from ills that Day,- on them wilt Thou have bestowed Mercy indeed: and that will be truly (for them) the highest Achievement." S. 40:7-9 And those unto whom they cry instead of Him possess no power of intercession, saving him who beareth witness unto the Truth knowingly. S. 43:86 How many-so-ever be the angels in the heavens, their intercession will avail nothing except after Allah has given leave for whom He pleases and that he is acceptable to Him. S. 53:26 b. The Hadith Narrated 'Abdullah bin 'Umar: The Prophet said, "A man keeps on asking others for something till he comes on the Day of Resurrection without any piece of flesh on his face." The Prophet added, "On the Day of Resurrection, the Sun will come near (to, the people) to such an extent that the sweat will reach up to the middle of the ears, so, when all the people are in that state, they will ask Adam for help, and then Moses, and then Muhammad (p.b.u.h)." The sub-narrator added "Muhammad will intercede with Allah to judge amongst the people. He will proceed on till he will hold the ring of the door (of Paradise) and then Allah will exalt him to Maqam Mahmud (the privilege of intercession, etc.). And all the people of the gathering will send their praises to Allah. (Sahih Al-Bukhari, Volume 2, Book 24, Number 553) ... 'Surely! Allah wrongs not even of the weight of an atom (or a smallest ant) but if there is any good (done) He doubles it.' (4.40) The Prophet added, "Then the prophets and Angels and the believers will intercede, and (last of all) the Almighty (Allah) will say, „Now remains My Intercession.‘ He will then hold a handful of the Fire from which He will take out some people whose bodies have been burnt, and they will be thrown into a river at the entrance of Paradise, called the water of life ... (Sahih Al-Bukhari, Volume 9, Book 93, Number 532s) Narrated Abu Huraira: Allah's Apostle said, "For every Prophet there is one invocation which is definitely fulfilled by Allah, and I wish, if Allah will, to keep my that (special) invocation as to be the intercession for my followers on the Day of Resurrection." (Sahih Al-Bukhari, Volume 9, Book 93, Number 566) Narrated Ma‘bad bin Hilal Al‘Anzi: We, i.e., some people from Basra gathered and went to Anas bin Malik, and we went in company with Thabit Al-Bunnani so that he might ask him about the Hadith of Intercession on our behalf. Behold, Anas was in his palace, and our arrival coincided with his Duha prayer. We asked permission to enter and he admitted us while he was sitting on his bed. We said to Thabit, "Do not ask him about anything else first but the Hadith of Intercession." He said, "O Abu Hamza! There are your brethren from Basra coming to ask you about the Hadith of Intercession." Anas then said, "Muhammad talked to us saying, ‗On the Day of Resurrection the people will surge with each other like waves, and then they will come to Adam and say, ‗Please intercede for us with your Lord.‘ He will say, ‗I am not fit for that but you'd better go to Abraham as he is the Khalil of the Beneficent.‘ They will go to Abraham and he will say, ‗I am not fit for that, but you'd better go to Moses as he is the one to whom Allah spoke directly.‘ So they will go to Moses and he will say, ‗I am not fit for that, but you'd better go to Jesus as he is a soul created by Allah and His Word.‘ (Be: And it was) they will go to Jesus and he will say, ‗I am not fit for that, but you'd better go to Muhammad.‘ They would come to me and I would say, „I am for that.‟ Then I will ask for my Lord's permission, and it will be given, and then He will inspire me to praise Him with such praises as I do not know now. So I will praise Him with those praises and will fall down, prostrate before Him. Then it will be said, ‗O Muhammad, raise your head and speak, for you will be listened to; and ask, for your will be granted (your request); and intercede, for your intercession will be accepted.‘ I will say, ‗O Lord, my followers! My followers!‘ And then it will be said, „Go and take out of Hell (Fire) all those who have faith in their hearts, equal to the weight of a barley grain.‟ I will go and do so and return to praise Him with the same praises, and fall down (prostrate) before Him. Then it will be said, ‗O Muhammad, raise your head and speak, for you will be listened to, and ask, for you will be granted (your request); and intercede, for your intercession will be accepted.‟ I will say, ‗O Lord, my followers! My followers!‘ It will be said, ‗Go and take out of it all those who have faith in their hearts equal to the weight of a small ant or a mustard seed.‟ I will go and do so and return to praise Him with the same praises, and fall down in prostration before Him. It will be said, ‗O, Muhammad, raise your head and speak, for you will be listened to, and ask, for you will be granted (your request); and intercede, for your intercession will be accepted.‟ I will say, ‗O Lord, my followers!‘ Then He will say, „Go and take out (all those) in whose hearts there is faith even to the lightest, lightest mustard seed. (Take them) out of the Fire.‘ I will go and do so." When we left Anas, I said to some of my companions, "Let's pass by Al-Hasan who is hiding himself in the house of Abi Khalifa and request him to tell us what Anas bin Malik has told us." So we went to him and we greeted him and he admitted us. We said to him, "O Abu Said! We came to you from your brother Anas Bin Malik and he related to us a Hadith about the intercession the like of which I have never heard." He said, "What is that?" Then we told him of the Hadith and said, "He stopped at this point (of the Hadith)." He said, "What then?" We said, "He did not add anything to that." He said, Anas related the Hadith to me twenty years ago when he was a young fellow. I don't know whether he forgot or if he did not like to let you depend on what he might have said." We said, "O Abu Said! Let us know that." He smiled and said, "Man was created hasty. I did not mention that, but that I wanted to inform you of it. Anas told me the same as he told you and said that the Prophet added, ‗I then return for a fourth time and praise Him similarly and prostrate before Him me the same as he ‗O Muhammad, raise your head and speak, for you will be listened to; and ask, for you will be granted (your request): and intercede, for your intercession will be accepted.‘ I will say, „O Lord, allow me to intercede for whoever said, „None has the right to be worshiped except Allah.‟ Then Allah will say, ‗By my Power, and my Majesty, and by My Supremacy, and by My Greatness, I will take out of Hell (Fire) whoever said: „None has the right to be worshipped except Allah.‘" (Sahih Al-Bukhari, Volume 9, Book 93, Number 601) It is reported on the authority of Abu Zubair that he heard from Jabir b. 'Abdullah, who was asked about the arrival (of people on the Day of Resurrection). He said. We would come on the Day of Resurrection like this, like this, and see, carefully, that which concerns "elevated people". He (the narrator) said: Then the people would be summoned along with their idols whom they worshipped, one after another. Then our Lord would come to us and say: Whom are you waiting for? They would say: We are waiting for our Lord. He would say: I am your Lord. They would say: (We are not sure) till we gaze at Thee, and He would manifest Himself to them smilingly, and would go along with them and they would follow Him; and every person, whether a hypocrite or a believer, would be endowed with a light, and there would be spikes and hooks on the bridge of the Hell, which would catch hold of those whom Allah willed. Then the light of the hypocrites would be extinguished, and the believers would secure salvation. and the first group to achieve it would comprise seventy thousand men who would have the brightness of full moon on their faces, and they would not be called to account. Then the people immediately following them would have their faces as the brightest stars in the heaven. This is how (the groups would follow one after another). Then the stage of intercession would come, and they (who are permitted to intercede) would intercede, till he who had declared: "There is no god but Allah" and had in his heart virtue of the weight of a barley grain would come out of the Fire. They would be then brought in the courtyard of Paradise and the inhabitants of Paradise would begin to sprinkle water over them till they would sprout like the sprouting of a thing in flood water, and their burns would disappear. They would ask their Lord till they would be granted (the bounties) of the world and with it ten more besides it. (Sahih Muslim, Book 001, Number 0367) 'Abdullah b. 'Abbas reported that his son died in Qudaid or 'Usfan. He said to Kuraib to see as to how many people had gathered there for his (funeral). He (Kuraib) said: So I went out and I informed him about the people who had gathered there. He (Ibn 'Abbas) said: Do you think they are forty? He (Kuraib) said: Yes. Ibn 'Abbas then said to them: Bring him (the dead body) out for I have heard Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him) as saying: If any Muslim dies and forty men who associate nothing with Allah stand over his prayer (they offer prayer over him), Allah will accept them as intercessors for him. (Sahih Muslim, Book 004, Number 2072) Abu Huraira reported Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him) as saying: I shall be preeminent 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). (Sahih Muslim, Book 030, Number 5655) These hadiths say that Muhammad will not only be permitted to intercede, but that many Muslims undeserving of Paradise will be taken out of hell because of his intercession! 3. Discussion Now there are some Muslims who also point to the following passages as proof that Allah will accept the intercession of his prophets: Thus it is due to mercy from Allah that you deal with them gently, and had you been rough, hard hearted, they would certainly have dispersed from around you; pardon them therefore and ask pardon for them, and take counsel with them in the affair; so when you have decided, then place your trust in Allah; surely Allah loves those who trust. S. 3:159 (Abraham) "O our Lord! cover (us) with Thy Forgiveness - me, my parents, and (all) Believers, on the Day that the Reckoning will be established!" S. 14:41 (Abraham) "Forgive my father, for that he is among those astray;" S. 26:86 So know (O Muhammad) that there is no Allah save Allah, and ask forgiveness for thy sin and for believing men and believing women. Allah knoweth (both) your place of turmoil and your place of rest. S. 47:19 Pickthall And when it is said to them, "Come, the Messenger of Allah will pray for your forgiveness", they turn aside their heads, and thou wouldst see them turning away their faces in arrogance. S. 63:5 cf. 4:64; 9:103; 24:62; 60:12 Several comments are in order. First, even though the Quran commands the prophets and messengers to pray on behalf of others, there are other passages which show that their prayers are not always accepted by Allah: And do not plead on behalf of those who act unfaithfully to their souls; surely Allah does not love him who is treacherous, sinful; S. 4:107 Ask forgiveness for them (O Muhammad), or ask not forgiveness for them; though thou ask forgiveness for them seventy times Allah will not forgive them. That is because they disbelieved in Allah and His messenger, and Allah guideth not wrongdoing folk. S. 9:80 Pickthall And never (O Muhammad) pray for one of them who dieth, nor stand by his grave. Lo! they disbelieved in Allah and His messenger, and they died while they were evil-doers. 9:84 Pickthall And Noah called upon his Lord, and said: "O my Lord! surely my son is of my family! and Thy promise is true, and Thou art the justest of Judges!" He said: "O Noah! He is not of thy family: For his conduct is unrighteous. So ask not of Me that of which thou hast no knowledge! I give thee counsel, lest thou act like the ignorant!" Noah said: "O my Lord! I do seek refuge with Thee, lest I ask Thee for that of which I have no knowledge. And unless thou forgive me and have Mercy on me, I should indeed be lost!" S. 11:45-47 Interestingly, the following hadith demonstrates that Abraham‘s alleged prayer for his parents in S. 14:41 and 26:86 was not accepted: Narrated Abu Huraira: The Prophet said, "On the Day of Resurrection Abraham will meet his father Azar whose face will be dark and covered with dust. (The Prophet Abraham will say to him): ‗Didn't I tell you not to disobey me?‘ His father will reply: ‗Today I will not disobey you.‘ Abraham will say: ‗O Lord! You promised me not to disgrace me on the Day of Resurrection; and what will be more disgraceful to me than cursing and dishonoring my father?‘ Then Allah will say (to him): ‗I have forbidden Paradise for the disbelievers." Then he will be addressed, ‗O Abraham! Look! What is underneath your feet?‘ He will look and there he will see a Dhabh (an animal,) blood-stained, which will be caught by the legs and thrown in the (Hell) Fire." (Sahih Bukhari, Volume 4, Book 55, Number 569) This hadith also provides support that the prophets' intercession will be of no avail, even though this refers to an unbeliever. At the same time, this contradicts those traditions stating that their intercession does avail! Second, the prayers in these references do not take place at the Day of Judgment. As such, they cannot be used to establish that Allah will allow prophets and messengers to intercede on behalf of others. Finally, these passages only add to the confusion since they do absolutely nothing to resolve the problem. They simply provide further proof that there are irreconcilable contradictions within the Quran. A Muslim may bring out an additional argument to resolve the issue. There are two contradictory passages that actually appear alongside side each other, namely S. 2:254-255: O you who believe! spend out of what We have given you before the day comes in which there is no bargaining, neither any friendship nor intercession, and the unbelievers - they are the unjust. Allah! There is no god but He,- the Living, the Self-subsisting, Eternal. No slumber can seize Him nor sleep. His are all things in the heavens and on earth. Who is there can intercede in His presence except as He permitteth? He knoweth what (appeareth to His creatures as) before or after or behind them. Nor shall they compass aught of His knowledge except as He willeth. His Throne doth extend over the heavens and the earth, and He feeleth no fatigue in guarding and preserving them for He is the Most High, the Supreme (in glory). S. 2:254-255 A Muslim may claim that this passage demonstrates that there is no contradiction in the Quran, since it explains that no intercession can avail unless Allah permits it. Again, a couple of comments are in order. First, even if we were to accept such an explanation for this passage, seeing that the two verses exist side-by-side, it wouldn‘t solve the other set of conflicting passages which are often far removed from each other. Based on the laws of logic, however, a contradiction remains a contradiction whether the contradictory statements are several chapters apart or found in the same paragraph. Second, there is a debate regarding the proper understanding of this passage. For instance, does this passage teach that the only intercession acceptable to God is that which he permits? Or does this passage actually mean that God can permit intercession if he wanted to, but won‘t do so since he has determined that all intercession belongs exclusively to him? For an example of the latter interpretation, note the following comments taken from a Muslim article: Those who support intercession, however, quote the following verse from the Quran to support their views: 'God! There is no God but He, - the living, the Self-subsisting, Eternal. No slumber can seize Him nor sleep. His are all things in the heavens and on earth. Who is there to intercede in His presence except as he permitteth? He knoweth what (appeared to His creatures as) before or after or behind them. Nor shall they compass aught of His knowledge except as He willeth. His throne doth extend over the heavens and the earth, and he feeleth no fatigue in guarding and preserving them. For He is the most High the Supreme (in glory)' (2:255). It is instructive to quote the verse immediately prior to the above from the Quran: "O ye who believe! Spend out of (the bounties) We have provided for you, before the Day comes when no Bargaining (will avail), nor Friendship nor Intercession. Those who reject faith - they are the wrong-doers" (2:254). This verse puts beyond doubt that there is no intercession, as is repeated in the verse (4:123-124) quoted above. Clearly, there is no need to go into more detail regarding the interpretation of the verse (2:255), otherwise there appears to be a contradiction in the Quran which is not possible. According to the Law of Requital every human deed leaves its effect on the human personality. The Quran has used metaphor to draw parallels with our experience in society. For example, we see in a court how the accused is tried in the presence of witnesses for both the defence and the prosecution. Sentence is then pronounced based on the evidence produced. (Source; bold emphasis ours) Such glaring contradictions make it hard for any open minded and intelligent person to take seriously the claim that the Quran is the word of the true God. Qur'an Contradiction Is Jesus God or Not? The Quran presents criteria to distinguish the true God from false gods. Is He then Who creates like him who does not create? Do you not then mind?... And those whom they call on besides Allah have not created anything while they are themselves created; Dead (are they), not living, and they know not when they shall be raised. S. 16:17, 20-21 Shakir And they have taken besides Him gods, who do not create anything while they are themselves created, and they control not for themselves any harm or profit, and they control not death nor life, nor raising (the dead) to life. S. 25:3 Shakir These preceding passages state that: 1. The objects which others call upon besides God (i.e., whether other gods, angels, and/or individuals) have not created anything. 2. These objects cannot bring death, cause life, or resurrect. 3. These objects of worship are dead. Which implies that: 1. God is the Creator. 2. God is the Source of Life. 3. God is ever-Living. It is no secrect that the Holy Bible states that the Lord Jesus created the cosmos and was called upon in worship by the first Christians: "Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made... He was in the world, and though the world was made through him, the world did not recognize him." John 1:3, 10 "In Damascus there was a disciple named Ananias. The Lord called to him in a vision, 'Ananias!' 'Yes, Lord,' he answered. The Lord told him, 'Go to the house of Judas on Straight Street and ask for a man from Tarsus named Saul, for he is praying. In a vision he has seen a man named Ananias come and place his hands on him to restore his sight.' 'Lord,' Ananias answered, 'I have heard many reports about this man and all the harm he has done to your saints in Jerusalem. And he has come here with authority from the chief priests to arrest all who call on your name.' But the Lord said to Ananias, 'Go! This man is my chosen instrument to carry my name before the Gentiles and their kings and before the people of Israel. I will show him how much he must suffer for my name.' Then Ananias went to the house and entered it. Placing his hands on Saul, he said, 'Brother Saul, the Lord-Jesus, who appeared to you on the road as you were coming here--has sent me so that you may see again and be filled with the Holy Spirit'... All those who heard him were astonished and asked, 'Isn't he the man who raised havoc in Jerusalem among those who call on this name? And hasn't he come here to take them as prisoners to the chief priests?'" Acts 9:10-17, 21 "To the church of God in Corinth, to those sanctified in Christ Jesus and called to be holy, together with all those everywhere who call on the name of our Lord Jesus Christ-their Lord and ours:" 1 Corinthians 1:2 "He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation. For BY HIM all things were created: things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or powers or rulers or authorities; all things were created BY HIM and FOR HIM. He is before all things, and IN HIM all things hold together. And he is the head of the body, the church; he is the beginning and the firstborn from among the dead, so that in everything he might have the supremacy." Colossians 1:15-18 "but in these last days he has spoken to us by his Son, whom he appointed heir of all things, and through whom he made the universe. The Son is the radiance of God's glory and the exact representation of his being, sustaining all things by his powerful word. After he had provided purification for sins, he sat down at the right hand of the Majesty in heaven... And again, when God brings his firstborn into the world, he says, 'Let all God's angels worship him'... But about the Son he says... 'In the beginning, O Lord, you laid the foundations of the earth, and the heavens are the work of your hands. They will perish, but you remain; they will all wear out like a garment. You will roll them up like a robe; like a garment they will be changed. But you remain the same, and your years will never end.'" Hebrews 1:2-3, 6, 8a, 10-12 According to the same Holy Bible, the Lord Jesus is alive forever and ever, having conquered death and ushering in glorious immortality: "So do not be ashamed to testify about our Lord, or ashamed of me his prisoner. But join with me in suffering for the gospel, by the power of God, who has saved us and called us to a holy life-not because of anything we have done but because of his own purpose and grace. This grace was given us in Christ Jesus before the beginning of time, but it has now been revealed through the appearing of our Savior, Christ Jesus, who has destroyed death and has brought life and immortality to light through the gospel." 2 Timothy 1:8-10 "When I saw him, I fell at his feet as though dead. Then he placed his right hand on me and said: 'Do not be afraid. I am the First and the Last. I am the Living One; I was dead, and behold I am alive for ever and ever! And I hold the keys of death and Hades.'" Revelation 1:17-18 "To the angel of the church in Smyrna write: These are the words of him who is the First and the Last, who died and came to life again." Revelation 2:8 By conquering death, Christ demonstrated that he is truly the source of life for all: "In him was life, and that life was the light of men." John 1:4 "For just as the Father raises the dead and gives them life, even so the Son gives life to whom he is pleased to give it... I tell you the truth, a time is coming and has now come when the dead will hear THE VOICE OF THE SON OF GOD and those who hear will live... Do not be amazed at this, for a time is coming when all who are in their graves will hear HIS VOICE and come out-those who have done good will rise to live, and those who have done evil will rise to be condemned." John 5:21, 25, 28-29 "Jesus said to her, 'I AM THE RESURRECTION AND THE LIFE. He who believes in me will live, even though he dies; and whoever lives and believes in me will never die. Do you believe this?' 'Yes, Lord,' she told him, 'I believe that you are the Christ, the Son of God, who was to come into the world.'" John 11:25-27 "Jesus answered, 'I am the way and the truth and THE LIFE. No one comes to the Father except through me.'" John 14:6 "But our citizenship is in heaven. And we eagerly await a Savior from there, the Lord Jesus Christ, who, by the power that enables him to bring everything under his control, will transform our lowly bodies so that they will be like his glorious body." Philippians 3:20-21 "For you died, and your life is now hidden with Christ in God. When Christ, who is your life, appears, then you also will appear with him in glory." Colossians 3:3-4 The Lord Jesus fits the criteria given in the Quran which demonstrates true Deity (i.e., the Creator, the Source of Life, and ever-Living). Christians are therefore justified in worshiping him as their sovereign Lord. Now the Muslim will definitely object to our appeal to the Holy Bible on the grounds that it doesn't accurately reflect the life and teachings of the historical Jesus, and as such it cannot be used to prove that Jesus and his original followers truly believed that Christ was God. It is not the object of this present paper to provide the evidence which establishes the historical veracity of the NT documents, or to demonstrate that the first followers of Christ confessed their belief in the absolute Deity of the Lord Jesus, or in his death and resurrection. For that we simply defer our readers to the following articles and links: http://www.rationalchristianity.net/skeptics.html#reasons www.christian-thinktank.com www.tektonics.org www.carm.org http://answering-islam.org/Case/index.html http://answering-islam.org/Shamoun/documents.htm http://answering-islam.org/Quran/Bible/index.html What we would like to do here is to show that even according to the testimony of the Quran, the Lord Jesus perfectly fulfills the criteria of being Deity. and he shall be a prophet to the people of Israel (saying), that I have come to you, with a sign from God, namely, that I will CREATE for you out of clay (annee AKHLUQU lakum mina ALTTEENI) as though it were the form of a bird, and I will blow thereon and it shall become a bird by God's permission; and I will heal the blind from birth, and lepers; and I will bring the dead to life by God's permission; and I will tell you what you eat and what ye store up in your houses. Verily, in that is a sign for you if ye be believers. S. 3:49 Palmer When God shall say, O Jesus son of Mary, remember my favour towards thee, and towards thy mother; when I strengthened thee with the holy spirit, that thou shouldest speak unto men in the cradle, and when thou wast grown up; and when I taught thee the scripture, and wisdom, and the law, and the gospel; and when thou didst CREATE of clay (wa-ith TAKHLUQU mina ALTTEENI) as it were the figure of a bird, by my permission, and didst breathe thereon, and it became a bird by my permission; and thou didst heal one blind from his birth, and the leper, by my permission; and when thou didst bring forth the dead [from their graves], by my permission; and when I with-held the children of Israel from [killing] thee, when thou hadst come unto them with evident [miracles], and such of them as believed not, said, this is nothing but manifest sorcery. S. 5:110 Sale These two passages demonstrate that Christ has the breath of life and can create in exactly the same way God creates: HE it is Who created you from clay (Huwa allathee KHALAQAKUM min TEENIN) and then HE decreed a term. And there is another term fixed with HIM. Yet you doubt. S. 6:2 Y. Ali Behold, thy Lord said to the angels: "I am about to create man from clay (innee KHALIQUN basharan min TEENIN): When I have fashioned him (in due proportion) and breathed into him of My spirit, fall ye down in obeisance unto him." S. 38:71-72 Y. Ali Note the connection between God breathing his Spirit into man with Christ being strengthened with the Holy Spirit, breathing life into clay birds and resurrecting the dead. And also notice that Christ created a living bird from clay just as God created man from clay. These passages therefore teach that Christ had the same life-giving Spirit of God! The Quran says by way of mocking the gods of the people: "O mankind! A similitude has been coined, so listen to it (carefully): verily! Those on whom you call besides Allah cannot create (even) a fly, even though they combine together for the purpose. And if the fly snatched away a thing from them, they would have no power to release it from the fly. So weak are (both) the seeker and the sought." S. 22:73 Even though Jesus didn't create a fly, he did create a bird and breathed life into it just as Allah did to Adam! In fact, according to one Salafi Muslim site the word for create (khalaqa) refers to creating something from nothing, an act which only God can perform: Imam al-Bukhari reported in his Saheeh from Abu Sa`eed (may Allah be pleased with him) that the Prophet (Peace & Blessings of Allah be upon Him) said: "There is no created being but Allah created it." In Arabic, the word "khalaqa" means to make out of nothing, which is something that ONLY ALLAH CAN DO; it is impossible for anyone except Allah to do this. It also carries the meaning of decreeing or foreordaining. [**] See Fath al-Bari Sharh Saheeh al-Bukhari, 13/390. (439: Evidence that only Allah is the Creator of life; bold and capital emphasis ours) But this very same word is applied to Christ which means, at least according to the above position, that Jesus must be God! Note how this works out logically: 1. God alone can create out of nothing (i.e. the literal meaning of khalaqa). 2. Khalaqa is applied to Jesus. 3. Therefore, Jesus must be God according to Islam. The Quran also implies that Christ is alive in heaven: And when Allah said: O Isa, I am going to terminate the period of your stay (on earth) and cause you to ascend unto Me and purify you of those who disbelieve and make those who follow you above those who disbelieve to the day of resurrection; then to Me shall be your return, so I will decide between you concerning that in which you differed. S. 3:55 Shakir That they said (in boast), "We killed Christ Jesus the son of Mary, the Apostle of God"; - but they killed him not, nor crucified him, but so it was made to appear to them, and those who differ therein are full of doubts, with no (certain) knowledge, but only conjecture to follow, for of a surety they killed him not:- Nay, God raised him up unto Himself; and God is Exalted in Power, Wise; - S. 4:157-158 Y. Ali Orthodox Islam has generally understood these passages to mean that Christ was taken alive into heaven, into the very presence of God himself. Moreover, specific Islamic narrations teach that Jesus will be an intercessor for his people: ... "Surely! Allah wrongs not even of the weight of an atom (or a smallest ant) but if there is any good (done) He doubles it." (4.40) The Prophet added, "Then THE PROPHETS and Angels and the believers will intercede, and (last of all) the Almighty (Allah) will say, 'Now remains My Intercession. He will then hold a handful of the Fire from which He will take out some people whose bodies have been burnt, and they will be thrown into a river at the entrance of Paradise, called the water of life. ..." (Sahih al-Bukhari, Volume 9, Book 93, Number 532s) Ibn Kathir wrote in reference to Sura 3:45 that: <Held in honor in this world and in the Hereafter, and will be one of those who are near to Allah.> meaning, he will be a leader and honored by Allah in this life, because of the Law that Allah will reveal to him, sending down the Scripture to him, along with the other bounties that Allah will grant him with. `Isa will be honored in the Hereafter and will intercede with Allah, by His leave, on behalf of some people, just as is the case with his brethren the mighty Messengers of Allah, peace be upon them all. (Source) The next text supports the interpretation that Jesus may intercede: And We did not send before you any apostle but We revealed to him that there is no god but Me, therefore serve Me. And they say: The Beneficent God has taken to Himself a son. Glory be to Him. Nay! they are honored servants. They do not precede Him in speech and (only) according to His commandment do they act. He knows what is before them and what is behind them, and they do not intercede except for him whom He approves and for fear of Him they tremble. And whoever of them should say: Surely I am a god besides Him, such a one do We recompense with hell; thus do, We recompense the unjust. S. 21:25-29 Shakir This reference says that at least some of those honored servants who were wrongly worshiped as gods or considered children of God will indeed intercede. And since according to the Quran Jesus is an honored servant who was wrongly worshiped as God and as the Son of God this therefore means that he may well be one of those interceding. But this directly conflicts with the following text: And those whom they invoke besides God HAVE NO POWER OF INTERCESSION;only he who bears witness to the Truth, and they know (him). If thou ask them, who created them, they will certainly say, God: How then are they deluded away (from the Truth)? (God has knowledge) of the (Prophet's) cry, "O my Lord! Truly these are people who will not believe!" S. 43:86-88 No intercessor will they have from those whom they made equal with Allah (partners i.e. their socalled associate gods), and they will (themselves) reject and deny their partners. S. 30:13 Hilali-Khan The above references claim that those invoked by the unbelievers have no power to intercede. Jesus happens to be one of those very beings that so-called unbelieving Christians invoked and continue to invoke in their prayers. Thus, either Jesus can intercede which means that the Quran is wrong; or he cannot intercede which means that the Islamic tradition is wrong. In light of the aforementioned citations, we are left with the conclusion that: 1. Jesus creates in the same way God creates. 2. Jesus gives life in the same way God gives life. 3. Jesus is alive in heaven. Therefore, the Quran clearly shows that the Lord Jesus fits the description of God, fulfilling the very criteria which demonstrates that Christ is indeed very God of very God. Yet, it is at this precise point that we have a contradiction within the Quran itself. There is no denying that the Quran rejects the Deity of Jesus (cf. 4:171; 5:17, 70-75; 9:30). But, as we just saw, the Quran attributes titles, qualities and functions to Christ which shows that he is indeed God. Other titles given to Christ which affirm his essential Deity include the Word of God and a Spirit from God (cf. 3:39, 45; 4:171). A Muslim may say that Jesus was given the ability to create and give life by God, just as the passages themselves state. He didn't have this ability within himself. This response doesn't solve the contradiction, but only pushes it a step further. Why would God grant Jesus the abilities and characteristics of Deity? Why is God permitting Jesus to perfectly fit the description and fulfill the criteria which places one within the category of God? Second, the expression "by God's permission" doesn't necessarily mean that Christ was given abilities he did not already have. The statements can be understood in light of the biblical teaching that Christ did nothing on his own initiative, but did everything in perfect union with his Father's will. (cf. John 5:16-30) In other words, the Quranic expression simply implies that Christ only exercised his divine prerogatives in accordance with the decree of God, never acting on his own behest or initiative. It need not deny that Christ always had these divine attributes and characteristics. This becomes all the more likely when we recall that the Quran describes Christ as God's Word and a Spirit proceeding from God, titles which point to Christ's divinity and preexistence. The above observations are relevant for a correct understanding of Sura 3:7. A detailed discussion of the consequences of this contradiction, and some others, are found in the article Muhammad's attempt of damage control. Qur'an Contradiction: Messengers Amongst the Jinns and Angels? The Quran claims that Allah sent messengers from among the Jinn and men: "O ye assembly of JINNS and men! came there not UNTO you messengers FROM AMONGST YOU, setting forth unto you My Signs, and warning you of the meeting of this Day of yours?" They will say: "We bear witness against ourselves." It was the life of this world that deceived them. So against themselves will they bear witness that they rejected Faith. S. 6:130 This passage poses a rhetorical question to both the Jinn and men, telling them to recall the fact that Allah sent messengers from amongst them to warn them of the Day of Judgment. The question that naturally arises is what could it possibly mean that Allah sent messengers from the Jinn to warn them about Allah's judgment? Does Allah actually call on immaterial entities to preach amongst their own kind? The following verses say yes: "Allah chooses messengers from angels and from men, for Allah is He Who hears and sees (all things)." S. 22:75 All praise is due to Allah, the Originator of the heavens and the earth, the Maker of the angels, apostles flying on wings, two, and three, and four; He increases in creation what He pleases; surely Allah has power over all things. S. 35:1 Shakir It should be noted that certain Muslims were of the opinion that the Jinn are a class of angelic creatures. The following traditions are taken from The History of al-Tabari: General Introduction and From the Creation to the Flood, volume 1, translated by Franz Rosenthal and published, State University of New York Press, Albany, 1989. All bold emphasis ours: According to al-Qasim b. al-Hasan- al-Husayn b. Dawud- Hajjaj- Ibn Jurayj- Ibn `Abbas: Iblis was one of the most noblest angels and belonged to the most honored tribe among them. He was a keeper of Paradise. He had authority to rule over the lower heaven as well as earth. According to al-Qasim- al-Husayn- Hajjaj- Ibn Jurayj- Salih, the mawla of alTaw'amah and Sharik b. Abir Namir, either one or both of them- Ibn `Abbas: There was an angelic tribe of jinn, and Iblis belonged to it. He governed all in between the heaven and the earth. According to Musa b. Harun al-Hamdani- `Amr b. Hammad- Asbat- al-Suddi- Abu Malik and Abu Salih- Ibn `Abbas. Also (al-Suddi)- Murrah al-Hamdani- Ibn Mas'ud and some (other) companions of the Prophet: Iblis was ruler over the lower heaven. He belonged to a tribe of angels called jinn. They were called jinn because they were keepers of Paradise (al-jannah). In addition to being ruler, Iblis was a keeper (of Paradise). According to `Abdan al-Marwazi- al-Husayn b. al-Faraj- Dahhak b. Muzahim, commenting on God's word: "They prostrated themselves, except Iblis. He was one of the jinn": Ibn `Abbas used to say: Iblis was one of the noblest angels and belonged to their most honored tribe. He was a keeper of Paradise, and his was the rule over the lower heaven as well as the earth. According to Ibn Humayd- Salamah- Abu al-Azhar al-Mubarak b. Mujahid- Sharik b. `Abdallah b. Abi Namir- Salih, the mawla of al-Taw'amah- Ibn `Abbas: There is an angelic tribe called jinn. Iblis belonged to them. He used to rule all in between heaven and earth. Then he became disobedient, and God therefore transformed him into a stoned Satan. According to al-Qasim- al-Husayn- Hajjaj- Ibn Jurayj, commenting on: "And whoever among them says: I am a god besides Him": Whichever angel says: "I am a god besides Him" calls to worship of himself, and only Iblis said that. Thus, this verse was revealed with reference to Iblis. (Ibid., pp. 250-251) One of the events that took place during the rule of the enemy of God while he was (still) obedient to God is what was mentioned to us on the authority of Ibn `Abbas in a report told us by Abu Kurayb- `Uthman b. Sa'id- Bishr b. `Umarah- Abu Rawq- alDahhak- Ibn `Abbas: Iblis belonged to a tribal group of angels called jinn. Among the angels it was they who were created from the fire of simoom. He continued. His name was al-Harith. He continued. He was one of the keepers of Paradise. He continued. All the angels except this tribal group were created from light. He continued. The jinn mentioned in the Qur'an were created "from a bright flame (marij) of fire"- (marij being) a tongue of fire blazing on its side(s and top). He continued. And He created man from clay. The first to dwell on earth were the jinn. They caused corruption on it and shed blood and killed each other. He continued. God sent Iblis to them with an army of angels. They were that tribal group called jinn. Iblis and those with him caused a bloodbath among them and eventually banished them to the islands in the oceans and the mountainsides. His success went to his head, and he said: I have done something nobody has ever done before. He continued. God was aware of how Iblis felt, but the angels who were with him were not. (Ibid., pp. 252-253) Ibn Humayd gave us about the same account again, reporting from Salamah- Ibn Ishaq- Khallad b. `Ata'- Tawus or Abu sl-Hajjaj Mujahid- Ibn `Abbas, and others. However, he said: (Iblis) was an angel named Azazil. He was one of the dwellers and cultivators on earth. The dwellers on earth from among the angel used to be called jinn." (Ibid., p. 254) Ibn Kathir also cites traditions which support the idea of Jinn being angels: "There were many traditions about Iblis at the time of the Prophet Muhammad (PBUH). Ibn Mas‘ud, Ibn ‗Abbas, and a group of the companions of the Prophet Muhammad (PBUH) said that Iblis had been the head of the angels in the worldly heavens. Ibn ‗Abbas said in one narration that his name was ‗Azazil, and in another narration he said it had been Al-Harith. Ibn ‗Abbas also said that Iblis was a jinn and that they had once been the keepers of Paradise, with Iblis the most honorable, the most learned and the most pious of them. Another tradition says that he had been one of the famous four possessors of wings (i.e., angels), before Allah transformed him into the accursed Satan." (Stories of the Prophets by Ibn Kathir, translated by Sheikh Muhammad Mustafa Geme'ah, Office of the Grand Imam, Sheikh Al-Ahzar, edited by Aelfwine Acelas Mischler [El-Nour For Publishing and Distribution and Translation Est.; 38 Al-Madina Al-Monawara St., Toryl Al-Gadida], p. 13; bold emphasis ours) And: ... Here are some of the descriptions of Satan prior to his disobedience: he was from the community of the angels called Jinn, and was their master. He was a keeper of the Gardens and had power in the sky and on earth... (Tafsir Ibn Kathir, Part 1, Surah Al-Fatiah Surah Al-Baqarah, ayat 1 to 141, abridged by Sheikh Muhammad Nasib Ar-Rafa‘i [Al-Firdous Ltd., London, 1998: second edition], pp. 101-102; bold emphasis ours) If this is the case then the statement that Allah chose messengers from among the angels may be referring to spirit beings like Gabriel and Michael as well as individual Jinn. The following comments are taken from Moiz Amjad in response to a question relating to this very issue: Just as no Jinn could be sent as a prophet towards the human race, no human being could be sent as a prophet towards the race of the Jinn. One of the basic reasons for this general rule is that a prophet of God is not merely a deliverer of God's messages to that race, but he is also meant to be an example for them to follow. Thus, just as an angel or a jinn could not be an example for the human race, similarly, a human being could not be an example for the Jinn or the angels to emulate. Thus, when the rejecters objected to believing in a human being as a messenger and representative of God, saying that were God to send a messenger, He should have sent an angel as His messenger, the Qur'an responded: Had the earth been inhabited by angels, We would then indeed have sent an angel from the heavens as a messenger towards them. (Al-Israa 17: 94) In the light of the foregoing explanation, it should be clear that the prophets from among Jinn are from among themselves, not from among humans ... (source) If Mr. Amjad's claim is taken seriously this would imply that those angels that Allah chose as his messengers could have only been sent to other angels, which would also include Jinn (that is, of course, assuming that the Jinn are indeed angelic beings). Yet Mr. Amjad's claim contradicts the following passage: And follow that which the devils falsely related against the kingdom of Solomon. Solomon disbelieved not; but the devils disbelieved, teaching mankind magic and that which was revealed to the two ANGELS in Babel, Harut and Marut (alalmalakayni bi-Baabila Haaruuta wa Maaruut). Nor did they (the two angels) teach it to anyone till they had said: We are only a temptation, therefore disbelieve not (in the guidance of Allah). And from these two (angels) people learn that by which they cause division between man and wife; but they injure thereby no-one save by Allah's leave. And they learn that which harmeth them and profiteth them not. And surely they do know that he who trafficketh therein will have no (happy) portion in the Hereafter; and surely evil is the price for which they sell their souls, if they but knew. S. 2:102 Pickthall The Dictionary of Islam states: "HARUT WA MARUT ... Two angels mentioned in the Qur'an. They are said to be two angels who, in consequence of their compassion of the frailties of mankind, were sent down to earth to be tempted. They both sinned, and being permitted to choose whether they would be punished now or hereafter, chose the former, and are still suspended by the feet at Babel in a rocky pit, where they are great teachers of magic." (T. P. Hughes, Dictionary of Islam [Kazi Publications, Chicago IL. 1994], pp. 167-168; bold emphasis ours) Yusuf Ali comments: "This verse has been interpreted variously. Who were Harut and Marut? What did they teach? Why did they teach? The view which commends itself to me is that of the Tafsir Haqqani, following Baidhawi and the Tafsir Kabir. The word 'angels' as applied to Harut and Marut is figurative. It means 'good men, of knowledge, science (or wisdom), and power'. In modern languages the word 'angel' is applied to a good and beautiful woman. The earlier tradition made angels masculine, and applied to them the attributes which I have mentioned, along with the attribute of beauty, which was implied in goodness, knowledge, wisdom and power... Among the Jewish traditions in the Midrash (Jewish Tafsirs) was a story of two angels who asked God's permission to come down to earth but succumbed to temptation and were hung by their feet at Babylon for punishment. Such stories about sinning angels who were cast down to punishment were believed by the early Christians also ... There may be an allusion about sinning angels here, but much spiritualized and we are expressly warned against dabbling in magic or believing that anything can hurt us except by God's will, and God is just and righteous." (Ali, Holy Quran, f. 104, p. 45) The major problem with Ali's assertion is that the Quran never uses the term "angels" for human beings. The closest the Quran ever comes to calling a human being an angel is in S. 12:31, and even then it is in a metaphorical sense: And when she heard of their sly talk, she sent to them and prepared for them a cushioned couch (to lie on at the feast) and gave to every one of them a knife and said (to Joseph): Come out unto them! And when they saw him they exalted him and cut their hands, exclaiming: Allah Blameless! This is not a human being. This is not other than some gracious angel. Pickthall (cf. 7:20) In fact, angels are called messengers but humans are never called angels. (Cf. 11:69, 77, 81; 15:57; 22:75; 35:1) One may argue that S. 2:102 is the exception to this norm, and that Harut and Marut were in fact human beings. Yet the burden of proof is upon the one making such a claim to show that this is the case. Claiming it isn't the same as proving it. Muslim Scholar Mahmoud Ayoub comments on S. 2:102: "Commentators likewise have disagreed with regard to the meaning of the phrase 'and that which was sent down to the two angels in Babel, Harut and Marut.' Tabari relates on the authority of Ibn 'Abbas, 'The word ma means "not" [instead of its alternate meaning, "that which"]; that is to say, magic was not sent down [ma unzila] to the two angels. Thus the exegesis of the verse would be, "And they followed the magic which the satans recited concerning the reign of Solomon; yet neither did Solomon reject faith, nor did God send down magic to the two angels. Rather, satans rejected faith in that they taught people magic in Babel, that is, Harut and Marut."' (This tradition assumes that Harut and Marut were the people who learned magic from the satans in Babel; thus they were not angels. The two angels are taken to be Gabriel and Michael.) 'This is because magicians among Jews used to claim that God sent down magic to Solomon by the tongues of Gabriel and Michael. Thus God revealed their false claim, for Gabriel and Michael never brought down magic. Harut and Marut were therefore two men who learned magic from the satans' (Tabari, II, pp. 419-420). Tabari also cites Qatadah, who said, ' "Ma" means "that which," or "what." Thus Harut and Marut were two of the angels. They taught men magic, but were charged not to teach anyone until they said, "We are surely a temptation; do not, therefore, reject faith.' Magic here is of two kinds: one which the satans taught, and another which was taught by the two angels' (Tabari, II, p. 420). "Most early commentators have agreed, however, that Harut and Marut were two angels. Their story appears very early in the history of tafsir on the authority of the first masters of science among the Companions and their Successors. The story, as related by Tabari on the authority of Ibn Mas'ud and Ibn 'Abbas, is as follows: 'When the children of Adam had increased in the earth and committed acts of disobedience, the angels, heavens, earth and mountains invoked God against them, saying, "Our Lord, would You not destroy them?" God revealed to the angels, "Were I to put lust in your hearts and give Satan authority over you, and were you to descend to earth, you would do the same." The angels thought in their hearts that if they were sent down, they would not sin. God, then revealed to them, "Choose two of the best angels among you," and they chose Harut and Marut. They were thus sent down to earth, and Venus was sent down as a beautiful Persian woman. They fell into sin [by lusting after her]. They were therefore given the choice between the punishment of this world or that of the world to come, but they chose the punishment of this world' (Tabari, II, pp. 428). "This tradition presents the basic elements of the story, accepted by most classical commentators. Some traditions, however, related the story of the two angels to God's saying, 'Behold I am about to place a vicegerent in the earth' (see above, Q. 2:30). According to this view, God sent down Harut and Marut to demonstrate to the prostrating angels man's uniqueness as a creature endowed with special faculties which even angels could not possess without also falling into sin and disobedience (see Nisaburi, I, p. 391, who relates the story on the authority of Ibn 'Abbas). Razi, on the other hand, for reasons which are discussed below, asserts that the two angels were sent down at the time of the prophet Enoch (Idris) (Razi, III, p. 220)." (Mahmoud M. Ayoub, The Qur'an and its Interpreters [State University of New York Press, Albany 1984], pp. 130-131; bold emphasis ours) Ayoub cites al-Qurtubi as denying that Harut and Marut were angels, believing that they were satans instead. The only problem with this view is that Harut and Marut are specifically called angels. This implies that if Qurtubi is correct then these satans were at one time angels that disobeyed. Furthermore, even if they were satans this still wouldn't resolve Mr. Amjad's contradiction since this still would leave us with spirit entities being sent to teach mankind. Finally, Ibn Kathir: There is a difference of opinion regarding this story. It was said that this Ayah denies that anything was sent down to the two angels, as al-Qurtubi stated and then referred to the Ayah ... <Sulayman did disbelieve> saying, "The negation applies in both cases. Allah then said ... <But the Shayatin (devils) disbelieved, teaching men magic and such things that came down at Babylon to the two angels>. The Jews claimed that Gabriel and Michael brought magic down to the two angels, but Allah refuted this false claim." Also, Ibn Jarir reported, that Al-‗Awfi said that Ibn ‗Abbas said about Allah‘s statement ... <And such things that came down at Babylon to the two angels> "Allah did not send magic." Also, Ibn Jarir narrated that Ar-Rabi‗ bin Anas said about ... <And such things that came down to the two angels>, "Allah did not send magic down to the [sic] them." Ibn Jarir, "This is the correct explanation for this Ayah ... <They followed what the Shayatin (devils) gave out (falsely) in the lifetime of Sulayman.> meaning, magic. However, neither did Solomon disbelieve nor did Allah send magic with the two angels. The devils, on the other hand, disbelieved and taught magic to the people of the Babylon of Harut and Marut." Ibn Jarir continued; "If someone asks about explaining this Ayah in this manner, we say that ... <They followed what Shayatin (devils) gave out (falsely) in the lifetime of Sulayman.> means, magic. Solomon neither disbelieved nor did Allah send magic with the two angels. However, the devils disbelieved and taught magic to the people in the Babylon of Harut and Marut, meaning of Gabriel and Michael, for Jewish sorcerers claimed that Allah sent magic by the words of Gabriel and Michael to Solomon, son of David. Allah denied this false claim and stated to His Prophet Muhammad that Gabriel and Michael were not sent with magic. Allah also exonerated Solomon from practicing magic, which the devils taught to the people of Babylon by the hands of two men, Harut and Marut. Hence, Harut and Marut were two ordinary men (not angels or Gabriel and Michael)." These are the words of At-Tabari, and this explanation is not plausible. Many among the Salaf, said that Harut and Marut were angels who came down from heaven to earth and did what they did as the Ayah stated. To conform this opinion with the fact that angels are immune from error, we say that Allah had eternal knowledge what these angels would do, just as He had eternal knowledge that Iblis would do as he did, while Allah refered [sic] to him as being among the angels ... and so forth. However, what Harut and Marut did was less offensive than what Iblis, may Allah curse him, did. Al-Qurtubi reported this opinion from ‗Ali, Ibn Mas‗ud, Ibn ‗Abbas, Ibn ‗Umar, Ka‗b Al-Ahbar, As-Suddi and Al-Kalbi. … Al-Hasan Al-Basri said that this Ayah means, "The angels were sent with magic, so that the people whom Allah willed would be tried and tested. Allah made them promise that they would not teach anyone until first proclaiming, ‗We are a test for you, do not fall into disbelief‘" ... (Tafsir Ibn Kathir (Abridged), Volume 1, Parts 1 and 2 (Surat Al-Fatihah to Verse 252 of Surat Al-Baqarah), abridged by a group of scholars under the supervision of Shaykh Safiur-Rahman Al-Mubarakpuri [Darussalam Publishers & Distributors, Riyadh, Houston, New York, London, Lahore; First Edition: January 2000], pp. 314-317; bold emphasis ours) Interestingly, other passages state that Allah sent spirit messengers appearing as men to certain individuals: Behold! the angels said: ‗O Mary! Allah hath chosen thee and purified thee- chosen thee above the women of all nations. O Mary! worship thy Lord devoutly: Prostrate thyself, and bow down (in prayer) with those who bow down.‘ This is part of the tidings of the things unseen, which We reveal unto thee (O Messenger.) by inspiration: Thou wast not with them when they cast lots with pens (or arrows), as to which of them should be charged with the care of Mary: Nor wast thou with them when they disputed (the point). Behold! the angels said: "O Mary! Allah giveth thee glad tidings of a Word from Him: his name will be Christ Jesus, the son of Mary, held in honor in this world and the Hereafter and of (the company of) those nearest to Allah. He shall speak to the people in childhood and in maturity. And he shall be (of the company) of the righteous." She said: "O my Lord! How shall I have a son when no man hath touched me?" He said: "Even so; Allah createth what He willeth: When He hath decreed a plan, He but saith to it, ‗Be,‘ and it is!" S. 3:42-47 Relate in the Book (the story of) Mary, when she withdrew from her family to a place in the East. She placed a screen (to screen herself) from them; then We sent her Our Spirit, and he appeared before her as a man in all respects. She said: "I seek refuge from thee to (Allah) Most Gracious: (come not near) if thou dost fear Allah." He said: "Nay, I am only a messenger from thy Lord, (to announce) to thee the gift of a pure son." She said: "How shall I have a son, seeing that no man has touched me, and I am not unchaste?" He said: "So (it will be): thy Lord saith, ‗That is easy for Me: and (We wish) to appoint him as a Sign unto men and a Mercy from Us‘. It is a matter (so) decreed." S. 19:16-21 There came Our Messengers to Abraham with glad tidings. They said, "Peace!" He answered, "Peace!" and hastened to entertain them with a roasted calf. But when he saw their hands not reaching towards the (meal), he felt some mistrust of them, and conceived a fear of them. They said: "Fear not: We have been sent against the people of Lüt." And his wife was standing (there), and she laughed: But We gave her glad tidings of Isaac, and after him, of Jacob. She said: "Alas for me! shall I bear a child, seeing I am an old woman, and my husband here is an old man? That would indeed be a wonderful thing!" They said: "Dost thou wonder at Allah's decree? The grace of Allah and His blessings on you, o ye people of the house! for He is indeed worthy of all praise, full of all glory!" When fear had passed from (the mind of) Abraham and the glad tidings had reached him, he began to plead with Us for Lüt's people. For Abraham was, without doubt, forbearing (of faults), compassionate, and given to penitence. O Abraham! Seek not this. The decree of thy Lord hath gone forth: for them there cometh a chastisement that cannot be turned back! When Our Messengers came to Lüt, he was grieved on their account and felt himself powerless (to protect) them. He said: This is a distressful day." And his people came rushing towards him, and they had been long in the habit of practicing abominations. He said: "O my People! Here are my daughters: they are purer for you (if ye marry)! Now fear Allah, and cover me not with disgrace about my guests! Is there not among you a single right-minded man?" They said: "Well dost thou know we have no need of thy daughters: indeed thou knowest quite well what we want!" He said: "Would that I had power to suppress you or that I could betake myself to some powerful support." (The Messengers) said: "O Lüt! We are Messengers from thy Lord! By no means shall they reach thee! now travel with thy family while yet a part of the night remains, and let not any of you look back: but thy wife (will remain behind): To her will happen what happens to the people. Morning is their time appointed: Is not the morning nigh?" When Our Decree issued, We turned (the cities) upside down, and rained down on them brimstones hard as baked clay, spread, layer on layer,- Marked as from thy Lord: Nor are they ever far from those who do wrong! S. 11:69-83 Tell them about the guests of Abraham. When they entered his presence and said, "Peace!" He said, "We feel afraid of you!" They said: "Fear not! We give thee glad tidings of a son endowed with knowledge." He said: "Do ye give me glad tidings even though old age has seized me? Of what, then, is your good news?" They said: "We give thee glad tidings in truth: be not then in despair!" He said: "And who despairs of the mercy of his Lord, but such as go astray?" Abraham said: "What then is the business on which ye (have come), O ye messengers (of Allah)?" They said: "We have been sent to a people (deep) in sin, Excepting the adherents of Lüt: them We are certainly (charged) to save (from harm),- All - Except his wife, who, We have ascertained, will be among those who will lag behind." At length when the messengers arrived among the adherents of Lüt, He said: "Ye appear to be uncommon folk." They said: "Yea, we have come to thee to accomplish that of which they doubt. We have come to thee with the truth, and assuredly we tell the truth. Then travel by night with thy household, when a portion of the night (yet remains), and do thou go behind them: let no one amongst you look back, but pass on whither ye are ordered." And We made known this decree to him, that the last remnants of those (sinners) should be cut off by the morning. The inhabitants of the City came in (mad) joy (at news of the young men). Lüt said: "These are my guests: disgrace me not: But fear Allah, and shame me not." They said: "Did we not forbid thee (to speak) for all and sundry?" He said: "There are my daughters (to marry), if ye must act (so)." Verily, by thy life (O Prophet), in their wild intoxication, they wander in distraction, to and fro. But the (mighty) Blast overtook them at sunrise, And We turned (the cities) upside down, and rained down on them brimstones hard as baked clay. S. 15:51-74 Someone may interject here and claim that the spirit entities were not sent to people in general, but rather to God's appointed messengers. The only problem with this interpretation is that the angels didn't just appear to Abraham and Lot, but also to Mary, Sarah and to the people of Sodom and Gomorrah. These individuals were not messengers or prophets. In fact, the hadith claims that Gabriel actually appeared to Muhammad in the presence of others: Narrated Abu Huraira: One day while the Prophet was sitting in the company of some people, (The angel) Gabriel came and asked, "What is faith?"... Then that man (Gabriel) left and the Prophet asked his companions to call him back, but they could not see him. Then the Prophet said, "That was Gabriel who came to teach the people their religion." Abu 'Abdullah said: He (the Prophet) considered all that as a part of faith. (Sahih AlBukhari, Volume 1, Book 2, Number 47) Narrated Abu Uthman: I got the news that Gabriel came to the Prophet while Um Salama was present. Gabriel started talking to the Prophet and then left. The Prophet said to Um Salama, "(Do you know) who it was?" (or a similar question). She said, "It was Dihya (a handsome person amongst the companions of the Prophet )." Later on Um Salama said, "By Allah! I thought he was none but Dihya, till I heard the Prophet talking about Gabriel in his sermon." (The Sub-narrator asked Abu 'Uthman, "From where have you heard this narration?" He replied, "From Usama bin Zaid.") (Sahih AlBukhari, Volume 4, Book 56, Number 827) "... Umar ibn al-Khattab, told me: One day we were sitting in the company of Allah's Apostle (peace be upon him) when there appeared before us a man dressed in pure white clothes, his hair extraordinarily black. There were no signs of travel on him. None amongst us recognized him. At last he sat with the Apostle (peace be upon him) He knelt before him placed his palms on his thighs and said: Muhammad, inform me about al-Islam. The Messenger of Allah (peace be upon him) said: Al-Islam implies that you testify that there is no god but Allah and that Muhammad is the messenger of Allah, and you establish prayer, pay Zakat, observe the fast of Ramadan, and perform pilgrimage to the (House) if you are solvent enough (to bear the expense of) the journey. He (the inquirer) said: You have told the truth. He (Umar ibn al-Khattab) said: It amazed us that he would put the question and then he would himself verify the truth ... He (the narrator, Umar ibn al-Khattab) said: Then he (the inquirer) went on his way but I stayed with him (the Holy Prophet) for a long while. He then, said to me: Umar, do you know who this inquirer was? I replied: Allah and His Apostle knows best. He (the Holy Prophet) remarked: He was Gabriel (the angel). He came to you in order to instruct you in matters of religion." (Sahih Muslim, Book 001, Number 0001) This indicates that much like Harut and Marut, God had in fact sent spirit creatures to other human beings. Yet the problem gets even worse. According to other passages, Allah chose only human messengers to convey the message: "Nor did We send before thee messengers ANY BUT MEN, whom We did inspire,- (men) from the people of the towns. Do they not travel through the earth, and see what was the end of those before them? But the home of the Hereafter is best, for those who do right. Will ye not then understand?" S. 12:109 "Before thee, also, the messengers We sent were BUT MEN, to whom We granted inspiration: If ye know this not, ask of those who possess the Message. Nor did We give them bodies that ate no food, nor were they immortals." S. 21:7-8 And the messengers whom We sent before thee were ALL (MEN) who ate food and walked through the markets. We have made some of you as a trial for others: will ye have patience? For Allah is One Who sees (all things). Those who do not hope to meet Us (for Judgment) say: "Why are not the angels sent down to us, or (why) do we not see our Lord?" Indeed they have an arrogant conceit of themselves, and mighty is the insolence of their impiety! S. 25:20-21 Behold, the messengers came to them, from before them and behind them, (preaching): "Serve none but Allah." They said, "If our Lord had so pleased, He would certainly have sent down angels. So we disbelieve in the message you were sent with." S. 41:14 These verses clearly contradict the passages that state that Allah sent Messengers from both angels and Jinn. Ibn Kathir notes in relation to 12:109: All of the Prophets are Humans and Men Allah states that He only sent Prophets and Messengers from among men AND NOT FROM AMONG WOMEN, as this Ayah clearly states. Allah did not reveal religious and legislative laws to any woman from among the daughters of Adam. This is the belief of Ahlus-Sunnah wal-Jama‟ah. Shaykh Abu Al-Hasan, ‗Ali bin Isma‘il. Al-Ash‗ari mentioned that it is the view of Ahlus-Sunnah wal-Jama’ah, that there was no female Prophets, but there were truthful believers from among women. Allah mentions the MOST honorable of the truthful female believers, Maryam, the daughter of „Imran, when He said ... <The Messiah [„Isa], son of Maryam [Mary], was no more than a Messenger; many were the Messengers that passed away before him. His mother was a Siddiqah [truthful believer]. They both used to eat food.> [5:75] Therefore, the best description Allah gave her is Siddiqah. Had she been a Prophet, Allah would have mentioned this fact when He was praising her qualities and honor. Therefore, Mary was a truthful believer according to the words of the Qur‘an. All Prophets were Humans not Angels Ad-Dahhak reported that Ibn ‗Abbas commented on Allah‘s statement ... <And We sent not before (s Messengers) any but men> "They were not from among the residents of the heaven (angels), as you claimed." This statement of Ibn ‗Abbas is supported by Allah's statement ... (Tafsir Ibn Kathir (Abridged), Volume 5, Surah Hud to Surat Al-Isra‟, Verse 38 [Darussalam Publishers & Distributors, Riyadh, Houston, New York, Lahore; First Edition: July 2000], pp. 221-222; bold and capital emphasis ours) As a side note, the Holy Bible disagrees with both the Quran and Islam regarding women not functioning in the role of a prophet or messenger since several are mentioned by name. They are Moses' sister Miriam (Exodus 15:20; Micah 6:4), Deborah (Judges 4-5), Huldah (2 Kings 22:14; 2 Chronicles 34:22), an unnamed prophetess (Isaiah 8:3), Anna (Luke 2:36), and the four daughters of Philip the evangelist (Acts 21:9). Returning to Ibn Kathir, here are his comments on 21:7-8: The Messengers are no more than Human Beings Here Allah refutes those who denied that human Messengers could be sent ... <And We sent not before you but men to who We revealed.> meaning, all the Messengers who came before you were men, human beings. There were NO ANGELS AMONG THEM ... <So ask the people of the Reminder if you do not know.> meaning, ask the people of knowledge among the nations such as the Jews and Christians and other groups: ‗were the Messengers who came to you human beings?‘ Indeed there were human beings. This is a part of the perfect blessing of Allah towards His creation: He sent to them Messengers from among themselves so that they could receive the Message from them and learn from them. (Tafsir Ibn Kathir (Abridged), Volume 6, Surat Al-Isra‟, Verse 39 To the end of Surat Al-Mu‟minun, First Edition: July 2000, p. 427; bold and capital emphasis ours) Furthermore, other passages indicate that the Jinn converted to Islam due to the preaching of human messengers such as Muhammad: Behold, We turned towards thee a company of Jinns (quietly) listening to the Qurán: when they stood in the presence thereof, they said, "Listen in silence!" When the (reading) was finished, they returned to their people, to warn them. They said, "O our people! We have heard a Book revealed after Moses, confirming what came before it: it guides (men) to the Truth and to a Straight Path. O our people, HEARKEN TO THE ONE WHO INVITES (YOU) TO ALLAH, and believe in him: He will forgive you your faults, and deliver you from a Chastisement Grievous. If any does not hearken to the one who invites (us) to Allah, he cannot escape in the earth, and no protectors can he have besides Allah: such men (are) in manifest error." S. 46:29-32 Say: It has been revealed to me that a company of Jinns listened (to the Qurán). They said, "We have really heard a wonderful Recital! It gives guidance to the Right, and we have believed therein: we shall not join (in worship) any (gods) with our Lord. And Exalted is the Majesty of our Lord: He has taken neither a wife nor a son. There were some foolish ones among us, who used to utter extravagant lies against Allah. But we do think that no man or Jinn should say aught that untrue against Allah. True, there were persons among mankind who took shelter with persons among the Jinns, but they increased them into father error. And they (came to) think as ye thought, that Allah would not raise up any one (to Judgment). And we pried into the secrets of heaven; but we found it filled with stern guards and flaming fires. We used, indeed, to sit there in (hidden) stations, to (steal) a hearing; but any who listen now will find a flaming fire watching him in ambush. And we understand not whether ill is intended to those on earth, or whether their Lord (really) intends to guide them to right conduct. There are among us some that are righteous, and some the contrary: we follow divergent paths. But we think that we can by no means frustrate Allah throughout the earth, nor can we escape Him by flight. And as for us, SINCE WE HAVE LISTENED TO THE GUIDANCE, WE HAVE ACCEPTED IT: and any who believes in his Lord has no fear, either of a short (account) or of any injustice. Amongst us are some that submit their wills (to Allah), and some that swerve from justice. Now those who submit their wills - they have sought out (the path) of right conduct: But those who swerve,- they are (but) fuel for Hell-fire-" S. 72:1-15 This implies that Allah used men such as Muhammad, and not Jinn, to convert the Jinn to Islam. Interestingly, the Quran states that Muhammad is a mercy to all creatures, which naturally includes the Jinn: And We have sent you (O Muhammad SAW) not but as a mercy for the 'Alamîn (mankind, jinns and all that exists). S. 21:107 Hilali-Khan This supports our view that Allah used men such as Muhammad to preach to Jinns. The following are Ibn Kathir's comments on S. 6:130 which relates to this specific point: We should note here that the Messengers are from among mankind only, not vice versa, as Mujahid, Ibn Jurayj and others from the Imams of the Salaf and later generations have stated ... Thus sending the prophethood and the Book exclusively through the offspring of the Prophet Ibrahim. No one has claimed that there were Prophets from among the Jinns before the time of Ibrahim, but not after that ... Therefore, concerning prophethood, the Jinns follow mankind in this regard and this is why Allah said ... <And (remember), when We sent towards you a group of the Jinn, listening to the Qurán. When they stood in the presence thereof, they said: "Listen in silence!" And when it was finished, they returned to their people, as warners. They said: "O our people! Verily, we have heard a Book sent down after Musa, confirming what came before it: it guides to the truth and to the straight way. O our people! Respond to Allah‟s caller, and believe in him: He (Allah) will forgive you your sins, and will save you from a painful torment (i.e. Hell-fire). And whosoever does not respond to Allah‟s caller, he cannot escape on earth, and there will be no helpers for him besides Allah. Those are in manifest error.> [46:29-32] (Tafsir Ibn Kathir (Abridged), Volume 3, Parts 6, 7 & 8 (Surat An-Nisa, Verse 148 to the end of Surat Al-An‟am), First Edition: January 2000, pp. 470-471; bold emphasis ours) Furthermore, Ibn Kathir has this comment on S. 3:26 regarding Muhammad's mission to the Jinn. "... Allah transfered the prophethood from the Children of Israel to the Arab, Qurashi, Makkan, unlettered Prophet, the Final and Last of all prophets and the Messenger of Allah to all mankind and jinn ..." (Volume 2, Parts 3, 4, & 5 (Surat Al-Baqarah, Verse 253, to Surat An-Nisa, Verse 147), p. 139; bold emphasis ours) And on S. 3:32 he writes: "... Indeed, Allah does not like whoever does this, even if he claims that he loves Allah and seeks a means of approach to Him, unless, and until, he follows the unlettered Prophet, the Final Messenger from Allah TO THE TWO CREATIONS: mankind and the Jinn ..." (ibid., p. 146; bold and capital emphasis ours) Finally, regarding S. 7:158 we read: Allah says His Prophet and Messenger Muhammad... <Say>, O Muhammad ... <O mankind!> this is directed to mankind red and black, and the Arabs and nonArabs alike... <I am sent to you all as the Messenger of Allah,> This Ayah mentions the Prophet's honor and greatness, for he is the Final Prophet who was sent to all mankind [and the Jinns] ... There are many other Ayat and more Hadiths than can be counted on this subject. It is also well-known in our religion that the Messenger of Allah was sent to all mankind [and the Jinns]... (Tafsir Ibn Kathir (Abridged), Volume 4, Surat Al-A'raf to the end of Surah Yunus, pp. 182-183) If the Quran is correct that Allah only chose men to be his messengers, then Ibn Kathir's comments that Allah sent the prophets and messengers to the Jinn must be correct. Otherwise, this would contradict the following Quranic verses: "O ye assembly of Jinns and men! came there not unto you messengers from amongst you, setting forth unto you My Signs, and warning you of the meeting of this Day of yours?" They will say: "We bear witness against ourselves." It was the life of this world that deceived them. So against themselves will they bear witness that they rejected Faith. (The messengers were sent) thus, for thy Lord would not destroy the towns unjustly whilst their occupants were unwarned. S. 6:130-131 For We assuredly sent amongst every People (Ummah- Community) a Messenger, (with the Command), "Serve Allah, and eschew Evil": of the People were some whom Allah guided, and some on whom error became inevitably (established). So travel through the earth, and see what was the end of those who denied (the Truth). S. 16:36 Who receiveth guidance, receiveth it for his own benefit: who goeth astray doth so to his own loss. No bearer of burdens can bear the burden of another: nor would We punish until We had sent a messenger (to give warning). S. 17:15 Verily We have sent thee in truth, as a bearer of glad tidings, and as a warner: and there never was a people, without a warner having lived among them (in the past). S. 35:24 Compare: Who is more unjust than one who invents a lie against Allah or rejects His Signs? For such, their portion appointed must reach them from the Book (of Decrees): until, when Our messengers (of death) arrive and take their souls, they say: "Where are the things that ye used to invoke besides Allah." They will reply, "They have left us in the lurch," And they will bear witness against themselves, that they had rejected Allah. He will say: "Enter ye in the company of the Peoples who passed away before you men and Jinns, - into the Fire." Every time a new People enters, it curses its sisterPeople (that went before), until they follow each other, all into the Fire. Saith the last about the first: "Our Lord! it is these that misled us: so give them a double punishment in the Fire." He will say: "Doubled for all": but this ye do not know. S. 7:37-38 "Many are the Jinns and men we have made for Hell." S. 7:179 "In truth thy Lord destroyed not the townships tyrannously while their folk were doing right. And if thy Lord had willed, He verily would have made mankind one nation, yet they cease not differing, Save him on whom thy Lord hath mercy; and for that He did create them. And the Word of thy Lord hath been fulfilled: Verily I shall fill hell with the jinn and mankind together." S. 11:117-119 Therefore flee unto Allah: I am from Him a Warner to you, clear and open! And make not another an object of worship with Allah: I am from Him a Warner to you, clear and open! Similarly, no messenger came to the Peoples before them, but they said (of him) in like manner, "A sorcerer, or one possessed"! Is this the legacy they have transmitted, one to another? Nay, they are themselves a people transgressing beyond bounds! So turn away from them: not thine is the blame. But remind; for reminding benefits the Believers. I have only created Jinns and men, that they may serve Me. S. 51:50-56 These verses teach that Allah does not punish anyone without first sending them a warner. Since the Quran teaches that some of the Jinn will be thrown into hell, this means that Allah sent human messengers to warn the Jinn. This means that Amjad's claim that Allah would only send Jinn to preach to other Jinn, is wrong since the Quran denies that Jinn were sent as messengers of Allah. Yet, this still leaves us with the problem with Allah sending angels as messengers when elsewhere Allah claimed that all the messengers were human beings. Such conflicting passages led Islamicist F.E. Peters to write: "None of the pronouns is identified in these verses, though there is little doubt that the recipient of the vision was Muhammad. Who was seen is less clear, and if Muhammad's being referred to as his 'servant' in verse 10 suggests that is God Himself, the Muslim tradition preferred to understand that it was Gabriel in all the other instances, chiefly because later in his own career Muhammad, as we shall see, had unmistakably come to the same conclusion. But there is no other mention of Gabriel in the Meccan suras, and it appears far more likely that God Himself first appeared to Muhammad 'on the high horizon' and then on a second occasion by the lotus tree near the 'garden of the dwelling' to show him 'the signs of his Lord.' Muhammad was clearly earthbound when he had his first experience, but where the latter vision took place, whether in a known locality in Mecca or, as is often thought, in some heavenly venue, is not further indicated. Neither is there anything to suggest that it was on either of these occasions that Muhammad received the words of the Quran. If Sura 53:1-18 seems to say that Muhammad believed that on two distinct occasions he had a vision of God, who thereby prompted him and showed to him His signs, the second vision is referred to only in briefing in passing. (Quran 81:19-27) Although verse 10 appears to refer back to the same vision 'on the high horizon' mentioned in 53:7-9, the Muslim commentators saw in the first three verses of this passage from Sura 81 an unmistakable reference to Gabriel. But there is abundant evidence that Muhammad not only did not identify Gabriel as the agent of revelation until his Medina days, but that while at Mecca he was criticized for the fact that God had not sent an angelic messenger: 'They said: "If your Lord had so pleased, He would certainly have sent down angels; as it is, we disbelieve your mission".' (Quran 41:14) Muhammad's earliest response did not encourage them to think that there was in fact an angel in God's revelation to him: They say: 'You to whom the Reminder is being sent down, truly you are jinnpossessed! Why do you not bring angels to us if you are one of those who posses truth? We do not send down the angels except when required, and if they came, there would be not respite.' (Ibid., 15:6-8) 'And before you as well the Messengers we sent down were but men, to whom We granted inspiration. And if you do not understand that, ask the people who possess the Reminder.' (Ibid., 16:43)" (Peters, Muhammad and the Origins of Islam [State of University Press New York, Albany 1994], pp. 142-143; bold emphasis ours) Ibn Kathir attempts to reconcile the obvious contradictions between these conflicting passages: <... that they may obtain understanding, in religion and warn their people when they return to them, so that they might be cautious (of evil).> (9:122) This Ayah has been used as evidence that the Jinns have warners from among themselves, but no Messengers. There is no doubt that Allah did not send Messengers from among the Jinns, because He says ... <And We did not send before you as Messengers any but men, to whom We revealed from among the people of cities.> (12:109) And Allah says ... <And We never sent before you any of the Messengers but verily they ate food and walked in the markets.> (25:20) And He says about Ibrahim Al-Khalil, upon him be peace ... <And We placed in his descendants prophethood and Scripture.> (29:27) Thus, every Prophet whom Allah sent after Ibrahim was from his offspring and progeny. As for Allah‘s saying in Surat Al-An‟am ... <O company of Jinns and human beings! Did there not come to you Messengers from among you> (6:130) It only applies to the two kinds collectively, but specifically pertains to just one of them, which is the human. This is like Allah‘s saying ... <From both of them (salty and fresh waters) emerge pearl and Marjan.> (55:22) Although He said "both of them" this applies to only one of the two types of water (salty water). Allah then explains how the Jinns warned the people ... (Tafsir Ibn Kathir (Abridged), Volume 9, Surat Al-Jathiyah to the end of Surat Al-Munafiqun, First Edition: September 2000, pp. 76-77; bold emphasis ours) Ibn Kathir's attempt of harmonization will not work since it still fails to resolve the problem of Allah sending angels such as Harut and Marut as messengers to Babylon. In light of the stated insurmountable problems, we leave it to the Muslims to reconcile these glaring contradictions. In the service of the eternal Son of the Most High, Jesus Christ, our risen Lord and eternal King forever. Amen. Come Lord Jesus. We love you Lord of eternal glory. Sam Shamoun Qur'an Contradiction: What about Jonah? The Quran claims that messengers were sent to their own people proclaiming the Message in their native tongue: "Then after him (Noah) We sent (many) messengers to their peoples: they brought them Clear Signs, but they would not believe what they had already rejected beforehand. Thus do We seal the hearts of the transgressors." S. 10:74 "And We never sent a messenger save with the language of his folk, that he might make (the message) clear for them. Then Allah sendeth whom He will astray, and guideth whom He will. He is the Mighty, the Wise." S. 14:4 Pickthall "Verily We sent before thee (Muhammad) messengers to their own folk. Then we took vengeance upon those who were guilty (in regard to them). To help believers is ever incumbent upon Us." S. 30:47 Pickthall Here are Ibn Kathir's comments regarding S. 14:4: Every Prophet was sent with the Language of his People; Guidance or Misguidance follows the Explanation. Allah is Kind and Compassionate with His creation, sending Messengers to them from among them and speaking their language, so that they are able to understand the Message that the Messengers were sent with ... <the All-Wise> in His decisions, misleading those who deserve to be misled and guiding those who deserve guidance. This is from Allah's wisdom with His creation, every Prophet He sent to a people SPOKE THEIR LANGUAGE and every one of these Prophets WERE ONLY SENT TO THEIR PEOPLE. Muhammad bin ‗Abdullah, Allah's Messenger, peace and blessings be upon him, was sent to all people. It is recorded IN THE TWO SAHIHS that Jabir said that the Messenger of Allah said, ... ((I have been given five things which were not given to anyone else before me. Allah made me victorious by awe, (by His frightening my enemies) for a distance of one month's journey. The earth has been made for me (and for my followers) a place for worship and a purifier. The war booty has been made lawful for me and it was not lawful for anyone else before me. I have been given the right of Intercession (on the Day of Resurrection). EVERY PROPHET USED TO BE SENT TO HIS NATION ONLY, but I have been sent to all mankind.)) Allah said, ... <Say: "O mankind! Verily, I am sent to you all as the Messenger of Allah ...> [7:158] (Tafsir Ibn Kathir, Abridged, Volume 5, Surah Hud to Surat Al-Isra‟, Verse 38, abridged by a group of scholars under the supervision of Shaykh Safiur-Rahman AlMubarakpuri [Darussalam Publishers & Distributors, Riyadh, Houston, New York, Lahore; First Edition: July 2000], pp. 309-310; bold capital emphasis ours) Yet this contradicts both the Holy Bible and the Quran. Both the Holy Bible and the Quran mention the story of the prophet Jonah son of Amittai, called Yunus in the Quran. Jonah was an Israelite who was sent to the Assyrians in Nineveh: "The word of the Lord came to Jonah son of Amittai: ‗Go to the great city of Nineveh and preach against it, because its wickedness has come up before me‘ ... So they asked him, ‗Tell us, who is responsible for making all this trouble for us? What do you do? Where do you come from? What is your country? From what people are you?‘ He answered, ‗I am a Hebrew and I worship the Lord, the God of heaven, who made the sea and the land.‘ This terrified them and they asked, ‗What have you done?‘ (They knew he was running away from the Lord, because he had already told them so.)" Jonah 1:1-2, 8-10 And: "He was the one who restored the boundaries of Israel from Lebo Hamath to the Sea of the Arabah, in accordance with the word of the Lord , the God of Israel, spoken through his servant Jonah son of Amittai, the prophet from Gath Hepher." 2 Kings 14:25 Compare: "The third lot came up for Zebulun, clan by clan: The boundary of their inheritance went as far as Sarid. Going west it ran to Maralah, touched Dabbesheth, and extended to the ravine near Jokneam. It turned east from Sarid toward the sunrise to the territory of Kisloth Tabor and went on to Daberath and up to Japhia. Then it continued eastward to Gath Hepher and Eth Kazin; it came out at Rimmon and turned toward Neah. There the boundary went around on the north to Hannathon and ended at the Valley of Iphtah El. Included were Kattath, Nahalal, Shimron, Idalah and Bethlehem. There were twelve towns and their villages. These towns and their villages were the inheritance of Zebulun, clan by clan. Joshua 19:10-15 This indicates that Jonah was perhaps from the tribe of Zebulun, son of Jacob. The Quran and the Islamic traditions agree on Jonah being sent to Nineveh: If only there had been a single township (among those We warned), which believed,so its faith should have profited it,- except the People of Jonah? When they believed, We removed from them the Chastisement of Ignominy in the life of the present, and permitted them to enjoy (their life) for a while. S. 10:98 And remember Zunnün, when he departed in wrath: He imagined that We had no power over him! But he cried through the depths of darkness, "There is no god but Thou: glory to Thee: I was indeed wrong!" So We listened to him: and delivered him from distress: and thus do We deliver those who have faith. S. 21:87-88 So also was Jonah among those sent (by Us). When he ran away (like a slave from captivity) to the ship (fully) laden, He (agreed to) cast lots, and he was of the rebutted: Then the big Fish did swallow him, and he had done acts worthy of blame. Had it not been that he (repented and) glorified Allah, He would certainly have remained inside the Fish till the Day of Resurrection. But We cast him forth on the naked shore in a state of sickness, And We caused to grow, over him, a spreading plant of the gourd kind. And We sent him (on a mission) to a hundred thousand (men) or more. And they believed; so We permitted them to enjoy (their life) for a while. S. 37:139-148 Here is Ibn Kathir on S. 10:98: "... The point is that between Musa and Yunus, there was no nation in its entirety that believed except the people of Yunus, the people of Naynawa (Nineveh). And they only believed because they feared that the torment from which their Messenger warned them, might strike them. They actually witnessed its signs. So they cried to Allah and asked for help. They engaged in humility in invoking Him. They brought their children and cattle and asked Allah to lift the torment from which their Prophet had warned them. As a result, Allah sent down His mercy and removed the scourge from them and gave them respite. ... In interpreting this Ayah, Qatadah said: ‗No town has denied the truth and then believed when they saw the scourge, and then their belief benefited them, with the exception of the people of Yunus. When they lost their prophet and they thought that the scourge was close upon them, Allah sent through their hearts the desire to repent. So they wore woolen fabrics and they separated each animal from its offspring. They then cried out to Allah for forty nights. When Allah saw the truth in their hearts and that they were sincere in their repentance and regrets, He removed the scourge from them.‘ Qatadah said: ‗It is mentioned that the people of Yunus were in Naynawa, the land of Mosul.‟ This was also reported from Ibn Mas'ud, Mujahid, Sai'd bin Jubayr and others from the Salaf." (Tafsir Ibn Kathir, Abridged, Volume 4, Surat Al-A‟raf to the end of Surah Yunus, first edition May 2000, p. 660; bold emphasis ours) And also Ibn Kathir's comments on S. 21:87-88: YUNUS This story is mentioned here, and in Surat As-Saffat and Surah Nun. Yunus bin Matta, upon him be peace, was sent by Allah to the people of Nineveh, which was a town in the area of Mawsil [in northern Iraq] ... (Tafsir Ibn Kathir, Abridged, Volume 6, Surat Al-Isra', Verse 39 to the end of Surat Al-Mu'minun, first edition July 2000, p. 481; bold emphasis ours) Interestingly, the hadiths have Muhammad naming Jonah as the son of Amittai: Narrated Ibn 'Abbas: The Prophet said, "One should not say that I am better than Jonah (i.e. Yunus) bin Matta." So, he mentioned his father Matta. The Prophet mentioned the night of his Ascension and said, "The prophet Moses was brown, a tall person as if from the people of the tribe of Shanu'a. Jesus was a curly-haired man of moderate height." He also mentioned Malik, the gate-keeper of the (Hell) Fire, and Ad-Dajjal. (Sahih AlBukhari, Volume 4, Book 55, Number 608) Narrated Ibn 'Abbas: The Prophet said that his Lord said: "It does not befit a slave that he should say that he is better than Jonah (Yunus) bin Matta." (Sahih Al-Bukhari, Volume 9, Book 93, Number 630) Ibn Sa'd, presenting a list of the Prophets' genealogies, writes: ... Yunus Ibn Matta from the family of Ya'qub Ibn Ishaq Ibn Ibrahim ... (Sa'd, Kitab Al-Tabaqat Al-Kabir, Volume I, parts I & II, English translation by S. Moinul Haq, M.A., PH.D assisted by H.K. Ghazanfar M.A. [Kitab Bhavan Exporters & Importers, 1784 Kalan Mahal, Daryaganj, New Delhi - 110 002 India], p. 48; bold emphasis ours) Ya'qub, Ishaq and Ibrahim are Arabic for Jacob, Isaac and Abraham. This leaves absolutely no doubt that this is the same Jonah referred to in the Holy Bible. This being the case, Allah is wrong for claiming that Messengers were sent to their own folk teaching in the language of their people. The Assyrians were not Jonah's people, nor did they speak the same language as the following passage demonstrates: "The king of Assyria sent his supreme commander, his chief officer and his field commander with a large army, from Lachish to King Hezekiah at Jerusalem. They came up to Jerusalem and stopped at the aqueduct of the Upper Pool, on the road to the Washerman's Field. They called for the king; and Eliakim son of Hilkiah the palace administrator, Shebna the secretary, and Joah son of Asaph the recorder went out to them. The field commander said to them, ‗Tell Hezekiah: "This is what the great king, the king of Assyria, says: On what are you basing this confidence of yours? You say you have strategy and military strength - but you speak only empty words. On whom are you depending, that you rebel against me? Look now, you are depending on Egypt, that splintered reed of a staff, which pierces a man's hand and wounds him if he leans on it! Such is Pharaoh king of Egypt to all who depend on him. And if you say to me, ‗We are depending on the Lord our God‘ - isn't he the one whose high places and altars Hezekiah removed, saying to Judah and Jerusalem, ‗You must worship before this altar in Jerusalem‘?" Come now, make a bargain with my master, the king of Assyria: I will give you two thousand horses - if you can put riders on them! How can you repulse one officer of the least of my master's officials, even though you are depending on Egypt for chariots and horsemen? Furthermore, have I come to attack and destroy this place without word from the Lord? The Lord himself told me to march against this country and destroy it.‘ Then Eliakim son of Hilkiah, and Shebna and Joah said to the field commander, ‗Please speak to your servants in Aramaic, since we understand it. Don't speak to us in Hebrew in the hearing of the people on the wall.‘" 2 Kings 18:17-26 The Qur'an again contradicts itself and the Bible confirming that the Quran is not the word of God. Sam Shamoun Qur'an Contradiction To Marry or Not to Marry? The Quran prohibits Muslim men from marrying unbelievers and associators, saying that it is better for them to marry believing women: And do not marry the idolatresses until they believe, and certainly a believing maid is better than an idolatress woman, even though she should please you; and do not give (believing women) in marriage to idolaters until they believe, and certainly a believing servant is better than an idolater, even though he should please you; these invite to the fire, and Allah invites to the garden and to forgiveness by His will, and makes clear His communications to men, that they may be mindful. S. 2:221 Shakir The words rendered as idolatresses and idolaters are from the Arabic term mushrik, which comes from shirk, and more literally means one who associates or ascribes partners to Allah. This is how the late Muhammad Asad translated these words: AND DO NOT many women who ascribe divinity to aught beside God ere they attain to [true] belief: for any believing bondwoman [of God] is certainly better than a woman who ascribes divinity to aught beside God, even though she please you greatly. And do not give your women in marriage to men who ascribe divinity to aught beside God ere they attain to [true] belief: for- any believing bondman [of God] is certainly better than a man who ascribes divinity to aught beside God, even though he please you greatly. [Such as] these invite unto the fire, whereas God invites unto paradise, and unto [the achievement of] forgiveness by His leave; and He makes clear His messages unto mankind, so that they might bear them in mind. Muhammad Asad The next text commands Muslim men not to remain married to unbelievers: O you who believe! when believing women come to you flying, then examine them; Allah knows best their faith; then if you find them to be believing women, do not send them back to the unbelievers, neither are these (women) lawful for them, nor are those (men) lawful for them, and give them what they have spent; and no blame attaches to you in marrying them when you give them their dowries; and hold not to the ties of marriage of unbelieving women, and ask for what you have spent, and let them ask for what they have spent. That is Allah's judgment; He judges between you, and Allah is Knowing, Wise. S. 60:10 Shakir The word for unbeliever comes from the term kafir, which refers to one who makes kufr. According to the Quran, the Jews and Christians (specifically the latter) fall under these categories of mushrik and kafir: O ye who believe! surely, the idolaters are unclean (al-mushrikoona najasun). So they shall not approach the Sacred Mosque after this year of theirs. And if you fear poverty, ALLAH will enrich you out of HIS bounty, if HE pleases. Surely, ALLAH is All-Knowing, Wise. Fight those from among the people of the Book, who believe not in ALLAH, nor in the Last Day, nor hold as unlawful what ALLAH and HIS Messenger have declared to be unlawful, nor follow the true religion, until they pay the tax considering it a favour and acknowledge their subjection. And the Jews say, „Ezra is the son of ALLAH,‟ and the Christians say, „the Messiah is the son of ALLAH;‟ that is what they say with their mouths. They only imitate the saying of those who disbelieved (kafaroo) before them. ALLAH's curse be on them! How they are turned away. They have taken their priest and their monks for lords besides ALLAH. And so have they taken the Messiah, son of Mary. And they were not commanded but to worship the One God. There is no God but HE. Holy is HE far above what they associate (yushrikoona) with Him! They seek to extinguish the light of ALLAH with their mouths; but ALLAH refuses but to perfect HIS light, though the disbelievers (al-kafiroona) may resent it. HE it is Who has sent HIS Messenger with guidance and the religion of truth, that HE may make it prevail over every other religion, even though the idolaters (al-mushrikoona) may resent it. S. 9:28-33 Sher Ali The above passage claims that not only are Christians idolaters (or of those who associate partners with God) and blasphemers (or disbelievers), but the Jews are as well. It even classifies the Jews and Christians as unclean! They indeed have disbelieved (kafara) who say, `Surely ALLAH - He is the Messiah, son of Mary.' Say, `Who then has any power against ALLAH, if HE desired to destroy the Messiah, son of Mary, and his mother and all those that are in the earth?' And to ALLAH belongs the Kingdom of the heavens and the earth and what is between them. HE creates what HE pleases and ALLAH has power over all things. S. 5:17 Sher Ali They are unbelievers (kafara) who say, 'God is the Messiah, Mary's son.' For the Messiah said, 'Children of Israel, serve God, my Lord and your Lord. Verily whoso associates with God anything (innahu man yushrik biAllahi), God shall prohibit him entrance to Paradise, and his refuge shall be the Fire; and wrongdoers shall have no helpers.' S. 5:72 Arberry Certainly they disbelieve (kafara) who say: Surely Allah is the third (person) of the three; and there is no god but the one God, and if they desist not from what they say, a painful chastisement shall befall those among them who disbelieve. S. 5:73 Shakir The following sahih hadith confirms the view that Christians are both mushriks and kafirs: Narrated Nafi‘: Whenever Ibn ‗Umar was asked about marrying a Christian lady or a Jewess, he would say: "Allah has made it unlawful for the believers to marry ladies who ascribe partners in worship to Allah, and I do not know of a greater thing, as regards to ascribing partners in worship, etc. to Allah, than that a lady should say that Jesus is her Lord although he is just one of Allah's slaves." (Sahih al-Bukhari, Volume 7, Book 63, Number 209) This online Salafi site unapologetically calls Christians kafirs and says that: This is something that is well known among the Muslims, and they are UNANIMOUSLY AGREED that the Christians are kaafirs, and even that those who do not regard them as kaafirs ARE ALSO KAAFIRS. Shaykh Muhammad ibn 'Abd al-Wahhaab said concerning the things which are unanimously agreed to nullify Islam: "Whoever does not regard the mushrikoon as kaafirs, or doubts that they are kaafirs, or thinks their religion is correct, is himself a kaafir." ... (Question #12713: Is the trinity that the Christians believe in mentioned in Islam?; underline and capital emphasis ours) Yet the following verse says that Muslim men can marry women who are Jews and Christians! Today the good things are permitted you, and the food of those who were given the Book is permitted to you, and permitted to them is your food; Likewise believing women in wedlock, and in wedlock women of them who were given the Book before you if you give them their wages, in wedlock and not in licence, or as taking lovers. Whoso disbelieves in the faith, his work has failed, and in the world to come he shall be among the losers. S. 5:5 Arberry No true book of God would contradict itself like this. Hence, based on the confusion in the above passages the Quran definitely cannot be from God. Further Reading The Quranic View of Christians - Fellow Believers or Unbelieving Polytheists? Thoughts on Marriages between Muslims and Christians More Qur'an contradictions Those who believe [in the Koran] and those who follow the Jewish [Scriptures] and the Christians and the Sabians, any who believe in Allah and the last days, and work righteousness, shall have their reward with their Lord, on them shall be no fear, nor shall they grieve (Surat Al-Baqarah 2:62). The Jews call Uzair a son of Allah, and the Christians call Christ the son of Allah. That is a saying from their mouth; [in this] they but imitate what the infidels (literal translation) of old used to say. Allah's curse be on them: how they are deluded away from the truth (Surat Al-Tawbah 9:30). Let there be no compulsion in religion: Truth Fight those who believe not in Allah nor the last day, stands out clear from error (Surat Alnor hold that which hath been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger [Muhammad], nor acknowledge the Baqarah 2:256). religion of truth [Islam], from among the people of the Unto you your religion and unto me my book [Jews and Christians] until they pay the Jezia religion (Surat Al-Kafirun 109:6). [special taxes paid by the Jews and Christians who do not want to denounce their religion] with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued (Surat AlTawbah 9:29). And fight them on until there is no more sedition (literal translation) and religion [Islam] becomes Allah's in its entirety (Surat Al-Anfal 8:39). To Allah belong the East and the West: whithersoever ye turn, there is Allah's face, for Allah is all-Embracing, All Knowing (Surat Al-Baqarah 2: 115). O Prophet rouse the Believers [Muslim] to fight, if there are twenty amongst you, patient and persevering, they will vanquish two hundred: if a hundred, they will vanquish a thousand of the unbelievers: for So from whencesoever thou startest forth, turn thy face in the direction of the sacred mosque [the Kaaba]; and wheresoever ye are, turn thy face thither (Surat Al-Baqarah 2:150). Now hath Allah lightened your burden, for He knoweth that there is weakness in you. So if there be of you a steadfast hundred they shall overcome two hundred, and if there be of you a thousand they shall overcome two thousand by permission of Allah. Allah these are a people without underunderstanding (Surat Al-Anal 8:65). Thy duty is to make [the message] reach them. It is our part to call them to account (Surat Al-Rad 13:40). is with the steadfast (Surat Al-Anfal 8:66). ... I will instill terror into the hearts of the unbelievers: smite ye above their necks and smite all their fingertips of them this because they contended against Allah and His Messenger: If any contend against Allah and If it had been Allah's will, they would not His Messenger. Allah is strict in punishment (Surat Alhave taken false gods but We made thee Anfal 8:12). not one to watch over their doings, nor art thou set over them to dispose of their affairs (Surat Al-Anam 6:107). O Prophet! We have made lawful to thee thy wives to whom thou has paid their cowers; and those whom they right hand possesses out of the captives of war whom Allah has assigned to thee; and daughters of thy paternal uncles and aunts, and daughters of thy maternal uncles and aunts, who migrated with thee; and any believing woman who gives herself to the Prophet if the Prophet wishes to wed her - this only for thee, and not for the believers [at large]; We know what We have appointed for them as to their wives and the captives whom their right hands possess - in order that there should be no diff~culty for thee. And Allah is Oft Forgiving, Most Merciful (Surat Al-Ahzab 33:50). And nearest among them in love to the believers [the Muslims] wilt thou find those who say "we are Christians" because amongst these are men devoted to learning and men who have renounced the world, and they are not arrogant" (Surat Al-Maidah 5:82). It is not lawful for thee [to marry more] women after this, nor to change them for [other] wives, even though their beauty attract thee, except any thy right hand should possess [as handmaidens]: and Allah cloth watch over all (Surat Al-Ahzab 33:52). O ye who believe! Take not the Jews and the Christians for your friends and protectors: they are but friends and protectors to each other. And he amongst you that turns to them [for friendship] is of them. Verily Allah guideth not a people unjust (Surat Al-Maidah 5:51). We sent after them Jesus the son of Mary, and bestowed on him the Gospel; and we ordained in the hearts of those who followed him compassion and mercy (Surat Al-Hadid 57:27). We did aforetime grant to the children of Israel the Book, the power of command, and prophethood; We gave them, for sustenance, things good and pure; and We favoured them above all nations (Surat Al-Jathiyah 45:16). To Moses We did give Nine Clear Signs: Ask the Children of Israel: When he came to them, Pharaoh said to him: "O Moses! I consider thee, indeed, to have been worked upon by sorcery." Moses said, "Thou knowest well that these things have been sent down by none but the Lord of the heavens and the earth as eyeopening evidence: and I consider thee indeed, O Pharaoh, to be one doomed to destruction!" So he resolved to remove them from the face of the earth: but We did drown him and all who were with him (Surat Al-Isra 17:101103 MPT). Adam and Jesus We took the children of Israel across the sea: Pharaoh and his hosts followed them in insolence and spite. At length, when overwhelmed with the flood, he said: "I believe that there is no god except Him Whom the children of Israel believe in: I am of those submit [to Allah in Islam]." [It was said to him]: "Ah now! - But a little while before, west thou in rebellion! - And thou didst mischief [and violence]! "This day shall We save thee in thy body, that thou mayest be a sign to those who come after thee! But verily, many among mankind are heedless of Our signs!" (Surat Yunus 10:90-92). Adam was not created by the word "Be" but by the breath of Allah The similitude of Jesus before Allah is as that of Adam; He created him from dust, Behold, thy Lord said to the angels: "I am about to then said to him: "Be": and he was (Surat create man from clay: when I have fashioned him Al-Imran 3:59). and breathed into him of My Spirit, fall ye down in prostration unto him" (Surat Sad 38:70,71). Jesus was not conceived by the word "Be" And Mary [mother of Jesus] the daughter of Imran, who guarded her virginity (literal translation); and We breathed into [her body] of our spirit; and she testified to the truth of the words of her Lord and of his revelations, and was one of the devout [servants] (Surat Al-Tahrim 66:12). Say: O disbelievers! I worship not that which Say: "If The Most Gracious Had a son, I would be the ye worship; nor worship ye that which I first to worship." (Surat Al-Zukhruf 43:81). worship. And I shall not worship that which ye worship. Unto you your religion, and unto me my religion. (Surat Al-Kafirun 109: 1-6 MPT). We have made it a Koran in Arabic, that ye may be able to understand (Surat AzZukhruf 43:3). He it is Who has sent down to thee the book [the Koran]... no one knows its true meaning except Allah (Surat Al-Imran 3:7). This verse indicates that the Koran is exclusively for the Arabic speaking people. It could not be a miracle, because people of other tongues cannot even read it. Qur'an Contradiction Who Adopted Moses: Pharaoh‟s Daughter or Pharaoh‟s Wife? According to the Holy Bible, when Pharaoh sought to slay all the Hebrew male babies God saved Moses by having Pharaoh‘s daughter adopt the baby as her own child: "Now a man from the house of Levi went and took as his wife a Levite woman. The woman conceived and bore a son, and when she saw that he was a fine child, she hid him three months. When she could hide him no longer, she took for him a basket made of bulrushes and daubed it with bitumen and pitch. She put the child in it and placed it among the reeds by the river bank. And his sister stood at a distance to know what would be done to him. Now the daughter of Pharaoh came down to bathe at the river, while her young women walked beside the river. She saw the basket among the reeds and sent her servant woman, and she took it. When she opened it, she saw the child, and behold, the baby was crying. She took pity on him and said, ‗This is one of the Hebrews' children.‘ Then his sister said to Pharaoh's daughter, ‗Shall I go and call you a nurse from the Hebrew women to nurse the child for you?‘ And Pharaoh's daughter said to her, ‗Go.‘ So the girl went and called the child's mother. And Pharaoh's daughter said to her, ‗Take this child away and nurse him for me, and I will give you your wages.‘ So the woman took the child and nursed him. When the child grew up, she brought him to Pharaoh's daughter, and he became her son. She named him Moses, ‗Because,‘ she said, ‗I drew him out of the water.‘" Exodus 2:1-10 "And after he had been set outside, Pharaoh's daughter took him away and nurtured him as her own son." Acts 7:21 The Quran comes over two thousand years later to contradict the earlier, historical accounts: And We inspired the mother of Moses, saying: Suckle him and, when thou fearest for him, then cast him into the river and fear not nor grieve. Lo! We shall bring him back unto thee and shall make him (one) of Our messengers. And the family of Pharaoh took him up, that he might become for them an enemy and a sorrow, Lo! Pharaoh and Haman and their hosts were ever sinning. And the wife of Pharaoh said: (He will be) a consolation for me and for thee. Kill him not. Peradventure he may be of use to us, or we may choose him for a son. And they perceived not. S. 28:7-9 Pickthall The Quran claims that Pharaoh‘s wife, not his daughter, adopted Moses! Since the biblical position is that Moses wrote the first five books of the Hebrew Bible, who better than Moses to know who adopted him? And since the Hebrew Bible was written much closer to the time this event took place, and since Moses was Israel‘s redeemer who is revered by the Israelites, and since they would know their own history better than Muhammad and Muslims, and since the Quran tells believers to consult the Bible and the Jews for the details regarding their sacred history, or to confirm whether the Quran speaks the truth: And if thou (Muhammad) art in doubt concerning that which We reveal unto thee, then question those who read the Scripture (that was) before thee. Verily the Truth from thy Lord hath come unto thee. So be not thou of the waverers. S. 10:94 And certainly We gave Musa nine clear signs; so ask the children of Israel. When he came to them, Firon said to him: Most surely I deem you, O Musa, to be a man deprived of reason. S. 17:101 Shakir And since the Quran also claims that Jesus confirmed the Hebrew Bible which he had in his possession: He will teach him the scripture, wisdom, the Torah, and the Gospel."; … I confirm previous scripture - the Torah - and I revoke certain prohibitions imposed upon you. I come to you with sufficient proof from your Lord. Therefore, you shall observe GOD, and obey me. S. 3:47, 49 Khalifa Subsequent to them, we sent Jesus, the son of Mary, confirming the previous scripture, the Torah. We gave him the Gospel, containing guidance and light, and confirming the previous scriptures, the Torah, and augmenting its guidance and light, and to enlighten the righteous. S. 5:46 Khalifa And since we know what those Scriptures that Jesus confirmed were, being identical to what have in our possession today, we can therefore conclude that the Quran is in error and the Holy Bible is correct. Sam Shamoun Qur'an Contradiction A Flood in the time of Moses? The Quran, in several places, refers to the flood which took place at the time of Noah: Indeed, We sent Noah to his people, and he tarried among them a thousand years, all but fifty; so the Flood (alttoofanu) seized them, while they were evildoers. S. 29:14 Arberry But they cried him lies; so We delivered him, and those with him, in the Ark, and We drowned those who cried lies to Our signs; assuredly they were a blind people. S. 7:64 Arberry But they rejected him, and We delivered him, and those with him, in the Ark: but We overwhelmed in the flood those who rejected Our signs. They were indeed a blind people! Y. Ali But they cried him lies; so We delivered him, and those with him, in the Ark, and We appointed them as viceroys, and We drowned those who cried lies to Our signs; then behold how was the end of them that were warned! S. 10:73 Arberry The Quran claims that another flood took place during the time of Moses! So We let loose upon them the flood (alttoofana) and the locusts, the lice and the frogs, the blood, distinct signs; but they waxed proud and were a sinful people… So We took vengeance on them, and drowned them in the sea, for that they cried lies to Our signs and heeded them not. S. 7:133, 136 Arberry And We brought the Children of Israel over the sea; and Pharaoh and his hosts followed them insolently and impetuously till, when the drowning overtook him, he said, 'I believe that there is no god but He in whom the Children of Israel believe; I am of those that surrender.' 'Now? And before thou didst rebel, being of those that did corruption. So today We shall deliver thee with thy body, that thou mayest be a sign to those after thee. Surely many men are heedless of Our signs.' S. 10:90-92 Arberry We took the Children of Israel across the sea: Pharaoh and his hosts followed them in insolence and spite. At length, when overwhelmed with the flood, he said: "I believe that there is no god except Him Whom the Children of Israel believe in: I am of those who submit (to God in Islam)." S. 10:90 Y. Ali The reason for quoting Y. Ali‘s version is to show how his rendering implies that Pharaoh actually drowned as a result of the flood, something not reflected in Arberry‘s version. Yet reading the passages sequentially or chronologically it seems pretty clear that Allah first sent a flood as part of the plagues upon Egypt and then afterwards drowned Pharaoh in the sea when the latter pursued Israel. Be that as it may, this fact is certain … the Quran erroneously presumes that God sent a flood upon Pharaoh and his people! Further confirmation that this is what the Quran is actually saying can be seen from the statements of noted Sunni commentator Ibn Kathir regarding Sura 7:133: <So We sent on them the Tufan> Ibn `Abbas commented; "It was a heavy rain that ruined the produce and fruits.'' He is also reported to have said that Tuwfan refers to mass death. Mujahid said it is water that carries the plague every where … Ibn Abi Najih narrated from Mujahid about Allah's statement, … <So We sent on them: the flood, the locusts …> "Eating the nails on their doors and leaving the wood." As for the Qummal, Ibn `Abbas said that it is the grain bug, or, according to another view, small locusts that do not have wings. Similar was reported from Mujahid, `Ikrimah and Qatadah. Al-Hasan and Sa`id bin Jubayr said that ‗Qummal‘ are small black insects. Abu Ja`far bin Jarir recorded that Sa`id bin Jubayr said, "When Musa came to Fir`awn, he demanded, ‗Release the Children of Israel to me.‘ But, Fir`awn did not comply; and Allah sent the Tuwfan, and that is a rain which continued until they feared that it was a form of torment. They said to Musa, ‗Invoke your Lord to release us from this rain, and we will believe in you and send the Children of Israel with you.‘ Musa invoked his Lord and He removed the affliction from them. However, they did not believe, nor did they send the Children of Israel with him… Muhammad bin Ishaq bin Yasar said, "The enemy of Allah, Fir`awn, went back defeated and humiliated, after the sorcerers believed (in Musa). He insisted on remaining in disbelief and persisted in wickedness. Allah sent down the signs to him, and he (and his people) were first inflicted by famine. Allah then sent THE FLOOD, the locusts, the Qummal, the frogs then blood, as consecutive signs. When Allah sent THE FLOOD, it filled the surface of the earth with water. But the water level receded, and they could not make use of it to till the land or do anything else… (Source; capital and underline emphasis ours) Another commentator, the noted Muslim historian Al-Tabari, wrote: The account returns to that of al-Suddi. As for al-Suddi, he said in his account: It is mentioned that the signs by which God tested the people of Pharaoh came before the meeting of Moses with the sorcerers. When the arrow returned to him stained with blood, Pharaoh said, "We have slain the God of Moses," whereupon God sent upon the flood, which was heavy rain; everything they possessed drowned. They cried out, "O Moses! Pray to your Lord to relieve us, and we will believe in you, and we will send the Israelites with you." God relieved them of the flood, and their seeds sprouted... (The History of Al-Tabari: The Children of Israel, translated by William M. Brinner [State University of New York Press (SUNY), 1991], Volume III, p. 59; bold emphasis ours) Ibn Ishaq said - Ibn Humayd - Salamah: And God brought the signs upon him with the drought when he refused to believe after all that had happened to him and the sorcerers. So He sent upon him the deluge, then the locusts, then the vermin, then the frogs, then blood, all successive signs. He sent the deluge, and it overflowed the face of the earth; then it became still, so they could not plow or do anything until they suffered hunger... (p. 66; bold emphasis ours) Ibn Humayd related to us - Salamah - Ibn Ishaq - Buraydah b. Sufyan b. Farwah al-Aslami Muhammad b. Ka'b al-Qurazi, who said: 'Umar b. 'Abd al-'Aziz asked me about the nine signs that God showed Pharaoh, and I said: "The deluge, the locusts, the vermin, the frogs, the blood, his staff, his hand, the obliteration, and the sea." ... (p. 68) The Tafsir of Ibn Abbas (Tanwîr al-Miqbâs min Tafsîr Ibn 'Abbâs) states in reference to Sura 7:133: (So We sent them) Allah inflicted upon them (the flood) continuous, uninterrupted rain: day and night, from Saturday to Saturday (and the locusts) He sent on the locust which ate everything that the earth produced: vegetation and fruits (and the vermin) and He also inflicted them with the vermin-crawling creatures without wings-which devoured whatever the locusts left uneaten (and the frogs) and after this He set on them frogs so much so that they harmed them (and the blood) after which He inflicted on them blood such that their wells and rivers filled with blood (a succession of clear signs) of one month interval. (But they were arrogant) and refused to believe (and became guilty) idolaters. (Source; bold and underline emphasis ours) The Tafsir al-Jalalayn wrote regarding this same text: So We unleashed upon them the flood, of water, which penetrated their houses and which for seven days would come up to people's necks as they sat; and the locusts, which consumed their crops and fruits, likewise [engulfing them for seven days]; and the lice (alqummal is like al-sūs, 'woodworm', or al-qurād, 'ticks'), which would follow [and consume] what the locusts left behind; and the frogs, such that they infested their houses and food supplies; and the blood, [flowing] in their water - distinct, clear, signs: but they were too scornful, to believe in them, and were a sinful folk. (Source; bold and underline emphasis ours) As anyone reading the Holy Bible knows there was never a flood during the time of the Exodus. The Holy Bible nowhere says that God flooded Egypt during the time of Moses, certainly not as part of the plagues sent against Egypt for Pharaoh's refusal to let the Israelites leave. And lest Muslims claim that the Bible is corrupt at this point we only need to remind them of the following text: And We gave Moses nine signs, clear signs. Ask the Children of Israel when he came to them, and Pharaoh said to him, 'Moses, I think thou art bewitched.' He said, 'Indeed thou knowest that none sent these down, except the Lord of the heavens and earth, as clear proofs; and, Pharaoh, I think thou art accursed.' He desired to startle them from the land; and We drowned him and those with him, all together. S. 17:101-103 Arberry And certainly We gave Musa nine clear signs; so ask the children of Israel. When he came to them, Firon said to him: Most surely I deem you, O Musa, to be a man deprived of reason. S. 17:101 Shakir The Muslims are told to ask the Israelites regarding the circumstances surrounding the Exodus and the plagues which God wrought during that time. As any educated Israelite that knows the Holy Bible can tell you, God never sent a flood upon Pharaoh and the Egyptians. Interestingly, Sura 17:101 introduces another error, namely the claim that God sent Moses with nine signs as opposed to ten. The Quran repeats this error in another passage: And put thy hand into the bosom of thy robe, it will come forth white but unhurt. (This will be one) among nine tokens unto Pharaoh and his people Lo! they were ever evil-living folk. But when Our tokens came unto them, plain to see, they said: This is mere magic, S. 27:12-13 Pickthall In fact, here is Ibn Abbas' Tafsir on Sura 17:101 which lists these nine signs: (And verily We gave unto Moses nine tokens clear proofs (of Allah's Sovereignty)) nine clear signs: the hand, the staff, THE FLOOD, the locusts, the lice, blood, the years of drought and the disappearance of properties. (Do but ask the Children of Israel) 'Abdullah Ibn Salam and his followers (how he) Moses (came unto them, then Pharaoh said unto him: Lo! I deem thee one bewitched, O Moses) I think that you are possessed. (Source; bold and underline emphasis ours) Al-Jalalayn also presents a list: And verily We gave Moses nine manifest signs, clear [signs], namely, [those of] the hand, the staff, THE FLOOD, the locusts, the lice, the frogs, the blood and the obliteration [of their possessions, cf. Q. 10:88], the years [of dearth] and scarcity of fruits [cf. Q. 7:130]. Ask, O Muhammad (s), the Children of Israel, about this (a [rhetorical] question meant as an affirmation for the idolaters of your sincerity; or [it means that] We said to him [Muhammad, s], 'Ask'; a variant reading has the past tense [fa-sā'ala, 'and he asked']), when he came to them, Pharaoh said to him, 'O Moses, I truly think that you are bewitched', duped, your mind deceived. (Source; bold and underline emphasis ours) As the late Christian writer, ‗Abdallah ‗Abd al-Fadi, noted: The plagues God sent down upon Egypt were ten; blood (Exodus 7:20), frogs (Exodus 8:6), gnats (Exodus 8:17), flies (Exodus 7:24), death of livestock (Exodus 9:6), boils (Exodus 9:10), hail (Exodus 9:23), locusts (Exodus 10:14), darkness (Exodus 10:23), and death of the firstborn (Exodus 12:29,30). As for the flood mentioned in Sura al-A‗raf, there was no such event that happened in Egypt during the time of Pharaoh. What the Qur‘an is confusing here is the global deluge that occurred during the days of Noah, as it is expressed in Sura al-A‗raf 7:63,64 [see Genesis 69]. (Al-Fadi, Is the Qur‟an Infallible? [Light of Life, P.O. Box 13, A-9503 Villach, Austria], pp. 88-89) Thus, here is another time where the Quran commits a plain error by contradicting the previous revelation and sacred history. Sam Shamoun Qur'an Inconsistency How many mothers does a Muslim have? Some introductory questions to the Muslim reader: Do you know how many mothers you have? Do you know the name of each of your mothers? The Quran says that a mother is one who gives birth to a person: God has heard the words of her that disputes with thee concerning her husband, and makes complaint unto God. God hears the two of you conversing together; surely God is Allhearing, All-seeing. Those of you who say, regarding their wives, 'Be as my mother's back,' they are not truly their mothers; their mothers are ONLY those who gave them birth, and they are surely saying a dishonourable saying, and a falsehood. Yet surely God is Allpardoning, All-forgiving. S. 58:1-2 Arberry Clearly, under this quranic definition of the word "mother", everyone has and can have only one mother. The intention of this passage is to abolish a certain way of divorce in Arab society, see this dictionary entry on ZIHAR. I agree with the quranic condemnation of such an unjust method of divorce. However, the author of the Quran makes the blunder to attack the use of the word "mother" in a non-literal sense and to categorically rule that the word mother can ONLY be used for the woman who gave birth to the person, i.e. the word mother may not be used in any other way. Although I consider this Quranic response inappropriate, the statement in S. 58:2 is consistent with the Quranic prohibition on adoption: God has not assigned to any man two hearts within his breast; nor has He made your wives, when you divorce, saying, 'Be as my mother's back,' truly your mothers, neither has He made your adopted sons your sons in fact. That is your own saying, the words of your mouths; but God speaks the truth, and guides on the way. Call them after their true fathers; that is more equitable in the sight of God. If you know not who their fathers were, then they are your brothers in religion, and your clients. There is no fault in you if you make mistakes, but only in what your hearts premeditate. God is All-forgiving, All-compassionate. S. 33:4-5 Arberry The Quran reasons that since adopted children are not the adoptive parents' literal biological offspring, they shouldn't be reckoned as their children. Based on this verse, Islam has forbidden adoption. Again, children should only be called sons (or daughters) of their literal, biological fathers (and mothers). Vice versa, this certainly implies that only the biological parents should be called father and mother as in 58:2 quoted above. Up to this point, the verses that have been quoted are consistent. However, the Quran states elsewhere that a person's wet-nurse is to be viewed like one's own mother, thereby making it unlawful for them to marry their wet-nurses or anyone nursed by the same woman: Forbidden to you are your mothers and daughters, your sisters, your aunts paternal and maternal, your brother's daughters, your sister's daughters, your mothers who have given suck to you, your suckling sisters, your wives' mothers, your stepdaughters who are in your care being born of your wives you have been in to -- but if you have not yet been in to them it is no fault in you - and the spouses of your sons who are of your loins, and that you should take to you two sisters together, unless it be a thing of the past; God is All-forgiving, Allcompassionate; S. 4:23 Arberry So which is it? Is a mother only one who gives birth to a person, or can a person consider others to be their mothers such as their wet-nurses? On the one hand the Quran argues that only the genetic connection establishes motherhood or fatherhood, i.e. people should be called mothers or fathers ONLY in relationship to their biological offspring. On the other hand, in regard to marriage, nursing is claimed to establish the same kind of legal relationship as birthing. Islam refuses to recognize the much stronger parenting bond between a child and the people who raised him or her for many years, forbidding them to even call them mother or father, but already a few weeks of nursing (which a child will usually not even remember) has strong consequences. It will rarely happen that a man wants to marry his wet-nurse, but the prohibition to marry another person who merely drank milk originating from the same woman hardly makes sense, even more so if it is only offspring of a "wet-nurse sibling". In fact, this rule had consequences for Muhammad's own marriage intentions. He could not marry the daughter of a man who was nursed by the same woman as Muhammad himself, see the endnote in this article. The inconsistency is compounded when we realize that Islam is over-strict in the area of wetnurse relationship, but at the same time some Islamic scholars allow a man to marry his own biological daughter in certain circumstances, see this article. There are at least four concepts of motherhood, i.e. people who could be called the mother or a mother of a person: 1. the biological mother, the one who gave birth to a person; 2. a suckling mother, or wet-nurse, who gave her breast milk for an infant, but who may not have had anything to do with the child after he/she was weaned; 3. a foster-mother, who raised the child, cared and provided for him/her emotionally and materially for part or all of his/her childhood; 4. an adoptive mother, who adopted the child to be counted as their own, with all legal rights and obligations as biological children. [ Side remark: For the purpose of this article, we will not discuss modern developments of surrogate mothers, i.e. when medical doctors implant fertilized eggs of one woman into the womb of another woman ... In that case, the Quranic definition of S. 58:2 will create another problem. Is the mother only the one who gave birth, even if she is genetically unrelated to the child she delivered? ] Concept 1 is uncontroversial. The biological mother will usually also be the person who both breastfeeds and raises the child. Nevertheless, some children can have "mothers" in some or all of these categories. A child may be born of woman A, breastfed by woman B, then live with foster-parents for a few years (woman C), and finally be adopted by another couple (woman D). Muhammad, the prophet of Islam, experienced the first three categories. His mother was Amina. Then he had a wet-nurse, Halimah, and a foster-mother, Fatima bint Asad. [ Side remark: Interestingly, the Arabic language does not conform to the wishes of the author of the Quran. It uses the formulation ommahatukumu allatee ardaAAnakum (literally: "your mothers who nursed you") for wet-nurses, i.e. it uses an expression that includes the word omm ("mother"), even though one is not supposed to call that person mother according to the Quran. In other words, the Quran breaks its own command. It rules to call only those women mothers who have given birth to you, but then it states "your MOTHERS who nursed you", when this part could easily have been formulated as "the WOMEN who nursed you". ] There is yet another inconsistency. We have just seen that the strong emotional bond of a foster parent to the child does not provide sufficient grounds to call someone mother or father. It is only the biological link. Yet the Quran explicitly calls some women mothers of others who have no biological link to them: The Prophet is nearer to the believers than their selves; his wives are their mothers. Those who are bound by blood are nearer to one another in the Book of God than the believers and the emigrants; nevertheless you should act towards your friends honourably; that stands inscribed in the Book. S. 33:6 Arberry Like a foster mother, the wives of Muhammad may have had an emotional bond to Muhammad's companions (and their wives). They may have cared and provided for the poor among them like a foster mother would love a child in her care. Here is one example how this verse was applied: Abu Musa reported: There cropped up a difference of opinion between a group of Muhajirs (Emigrants) and a group of Ansar (Helpers) (and the point of dispute was) that the Ansar said: The bath (because of sexual intercourse) becomes obligatory only when the semen spurts out or ejaculates. But the Muhajirs said: When a man has sexual intercourse (with the woman), a bath becomes obligatory (no matter whether or not there is seminal emission or ejaculation). Abu Musa said: Well, I satisfy you on this (issue). He (Abu Musa, the narrator) said: I got up (and went) to 'A'isha and sought her permission and it was granted, and I said to her: O Mother, or Mother of the Faithful, I want to ask you about a matter on which I feel shy. She said: Don't feel shy of asking me about a thing which you can ask your mother, who gave you birth, for I am too your mother. Upon this I said: What makes a bath obligatory for a person? She replied: You have come across one well informed! The Messenger of Allah (may peace be upon him) said: When anyone sits amidst four parts (of the woman) and the circumcised parts touch each other a bath becomes obligatory. (Sahih Muslim, Book 003, Number 0684) This story expresses a closeness of relationship, trust and confidence, and a caring attitude for the Muslim community on the part of Aisha. If she had said "I am LIKE a mother to you", and if S. 33:6 had stated "his wives are LIKE mothers to the believers", there would not have been much of a problem, but it is said that "his wives ARE their mothers" and Aisha said "I AM too your mother" even though she had never given birth to anyone. However, when the Quran calls the wives of Muhammad the MOTHERS of the believers, does it not contradict its own principle? Again, for direct contrast: ... they are not truly their mothers; their mothers are ONLY those who gave them birth, and they are surely saying a dishonourable saying, and a falsehood. ... S. 58:2 Arberry The Prophet is nearer to the believers than their selves; his wives are their mothers. ... S. 33:6 Arberry Or, putting the issue somewhat differently, we ask with E. M. Wherry: "If this ‗saying‘ is unjustifiable and a falsehood for the people, why not for the Prophet?" (A Comprehensive Commentary on the Qur'an, Vol. 4, p. 124) Jochen Katz P.S.: Back to the introductory questions: Do you know the names of all your mothers? Find out how many wives Muhammad had, what are their names, and how he treated those women whom the Quran calls your mothers, e.g. Sauda bint Zam'ah. A related article: The Quran's Use of Filial Terms Qur'an Contradiction: Will all Muslims go to Hell? Sam Shamoun We continue our discussion of surah 19:71 by addressing a Muslim‘s response to the initial article on this passage. Moiz Amjad published a response to Jochen Katz‘s analysis of whether or not the Quran teaches that all Muslims will enter hell. Mr. Amjad‘s response, even though intended to refute our argument, actually serves to reinforce the points made in Part 1 as we shall shortly see here. Mr. Amjad begins: In one of his articles[1] Mr. Jochen Katz has pointed out a contradiction in Aal Imraan 3: 157 -- 158, 169, Al-Taubah 9: 111 and Maryam 19: 71. Elaborating upon the contradiction in the stated verses, Mr. Katz writes: According to Sura 19:71 every Muslim will go to Hell (for at least some time), while another passage states that those who die in Jihad will go to Paradise immediately. Before analyzing the stated contradiction, I would first like to inform my readers that it is not merely the martyrs in the way of God, who have been promised complete immunity from hellfire, but, in fact, all the God-fearing believers have been promised to be kept in protection from the slightest of evil. Al-Zumar 39: 60 -- 61 declares: And on the Day of Resurrection, you will see those, who blasphemed against God, their faces turned black -- Is not in the hellfire [a most suitable] abode for the arrogant? And God shall deliver the righteous with salvation, no harm shall [even] touch them, nor shall they grieve. According to Al-Anbiyaa 21: 98 -- 103 the pious shall not only be saved from all evil, but shall be kept so far away from the burning fire that they shall not even hear the horrifying sounds of the growling fires. The verses read as: You and whatever you worship except God shall be the fuel of hellfire, to which, all of you shall surely come -- had these truly been gods, they would not have reached this [end] -- all [burning] in it, forever. In it, for them shall be painful groans of anguish and in they shall be bereft of hearing. Indeed, those, for whom We have already promised the good, they shall be kept away from this [hellfire]. They shall not even hear the slightest sound of the growling fire; and they shall be among all that their souls shall desire, forever. They shall not be grieved by the great terror. And the angels shall receive them [saying]: 'This is the day, of which you were promised'. It is clearly stated in the aforementioned verses that all pious, God-fearing and righteous people shall not be even touched or brought close to the encompassing flames of the hellfire. Thus, it is not merely the martyrs, but all those, who do not deserve to be thrown in the burning fires of hell, who shall remain completely immune from even the slightest of pains and tortures of hellfire. RESPONSE: Mr. Amjad, by mentioning these passages, has only compounded the problem. We showed in the first part of our paper that the contextual evidence points to everyone, including Muslims, entering hell. Even the Muslim commentators admitted that the majority of Muslims held this view. Hence, Mr. Amjad‘s appeal to passages that deny that Muslims will suffer in hell only reinforces Mr. Katz‘s claim that the Quran is contradicting itself. In one place it says ALL shall enter hell, in other places it says that believers will be kept from even hearing the sound of the growling fire, a blatant contradiction. Furthermore, as was also noted in the first part, surah 21:98 provides evidence for understanding the Arabic word wurood in surah 19:71 as implying a literal entrance into hell. Even Mr. Amjad realizes this fact. More on this later. Mr. Amjad continues: Keeping the foregoing clarification in perspective, now let us take a close look at the relevant verses of Surah Maryam. The verses cited by Mr. Katz (verses 71 -- 72), with a few of its preceding verses are reproduced below: And [yet, disregarding the power of God,] this [rejecting] man says: 'When I am dead, would I really be raised again?' Does this man not remember that before this, We created him, while he was nothing? Thus, by [the providence of] your Lord, indeed We shall gather them as well as [all] the devils and then We shall bring them forth, around the hellfire, squatting. Then, of each group, We shall separate the one, who was most obstinate in his rebellion against the Most Merciful. And We are indeed aware of those, who are most deserving of burning in it. And each one of you, shall surely come to this [fire]. This is a promise of your Lord, that must come to pass. Then, we shall save the righteous [from all suffering] and We shall abandon the wrong-doers in it, squatting. In the context of the verse, it is quite clear that the words "Each one of you..." are addressed to the rejecters of the Prophet's call. The addressees of this verse are, in fact, the same people who are being warned and admonished in the immediately preceding verses. Thus, seen in the correct perspective, the referred verses of Surah Maryam are, more or less, similar in meaning to the cited verses of Surah Al-Anbiyaa. Thus, Al-Raaziy has also mentioned the foregoing opinion about the referred verse in his commentary. He writes: Some of them are of the opinion that the addressees in this verse are the same rejecters, who are mentioned in the preceding verses. They are first addressed in the third person and then admonished in the second person. The adherents of this opinion say: 'It is not correct to assume that the believers shall enter hellfire, on the basis of the following: Firstly, the Qur'an has declared in Al-Anbiyaa 21: 101 that "Indeed, those, for whom We have already promised the good, they shall be kept away from this hellfire", being 'kept away' from hellfire cannot be spoken for those who shall enter it. Secondly, the Qur'an says: "They shall not hear its slightest sound". Were they to enter the hellfire, the believers would then most certainly hear its sounds. And thirdly, the Qur'an says: "They [i.e. the believers] shall that day be secure from all panic". As should be clear from the foregoing explanation, the Qur'an does not, at any instance, declare that the true believers shall be made to enter hellfire. Such an end is promised only for those whose arrogance and pride drove them to reject the truth even after having clearly recognized it. RESPONSE: Mr. Amjad presumes that his proposed interpretation that 19:71 refers to Muhammad‘s rejecters is "quite clear", whereas this isn‘t necessarily the case. First, notice that ar-Razi doesn‘t give any contextual reasons from surah 19 to deny that every one will enter hell. Instead, ar-Razi simply mentions some Muslims who denied that believers would enter hell on the basis of other Quranic verses! But this is precisely the problem we had raised, namely, that the Quran is contradicting itself on the fate of Muslims. One can‘t simply quote verses that deny that believers will go to hell and somehow assume that this solves the problem, since the only thing these other passages show is that there is a substantial error within the Quran. Second, a careful look at the overall context of the passage demonstrates that several different groups are in view: And says man, `What! when I am dead, shall I be brought forth alive?' Does not man remember that WE created him before, when he was nothing? And, by thy Lord, WE shall assuredly gather them together, and the satans too; then shall WE bring them on their knees around Hell. Then shall WE certainly pick out, from every group, those of them who were most stubborn in rebellion against the Gracious God. And surely, WE know best those deserving to be burnt therein. And there is not one of YOU but will come to it. This is an absolute decree of thy Lord. S. 19:66-71 Sher Ali Note carefully the shift in referents. The passage speaks of the unbelievers by referring to them in a collective sense ("man", "them"), then to the satans, and then changes from third person usage to second person plural (YOU). Now a change in address doesn‘t necessarily imply that there is a change in referent. But when the passage mentions and interjects a different group within the discussion, namely satans, then a case can be made that more than one entity is being addressed. It is quite easy to see three groups here, specifically unbelievers, satans and believers. The text is therefore implying that: 1. Unbelieving man enters hell and remains there. 2. Satans (jinns) will also be brought down to hell. 3. The believers, too, will enter hell (v. 71) but will then exit by the mercy of Allah (v. 72). It may even be that "man" (singular) refers to the disbelief that all the pagan Arabs in Mecca initially had regarding the resurrection, whether believers or unbelievers. The text then moves on from there to distinguish between those who choose to believe from those who remain doubtful about the possibility of an actual general resurrection of the dead. The text would therefore be understood to mean that: 1. The pagan Arabs in their entirety at some point doubted the resurrection. 2. Some of them chose to overcome such doubts and believe that God has the ability to raise the dead back to life. 3. Others chose to remain in disbelief. 4. Allah sends all men, both believers and unbelievers, into hell (including satans). 5. Once there, Allah will then separate the believers from the unbelievers by taking out the former and leaving in the latter to hobble there. Third, as we had mentioned in Part 1, the majority of Muslims agreed and settled on the interpretation that surah 19:71 is not limited to those who rejected Muhammad, but believed that everyone would enter hell. That they believed that everyone will enter hell, whether believer or unbeliever, righteous or unrighteous, shows that even these Muslims didn‘t think that the group entering hell was limited to only those that rejected Muhammad‘s call. They saw nothing in the context which limited the discussion to unbelievers. Even Mr. Amjad‘s own source, ar-Razi, implies that many other Muslims agreed that 19:71 refers to every person entering hell. Do note ar-Razi‘s comments carefully: SOME OF THEM are of the opinion that the addressees in this verse are the same rejecters, who are mentioned in the preceding verses… Ar-Razi‘s SOME OF THEM implies that not all shared the same opinion, but that there were other Muslims who held to a different view from the one proposed by Mr. Amjad. We are currently working on translating ar-Razi‘s comments and will post them here for all to read. Fourth, Mr. Amjad‘s attempt of trying to connect the passage with the verses that mention those who rejected the message introduces additional problems. The verse right after 71 says: Then We shall rescue those who kept from evil, and leave the evil-doers crouching there. Pickthall Thus, according to 19:72, Allah will take out of hell those who were righteous, which implies that if Mr. Amjad‘s understanding is correct then: 1. Some of those who rejected Muhammad were actually righteous. 2. Or, those evildoers who reject Muhammad have a chance of exiting hell. 3. This implies that the evildoers had a change of heart while in hell and became righteous; otherwise they couldn’t be classified as righteous. 4. This further implies that Allah will even grant repentance to the inhabitants of hell, to those who rejected Muhammad while on earth, giving them an opportunity to become righteous. Yet this last point contradicts the following passage: The forgiveness is not for those who do ill-deeds until, when death attendeth upon one of them, he saith: Lo! I repent now; nor yet for those who die while they are disbelievers. For such We have prepared a painful doom. S. 4:18 Pickthall Mr. Amjad cannot avoid accepting the above conclusions since they are the natural result of both the context of the passage and of his preferred interpretation. Note how Mr. Amjad himself renders the text: Then, we shall save the righteous [from all suffering] and We shall abandon the wrong-doers in IT, squatting. Mr. Amjad‘s own interpretation of the verse doesn‘t disprove that believers will enter hell, but rather proves our position; it proves that believers WILL ENTER hell, even though Mr. Amjad‘s rendering implies that they will be spared any suffering while there. To put it in another way, Mr. Amjad‘s rendering implies that the righteous, or those who kept themselves from doing evil, will not experience any suffering while in hell, but they will still enter in hell nonetheless, precisely what some Muslims of the past believed. See Part 1 for the details. Hence, irrespective of whether believers suffer pain or not, this point is still clear. Mr. Amjad‘s own proposed translation inevitably leads to the fact that Muslims will definitely enter hell. Mr. Amjad‘s preferred translation even proves our point that the Arabic word translated "shall surely come to this" (wariduha from wurood), implies a literal entrance into hell. Note, again, how he rendered 19:71: And each one of you, shall surely come to this [fire]… Mr. Amjad understands the text to be saying that people will come to the fire, demonstrating our case that the passage does refer to a literal entrance into hell. Realizing this, Mr. Amjad is then forced to find a way of differentiating between those who come to it from the righteous who are saved. His translation therefore implies that there are two groups in view, not one. We already saw why his reconciliation causes him more problems than solutions. Be that as it may, Mr. Amjad acknowledges that the text does speak of people actually entering INTO hell, and not simply passing over it as some suggest. Thus, even his own exegesis lends further support to what we have been saying. It demonstrates that the natural reading of the text points in the direction of everyone having to go down into hell, which means that every Muslim must spend some time there as well. Mr. Amjad has been trying hard to deny this last fact, but to no avail. Qur'an Contradiction: Pharaoh's Magicians - Muslims or Rejectors of Faith? In the Qur'an there exist two fundamentally different conclusions to the story of Moses' contest with the magicians of the Pharaoh. After the power of Moses (given to him by God) was seen to be stronger than the power of Egyptian magic, we read: "... the sorcerers fell down prostrate in adoration. Saying: „We believe in the Lord of the Worlds,- The Lord of Moses and Aaron.‟ Said Pharaoh: ‗Believe ye in Him before I give you permission? Surely this is a trick which ye have planned in the city to drive out its people: but soon shall ye know (the consequences). Be sure I will cut off your hands and your feet on apposite sides, and I will crucify you all.‘ They said: „For us, We are but sent back unto our Lord: But thou dost wreak thy vengeance on us simply because we believed in the Signs of our Lord when they reached us! Our Lord! pour out on us patience and constancy, and take our souls unto Thee as Muslims (who bow to Thy Will)!‘" S. 7:120126 According to this passage, the Egyptian magicians have become believers, they confessed faith in the Lord of Moses and Aaron. They are even called Muslims in verse 126. In Sura 10, however, after recounting the same event we find this conclusion: "But NONE believed in Moses except some of the children of HIS people, because of the fear of Pharaoh and his chiefs, lest they should persecute them; and certainly Pharaoh was mighty on the earth and one who transgressed all bounds. Moses said: ‗O MY PEOPLE! If ye do (really) believe in Allah, then in Him put your trust if ye submit (your will to His).‘ They said: ‗In Allah do we put out trust. Our Lord! make us not a trial for those who practice oppression; And deliver us by Thy Mercy from those who reject (Thee).‘" S. 10:83-86 The report of Sura 7 that some Egyptian sorcerers become believers is contradicted by the categorical statement of Sura 10:83 that none but some of Moses' own people (the Israelites) believed in him. Because of this rather apparent contradiction some commentaters of the Qur'an have suggested that the pronoun "his" in "his people" does not refer to Moses which would be the natural understanding but instead refers to Pharaoh, and "his people" are the Egyptians. Had the statement in 10:83 been "only a few of his people believed in Moses", then such an interpretation would still be forced and unnatural, against the common use of language, but on a formal level it may have solved the problem. The Qur'an, however, states that "none believed in Moses" (an absolute and universal statement) before it gives the only exception to the rule: "except some of his people". We seem to have only this alternative:   "his people" refers to Moses' people, the Israelites, resulting in a logical contradiction between Sura 7:120-126 and Sura 10:83; or "his people" refers to Pharaoh and the Egyptians, leaving us with the ridiculous claim, that none of the Israelites believed in Moses - not even Aaron his brother - even though all the Israelites followed Moses and left Egypt for the dangerous journey and uncertain future in a promised land. This longer and more detailed article quotes all four Quranic accounts of this incident (found in suras 7, 10, 20, and 26) in full, and indicates further discrepancies. >> Rebuttal to Shahid Waheed's response to the above. Qur'an Contradiction: Pharaoh's Magicians - Muslims or Rejectors of Faith? The Muslims claim that the Quran is divinely dictated and contains no real contradictions. The Muslims deny that Muhammad had anything to do with the composition of the Quran apart from insuring its memorization, recitation and inscripturation. The author, they claim, is Allah Almighty. Yet, anyone examining the Quran carefully will discover major discrepancies. For instance, the same event is narrated several times throughout the Quran yet never in the same exact manner. One will often find major verbal variations and contradictions in the parallel accounts of the same event. One such example of a narration that is repeated several times which contains variations and contradictions is the story of Moses' confrontation with the Pharaoh and his magicians. Compare the following narrations carefully: "Then after them We sent Moses with Our Signs to Pharaoh and his chiefs, but they wrongfully rejected them: So see what was the end of those who made mischief. Moses said: ‗O Pharaoh! I am a messenger from the Lord of the Worlds,- One for whom it is right to say nothing but truth about Allah. Now have I come unto you (people), from your Lord, with a clear (Sign): So let the Children of Israel depart along with me.‘ (Pharaoh) said: ‗If indeed thou hast come with a Sign, show it forth,- if thou tellest the truth.‘ Then (Moses) threw his rod, and behold! it was a serpent, plain (for all to see)! And he drew out his hand, and behold! it was white to all beholders! Said the Chiefs of the people of Pharaoh: ‗This is indeed a sorcerer well-versed. His plan is to get you out of your land: then what is it ye counsel?‘ They said: ‗Keep him and his brother in suspense (for a while); and send to the cities men to collect- And bring up to thee all (our) sorcerers well-versed.‘ So there came the sorcerers to Pharaoh: They said, ‗Of course we shall have a (suitable) reward if we win!‘ He said: ‗Yea, (and more),- for ye shall in that case be (raised to posts) nearest (to my person).‘ They said: ‗O Moses! wilt thou throw (first), or shall we have the (first) throw?‘ Said Moses: ‗Throw ye (first).‘ So when they threw, they bewitched the eyes of the people, and struck terror into them: for they showed a great (feat of) magic. We revealed to Moses: ‗Throw (now) thy rod‘:and behold! it swallows up all the falsehoods which they fake! Thus truth was confirmed, and all that they did was made of no effect. So they were vanquished there and then, and turned about humiliated. But the sorcerers fell down prostrate in adoration. Saying: „We believe in the Lord of the Worlds,- The Lord of Moses and Aaron.‟ Said Pharaoh: „Believe ye in Him before I give you permission? Surely this is a trick which ye have planned in the city to drive out its people: but soon shall ye know (the consequences). Be sure I will cut off your hands and your feet on opposite sides, and I will crucify you all.‟ They said: „For us, We are but sent back unto our Lord: But thou dost wreak thy vengeance on us simply because we believed in the Signs of our Lord when they reached us! Our Lord! pour out on us patience and constancy, and take our souls unto Thee as Muslims (who bow to Thy Will)!‘" S. 7:103-126 "And We showed Pharaoh all Our Signs, but he did reject and refuse. He said: ‗Hast thou come to drive us out of our land with thy magic, O Moses? But we can surely produce magic to match thine! So make a tryst between us and thee, which we shall not fail to keep - neither we nor thou - in a place where both shall have even chances.‘ Moses said: ‗Your tryst is the Day of the Festival, and let the people be assembled when the sun is well up.‘ So Pharaoh withdrew: He concerted his plan, and then came (back). Moses said to them: ‗Woe to you! Forge not ye a lie against Allah, lest He destroy you (at once) utterly by chastisement: the forger must suffer failure!‘ So they disputed, one with another, over their affair, but they kept their talk secret. They said: ‗These two are certainly (expert) magicians: their object is to drive you out from your land with their magic, and to do away with your most cherished way. Therefore concert your plan, and then assemble in (serried) ranks. He wins (all along) today who gains the upper hand.‘ They said: ‗O Moses! whether wilt thou that thou throw (first) or that we be the first to throw?‘ He said, ‗Nay, throw ye first!‘ Then behold their ropes and their rods - so it seemed to him on account of their magic - began to be in lively motion! So Moses conceived in his mind a (sort of) fear. We said: ‗Fear not! for thou hast indeed the upper hand: Throw that which is in thy right hand. Quickly will it swallow up that which they have faked: what they have faked is but a magician's trick: and the magician succeeds not, (no matter) where he goes.‘ So the magicians were thrown down to prostration: they said, „We believe in the Lord of Aaron and Moses‟. (Pharaoh) said: „Believe ye in Him before I give you permission? Surely this must be your leader, who has taught you magic! be sure I will cut off your hands and feet on opposite sides, and I will have you crucified on trunks of palm-trees: so shall ye know for certain, which of us can give the more severe and the more lasting punishment!‟ They said: „Never shall we prefer thee to what has come to us of the Clear Signs, Him Who created us! So decree whatever thou desirest to decree: for thou canst only decree (touching) the life of this world. For us, we have believed in our Lord: may He forgive us our faults, and the magic to which thou didst compel us: for Allah is Best and Most Abiding.‘" S. 20:56-73 "(Pharaoh) said: ‗If thou takest any god other than me, I will certainly put thee in prison!‘ (Moses) said: ‗Even if I showed you something clear (and) convincing?‘ (Pharaoh) said: ‗Show it then, if thou tellest the truth!‘ So (Moses) threw his rod, and behold, it was a serpent, plain (for all to see)! And he drew out his hand, and behold, it was white to all beholders! (Pharaoh) said to the Chiefs around him: ‗This is indeed a sorcerer well-versed: His plan is to get you out of your land by his sorcery; then what is it ye counsel?‘ They said: ‗Keep him and his brother in suspense (for a while), and dispatch to the Cities heralds to collect- And bring up to thee all (our) sorcerers well-versed.‘ So the sorcerers were got together for the appointment of a day well-known, And the people were told: ‗Are ye (now) assembled?- That we may follow the sorcerers if they win?‘ So when the sorcerers arrived, they said to Pharaoh: ‗Of course - shall we have a (suitable) reward if we win?‘ He said: ‗Yea, (and more),- for ye shall in that case be (raised to posts) nearest (to my person).‘ Moses said to them: ‗Throw ye- that which ye are about to throw!‘ So they threw their ropes and their rods, and said: ‗By the might of Pharaoh, it is we who will certainly win!‘ Then Moses threw his rod, when, behold, it straightway swallows up all the falsehoods which they fake! Then did the sorcerers fall down, prostrate in adoration, Saying: „We believe in the Lord of the Worlds, The Lord of Moses and Aaron.‟ Said (Pharaoh): „Believe ye in Him before I give you permission? Surely he is your leader, who has taught you sorcery! But soon shall ye know! Be sure I will cut off your hands and your feet on opposite sides, and I will crucify you all!‟ They said: „No matter! For us, we shall but return to our Lord! Only, our desire is that our Lord will forgive us our faults, since we are the first to believe.‘" S. 26:29-51 "Then after them sent We Moses and Aaron to Pharaoh and his chiefs with Our Signs. But they were arrogant: they were a wicked people. When the Truth did come to them from Us, they said: ‗This is indeed evident sorcery!‘ Said Moses: ‗Say ye (this) about the Truth when it hath (actually) reached you? Is sorcery (like) this? But sorcerers will not prosper.‘ They said: ‗Hast thou come to us to turn us away from the ways we found our fathers following,- in order that thou and thy brother may have greatness in the land? But not we shall believe in you!‘ Said Pharaoh: „Bring me every sorcerer well versed.‟ When the sorcerers came, Moses said to them: ‗Throw ye what ye (wish) to throw!‘ When they had had their throw, Moses said: ‗What ye have brought is sorcery: Allah will surely make it of no effect: for Allah prospereth not the work of those who make mischief. And Allah by His Words doth prove and establish His Truth, however much the sinners may hate it!‘ BUT NONE BELIEVED IN MOSES EXCEPT SOME OF THE CHILDREN OF HIS PEOPLE, because of the fear of Pharaoh and his chiefs, lest they should persecute them; and certainly Pharaoh was mighty on the earth and one who transgressed all bounds. Moses said: „O MY PEOPLE! If ye do (really) believe in Allah, then in Him put your trust if ye submit (your will to His).‘ They said: ‗In Allah do we put out trust. Our Lord! make us not a trial for those who practice oppression; And deliver us by Thy Mercy from those who reject (Thee).‘" S. 10:75-86 Here is how different translations translate S. 10:83: But NONE believed in Moses except some children of HIS people, because of the fear of Pharaoh and his chiefs, lest they should persecute them ... Yusuf Ali But NONE trusted Moses, save some scions of HIS people, (and they were) in fear of Pharaoh and their chiefs, that he would persecute them ... Pickthall But NONE believed in Musa except the offspring of HIS people, on account of the fear of Firon and their chiefs, lest he should persecute them ... Shakir But NONE believed in Mûsa (Moses) except the offspring of HIS people, because of the fear of Fir'aun (Pharaoh) and his chiefs, lest they should persecute them ... Hilali-Khan No one believed in Moses except some young people OF HIS OWN TRIBE who were at the same time very afraid of the persecution of the Pharaoh and his people ... Muhammad Sarwar Then NONE believed in Moses save a posterity of HIS people, through fear of Pharaoh and their chiefs, lest they should persecute them ... Abdul Majid Daryabadi But NO ONE believed Moses, except [some] offspring [i.e., youths] among HIS people, for fear of Pharaoh and his establishment that they would persecute them ... Abul-Qasim Publishing House 1997 Only some offspring among HIS own folk believed in Moses because of fear for Pharaoh and his councillors, lest he might put them to some test ... T.B. Irving So NO ONE believed in Moses, save a seed of HIS people, for fear of Pharaoh and their Council, that they would persecute them ... A.J. Arberry But NONE believed in Moses, save a race of HIS own people, through fear of Pharaoh and his chiefs; lest he should afflict them ... E.H. Palmer And NONE obeyed Moses save some youths from among HIS people, because of the fear of Pharaoh and their chiefs, lest he should persecute them ... Maulvi Sher Ali After reading these accounts one is left wondering what exactly did Moses, the Pharaoh, and the magicians say to one another. Even apart from the verbal variations there is a major contradiction within these reports. According to Surahs 7, 20 and 26 Pharaoh's sorcerers repented and believed in the God of Moses and Aaron. One report even has them claiming to be Muslims. Yet, S. 10 says that none believed in Moses except his own people, namely the Israelites! So which is it? Did some of Pharaoh's magicians believe and repent? Or was there no one from Pharaoh's retinue who believed in the God of Moses and Aaron? The problem doesn't end there. Just seven verses after the statement that none but a few Israelites believed in Moses, the author of the Qur'an forgot that statement when he reports Pharaoh's repentance and faith in the face of death (S. 10:90). Even without 10:83, this is a problem for itself, see this article. Certain, however, is that according to the Qur'an, Pharaoh's wife was a believer: "So We sent this inspiration to the mother of Moses: ‗Suckle (thy child), but when thou hast fears about him, cast him into the river, but fear not nor grieve: for We shall restore him to thee, and We shall make him one of Our messengers.‘ Then the people of Pharaoh picked him up (from the river): (It was intended) that (Moses) should be to them an adversary and a cause of sorrow: for Pharaoh and Hámán and (all) their hosts were men of sin. The wife of Pharaoh said: '(Here is) joy of the eye, for me and for thee: slay him not. It may be that he will be use to us, or we may adopt him as a son.' And they perceived not (what they were doing)!" S. 28:7-9 "And Allah sets forth, as an example to those who believe the wife of Pharaoh: Behold she said: ‗O my Lord! Build for me, in nearness to Thee, a mansion in the Garden, and save me from Pharaoh and his doings, and save me from those that do wrong‘;" S. 66:11 In fact, Muhammad praises Pharaoh's wife as being one of the few women who achieved perfection: Narrated Abu Musa Al-Ash'ari: Allah's Apostle said, "Many amongst men attained perfection but amongst women none attained the perfection except Mary, the daughter of Imran and Asiya, the wife of Pharaoh. And the superiority of 'Aisha to other women is like the superiority of Tharid (i.e. an Arabic dish) to other meals." (Sahih Al-Bukhari, Volume 5, Book 57, Number 113) Some have tried to explain away the apparent contradiction by implying that the phrase "His people" refers to the people of Pharaoh, i.e. that only a few Egyptians believed in Moses. Yet this translation makes little sense since this would mean that none of the Israelites believed save some of Pharaoh's own people! Furthermore, it is clear from the context that the nearest antecedent of the pronoun "His" is Moses, not Pharaoh which follows the pronoun. This is confirmed later on in the same passage by Moses' reference to "My people" (S. 10:84). In the following, we present another example of parallel accounts containing major verbal variations: "And remember We said: 'Enter this town, and eat of the plenty therein as ye wish; and enter the gate prostrating (with humility), and say: "Forgive (us)"; We shall forgive you your faults and increase (the portion of) those who do good.'" S. 2:58 Wa-ith qulna odkhuloo hathihi alqaryata fakuloo minha haythu shi/tum raghadan waodkhuloo albaba sujjadan waqooloo hittatun naghfir lakum khatayakum wasanazeedu almuhsineena "And remember it was said to them: 'Dwell in this town and eat therein as ye wish, but say the word of humility and enter the gate in a posture of humility: We shall forgive you your faults; We shall increase (the portion of) those who do good.'" S. 7:161 Wa-ith qeela lahumu oskunoo hathihi alqaryata wakuloo minha haythu shi/tum waqooloo hittatun waodkhuloo albaba sujjadan naghfir lakum khatee-atikum sanazeedu almuhsineena Did Allah say enter or dwell in? Did he say eat of the plenty or simply eat? Did he command them to say the word of humility and then enter the gate prostrating, or did he command them to enter the gate in a posture of humility and say "forgiveness"? It seems that Allah can't recall his exact words to the Israelites. A Muslim may argue that the same phenomenon exists within the Gospels. For instance, Matthew, Mark and Luke narrate the same account often with verbal variations. A Muslim using this argument would be guilty of a false analogy. Since Matthew, Mark and Luke were not written by the same author it would be normal to expect three different authors reporting the same event with verbal differences. For instance, one author may have wished to summarize an account, another to provide additional details, and yet another to write down the material in a topical arrangement as opposed to following a chronological sequence. Yet, since these differences do not change the meaning or significance of the event then the accuracy of the Gospels are not called into question but are completely trustworthy, especially when they are viewed in light of the writing methods adopted by historians of that time period. (See this article for more info.) But this is not the case with the Quran. Muslims do not believe that the Quran was written by multiple authors. Rather, they believe that there was only one author, namely God. Yet, if God had dictated the Quran to Muhammad we would not expect to find major verbal variations and contradictions in these parallel accounts. Instead, we would expect that God would repeat the same event in exactly the same way. That this is not what we find only proves that the Quran is not from God, but is the work of multiple writers. This means that the final compilers of the Quran did a very poor job of editing the book since traces of these conflicting sources can still be seen today. Qur'an Contradiction: Moses and Pharaoh's Magicians Revisited The following is our reply to one Shahid B. Waheed's (SBW in the following) alleged rebuttal to our recently published Qur'anic contradiction "Pharaoh's Magicians - Muslims or Rejectors of Faith?" The author begins: The obvious problem the team answering-islam" has is their sheer ignorance of Glorious Qur‘aan, beside their desperate attempts to misrepresent the truth and twist the words of Qur‘aan. That I have proved in my responses to all their claims. Let us examine the Glorious Qur‘aan 10:83-86 below: RESPONSE: The discussion below will demonstrate, who exactly is ignorant. It is always unprofessional to personally attack and insult others who disagree but even more so to start an article that way before presenting any arguments themselves. The author is certainly trying to pull a fast one on his readers. SBW: ُ ‫َ َ َ ُ َ ا‬ ْ ِ ٍ ْ َ ‫فًَب آيٍ نًِىسى إَِّل ذرِّ ياةٌ يٍ قَىيه عهَى خىف يٍ فِرْ عىٌ ويهَئِهى‬ َ ِ ِ ْ ْ ِ ِْ َ َ َ ْ َ ْ ‫ْ ْ ْ َ ا‬ )38( ٍ‫أٌَ يَفتَُِهُى وإٌِ فِرْ عىٌ نَعبل فِي اْلَرْ ض وإَِاهُ نًٍَ انًسْرفِي‬ َ ِ ُْ َ ِ ٍ َ َ َْ َ ِ ‫ِْ ْ ُْ ْ َْ ْ ا َ ْ ِ َ ا‬ ٍ‫وقَبل يىسى يَب قَىو إٌِ كُتُى آيُتُى بِبَّللِ فَعهَيه تَىكهُىا إٌِ كُتُى يسهًِي‬ َ ِ ْ ُ ْ ُْ ْ َ ُ َ َ ْ َ َ َ ‫ا َ ا‬ )38( ٍ‫(83) فَقَبنُىا عهَى َّللاِ تَىك ْهَُب رباَُب َّل تَجْ ع ْهَُب فِتَُةً نِ ْهقَىو انظابنًِي‬ َ ِ َ ِْ )38( ٍ‫وََجِّ َُب بِرحْ ًتِك يٍ انقَىو انكبفِري‬ َ ِ َْ ِْ ْ َ ِ َ َ َ َ But none believed in Mûsâ except the offspring of his people, because of the fear of Fir‘aun (Pharaoh) and his chiefs, lest they should persecute them; and verily, Fir‘aun (Pharaoh) was an arrogant tyrant on the earth, he was indeed one of the Musrifûn (polytheists, sinners and transgressors, those who give up the truth and follow the evil, and commit all kinds of great sins). (84) And Mûsâ said: "O my people! If you have believed in Allâh, then put your trust in Him if you are Muslims (those who submit to Allâh’s Will)." (85) They said: "In Allâh we put our trust. Our Lord! Make us not a trial for the folk who are Zâlimûn (polytheists and wrong-doers) (i.e. do not make them overpower us). (86) "And save us by Your Mercy from the disbelieving folk." “But none believed in Mûsâ except the offspring of his people,” Word for word translation from Arabic to English: eno utub ‫فًَب‬ َ ebveblbb ٍ‫آي‬ َ َ ntebe eu ‫نًِىسى‬ َ ُ ‫ا‬ bpebxo‫إَِّل‬ ُ onb tffex eut ٌ‫ذرِّ ياة‬ ْ ِ tff ٍ‫ي‬ nee xbtxvb ‫قَىيه‬ ِ ِ ْ ebeeneb tf ‫عهَى‬ َ onb fbe ‫خىف‬ ٍ ْ َ ْ ِ tf ٍ‫ي‬ hPhrahP َ‫فِزيىن‬ َْ ْ oneb enebfe eub ‫ويهَئِهى‬ ِْ َ َ ْ vbeo ٌَ‫أ‬ entnvb x tebenob onbu nb ‫يَفتَُِهُى‬ ْ ْ ‫َ ا‬ eub lb eva ٌِ‫وإ‬ hne ten ٌ‫فِرْ عى‬ َ َْ )see(eu e tteuo oa euo ‫نَعبل‬ َ ao ‫ٍَ فِي‬ ْ be on onb ‫اْلَرْ ض‬ ِ aaahoa Pa hh doa ً‫وإ َِّو‬ َ an aoa َ‫َنمه‬ ِ onb o euet beet e ٍ‫انًسْرفِي‬ َ ِ ُْ The claim made by web site ―answering-islam‖ is incorrect as usual since they have conveniently concealed the rest of the truth. The Glorious Qur‘aan tells is that despite of all the clear signs and irrefutable evidence Musa came with, only a few offspring from ―Fir‘awn‘s followers believed in Musa (Moses). They were even scared that Fir‘awn and his followers would force them to return to Kufr (disbelief). Fir‘awn was an evil tyrant with extreme arrogance. His people feared him. RESPONSE: Had SBW taken the time to actually read all that we wrote, he would have found this link to our more detailed discussion of the contradictory accounts which also includes several different Muslim translations of S. 10:83, one of which is the following: No one believed in Moses except some young people OF HIS OWN TRIBE who were at the same time very afraid of the persecution of the Pharaoh and his people ... Muhammad Sarwar SBW has simply assumed what he has yet to prove, namely that "his people" refers to Pharaoh as opposed to Moses. Asserting something is not the same as proving it. Thus far, SBW has offered no exegetical proof for his claim that "his people" refers to Pharaoh. If the verse had stated, e.g., "none believed in Moses except a few of the people of Pharaoh", then there would have been no denying that this refers to the Egyptians as opposed to the Israelites - and we would not have raised the issue in the first place. As it stands, the phrase "his people" most likely refers to the nearest antecedent, namely Moses. It is quite unlikely that the phrase "his people" is referring to Pharaoh since the word "Pharaoh" comes right after, not before, the phrase in question. In fact, if the phrase were referring to Pharaoh there would have been no need to insert the word Pharaoh afterwards, since this would have already been implied. For example, instead of writing "none believed in Moses except a few of His people, because of the fear of Pharaoh and his chiefs" the text should have simply said, "none believed in Moses except a few of HIS people, because of the fear of HIM and his chiefs." The pronouns "his" and "him" would have been understood to be referring to Pharaoh. Yet, the fact that the author of the Qur'an clearly inserts the word Pharaoh right after is further indication that the pronoun "his" doesn't refer to Pharaoh, but to Moses. That Pharaoh is not the object of the pronoun "his" will become more evident below. SBW goes on to claim: But children of Israel, however, themselves believed in Musa, all of them. They were glad to see him coming. They knew of his description and the news of his advent from their previous Books. They knew that Allaah was going to save them through Musa (Moses) from the bondage of Fir‘awn and will give them power over him. Therefore, when this knowledge reached Fir‘awn he was very wary. But his caution and weariness didn‘t help him one bit. When Musa (Moses) arrived, Fir‘awn subjected them to great harm, as we read in Glorious Qur‟aan 7:129! ِْ َ ِْ ْ ِ َ ْ ُْ َ َ َ َ ْ ِ ْ ِ ِ ٌَ‫قَبنُىا أُوذيَُب يٍ قَبْم أٌَ تَأْتِيََُب ويٍ بَعد يب جئتََُب قَبل عسى ربُّكى أ‬ ْ ٌ‫يُههِك عدوكى ويَستَخهِفَكى فِي اْلَرْ ض فَيَُظُر كيْف تَعًهُى‬ َ َ ْ َ َ َ ْ ِ ُْ ْ ْ َ ُْ ‫ْ َ َُ ا‬ They said: "We (Children of Israel) had suffered troubles before you came to us, and since you have come to us." He said: "It may be that your Lord will destroy your enemy and make you successors on the earth, so that He may see how you act?" Notice: How cleverly the team answering-islam has taken out (the account of Pharoah, Magician, and Moses) of context and has used it as pretext. The fact is that all Children of Israel became believers is evidenced by the following Ayaat (verses 84 to 86) ‫ِ ْ ُْ ْ َْ ْ ا َ ْ ِ َ ا‬ ‫وقَبل يىسى يَب قَىْ و إٌِ كُتُى آيُتُى بِبَّللِ فَعهَيه تَىكهُىا إٌِ كُتُى يسهًِيٍَ (83) فَقَبنُىا عهَى‬ َ َ ُ َ َ ِ ْ ُ ْ ُْ ْ ْ َ َ َ ‫ا َ ا‬ ٍَ‫َّللاِ تَىك ْهَُب رباَُب َّل تَجْ ع ْهَُب فِتَُةً نِ ْهقَىْ و انظابنًِيٍَ (83) وََجَُب بِرحْ ًتِك يٍَ انقَىْ و انكبفِري‬ ِ ِ ِ َ ْ ِ ْ ِ َ َ َ ِّ َ )38( (84) And Mûsâ said: "O my people! If you have believed in Allâh, then put your trust in Him if you are Muslims (those who submit to Allâh‘s Will)." (85) They said: "In Allâh we put our trust. Our Lord! Make us not a trial for the folk who are Zâlimûn (polytheists and wrong-doers) (i.e. do not make them overpower us). (86) "And save us by Your Mercy from the disbelieving folk." The above verse 10:83 is explicitly about Musa (Moses) and his people. While in chapter 7, verses quoted by the team "answering-islam" are talking about the encounter between Musa (Moses) and the Magicians. There is no contradiction or confusion in Glorious Qur‘aan and none has proved by the forces of falsehood, except they have to keep manufacturing lies to show performance to their donors who donate money to this missionary site. In fact their very argument is self-defeating if one read carefully and check the references ignoring the formation they have used to sensationalized their absurdity. RESPONSE: For a moment we seem to fully agree: "The above verse 10:83 is explicitly about Musa (Moses) and his people". However, since that statement makes just as little sense as the Qur'an, we assume that SBW made a typo and intended to write "the above verse 10:84 ..." since up to this point he has been arguing that 10:83 refers to Pharaoh's people. Even when giving him the benefit of the doubt on this point, the rest still demonstrates that he actually hasn't read the Qur'an carefully. This becomes apparent both in reference to surah 10 and surah 7. First, SBW seems to be confused since S. 10:83 does in fact refer to Moses' encounter with Pharaoh's magicians, as any reading of the context will easily demonstrate. We had mentioned this explicitly in the introductory sentences to the two Qur'an quotation at the beginning of the shorter article that SBW responds to (and this is the whole point of comparing since it would be nonsense to claim a contradiction between reports of different events), and we have given the full quotation in context in the longer more detailed article. So, we have no clue how SBW gets the idea to claim that the report in Sura 10 is not about Moses' encounter with the magicians of Pharaoh when he writes: "The above verse 10:83 is explicitly about Musa (Moses) and his people. While in chapter 7, verses quoted by the team "answering-islam" are talking about the encounter between Musa (Moses) and the Magicians." Obviously, both passages, S. 10:75-83 AND S. 7:109-126 are about the encounter of Moses with Pharaoh's magicians. Further, his claim that all of the Israelites believed is erroneous in light of the following passages: Said Moses to HIS PEOPLE: "Pray for help from God, and (wait) in patience and constancy: for the earth is God's, to give as a heritage to such of His servants as He pleaseth; and the end is (best) for the righteous. THEY SAID: "WE HAVE HAD (NOTHING BUT) TROUBLE, both before AND AFTER thou camest to us." He said: "It may be that your Lord will destroy your enemy and make you inheritors in the earth; that so He may try you by your deeds"... And We made a people, considered weak (and of no account), inheritors of lands in both east and west, - lands whereon We sent down Our blessings. The fair promise of thy Lord was fulfilled for the Children of Israel, because they had patience and constancy, and We levelled to the ground the great works and fine buildings which Pharaoh and his people erected (with such pride). We took the Children of Israel (with safety) across the sea. They came upon a people devoted entirely to some idols they had. THEY SAID: "O Moses! fashion for us a god like unto the gods they have." He said: "Surely ye are a people without knowledge. As to these folk,- the cult they are in is (but) a fragment of a ruin, and vain is the (worship) which they practise." He said: "Shall I seek for you a god other than the (true) God, when it is God Who hath endowed you with gifts above the nations?" And remember We rescued you from Pharaoh's people, who afflicted you with the worst of penalties, who slew your male children and saved alive your females: in that was a momentous trial from your Lord. S. 7:128-129, 137-141 And: Those who reject Our signs and the meeting in the Hereafter,- vain are their deeds: Can they expect to be rewarded except as they have wrought? THE PEOPLE OF MOSES made, in his absence, out of their ornaments, the image of calf, (for worship): it seemed to low: did THEY not see that it could neither speak to THEM, nor show THEM the way? THEY took it for worship and THEY did wrong. When THEY repented, and saw that THEY had erred, THEY said: "If our Lord have not mercy upon us and forgive us, we shall indeed be of those who perish." When Moses came back to HIS PEOPLE (qawmihi), angry and grieved, he said: "Evil it is that ye have done in my place in my absence: did ye make haste to bring on the judgment of your Lord?" He put down the tablets, seized his brother by the hair of) his head, and dragged him to him. Aaron said: "Son of my mother! THE PEOPLE did indeed reckon me as naught, and went near to slaying me! Make not THE ENEMIES rejoice over my misfortune, nor count thou me amongst THE PEOPLE OF SIN." Moses prayed: "O my Lord! forgive me and my brother! admit us to Thy mercy! for Thou art the Most Merciful of those who show mercy!" Those who took the calf (for worship) will indeed be overwhelmed with wrath from their Lord, and with shame in this life: thus do We recompense those who invent (falsehoods). But those who do wrong but repent thereafter and (truly) believe,- verily thy Lord is thereafter Oft-Forgiving, Most Merciful. When the anger of Moses was appeased, he took up the tablets: in the writing thereon was guidance and Mercy for such as fear their Lord. S. 7:147-154 These passages which immediately precede and follow S. 7:129 actually compound the problem since it introduces an additional contradiction.This shows that at first ALL of the people complained against Moses, and that later on the entire nation lapsed into idolatry! Now, SBW may claim that the phrase "His people" doesn't necessarily imply that every single individual fell into idolatry, since Aaron obviously didn't worship the calf. Yet, this would only prove our assertion that S. 10:83 does in fact imply that only some of Moses' people truly believed since most of them remained unbelievers and idolators at heart. Amazingly, SBW does the very thing which he accuses us of, namely failing to quote S. 7:128 which shows Israel's initial hostile reaction to Moses after his showdown with the magicians. Could it be that he was aware that this passage would end up exposing how shallow his response truly is? Other passages which affirm that - according to the Qur'an - most of Moses' people remained unbelievers at heart include: O Children of Israel! call to mind the (special) favor which I bestowed upon you, and that I preferred you to all others (for My Message). Then guard yourselves against a day when one soul shall not avail another nor shall intercession be accepted for her, nor shall compensation be taken from her, nor shall anyone be helped (from outside). And remember, We delivered you from the people of Pharaoh: They set you hard tasks and punishments, slaughtered your sons and let your women-folk live; therein was a tremendous trial from your Lord. And remember We divided the sea for you and saved you and drowned Pharaoh's people within your very sight. And remember We appointed forty nights for Moses, and in his absence ye took the calf (for worship), and ye did grievous wrong. Even then We did forgive you; there was a chance for you to be grateful. And remember We gave Moses the Scripture and the Criterion (Between right and wrong): There was a chance for you to be guided aright. And remember Moses said to HIS PEOPLE (liqawmihi): "O MY PEOPLE! Ye have indeed wronged yourselves by your worship of the calf: So turn (in repentance) to your Maker, and slay yourselves (the wrong-doers); that will be better for you in the sight of your Maker." Then He turned towards you (in forgiveness): For He is OftReturning, Most Merciful. And remember ye said: "O Moses! WE SHALL NEVER BELIEVE IN THEE UNTIL WE SEE ALLAH MANIFESTLY," Thereupon ye were dazed with thunderbolt even as ye looked on. Then We raised you up after your death; ye had the chance to be grateful. And We gave you the shade of clouds and sent down to you Manna and quails, saying: "Eat of the good things We have provided for you:" (But they rebelled); to Us they did no harm, but they harmed their own souls. And remember We said: "Enter this town, and eat of the plenty therein as ye wish; and enter the gate prostrating (with humility), and say: "Forgive (us)"; We shall forgive you your faults and increase (the portion of) those who do good." But the transgressors changed the word from that which had been given them; so We sent on the transgressors a plague from heaven, for that they infringed (Our command) repeatedly. And remember Moses prayed for water for his people; We said: "Strike the rock with thy staff." Then gushed forth therefrom twelve springs. Each group knew its own place for water. So eat and drink of the sustenance provided by Allah, and do no evil nor mischief on the (face of the) earth. And remember ye said: "O Moses! we cannot endure one kind of food (always); so beseech thy Lord for us to produce for us of what the earth groweth, -its pot-herbs, and cucumbers, Its garlic, lentils, and onions." He said: "Will ye exchange the better for the worse? Go ye down to any town, and ye shall find what ye want!" They were covered with humiliation and misery; they drew on themselves the wrath of Allah. This because they went on rejecting the Signs of Allah and slaying His Messengers without just cause. This because they rebelled and went on transgressing... Thenceforth were your hearts hardened: They became like a rock and even worse in hardness. For among rocks there are some from which rivers gush forth; others there are which when split asunder send forth water; and others which sink for fear of Allah. And Allah is not unmindful of what ye do. S. 2:47-61, 74 "There came to you Moses with clear (Signs); yet ye worshipped the calf (even) after that, and ye did behave wrongfully. And remember We took your covenant and We raised above you them Mount (Sinai): (Saying): "Hold firmly to what We have given you, and hearken (to the Law)": They said:" We hear, and we disobey:" And their hearts were filled (with the love) of the calf BECAUSE OF THEIR FAITHLESSNESS. Say: "Vile indeed are the behests of your Faith if ye have any faith!" S. 2:92-93 Remember Moses said to his people: "O MY PEOPLE! Call in remembrance the favor of Allah unto you, when He produced prophets among you, made you kings, and gave you what He had not given to any other among the peoples. O MY PEOPLE! Enter the holy land which Allah hath assigned unto you, and turn not back ignominiously, for then will ye be overthrown, to your own ruin." They said: "O Moses! In this land are a people of exceeding strength: Never shall we enter it until they leave it: if (once) they leave, then shall we enter." (But) among (their) Godfearing men were two on whom Allah had bestowed His grace: They said: "Assault them at the (proper) Gate: when once ye are in, victory will be yours; But on Allah put your trust if ye have faith." They said: "O Moses! while they remain there, never shall we be able to enter, to the end of time. Go thou, and thy Lord, and fight ye two, while we sit here (and watch)." He said: "O my Lord! I have power only over myself and my brother: so separate us from this rebellious people!" Allah said: "Therefore will the land be out of their reach for forty years: In distraction will they wander through the land: But sorrow thou not over these rebellious people." S. 5:20-26 We sent an inspiration to Moses: "Travel by night with My servants, and strike a dry path for them through the sea, without fear of being overtaken (by Pharaoh) and withoutn (any other) fear." Then Pharaoh pursued them with his forces, but the waters completely overwhelmed them and covered them up. Pharaoh led his people astray instead of leading them aright. O ye Children of Israel! We delivered you from your enemy, and We made a Covenant with you on the right side of Mount (Sinai), and We sent down to you Manna and quails: (Saying): "Eat of the good things We have provided for your sustenance, but commit no excess therein, lest My wrath should justly descend on you: and those on whom descends My Wrath do perish indeed! But, without doubt, I am (also) He that forgives again and again, to those who repent, believe, and do right, who,- in fine, are ready to receive true guidance." (When Moses was up on the Mount, God said:) "What made thee hasten in advance of THY PEOPLE, O Moses?" He replied: "Behold, they are close on my footsteps: I hastened to thee, O my Lord, to please thee." (God) said: "We have tested thy people in thy absence: the Samiri has led them astray." So Moses returned to HIS PEOPLE in a state of indignation and sorrow. He said: "O MY PEOPLE! did not your Lord make a handsome promise to you? Did then the promise seem to you long (in coming)? Or did ye desire that Wrath should descend from your Lord on you, and so ye broke your promise to me?" They said: "We broke not the promise to thee, as far as lay in our power: but we were made to carry the weight of the ornaments of the (whole) people, and we threw them (into the fire), and that was what the Samiri suggested. Then he brought out (of the fire) before the (people) the image of a calf: It seemed to low: so THEY SAID: This is your god, and the god of Moses, but (Moses) has forgotten!" Could THEY not see that it could not return them a word (for answer), and that it had no power either to harm them or to do them good? Aaron had already, before this said to them: "O MY PEOPLE! ye are being tested in this: for verily your Lord is (God Most Gracious; so follow me and obey my command." THEY HAD SAID: "We will not abandon this cult, but we will devote ourselves to it until Moses returns to us." (Moses) said: "O Aaron! what kept thee back, when thou sawest THEM going wrong, From following me? Didst thou then disobey my order?" (Aaron) replied: "O son of my mother! Seize (me) not by my beard nor by (the hair of) my head! Truly I feared lest thou shouldst say, 'Thou has caused a division among the children of Israel, and thou didst not respect my word!'" (Moses) said: "What then is thy case, O Samiri?" He replied: "I saw what they saw not: so I took a handful (of dust) from the footprint of the Apostle, and threw it (into the calf): thus did my soul suggest to me." (Moses) said: "Get thee gone! but thy (punishment) in this life will be that thou wilt say, 'touch me not'; and moreover (for a future penalty) thou hast a promise that will not fail: Now look at thy god, of whom thou hast become a devoted wor shipper: We will certainly (melt) it in a blazing fire and scatter it broadcast in the sea!" But the god of you all is the One God: there is no god but He: all things He comprehends in His knowledge. S. 20:77-98 Qárün was doubtless, of the people of Moses; but he acted insolently towards them: such were the treasures We had bestowed on him that their very keys would have been a burden to a body of strong men, behold, his people said to him: "Exult not, for Allah loveth not those who exult (in riches). But seek, with the (wealth) which Allah has bestowed on thee, the Home of the Hereafter, nor forget thy portion in this world: but do thou good, as Allah has been good to thee, and seek not (occasions for) mischief in the land: for Allah loves not those who do mischief." He said: "This has been given to me because of a certain knowledge which I have." Did he not know that Allah had destroyed, before him, (whole) generations,- which were superior to him in strength and greater in the amount (of riches) they had collected? But the wicked are not called (immediately) to account for their sins. So he went forth among his people in the (pride of his worldly) glitter. Said those whose aim is the life of this world: "Oh! that we had the like of what Qárün has got! for he is truly a lord of mighty good fortune!" But those who had been granted (true) knowledge said: "Alas for you! The reward of Allah (in the Hereafter) is best for those who believe and work righteousness: but this none shall attain, save those who steadfastly persevere (in good)." Then We caused the earth to swallow up him and his house; and he had not (the least little) party to help him against Allah, nor could he defend himself. And those who had envied his position the day before began to say on the morrow: "Ah! It is indeed Allah Who enlarges the provision or restricts it, to any of His servants He pleases! Had it not been that Allah was gracious to us, He could have caused the earth to swallow us up! Ah! Those who reject Allah will assuredly never prosper." S. 28:76-82 (Remember also) Qárün, Pharaoh, and Hámán: there came to them Moses with Clear Signs, but they behaved with insolence on the earth; yet they could not overreach (Us). Each one of them We seized for his crime: of them, against some We sent a violent tornado (with showers of stones); some were caught by a (mighty) Blast; some We caused the earth to swallow up; and some We drowned (in the waters): It was not Allah Who wronged them: they wronged themselves. S. 29:39-40 And remember, Moses said to HIS PEOPLE: "O my people! why do ye vex and insult me, though ye know that I am the messenger of Allah (sent) to you?" Then when they went wrong, Allah let their hearts go wrong. For Allah guides not those who are rebellious transgressors. S. 61:5 This implies that S. 10:83 refers to Moses' people since the reports about the desert wandering demonstrated that not all of Israel had truly come to believe in either Moses or his God. In fact, note the following comments of A. Yusuf Ali regarding S. 10:83: 1466. The pronoun "his" in "his People" is taken by SOME Commentators to refer to Pharaoh. The majority of Pharaoh's people refused to believe at the time, but the sorcerors believed (7:120-122), and so did Pharaoh's wife (66:11), and ultimately Pharaoh himself, though too late (10:90). If we took "his" to refer to Moses, it would mean that the Israelites were hardened and grumbled (7:129) even when they were being delivered from Egypt, AND ONLY A FEW OF THEM HAD ANY REAL FAITH IN ALLAH'S PROVIDENCE AND THE WORKING OF HIS LAW, and they feared Pharaoh even more than they feared Allah. (Ali, The Holy Qur'an, New Revised Edition with Revised Translation, Commentary and Newly Compiled Comprehensive Index [Amana Publications, Beltsville, Maryland USA, 2001], p. 501; bold and capital emphasis ours) Yusuf Ali is clearly torn and doesn't want to commit himself to any of the two given interpretations. He has recognized the problem that the natural reading of the verse results in a contradiction to other Qur'anic accounts. That is why he starts with a statement about a different interpretation. However, he was honest enough to admit that among the (classical) commentaries on the Qur'an there were only SOME commentators who took the pronoun "his" as a reference to Pharaoh, which implies that there were many others (the majority) who believed that the pronoun actually referred to Moses! He seems to be hesitant to contradict the majority even though seeing the contradiction, so he remains apparently undecided. Furthermore, Ali also agrees with our assesmment that not all the Israelites truly believed in Moses or his God. Therefore, SBW's claim that S. 10:83 cannot be referring to Israel since all Israel believed is an unsubstantiated assertion that finds no warrant in the text. Also, the context of S. 10:83-86 itself shows that "His people" can only be referring to Moses' people: "But none believed in Moses except some children of his People, because of the fear of Pharaoh and his chiefs, lest they should persecute them; and certainly Pharaoh was mighty on the earth and one who transgressed all bounds. Moses said: "O MY PEOPLE! If ye do (really) believe in Allah, then in Him put your trust if ye submit (your will to His)." They said: "In Allah do we put out trust. Our Lord! make us not a trial for those who practice oppression; And deliver us by Thy Mercy from those who reject (Thee)." It is quite evident that the phrase "His people" is parallel with the words of Moses, i.e. "My people", namely the Israelites. Furthermore, in light of the preceding passages, it is quite clear that Israel's claim here that they trusted God was nothing more than a lie as their desert sojourn clearly showed. It is therefore quite conceivable that in this passage the author of the Qur'an is highlighting the fact that although the nation of Israel claimed to have believed in God, in reality only a few of them truly did. Finally, even if we assume that "His people" does refer to Pharaoh, we are left with yet another contradiction. According to the following surah only one person from Pharaoh's people believed, with the rest perishing: A believer, A MAN from among THE PEOPLE OF PHARAOH, who had concealed his faith, said: "Will ye slay a man because he says, ‗My Lord is Allah‘?when he has indeed come to you with Clear (Signs) from your Lord? And if he be a liar, on him is (the sin of) his lie: but, if he is telling the Truth, then will fall on you something of the (calamity) of which he warns you: truly Allah guides not one who transgresses and lies! O MY PEOPLE! Yours is the dominion this day: Ye have the upper hand in the land: but who will help us from the Punishment of Allah, should it befall us?" Pharaoh said: "I but point out to you that which I see (myself); Nor do I guide you but to the Path of Right!" Then said the man who believed: "O MY PEOPLE! Truly I do fear for you something like the Day (of disaster) of the Confederates (in sin)!- Something like the fate of the People of Noah, the Àd, and the Thamüd, and those who came after them: but Allah never wishes injustice to His Servants. And O MY PEOPLE! I fear for you a Day when there will be Mutual calling (and wailing),- A Day when ye shall turn your backs and flee: no defender shall ye have from Allah: any whom Allah leaves to stray, there is none to guide. And to you there came Joseph in times gone by, with Clear Signs, but ye ceased not to doubt of the (Mission) for which he had come: at length, when he died, ye said: 'No messenger will Allah send after him.' Thus doth Allah leave to stray such as transgress and live in doubt,- (Such) as dispute about the Signs of Allah, without any authority that hath reached them, very hateful (is such conduct) in the sight of Allah and of the Believers. Thus doth Allah seal up every heart - of arrogant tyranical"... The man who believed said further: "O MY PEOPLE! Follow me: I will lead you to the Path of Right. "O MY PEOPLE! This life of the present is nothing but (temporary) enjoyment: it is the Hereafter that is the Home that will last. "He that works evil will not be requited but by the like thereof: and he that works a righteous deed - whether man or woman - and is a Believer- such will enter the Garden (of Bliss): therein will they have abundance without measure. And O MY PEOPLE! How (strange) it is for me to call you to Salvation while ye call me to the Fire! Ye do call upon me to blaspheme against Allah, and to join with Him partners of whom I have no knowledge; and I call you to the Exalted in Power, Who forgives again and again! Without doubt ye do call me to one who has no claim be called to, whether in this world, or in the Hereafter; our return will be to Allah: and the Transgressors will be Companions of the Fire! Soon will ye remember what I say to you (now), My (own) affair I commit to Allah: for Allah (ever) watches over His Servants." Then Allah SAVED HIM from (every) evil that they plotted (against him), but the brunt of the Chastisement encompassed on all sides THE PEOPLE OF PHARAOH. In front of the Fire will THEY be brought, morning and evening: and (the sentence will be) on the Day when the Hour comes to pass: "Cast ye THE PEOPLE OF PHARAOH into the severest Penalty!" S. 40:28-35, 38-46 Hence, instead of some or a only few of Pharaoh's people believing in Moses, this surah only refers to one Egyptian who had come to faith! Do note that the surah clearly says that Allah SAVED HIM, not them, giving the impression that the rest of Pharaoh's people were cast into the fire. This strongly implies that only one person from among Pharaoh's people believed in the God of Moses. So what is it? Did a few of Pharaoh's people believe, including the magicians? Or was it only one believer from amongst Pharaoh's people, with all the others perishing? But wait, it isn't over quite yet. The following surah says that Pharaoh's people were fooled into believing Pharaoh: We did send Moses aforetime, with Our Signs, to Pharaoh and his Chiefs: He said, "I am a messenger of the Lord of the Worlds." But when he came to them with Our Signs, behold, they laughed at them. We showed them Sign after Sign, each greater than its fellow, and We seized them with Punishment, in order that they might turn (to Us). And they said, "O thou sorcerer! Invoke thy Lord for us according to His covenant with thee; for we shall truly accept guidance." But when We removed the Chastisement from them, behold, they broke their word. And Pharaoh proclaimed among HIS PEOPLE, saying: "O MY PEOPLE! Does not the dominion of Egypt belong to me, (witness) these streams flowing underneath my (palace)? What! see ye not then? Am I not better than this (Moses), who is a contemptible wretch and can scarcely express himself clearly? Then why are not gold bracelets bestowed on him, or (why) come (not) with him angels accompanying him in procession?" THUS DID HE MAKE FOOLS OF HIS PEOPLE, AND THEY OBEYED HIM: truly were they A PEOPLE REBELLIOUS (against Allah). When at length THEY provoked Us, We exacted retribution from THEM, and We drowned THEM ALL. And We made THEM (a people) of the Past and an Example to later ages. S. 43:46-56 This surah actually shows THAT PHARAOH'S PEOPLE DID NOT BELIEVE IN MOSES, BUT RATHER BELIEVED IN THEIR KING! Let us summarize the contradictions: 1. S. 7, 20 and 26 all claim that some (plural) of Pharaoh's magicians came to faith. 2. S. 10 says only some of Moses' people believed in him, implying that none of the Egyptians did, contradicting the above passages. 3. S. 40 only mentions one believer from amongst the Egyptians, giving the impression that the rest of Pharaoh's people did not believe and therefore perished. This contradicts the claim that some of the magicians believed in Moses' God. 4. S. 43 gives the impression that all of Pharaoh's people disbelieved in Moses, being fooled into believing Pharaoh and perishing as a result of it. This surah doesn't even mention any Egyptian believers at all. This not only contradicts S. 7, 20 and 26 but also S. 40! We will let SBW resolve this muddle of contradictory statements. We do appreciate his ‗rebuttal‘ since it forced us to dig around the Qur'an in more detail with the consequence that the Qur'an ended up being in an even deeper hole. A final remark: IF we were to accept the grammatically very akward interpretation that "his people" in S. 10:83 refers to Pharaoh's people instead of Moses' people [and all the other problems mentioned in our three articles (1, 2, 3) were to be solved somehow], one would have to face the consequence that all these problems about S. 10:83 could easily have been avoided by choosing a clearer and unambiguous formulation. In this case, S. 10:83 becomes one of many examples where the Qur'an is far from being perfect in eloquence and use of proper grammar. Addendum After our above rebuttal was published, SBW added at this point another section to his ‗rebuttal‘ attempt, but without changing what he had written earlier. In this part (between the above and the next horizontal line) we respond to his section of additional arguments. Since some of the below arguments are very long and somewhat tedious when considering all the details, I have designed a "fast track" jumping from one to the next of the main points, skipping a couple of very involved arguments. This "fast track" should be taken when reading the Addendum the first time, and it may be sufficient for most readers to establish our rebuttal of SBW's claims. Some may later want to re-read it with all the details. SBW now claims also the following: "his people" in verse 10:83 has double implication, meaning Musa's and Pharaoh's people. Though translators have chosen different words for the Arabic word we see in the following six different translations. RESPONSE: SBW now admits that S. 10:83 DOES refer to Moses' people, as well as the people of Pharaoh. This contradicts his earlier interpretation in these statements: The claim made by web site "answering-islam" is incorrect as usual since they have conveniently concealed the rest of the truth. The Glorious Qur'aan tells is that despite of all the clear signs and irrefutable evidence Musa came with, ONLY A FEW OFFSPRING FROM "FIR'AWN'S FOLLOWERS BELIEVED IN MUSA (Moses). They were even scared that Fir'awn and his followers would force them to return to Kufr (disbelief). Fir'awn was an evil tyrant with extreme arrogance. His people feared him. ‫ قَىيه‬as ِ ْ But children of Israel, however, themselves believed in Musa, ALL OF THEM. They were glad to see him coming. They knew of his description and the news of his advent from their previous Books. They knew that Allaah was going to save them through Musa (Moses) from the bondage of Fir'awn and will give them power over him. Therefore, when this knowledge reached Fir'awn he was very wary. But his caution and weariness didn't help him one bit. When Musa (Moses) arrived, Fir'awn subjected them to great harm, as we read in Glorious Qur'aan 7:129! And: The fact is that ALL CHILDREN OF ISRAEL BECAME BELIEVERS is evidenced by the following Ayaat (verses 84 to 86) There is nothing dishonorable in admitting one was wrong and changing an opinion based on good evidence. However, SBW seems to no longer know what he himself wants to believe and defend. He now states both, that 10:83 refers only to Pharaoh's people (the original and still current claim) and that it also refers to the people of Moses (in the newly added section)! Total confusion. Nevertheless, he boldly and loudly continues to claim that he has clearly refuted our article. The only thing he has done so far is to produce contradictions of his own, in addition to the contradictions in the Qur'an. Even though it is obvious from SBW's writings that the English language is not his strongest point, the following explanation demands only elementary knowledge of the English language. Therefore, it should not be too difficult to comprehend that "his people" can only refer to one person's nation, not to two nations. Moses and Pharaoh are not the same person, so if it should refer to both, the pronoun in English would need to be "their" not "his", i.e. "their people" (when talking about the Israelites as being Moses' and Aaron's people, who are two different individuals from the same people group). Furthermore, since the Israelites are not the Egyptians, the word would need to be "peoples" not "people", i.e. "their peoples" (two individuals from two different nations). Thus, instead of "his people" the text would have to be "their peoples" for SBW's interpretation to be correct. Furthermore, all arguments about the Arabic Qur'an need to be based on the text of the Arabic original, not just on translations. In Arabic the situation is even clearer because Arabic distinguishes not only singular and plural but also has a separate grammatical form for the dual (two of something). In this case: "his people" is qawm-i-hi (qawm: people) (i: short vowel, called "kasra") (hi: pronoun for one person: "his"), "their people" would have to be qawm-i-hima (hima: pronoun for two persons: "their"), and "their peoples" would have to be qawmay-hima (ay: mark of a noun in the dual form, i.e. two peoples). English his people Transliterated Arabic qawm-i-hi Arabic ‫قَىيه‬ ِ ِ ْ ‫قَىيهًب‬ ِ ِ ْ ‫قَىييهًب‬ ِ َْ ْ their people qawm-i-hima their peoples qawmay-hima In the Arabic text of Surah 10:83 we clearly find the singular qawm-i-hi (his people) not the dual form qawmay-hima (their peoples). [The transliteration qawm-i-hi is more accurate than the version qawm-hi chosen by SBW.] Even though the classical commentators of the Qur'an are not in agreement, most arguing that "his people" refers to Moses and some arguing that "his people" refers to Pharaoh, we are not aware that any of them has ever argued the ridiculous claim that it refers to both simultaneously. The ‗honor‘ of this bid'ah (innovation) belongs to SBW alone. SBW then proceeds to quote several translations of 10:83, none of which helps to resolve the contradiction. In fact, most of these translations were already quoted in our longer and more detailed article. It doesn't matter whether some translators translate qawm-i-hi as "his people" or as "the offspring of his people", since the implication is the same. Note also: Not one of these translations cited by SBW writes "their peoples" instead of "his people" as the Muslim author would like us to understand it. Before we follow SBW on a detour, we summarize the current conclusion: 1. SBW's new "double implication" theory contradicts his earlier arguments in the same article. 2. The existence of this "double implication" has so far only been claimed by SBW, but he has not provided any evidence for it. It remains merely an assumption on his part. We do not agree that it exists. [Fast track: Save time by skipping this rather irrelevant part.] [Begin of detour.] SBW: Many words that have been derived from the root letters ‫و‬ Glorious Qur'aan, including the word ‫ ,قَىيه‬for example it is used in 2:54! ِ ِ ْ WA- 'IDH QAALA MOSAA LI- QAWM -HI YAA QAWM -E ... Daryabadi And recall what time Musa said unto his people: my people! verily ye have wronged your souls by your taking the calf, wherefore repent unto your Maker, and slay yourselves: that were best for you with your Maker. Then He relented toward you; verily He! He is the Relentant, the Merciful Mohammed Asad and when Moses said unto his people: "O my people! ... Muhsin Khan And (remember) when Musa (Moses) said to his people: "O my people! ... Pickthall And when Moses said unto his people: O my people! ... Shakir And when Musa said to his people: O my people! ... ‫قو‬ have been used in Yusuf Ali And remember Moses said to his people: "O my people! ... Notice that how strangely the same Arabic word ‫ قَىيه‬QAWM -HI is translated in ِ ِ ْ 10:83 different than 2:54. Please read my article titled: "Translation Myths" @http://www.geocities.com/sbwus/Translation_Myth.htm RESPONSE: SBW is correct. Often translators of the Qur'an are inconsistent. That is the topic of our section on different Versions of the Qur'an. In fact, sometimes this inconsistency is not accidental, but clearly serves to hide in the English translation a problem that is present in the Arabic text (see, e.g., the article Good News of Painful Torture). It is, however, beyond us why SBW seems to think that citing all these different translation of S. 2:54 will somehow resolve the contradiction between Surah 10:83 and Surah 7:120-126. Apart from using the same expression qawm-i-hi (his people), the above verse has no relationship to our discussion. SBW has not even claimed that this verse helps us to interpret Surah 10:83, let alone shown us how it does so. The whole detour was completely irrelevant and unnecessary, nothing but a waste of time. Simply stating that the Arabic expression for "his people" is "qawm-i-hi" and showing that various translators have for currently unknown reasons translated it slightly differently has not helped in any way to determine who this group of people is: The people of Moses or the people of Pharaoh. Nor does SBW's article on "Translation Myths" provide any help. In it he claims, correctly, that sometimes the translation of certain words is difficult, and that sometimes translations are even wrong. However, so far not even SBW has claimed that the translation of Surah 10:83 is wrong, nor has he proposed what he would consider to be a more accurate translation (and why). The issue has not been translation at all, but whether "his people" refers to Moses or Pharaoh and the observation that the natural interpretation of "his people" as "Moses' people" results in a contradiction to other Qur'anic passages. Why was "qawm-i-hi" translated sometimes as "his people" or "offspring of his people" or "children of his people" or "scions of his people" or any other way? That is a question SBW would have to address to those (Muslim) translators, but these variations in translation do not contribute anything to solve the contradiction under discussion. It remains a contradiction with each of those choices. Furthermore, the reason why these translations read differently is because of the Arabic word, dhurriyatun ("offspring), a word which is not found in S. 2:54. Muhammad Asad, although believing that qawm-i-hi refers to all the people Moses lived with in general (i.e. both the Israelites and Egyptians), makes the following statement: "... As for the term dhurriyyah [lit., "offspring"], we have several authoritative statements to the effect that it often denotes, "a small group [or "a few"] of one's people" (Ibn Abbas, as quoted by Tabari, Baghawi, Razi, and Ibn Kathir, as well as Ad-Dahak and Qatadah, as quoted by Tabari and Kathir); hence my rendering ..." (Asad, Message of the Qur'an [Dar Al-Andalus Limited 3 Library Ramp, Gibraltar rpt. 1993], p. 304, f. 104) This means that Shahid has erroneously assumed that the translators were translating the word qawm-i-hi differently, when in fact that word had nothing to do with their specific renderings, at least in the case of Asad! Though making a lot of words, SBW has so far not even begun to address our argument, let alone refuted it. All SBW has managed to do by his lengthy sixfold quotations of 10:83 and 2:54 is to send his readers on a rabbit trail. [End of detour.] SBW: "his people" Fir'awn's wife who was a believer and she was hiding her faith, the magicians and Fir'awn's treasurer. [Also see Qur'aan 20:71; 43:54; 79:24 * At-Tabari 15:164] Thus, when we read in Glorious Qur'aan 10:83, we must remember the double implication of word "his" and "none" excludes those who already believed. Please keep this in mind the use of word "his" in 10:83 is similar to the use of same word in 4:159. Reasons why no one else believed in Moses are mentioned in 7:124 explicitly. RESPONSE: At first glance, these few lines look like they could be the most interesting paragraph in the whole paper, promising an actual argument. Therefore we will give these statements our full attention and examine them carefully. The discussion will be somewhat lengthy, but bear with us. Sadly, SBW only repeated his assumption that S. 10:83 contains a double meaning or implication, but he has failed to provide any exegetical reasons to understand the passage in the manner he proposes. "His people" either refers to Moses or to Pharaoh. It cannot refer to both. We have given clear evidence to support that "his people" refers to Moses. SBW has yet to present even one logical reason for his (various and contradictory) interpretation(s). Not satisfied with claiming that the word "his" means actually "their", he now adds the claim that the word "none" also has a double meaning or implication, but fails to explain what those two meanings are supposed to be. Instead of helping to clarify the situation SBW produces mystery after mystery. The reader who agrees that SBW has not made a valid argument about ‗double implications that effect exclusions‘, and thinks there is no point in discussing various possible interpretations of this claim, including our refutation of each of them, may at this point follow our "fast track" and jump immediately to the next issue: SBW's appeal to Surah 4:159 Recommendation: Do indeed skip this part at your first reading, because the next couple of pages will lead through a rather complex discussion demanding a lot of perseverance. Even though the sentence "we must remember the double implication of word "his" and "none" excludes those who already believed" is mere gibberish according to the rules of English language, we will try to understand what SBW may have meant by it. Our best guess is: The (not yet proven) double meaning of these two words implies the exclusion of those who already believed. This means, we have to deal not only with the mystery of the existence of these double meanings but also with the mystery of their effect. How exactly does the mysterious double meaning of "none" and "his" which means actually "their" exclude those who already believed? Exclude them from what group? From those who believed? Does SBW want us to conclude that those who believed are excluded from those who believed? The meaning of Surah 10:83 was pretty straight forward before SBW started to ‗explain‘ it. Let us remember what the verse actually said: But NONE believed in Moses except some of HIS people ... I am not sure how the word "his" whether in single or double implication excludes anyone, but in normal usage of language, the word "none" excludes everyone. SBW wants to exclude not only everyone, but he wants to exclude also those who already believed? SBW is just talking nonsense. Or maybe he meant something else? Did he want to exclude them from the "none" or from the "except"? Since the word "except" already designates an exclusion, in this case the exclusion (exception) from the "none" (the universal exclusion), it is actually a partial exclusion from the total exclusion (a negation of the negation) and this would then mean that SBW wants to actually include those who already believed into the exception to the universal exclusion? Now, why does he not say so, but instead makes sentences that nobody can understand? If the reader got lost, let me try to say it again in different words: Maybe SBW meant that those of Pharaoh's people who believed (already?) should also be included into those who believed in him of his (i.e. Moses') people even though they are not from his people? But in that case, he hasn't said anything else here than what he said before, i.e. that "his people" refers to (includes) both Israelites and Egyptians. However, a repetition of the same claim is not an acceptable substitute for providing evidence for the claim. [If you understood the last paragraph, wonderful! You can skip this part. It is just a reformulation of the above paragraph because I received the complaint that the formulation of my argument was too complicated to grasp. I am a mathematician, if that explains anything, and discussions about logic tend to be complex, because the language needs to be very precise and the smallest details matter. Let me try to express my thoughts in a different structure which may be easier to digest for some:  SBW has claimed that the word "his" has a ‘double implication’ by which he means that it refers to both Moses and Pharaoh simultaneously. This is a plain statement, not a mystery, but it is wrong. He has not told us why he believes this. The reason for this claim is the first mystery. Furthermore, he claimed that the word "none" also has a ‘double implication’. In this case, he has given neither a reason nor has he explained what these two meanings are supposed to be. It is very difficult to imagine two meanings for the word "none". All that was said so far in this first point, is summarized in the expression of "the mystery of existence of these double meanings" because we neither know what the double meaning is supposed to be nor if it actually exists. Obviously, something needs to first exist before it can act and effect anything. However, even if we assume that the claimed ‘double implication’ does indeed exist, the expression "the mystery of their effect" tries to summarize some of the problems in the last part of SBW's sentence "excludes those who already believed", because SBW has not explained why or how this ‘double implication’ has the power that it would exclude anyone at all, or "those who already believed" in particular. Who exactly are "those who already believed"? Only those who believed among the Egyptians, only the believers among the Israelites, or all believers among both people groups? What does SBW mean by "already"? What point of time exactly does he refer to? Which group does he want to exclude them from? Should those who ‘already’ believed be excluded from the Egyptians, the Israelites, the believers, the unbelievers or from all human beings, i.e. not being considered at all? Note, that you can only exclude somebody from a group that he originally belongs to. The next thoughts are best illustrated with some arithmetic equations. Assume all people number 100 (that is what we call "the universe" in the language of logic). The word "none" excludes everyone, i.e. 100 of 100, and the corresponding equation is 100 - 100 = 0. The      word "except" excludes the "some" (assume they number 15) from the total exclusion indicated by the "none", i.e. all are 100, due to the subtraction of the "except" those excluded by the "none" are now only (100 - 15) = 85. The complete equation corresponding to "none ... except ..." is 100 - (100 - 15) = 100 - 85 = 15, or resolving the brackets differently, (100 - 100) - (-15) = 0 + 15 = 15. That is what I called in the text above the "exclusion of the exclusion" or "negation of the negation" which is in effect an inclusion, since "minus minus" is "plus". Again, from which group does SBW want to exclude "those who already believed"? If they are not part of the excepted entity denoted by "some of his people" in Surah 10:83 then they are no longer there because the power of "none" has already excluded them. So what is his point? For the next question it will be helpful to assign letters to the various groups we have just discussed: A = all, I = the believing Israelites = "some of Moses' people who believed in him". Then the equation corresponding to the statement "none believed in Moses except some of his people" in Surah 10:83 is A - (A - I) = I. SBW has not said so explicitly, but let us assume that by "those who already believed" he means Egyptians (let us assign the letter E for them), and "some of his people" are, as before, Israelites. In other words, E = "some of Pharaoh's people" and I = "some of Moses' people". If SBW wants to exclude "those who already believed" (E) from the force of the word "none" together with "some of Moses people" (I), then the equation becomes A - (A - (I + E)) = I + E. Or translated into Surah 10:83 again, the verse would read: But NONE believed in Moses except (I and E) ... = But NONE believed in Moses except some of Moses' people and some of Pharaoh's people ... = But NONE believed in Moses except some of THEIR PEOPLES ..., but this interpretation was already refuted above. The Qur'an does not say "their peoples". So far my second attempt to explain again in a different way the problems in SBW's statement. He may want to submit his statement to the "Guinness Book of World Records" committee for consideration as history's most unclear statement, leaving open the greatest number of questions ever. Seriously: Until SBW has answered all these questions, he has not made a valid argument. ] There is one more option how we can understand the suggested exclusion: Though still lacking an explanation what the ‗double implication‘ actually is, it somehow justifies a request to remove these particular Egyptian believers from the universe for the time of our discussion. [ In the above language of equations: We define a new universe U without "those who already believed", i.e. U = A - E. ] In other words, SBW requests by reference to some mysterious ‗double implication of the words "his" and "none"‘ that we ignore the existence of Pharaoh's believing wife, magicians and treasurer when talking about Surah 10:83. And since, apart from these Egyptians, only some of Moses' people believed in him, there is no contradiction! Rewriting S. 10:83 according to this interpretation of SBW's proposition: But, disregarding Pharaoh's wife, magicians and treasurer, NONE believed in Moses except some of HIS people, ... Truly the solution of a genius: Ignore those people who would cause a contradiction, and voilà, there is none. [ SBW's expectation regarding the intellectual abilities of his readership to see through his smokescreen seems to be rather low. Even worse: Does this not look like SBW is willing to rather corrupt his own scripture by adding a clause that is not there in the original, than to admit a contradiction in the text? SBW will immediately protest: We should certainly not write it that way, we should only interpret the verse as if it were written that way, without actually writing it as such! So, we have arrived at an argument from ‗invisible text‘ ... very convincing.] The only problem is that this solution indirectly confirms, that "his people" referred to Moses' people all along, the interpretation SBW originally tried to deny. And since he has not given any reason yet why these Egyptian believers should be ignored, their factual existence (in the visible text of Surah 7) brings back the contradiction in full force. Unraveling the deep secrets of the first of SBW's enigmatic statements needed nearly three full pages. The second one, "Please keep this in mind the use of word "his" in 10:83 is similar to the use of same word in 4:159" is sadly not much better. It is only another claim lacking both explanation and evidence. The word "his" is used hundreds of times in the Qur'an. Maybe SBW wants to list them all for his next reply? We certainly fail to see how 4:159 will change anything in the interpretation of 10:83. Furthermore, the sound principle of exegesis is always that clear verses are used to explain ambiguous ones, not the other way around. The meaning of 10:83 is very plain (but wrong) and SBW now tries to appeal to an unclear verse to confuse the meaning of a clear one. His arguments go from bad to worse. Since SBW neither quotes the passage, nor explains in what way 10:83 and 4:159 are parallel, nor explains how from this alleged parallel structure follows any support for his theories about 10:83, all these things are left to us to explore. Even if it were true that the word "his" is used elsewhere to refer to more than one group this doesn't prove that it carries this same meaning here. It is the context which determines the precise meaning of a specific term. However, we do not agree that S. 4:159 is parallel to S. 10:83, as a clear reading of the verse in its context will show. First we quote the verse in question: And there is none of the People of the Book but must believe in HIM before HIS death; and on the Day of Judgment HE will be a witness against THEM;- S. 4:159 There have been different opinions amongst Muslims regarding the exact interpretation of this verse. [If you are not interested in another tedious discussion on this verse, you may jump directly to the conclusion (fast track)] Note the comments of the following Muslim author in response to the claims set forth by another Muslim: First, it should be known that this is not a simple translation of the verse. It includes some interpretive additions. The exact translation of the verse, as Mr. Adib will agree, is: "And there is no one among the people of the book but shall believe in him [or this] before his death." Now, this sentence can mean: Every Ahl-e-Kitaab shall believe in Jesus before his [i.e. Jesus'] death; or Every Ahl-e-Kitaab shall believe in Jesus before his [i.e. his own] death; or Every Ahl-e-Kitaab shall believe the fact that the Jews did not kill Jesus, before his [i.e. his own] death. Mr. Adib, as is obvious from his brief writing has preferred the first of the three possible implications of this verse, mentioned above. However, Mr. Adib has unfortunately overlooked the fact that there are commentators of the Qur'an who have preferred the second meaning - for instance see Zamukhsharee's, Abu Hayyaan's and Aaloosee's commentary. However, because Mr. Adib has specially quoted Ibn Kathir in his writing, it is therefore even stranger how Mr. Adib missed the opening sentence of Ibn Kahir's comments on the verse, in which even Ibn Kathir has acknowledged the fact that interpreters have differed in the interpretation of the verse while explaining it. Ibn Kathir writes: "Ibn Jarir says: Interpreters have a difference of opinion regarding the meaning of this verse." According to Ibn Jarir - as quoted by Ibn Kathir - both of the first two opinions are ascribed to Ibn Abbaas (ra) and Hasan (ra). It is obvious from the above explanation that there has been a significant difference of opinion among Muslim scholars regarding the implication of the cited verse. Mr. Adib has based his opinion on one of the interpretations of this verse. In my opinion, even though it gives one of the possible implications of the verse, yet this implication is not the preferred interpretation of the verse. The cited verse of the Qur'an, therefore, does not provide any evidence to hold the belief that Jesus (pbuh) is not dead. Till such time that any verse of the Qur'an can be cited which clearly directs Muslims to believe that Jesus (pbuh) is still alive, there seems to be no ground of believing anything to that effect. (Source; bold emphasis ours) The explanation that we feel best fits the context is to take the pronouns HIS, HIM and HE as references to Christ. This is based on the fact that the pronouns clearly refer to someone other than the THEM, i.e. that the subject of the singular pronouns is going to be a witness against the THEM. This obviously means that the plural pronoun THEM refers to the People of the Book, which makes it quite unlikely that the singular pronoun refers to them also. The position that takes Jesus as the subject of the singular pronouns is partially reflected in the following translation: And there is none of the people of the Scripture (Jews and Christians), but must believe in HIM ['IESA (Jesus), son of Maryam (Mary), as only a Messenger of Allâh and a human being], before HIS ['IESA (JESUS) >> or a Jew's or a Christian's] death (at the time of the appearance of the angel of death). And on the Day of Resurrection, HE ['IESA (JESUS)] will be a witness against them. Rough Translation of the Meaning of The Noble Qur'an, In the English Language A Summarized Version of AtTabari, Al-Qurtubi and Ibn Kathir with comments from Sahih Al-Bukhari, by Dr. Muhammad Taqi-ud-Din Al-Hilali, Ph.D. & Dr. Muhammad Muhsin Khan) Ibn Kathir notes: Ibn Jarir recorded that Ibn 'Abbas commented... <And there is none of the People of the Scripture, but must believe in him, before his death.> before the death of 'Isa, on of Maryam, peace be upon him. Al-'Awfi reported similar from Ibn 'Abbas. Abu Malik commented... <but must believe in him, before his death.> "This occurs after 'Isa returns and before he dies, as then, all of the People of the Scriptures will believe in him"... Abu Hurayrah then said... <before his death> refers to the death of 'Isa, son of Maryam... Hanzalah said, "Abu Hurayrah added, ‗Will believe in 'Isa before 'Isa dies,‘ but I do not know if this was part of the Prophet's Hadith or if it was something that Abu Hurayrah said on his own." (Tafsir Ibn Kathir (Abridged) Volume 3, Parts 6, 7 & 8 (Surat An-Nisa, Verse 148 t the end of Surat Al-An'am), abridged by a group of scholars under the supervision of Shaykh Safiur-Rahman Al-Mubarakpuri [Darussalam Publishers & Distributors, Riyadh, Houston, New York, Lahore; First Edition: January 2000], pp. 29-31) First, we observe that just as before, not one of the scholars maintains that the passage has a double meaning as SBW wants to make us believe. They all argue for one meaning or the other. Both meanings seem to be possible and there is disagreement which meaning is correct. All agree that only one meaning is correct and the others are wrong, but we do not have enough knowledge to make a final and definite decision which of them is the correct one. Therefore, the appeal to 4:159 actually supports our position, stating that we have to decide for one option or the other, not SBW's claim that there is a double meaning in the verse. Second, there are several reasons why 4:159 is not even parallel to 10:83, but has a different syntax structure, but since SBW's appeal has already failed, we do not need to enter a technical discussion about the grammar of these two verses. SBW's final statement in the above quoted paragraph is: Reasons why no one else believed in Moses are mentioned in 7:124 explicitly. Amazingly, we can fully agree with SBW on this one, at least on the factual content of his statement, though not on the conclusion to be drawn from it. 7:124 reports the threats of torture against anyone who would believe in Moses. No wonder most people are afraid and decide to rather not believe in him. However, the point is not those who did not believe (refered to by SBW as "no one else"), but those Egyptians who did believe, i.e. the magicians, the treasurer and the wife of Pharaoh, in contradiction to S. 10:83 that states, But NONE believed in Moses except some of HIS people ... Even though SBW tirelessly applies the method of "persuasion by repetition", Surah 10:83 still does NOT say: But NO ONE ELSE believed in Moses ... More about S. 7:124 in the discussion of SBW's next statements. SBW: Another important point must be observed here that the verse 10:83 begins with word ‫ ,فًَب‬which has been translated as "then none" or "But none". This is another proof that َ after Pharaoh's threats of cutting hands and feet off and crucifying people (see 7:124) then none believed in Musa (Moses). See, how Glorious Qur'aan recaps all the facts. RESPONSE: With these couple of sentences SBW proposes yet another theory since seemingly there was not enough confusion yet. He claims that even though there were some (Egyptians) who believed in Moses initially, but after Pharaoh made his terrible threats in S. 7:124, then none (of them) believed in Moses anymore. [We assume SBW talks here only about the Egyptians, though he has formulated his statement as if after Pharaoh's threat there were no believers in Moses left at all, not even some of his own people which would be again in contradiction to 10:83 which explicitly states that there were some among his people who believed in him.] It is quite interesting to watch the metamorphosis of SBW's beliefs. He starts out with the claim that "his people" in S. 10:83 refers only to Pharaoh. Then he changes his mind and states it refers to both, Moses and Pharaoh, and finally he now seems to agree with us, that "his people" refers to Moses only, but there is nevertheless no contradiction because (a) we should exclude those believers from the discussion because of some mysterious "double implication" [requiring the assumption that they continue to believe, because otherwise, why should they be excluded at all] and (b) [contradicting (a)] those who believed in Moses before, no longer believe so after the threats of Pharaoh. [Note: SBW has no problem to argue for all of these four mutually contradictory interpretations in the same paper! Since SBW has now claimed all these theories including our own to be true, he obviously ends up arguing against himself and works hard to refute himself without realizing it. It seems that SBW is far too excited while trying to refute us, and every thought that enters his desperate mind is written up without checking whether it agrees with his other thoughts or actually makes any sense at all.] Nevertheless, we are glad that at the end of his paper he agrees with us that "his people" are Moses' people, and therefore the only issue left to discuss is whether SBW is correct to claim that "but/then none (among the Egyptians) believed in Moses" refers only to the time after Pharaoh's threat and this resolves the contradiction. With this latest proposal, however, SBW completely ignored the sequence of events in Surah 7 that he appealed to. Even though we had quoted the full text of S. 7:103-126 from the beginning, we seemingly have to requote the relevant section here and color it beautiful so that SBW may understand it too: "They *the magicians+ said: ‘O Moses! wilt thou throw (first), or shall we have the (first) throw?’ Said Moses: ‘Throw ye (first).’ So when they threw, they bewitched the eyes of the people, and struck terror into them: for they showed a great (feat of) magic. We revealed to Moses: ‘Throw (now) thy rod’:and behold! it swallows up all the falsehoods which they fake! Thus truth was confirmed, and all that they did was made of no effect. So they were vanquished there and then, and turned about humiliated. But the sorcerers fell down prostrate in adoration. Saying: ‘We believe in the Lord of the Worlds,- The Lord of Moses and Aaron.’ Said Pharaoh: ‘Believe ye in Him before I give you permission? Surely this is a trick which ye have planned in the city to drive out its people: but soon shall ye know (the consequences). Be sure I will cut off your hands and your feet on opposite sides, and I will crucify you all.’ They said: ‘For us, We are but sent back unto our Lord: But thou dost wreak thy vengeance on us simply because we believed in the Signs of our Lord when they reached us! Our Lord! pour out on us patience and constancy, and take our souls unto Thee as Muslims (who bow to Thy Will)!’" S. 7:115-126 Let us summarize the section using the same color code: 1. The magicians throw their rods (v. 116). 2. Moses throws down his rod before Pharaoh and the magicians and his rod swallows up theirs (v. 117). 3. The magicians prostrate and confess their faith (vv. 120-22). 4. The Pharaoh threatens them with cruel punishment (vv. 123-24). 5. Nevertheless, the magicians remain steadfast in their faith (vv. 125-26). SBW's new theory is refuted by the very text he appeals to. The contradiction remains:   Surah 7 states: the magicians believed before and after being threatened Surah 10 states: none (of the Egyptians) believed in Moses ("none" also means none of the magicians) After having had to make the effort to understand SBW's at least four contradictory theories to explain away the contradiction of S. 10:83 vs. Surah 7:115-126, it seems the following is a sad but accurate summary of his whole paper: Surah 10:83 can mean whatever you want. I am able to argue multiple contradictory meanings of it at the same time. Actually, it doesn't even matter at all what it means. The conclusion remains the same: Glorious Qur'an has no contradictions, because I say so. SBW has put himself into a very difficult corner, a pitiful situation. Since by now he has argued so many different and contradictory theories, whatever else he will say in the future, he has no choice but to contradict himself again. He may not like to take any advice from us, but our suggestion would be that he should submit his future responses to this or any other topic to at least three people for review before publishing them online. In order to save himself and the Islamic community a lot of embarrassment he should have his writings reviewed by an Islamic scholar, by someone who knows logic, and by somebody who speaks English properly. The rest of SBW's additional text does not make any attempt of explaining the problem at hand, so that we can safely omit part of it and comment on the rest with only a few words. First, he again quotes the same six translations of 10:83 that he had already quoted above, which haven't changed in the meantime and still don't help him. Then he continues with these words: SBW: Another dilemma that the team "answering-islam has that have not told us that how they come to this conclusion of so-called contradiction based on verses in two chapters, which are chapter 7 and 10 of Glorious Qur'aan? The accounts of Pharoah and Musa (Moses) are scattered over forty (40) chapters in Glorious Qur'aan. To be exact following are the verses in Glorious Qur'aan that talks about Moses and Pharoah:   Moses, 3:84, 6:84, 6:91, 7:103-162, 10:75-93, 11:96, 11:110, 14:5, 14:6, 14:8, 17:2, 17:101-104, 18:60-82, 19:51-53, 20:9-98, 21:48, 22:44, 23:45-49, 25:35, 26:10-66, 27:7-14, 28:3-43, 28:44, 28:48, 28:76, 29:39, 32:23, 33:7, 33:69, 37:114-120, 40:2327, 40:53, 41:45, 42:13, 43:46-55, 44:17-36, 46:12, 46:30, 51:38-40, 53:36, 61:5, 79:14-25, 87:19 o bringing forth water from the rock, 2:60, 7:160 o commands to his people, 5:21 o duel by sorcery with Pharaoh's magicians, 7:109-126, 10:79-81, 20:65-70, 26:43-47 o forty nights upon Mt. Sinai, 2:51, 7:142 o House of, 2:248 o parting of the Red Sea, 20:77, 26:63 o plagues, 7:133-136, 7:163 Pharaoh, 7:104-137, 8:52, 8:54, 10:75-90, 11:97, 14:6, 20:24, 20:43, 20:56, 20:60, 20:78, 23:46, 26:10-66, 27:12, 28:3-42, 29:39, 38:12, 40:24-46, 43:46-85, 44:17, 44:31, 50:13, 51:38-40, 54:41-42, 66:11, 69:9, 73:15-16, 79:17-25, 85:18 o punishment of, 3:11, 20:78-79, 26:66, 28:40, 43:55, 44:24, 51:40, 89:18 o torture by and deliverance from, 2:49, 17:103 All of these verses have different reasons for revelations with different dates/timings. The claimant failed to shine some light on that including explaining their argument with full context. Nevertheless, we know that their attempt is not to understand Glorious Qur'aan from Islaamic and linguistic point of view; they rather like to change it according to their understanding of English translation. As I have pointed out above that the same six translators have translated the same Arabic word differently for verse 10:83, whereas for verse 2:54 they are unanimous. However, this so-called claim of contradiction in Glorious Qur'aan by looking only at two verses from two chapters is highly questionable to me. The evidence submitted above proves that there is no contradiction in Glorious Qur'aan. Beside that the team "answeringislam" is not reading the Glorious Qur'aan; they are reading translation-of-themeanings of the Qur'aan. Thus, if the team "answering-islam" thinks there is any discrepancy in the translations, they need to take their complaint to the translators rather falsely accusing Glorious Qur'aan for contradictions. The Qur'aan only exists in the Arabic language and is preserved in the form it was revealed in, consequently a translation into another language is only referred to as a translation-of-the-meanings of the Qur'aan, the translation loses some of the meanings and most of the rhyme and style. RESPONSE: [ Since a lesson in English language cannot really be called a first point, we start with comment zero: SBW does not know the meaning of the word "dilemma". He thought that word sounds great, so he accuses us of one. Another free advice: One should never use a word without properly understanding its meaning. A person is in a dilemma if he/she is forced to decide between two choices which are both undesirable. Which are the two undesirable alternative choices for us? Would SBW bother to explain? So far it is only one of his many claims without explanation or evidence. Furthermore, the word "another" placed before "dilemma" means that we are facing at least two dilemmas. We have discovered not even one. On the contrary, we had summarized our observations in the form of a dilemma for all who believe in the Qur'an at the end of our original short article. Let us quote it again for illustration: We seem to have only this alternative:   "his people" refers to Moses' people, the Israelites, resulting in a logical contradiction between Sura 7:120-126 and Sura 10:83; or "his people" refers to Pharaoh and the Egyptians, leaving us with the ridiculous claim, that none of the Israelites believed in Moses - not even Aaron his brother - even though all the Israelites followed Moses and left Egypt for the dangerous journey and uncertain future in a promised land. That is a dilemma, because there are only two possible alternative choices, and both result in an error in the Qur'an. ] First, more accounts usually do not clarify and simplify but make the situation more complex and the likelihood of contradictions increases drastically. There is no duty on us to quote and discuss every single verse of the Qur'an which mentions Pharaoh and Moses. There are many stories in which these persons appear which have nothing to do with the incident of Moses' confrontation of the magicians and the resulting faith or lack of faith which concerns us here. If SBW feels that we have left out a relevant passage which does indeed solve the contradiction let him present it. Until he does so the above complaint is only a smokescreen revealing his desperation. Anyone reading our longer paper would have discovered our reasons for believing that S. 10 not only contradicts S. 7, but S. 20 and 26 as well. Second, SBW's listing all the verses where Moses and Pharaoh are mentioned does nothing to resolve the issue for him. In fact, it only serves to further hinder his case as the following passages show: "(Deeds) after the manner of the People of Pharaoh and of those before them: THEY rejected the Signs of Allah, and Allah punished THEM for their crimes: for Allah is Strong, and Strict in punishment ... (Deeds) after the manner of the People of Pharaoh and those before them: They treated as false the Signs of their Lord, so We destroyed them for their crimes, AND WE DROWNED THE PEOPLE OF PHARAOH: FOR THEY WERE ALL OPRESSORS AND WRONGDOERS. S. 8:52, 54 We did, before them, try the people of Pharaoh: there came to THEM a messenger most honorable, Saying: "Restore to me the Servants of Allah. I am to you a messenger worthy of all trust; And be not arrogant as against Allah: for I come to you with authority manifest. For me, I have sought safety with my Lord and your Lord, against your injuring me. If ye believe me not, at least keep yourselves away from me." Then he cried to his Lord: "These are indeed A PEOPLE given to sin." (The reply came:) "March forth with My Servants by night: for ye are sure to be pursued. And leave the sea as a furrow (divided): for they are a host (destined) to be drowned." How many were the gardens and springs THEY left behind, And corn-fields and noble buildings, And pleasant things, wherein THEY had taken such delight! Thus (was their end)! AND WE MADE OTHER PEOPLE TO INHERIT (THOSE THINGS)! And neither heaven nor earth shed a tear over THEM: nor were THEY given a respite (again). We did deliver aforetime the Children of Israel from humiliating Punishment, Inflicted by Pharaoh, for he was arrogant (even) among inordinate transgressors. And We chose them aforetime above the nations, knowingly, And granted them Signs in which there was a manifest trial." S. 44:17-33 These passages again imply that none of Pharaoh's people came to faith. Note that Surah 8 does not say that only some amongst Pharaoh's people were evildoers, but that ALL of them were OPPRESSORS AND WRONG-DOERS. Surah 44 claims that the inheritance of the people of Pharaoh, which included their property, was given to another people. Yet, this could only happen if there had been no Egyptian survivors. If there were any Egyptians that survived then the inheritance would have gone to them, not to someone else. SBW's attempt to resolve the contradiction only managed to introduce additional problems with the Qur'anic account of Moses' showdown with Pharaoh! Third, SBW's appeal that the Qur'an is the Qur'an only in Arabic and the claim that we cannot establish a contradiction in the Qur'an by looking at English translations is completely silly. The contradictions are not a matter of the package (i.e. the language in which the meaning is expressed) but of the content (the meaning) which is independent of the language. We are always willing to listen to arguments explaining the true meaning based on the Arabic original text. However, SBW has done nothing of that sort. He has not shown that any of the translations are wrong and what a correct translation would be. Therefore, his claim that contradictions observed in English translations do not establish contradictions in the Arabic Qur'an is ridiculous. Just assume one of our Christian Arab friends will translate this contradictions page regarding Moses and the magicians of the Pharaoh into Arabic. Then both, the text of the Qur'an and the discussion about it, will be in the Arabic language. Does SBW really believe that this translation will not be possible because the contradiction only exists in the English version but not in the Arabic original? Would he be willing to make the effort of translating his own article into Arabic (if he is even able to) and would he really be expecting that it will make more sense in Arabic than it did in English? All his contradictory theories will no longer be contradictory in Arabic? Not at all. It was nonsense in English and it will become even worse in Arabic. If anything, the Arabic text will only reinforce the problem since the pronoun "His" in S. 10:83 comes after Moses, while preceding Pharaoh. Why else would the majority of Muslim commentators of the Qur'an have agreed with us? (See our discussion of Yusuf Ali's commentary above.) Sound rules of interpretation would lead one to take the pronoun "his" as referring to the nearest antecedent in the verse, in this case Moses, unless weightier contextual reasons lead us to abandon this rule. Thus far, SBW has failed to present these weightier reasons which would support the claim that "his people" doesn't refer to the nearest antecedent (Moses) but to Pharaoh instead, even though the latter follows the pronoun. Mr. Shahid B. Waheed, to claim that by this utterly incoherent and self-contradictory article you have "refuted us" is an insult not only to our intelligence, but to that of all your readership. If you want, call us unbelievers or even blasphemers for daring to question the Qur'an; consider us ignorant (we happily leave the judgment on that to our readers), but never assume we are dim-witted. Jochen Katz PostscriptAfter examining SBW's response, we have come to discover that he is guilty of plagiarism. In his alleged rebuttal he actually plagiarizes Ibn Kathir. SBW writes: But children of Israel, however, themselves believed in Musa, all of them. They were glad to see him coming. They knew of his description and the news of his advent from their previous Books. They knew that Allaah was going to save them through Musa (Moses) from the bondage of Fir'awn and will give them power over him. Therefore, when this knowledge reached Fir'awn he was very wary. But his caution and weariness didn't help him one bit. Now compare this to Ibn Kathir's commentary on S. 10:83: The children of Israel, however, themselves believed in Musa, all of them. They were glad to see him coming. They knew of his description and the news of his advent from their previous Books. They knew that Allah was going to save them through him from the capture of Fir'awn and give them power over him. So when this knowledge reached Fir'awn he was very wary. But his caution and weariness didn't help him one bit ... (Tafsir Ibn Kathir (Abridged), Volume 4 (Surat Al-A'raf to the end of Surah Yunus), First Edition: May 2000, pp. 644-645) Again: "his people" Fir'awn's wife who was a believer and she was hiding her faith, the magicians and Fir'awn's treasurer. [Also see Qur'aan 20:71; 43:54; 79:24 * At-Tabari 15:164] Compare the bold italicized parts with the above: "The offspring that believed in Musa from Firawn's people, other than Banu Israel, were few. Among them were Firawn's wife, the believer who was hiding his faith, Firawn's treasurer and his wife." [1] [1] Al-Tabari 15:164. (Ibid., p. 644) By failing to inform his readers that he is actually quoting Ibn Kathir, SBW gives the misleading impression that most of what he is written comes from him. It is one thing to take citations from authors and reword them in order to adopt them into one's argument. It is quite another thing altogether to simply quote verbatim and give the misleading impression that the arguments are one's own. There is nothing wrong with quoting certain authorities, as long as one acknowledges the authority being cited. The rest of SBW's ‗rebuttal‘ had absolutely nothing to do with the discussed topic, so we want to clearly separate this from the rest. SBW: The funny part is that each time when I refute their claims and prove their lies, I have been sending them the link of their claim (their web site) with the link to my responses. They have never answered me or have proved me wrong. They rather sends me emails full of name calling, insults and attacks to Islaam, Glorious Qur‘aan, Prophet Muhammad (SAW) and everything that is held in esteem among Muslims. After reading their emails I believe that the difference between the team "answeringislam" and the crusaders is only "opportunity." Readers must understand the tricks and boldfaced lies of the team "answering-islam" since they always twist the facts and conceal the truth, as it is evidence above. Please also read the following responses in which I have exposed the lies and ignorance of the team "answering-islam" showing that their presence is for making money and deceive naïve and ignorant people for two reasons: (1) Attempt to win converts with lies and deceits. (2) To prevent seekers of the truth from converting to Islaam mainly Christians. Please also read the following responses exposing the lies and deception of the team "answering-islam." Instead of admitting that these responses are correct and they lied on purpose, the team "answering-islam" is using threats, insults, and intimidation via E-mails, especially Mr. Sam Shamoun of "answering-islam." The Divine Verdict on the Bible <http://www.geocities.com/sbwus/Quraanic_Verdict_on_Bible.htm> Response: Two Young Men? <http://www.geocities.com/sbwus/Refutation_Two_Young_Men.htm> Response: Abraham and his Progeny <http://www.geocities.com/sbwus/Response_Abraham_and_his_Progeny.htm> Response: All Truth is God‘s Truth <http://www.geocities.com/sbwus/Response_All_Truth_is_Gods_Truth.htm> Response: Gabriel, the Holy Spirit, Confirmation and Pure Arabic <http://www.geocities.com/sbwus/Response_Gabriel_the_Holy_Spirit.htm> How many messengers were sent to Noah's people? <http://www.geocities.com/sbwus/Response_How_many_messengers_were_sent.htm > Response: Is the Qur‘aan miraculous? <http://www.geocities.com/sbwus/Response_Is_The_Quraan_Miraculous.htm> Response: The Old Age of Jesus <http://www.geocities.com/sbwus/Response_The_Old_Age_of_Jesus.htm> Response: The Place of Sunrise and Sunset <http://www.geocities.com/sbwus/Response_The_Place_of_Sunrise_and_Sunset.htm > Response: Wine Good or Bad? <http://www.geocities.com/sbwus/Response_Wine_Good_or_Bad.htm> Response to: Did the Golden Calf say, "Moo"? <http://www.geocities.com/sbwus/Response_to_Did_the_Golden_Calf_Say_Moo.ht m> Response: The Qur‘aanic Witness to Biblical Authority <http://www.geocities.com/sbwus/Response_to_Sam_Shamoun.htm> The Strong Eats The Weak in Bible <http://www.geocities.com/sbwus/Strong_Eats_Weak_in_the_Bible.htm> The Myth of Original Sin <http://www.geocities.com/sbwus/The_Myth_of_Original_Sin.htm> The Myth of Promised Land <http://www.geocities.com/sbwus/The_Myth_of_Promised_Land.htm> The Second Coming of Jesus <http://www.geocities.com/sbwus/The_Second_Coming_of_Jesus.htm> Response The Prophet Like Moses <http://www.geocities.com/sbwus/Response_The_Prophet_Like_Moses.htm> Response: Conscience Mountains? <http://www.geocities.com/sbwus/Response_Conscious_Mountains.htm> Response: Moses in the Injeel <http://www.geocities.com/sbwus/Response_Moses_in_Injeel.htm> Response: Textual Variants of the Qur‘aan <http://www.geocities.com/sbwus/Response_Textual_Variant_of_the_Quraan.htm> Response: Can Angels Disobey? <http://www.geocities.com/sbwus/Response_Can_Angels_Disobey.htm> Top Ten List <http://www.geocities.com/sbwus/Top_Ten_List.htm> Faith and Works <http://www.geocities.com/sbwus/Faith_and_Works.htm> RESPONSE: [ What SBW forgot to mention is that all the above links were sent to our feedback address in the ten day period between December 25, 2002 and January 3, 2003. The time between Christmas and New Year is vacation time for most of the Western world, certainly in the parts where our team members live. There was so far no opportunity for most of us to even read these articles. And what does make him assume that he only has to write something and we are obligated to respond within a couple of days? We have dozens of requests every day from Muslims and Christians. There are plenty of Muslims asking sincere questions. And there are many Muslims who write anti-Christian polemics in general or in specific attack on Answering Islam. Sometimes we are able to answer quickly, sometimes our answer comes a year later; sometimes it takes a while because we need time to carefully research a topic for our answer, sometimes it takes time just because we are overwhelmed with work and we have a limited number of people each of which is restricted by having available only 24 hours in a day. To some articles we never respond because they are so ridiculous that there is no response necessary, others just repeat what we have answered already many times in response to articles on other Muslim websites and we are not about to repeat the same thing yet another time. But nobody, whether Muslim or non-Muslim, has a right that we devote our time to him immediately and give up all other work just because he wrote something he thinks is a rebuttal to one of our articles. However, we have given attention to this one now, because it refered to a very recent publication. -- The Answering Islam director, January 6, 2003. ] The above rebuttal is clear evidence that SBW is rather incapable of refuting anything, since he has failed to actually interact with any of our arguments. Yet, since SBW keeps flooding us with ‗rebuttals‘ and accusations, we felt it necessary to respond at least once and hopefully silence his lies and false accusations once and for all. We doubt that we will acknowledge his alleged rebuttals very much in the future due to the rather poor and unscholarly nature of SBW's material. Besides a severe lack of mutual respect that is necessary for a civilized discussion it is obvious that his materials are brimming with logical fallacies and gross exegetical errors. In fact, most of his alleged respones have already been refuted elsewhere. Hence, instead of reinventing the wheel we will simply link to articles which thoroughly adress and refute SBW's weak responses since he is not the first one to throw them at us or the general public. On Answering Islam: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28 Offsite: 30, 31, 32, 33, 34 Even though we could produce more links, these are sufficient to demonstrate that SBW hasn't even begun addressing the real issues. In the service of our risen Lord and eternal Savior Jesus Christ for ever and ever. Amen. Come Lord Jesus, come. We will always love you. Sam Shamoun Qur'an Contradiction: Creation of Man, and Adam giving names to the Animals The following is a response to a newsgroup posting. | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Salam all, A point that intrigues me. Names and the human necessity to give things names... Here I am right now trying to find exact words to describe what I am trying to say!! Start any project, think about any idea, and the first experience you go through is to "name": a concept, a tool, the project itself, ... etc. With people: the first thing you do when you meet someone who in some way has left an impression on you and whom you haven't met before is to ask for their name. In fact a sign (to the uninitiated) of being a "learned man" is the number of specialised "names" or phrases that you can sound off. That is a very important insight. The center of all scientic research is to be able to classify things appropriately. The hardest part in mathematics are actually not the theorems, they follow "more or less" automatically after you have put the sweat into finding the right "name" i.e. definition of things. If the definition is the "natural one" to use for the object, then everything becomes "easy" while if the definitions are akward, the theories build on them are confusing. | | | | | | In the Qur'an we are told that after God created Adam, He taught him "all the names". That was not well-received by the Angels, they saw that because Adam and his descendants will know "the names", they will have a mind of their own, and that could lead to them having a will of their own. A will that resembles that of God. Incidentally, this is the other way around, only if there is free will you can have true reasoning. A computer can have every information in the world in its data base, but without a command from a free will, it is never going to do anything with it. The Bible has a very similar account but not exactly alike. Genesis 2 [Tawrat]: 19 Now the LORD God had formed out of the ground all the beasts of the field and all the birds of the air. He brought them to the man to see what he would name them; and whatever the man called each living creature, that was its name. So the man gave names to all the livestock, the birds of the air and all the beasts of the field. 20 Interestingly, the Biblical image of man appears to be "higher". In the Bible it is not God who teaches Adam. God brings all living things to see how Adam - out of his "own" (God given) abilities - will name them. It does seem that according to the Bible God has a "higher convidence" in the capabilities of His creature. And along with it goes a higher dignity of this creature "mankind" about whose creation we read: Genesis 1: 25 God made the wild animals according to their kinds, the livestock according to their kinds, and all the creatures that move along the ground according to their kinds. And God saw that it was good. Then God said, "Let us make man in our image, in our likeness, and let them rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air, over the livestock, over all the earth, and over all the creatures that move along the ground." So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them. God blessed them and said to them, "Be fruitful and increase in number; fill the earth and subdue it. Rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air and over every living creature that moves on the ground." 26 27 28 Mankind is the "counterpart" of God, out of all creatures, God has chosen to dignify man with morality, with free will, and with revelation from God so that God and man can have a relationship of mutual love. And mankind is to be God's representative on earth and rule it "in God's place"[vicegerent seems to be the word the Qur'an uses often in that regard]. [The following will be a 'tongue in cheek' statement!] On the basis of the creation passage, we could say that it is not too anthropomorphic when we speak of God in human imagery, but that we are talking about mankind in theomorphic terms. :) [This was a 'tongue in cheek' statement!] Therefore we read in Proverbs [coming from the wisdom God has given to Solomon]: Proverbs 14: 31 He who oppresses the poor shows contempt for their maker, but who is kind to the needy shows honor to God. [And 17:5 is similar with 'mocks' instead of 'oppresses'.] Qur'an Contradiction: No Animal Sacrifices for Christians Sura 22:34 says that rites of animal sacrifice have been appointed to ALL people. This is not true, there are no such laws for Christians. Qur'an Contradiction: Many messengers in Noah's time? Who were the messengers that Noah's people rejected (25:37, 26:105)? According to the Bible there were no other righteous people around at the time of Noah and his family was the only one that was saved from the Flood. And the Qur'an agrees that only Noah's family was saved. But it speaks of several Messengers in the above verses, none of which is then mentioned but Noah himself. And it seems that these messengers are then drowned too, just as everybody else. Or are we to assume that these messengers were his family? worm eat away Solomans staff How can little worm eat away Solomans staff? Was Solomon standing there for months and waited for the little worm to finish until it fell apart? Solomon is amused at the speech of an ant? (27:19) How could Solomon keep his sanity if he heard all the voices of all the insects around him? He must have been drowned in constant chatter. But, after all, who believes that the ants do think in these terms about humans? I have never seen ants run away when I put my foot over them. If they knew they would be crushed if they don't go away quickly why don't they move? Solomon has supposedly has an army of birds and an army of jinns (27:17), but even more "astonishing" is a long conversation with a Hoopoe bird in 27:21-28 which is for sure rather unlikely (scientific questionability). According to the Qur'an Solomon then sends this bird to the Queen of Sheba demands that she come and worship Allah, and he is questioning her. The Biblical account says very differently, that she hears of his fame wisdom and achievements, and comes to test Solomon with hard questions and afterwards is very impressed and led to praise the Lord God of Israel. But it is not "threat" as in the Qur'an but being impressed with Solomon's wisdom and the blessings God has bestowed on him that elicit her praise to God [1 Kings 10:9]. Ezra, the Son of God? In Surah at-Taubah, 9:30, we find the astonishing statement: And the Jews say, "Ezra is the Son of God;" and the Christians say, "The Messiah is the Son of God." ... While the statement about the Christian doctrine is correct, the claim that "Ezra is the Son of God" is wrong and such a belief has never been a tenet of the Jewish faith. It cannot be found in the Jewish Scriptures nor in the commentaries like Talmud and Mishnah [as far as I know, but please prove me wrong by giving a reference!]. Until then, this is a clear error in the Qur'an. Further discussion:  Various attempts by different translators to evade this problem Qur'an Contradiction: The Old Age of Jesus? The ministry of Jesus lasted until he was about 33. This is even admitted by Yusuf Ali in his comment no. 388 on Sura 3:46. But Sura 5:110 says he taught the people in (up to his) old age. Can 33 years considered "old age" by any stretch of imagination? talking ants In the Qur'an, we find talking ants in Sura 27:18-19, observe a conversation of Solomon with the Hoopoe bird in Sura 27:20-28 and we even read: He [Allah] said, "We have tempted thy people since thou didst leave them. The Samaritan has led them into error." Then Moses returned ... ... and we cast them [(gold) ornaments], as the Samaritan also threw them, into the fire." (Then he brought out for them a Calf, a mere body that lowed; and they said, "This is your god, and the god of Moses, whom he has forgotten.") ... Moses said, "And thou, Samaritan, what was thy business?" ... -- Sura 20:85-88, 95 How can a mere piece of gold moo like a live cow? (This is stated again in 7:148). Apart from the scientific problem which could be answered by the reply that God can do a miracle, there is the theological problem: Has Allah given a miracle to this false idol even though idolatery is so detested by him? This also contradicts the word of God in the Zabur, since Psalm 155:4-5 says: But their idols are silver and gold, made by the hands of men. They have mouths, but cannot speak, eyes, but they cannot see; ... And God says about the idols in Isaiah 46:7 "Though one cries out to it, it does not answer," and in Jeremiah 10:5, "Like a scarecrow in a melon patch, their idols cannot speak; they must be carried because they cannot walk". One could ask where this notion of the "lowing of the calf" comes from and find that it might have been taken from a legend from the Jews as in Pirqey Rabbi Eliezer, § 45 we read: "And this calf came out lowing, and the Israelites saw it. Rabbi Yehudah says that Sammael was hidden in its interior, and wa lowing in order that he might deceive Israel." The strange idea that this golden calf was lowing is not in the Torah, but is only found in this Jewish legend. And Muhammad seemingly didn't understand who Sammael [angel of death] was, and so it got changed it into a word he knew, Samiri, the Samaritan as he knew the Samaritans are enemies of the Jews, so it made sense that they would want to deceive the Jews and lead them astray. [More details: Tisdall, "The Original Sources of the Qur'an", p. 112-114] Dietary laws as punishment for disobedience? Because of the wrongdoing of the Jews We forbade them good things which were (before) made lawful unto them, and because of their much hindering from Allah's way, -- Sura 4:160 And to those who were Jews We made unlawful all of those who have claws, and of oxen and sheep We made unlawful to them the fat of both, except such as was on their backs or the entrails or what was mixed with bones: this was a punishment We gave them on account of their rebellion, and We are surely Truthful. -- Sura 6:146 These verses claim that various good things were forbidden to the Jews, and in particular certain parts of the dietary laws were given to them (in addition to the other commandments) because of their disobedience against Allah. Nothing like that can be found in the Torah or in any other part of the Jewish scriptures. What does the Torah say about the reason for these laws? The reason is given in detail for example in Deuteronomy 4. In fact, it is exactly the other way around. In a discussion of Jesus with some Jewish teachers of the Torah, we learn this in Matthew 19: 3 4 5 6 7 8 Some Pharisees came to him to test him. They asked, "Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife for any and every reason?" "Haven't you read," he replied, "that at the beginning the Creator `made them male and female,' and said, `For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh'? So they are no longer two, but one. Therefore what God has joined together, let man not separate." "Why then," they asked, "did Moses command that a man give his wife a certificate of divorce and send her away?" Jesus replied, "Moses permitted you to divorce your wives because your hearts were hard. But it was not this way from the beginning. Jesus says clearly that because of their inability to follow the commandments and intentions of God, who hates divorce, it was allowed for them under certain conditions because their hearts were so hard. Instead of adding prohibitions because of disobedience we see that a permission is given. The law was not made harder but easier. This is the exact opposite of the claim of the Qur'an. We also need to discuss the problem of historical confusion about the time the dietary laws were given. Remarks on the various translations: The above is basically the translation of Shakir, who agrees with Pickthall in translating this distinguishing property as "claws". Yusuf Ali mistranslates instead as "For those who followed the Jewish Law, We forbade every (animal) with undivided hoof, ..." (maybe) to bring the statement in the Qur'an more in line with the Biblical command in Leviticus 11 where we find the allowance of animals with split hooves in verse 3. But the Arabic does not say "undivided hoof" but "claws". The Qur'an is in error again. There is no general prohibition against animals with claws in the Torah either. For example, pidgeons or chicken are kosher and may be eaten, but they have claws. Some animals with claws are forbidden, but not all. The word in Arabic is "Thufur" and means in respect to humans: Nail. Claw or talon for birds and animals. That is according to the Arabic-English dictionnary "Al-kamoos Al-Asri". On the other hand, according to the same source, the word "hoof", cloven or split, is the translation for the Arabic word "Thilif". The word "thufur" is the one used in Sura 6:146. All of the translations by Shakir, Pickthall and Yusuf Ali add the word "animal" which is not there in the Arabic either. In particular, we see that the Torah forbids certain birds, but other birds (like pidgeons, chicken, etc.) are lawful. And birds do have claws. Side remark: Most kosher food is also halal. In this sense the dietary laws of the Jews are more strict than those of the Muslims. That is true. But the issue is not whether they are strict or not, but whether this is because of punishment for disobedience or not. Yet there is at least one item where Islam is more strict. Alcohol is completely forbidden in Islam, while it is allowed in the Bible. The following link gives a good overview article on the issue of alcohol in the Bible. How many messengers were sent to Noah's people? And to the people of Noah, when they rejected the messengers, we drowned them, and we made them as a sign for mankind; ... -- Sura 25:37 Who were these other messengers rejected by the people of Noah? The Bible does not know any other messengers, and the Qur'an itself only speaks in the singular in all other passages dealing with the time and story of Noah. In particular, only his own family is saved. (Remember) Noah, when he cried (to Us) aforetime: We listened to his (prayer) and delivered him and his family from great distress. -- Sura 21:76 And made his seed the survivors." -- 37:77 Were the other messengers drowned as well? More problems in the story of Noah. Abraham's Progeny The below arrangement might look strange at first, but it is written that way to make the structure of the text clearer. Surah 6:83-89 states: 83 That was the reasoning about Us, which We gave to Abraham (to use) against his people: We raise whom We will, degree after degree: for thy Lord is full of wisdom and knowledge. We gave him Isaac and Jacob: all (three) guided: and before him, We guided Noah, and among his progeny, David, Solomon, Job, Joseph, Moses, and Aaron: thus do We reward those who do good: And Zakariya and John, and Jesus and Elias: all in the ranks of the righteous: And Isma'il and Elisha, and Jonas, and Lot: and to all We gave favour above the nations: (To them) and to their fathers, and progeny and brethren: We chose them, and we guided them to a straight way. This is the guidance of Allah: He giveth that guidance to whom He pleaseth, of His worshippers. If they were to join other gods with Him, all that they did would be vain for them. These were the men to whom We gave the Book, and authority, and prophethood: if these (their descendants) reject them, Behold! We shall entrust their charge to a new people who reject them not. 84 85 86 87 88 89 What is the reason to give this list of names so completely jumbled up? Arranged in the correct time line the sequence of the mentioned names of Abraham's progeny should be Isma'il, Isaac, Jacob, Joseph, Aaron, Moses, David, Solomon, Elias, Elisha, Jonas, Zakariya, John, Jesus. However, confusion in itself is not error. Several points need to be raised about this passage. First, Lot and Job are NOT of the progeny of Abraham. Lot was a nephew of Abraham who came with him to Israel when Abraham was still without any descendants (Genesis 11:27-30, 12:4-5). Although not much is known about Job, he was from a different nation, and not part of the descendants of Abraham either. From the structure of the passage it is clearly speaking about Abraham, and all names are stated in relationship to him. Noah as one who came before him and all other names are listed as being his descendants. Furthermore, the Qur'an states in ayah 89, "these were the men to whom We gave ‗the Book‘." What book is in view? Should it not rather say that each of them was given "a book" (part of God's revelation)? How can all of them be given the same book? Which book? In other passages it is said that Moses was given the Torah, David was given the Zabur, and Jesus was given the Injil. Is that each time the same "the book"? Muhammad is also given "the book". Is the Torah = Zabur = Injil = Qur'an? (Some Muslims go to the extreme of claiming that this is indeed the case.) Why is such a claim not known elsewhere and the Torah and the Psalms and the Gospel are clearly different scriptures in the possession of the People of the Book? What book was given to Zakariya, the father of John, or for that matter, to John himself? What book was given to Isma'il? All these statements contradict what is known from God's revelation in the Bible. And they even contradict the rest of the Qur'an and Muslim belief since these are not among those who have received a book (a section of the eternal tablet). A similar statement is found in Surah 29:27 proclaiming: And and and and We bestowed on him Isaac and Jacob, We established the prophethood and the Scripture among his seed, We gave him his reward in the world, lo! in the Hereafter he verily is among the righteous. Some debate whether "his seed" refers to Jacob as the last person mentioned or to Abraham to whom Isaac and Jacob were given. In either case prophethood is like in the above linked to Abraham's descendents. And this even though Lot is mentioned in the verses directly preceding (29:26) and following (29:28) this verse. Lot is not of Abraham's or Jacob's seed. Nor is Job or Noah. Furthermore, the above ayah also contradicts Surah 16:36. Another issue: In the above it is said that Ismai'l is among those given the Book (al-Kitab). But 6:156-157 seems to indicate that it was sent before to TWO people only, and the Arabs were not one of them. How does that fit together? Is that then a proof that the Quraish are not descendants of Ismail, not part of this people (descendants) of Isma'il who received it? Two young men? In the story about Joseph, we read about his imprisonment as punishment for the incident with the wife of Aziz: And there entered with him two young men in the prison. One of them said: "Verily, I saw myself (in a dream) pressing wine." The other said: "Verily, I saw myself (in a dream) carrying bread on my head and birds were eating thereof." (They said): "Inform us of the interpretation of this. Verily, we think you are one of the Muhsinûn (doers of good)." [Hilali/Khan Translation] -- Surah 12:36 In Genesis 40 the story is told in detail and there we learn that those two men were the chief cupbearer and chief baker of the Pharaoh. There are two difficulties in the above ayah. First, it contradicts the Torah which in Genesis 39:19-40:3 makes clear that Joseph had been in this prison already for some considerable time before these two men were arrested and put into the same prison. The Qur'an claims they entered prison together with Joseph. Second, even though their age is not mentioned in the Bible, it is highly unlikely that these senior staff of the court of Pharaoh (chief cupbearer and chief baker) were both "youths" as the Qur'an states them to be. Qur'an Contradiction: Prophets and Kings in Israel before the time of Moses? The Qur'an states: Remember Moses said to his people: "O my people! Call in remembrance the favour of Allah unto you, when He produced prophets among you, made you kings, and gave you what He had not given to any other among the peoples." [Sura 5:20] There are two options how to understand this verse. Both lead to serious historical errors. Either, Muhammad was looking back at the whole history of Israel with all their prophets and kings when putting these words into the mouth of Moses. Moses himself could never have said it this way, because Israel only became a distinctive "people" during their time in Egypt (and most of this time, they were slaves to the Egyptians). They became a separate nation in their own right in the time of Moses by God's act of liberating them, leading them out of Egypt, and giving them a "constitution" through his covenant with them at Mount Sinai (Exodus 19-23). Moses was the first prophet from among Israel; and Israel's first king, Saul, would begin his reign about 400 years after Moses. Therefore, at the time Moses was standing before the people of Israel there had not yet been any prophets or kings from among them that he could call their remembrance to. This is, therefore, another historical compression in the Qur'an and a clear contradiction to history as documented in the Bible. Muhammad had heard of many kings and prophets in Israel, but was not clear about their historical succession, so that his ignorance lead to this historical error in the Qur'an. Another option would be that Muhammad reformulated whatever he had heard about Exodus 19 where it is stated: Then Moses went up to God, and the Lord called to him from the mountain and said, "This is what you are to say to the house of Jacob and what you are to tell the people of Israel: ‘You yourselves have seen what I did to Egypt, and how I carried you on eagles' wings and brought you to myself. Now if you obey me fully and keep my covenant, then out of all nations you will be my treasured possession. Althought the whole earth is mine, you will be for me a kingdom of priests and a holy nation.’ These are the words you are to speak to the Israelites." *Ex. 19:3-6] Several observations: First, the people of Israel were never offered to all become kings (as the verse in the Qur'an seems to say). No, they should become priests, a kingdom of priests, but it is God's kingdom, where the Lord only is their king. Second, there is no mention of prophets in that passage. Third, and most important, the Israelites became disobedient very fast, and therefore not all of Israel became priests, only one family, the descendents of Aaron, received the priesthood, while the tribe of Levi (one of twelve tribes) would be servants for other religious and temple duties. This offer and promise of "all Israel a kingdom of priests" did not become reality. I am not aware of any passage in the Torah or the other parts of the Jewish scriptures where all Israelites are called kings. In the contrary, at the end of Moses' life, in Deuteronomy 17:14-20 God PREDICTS that in the FUTURE Israel will ask for a king then and tells Moses in advance what the people are to do in that case. Not one of them was a king at the time of Moses. If Muhammad refered to this passage, instead of thinking about the whole of Israelite history, then he also messed it up considerably, both in content and regarding the time frame, because in the Torah, it is an offer for the future (which did not become reality), while in the Qur'an it is a call to rememberance of what Allah has supposedly already given them (however he never did, because of their disobedience). In any case, whatever its exact meaning, the verse in the Qur'an is historically wrong. Can we really maintain the claim that the author of this quranic confusion is the one true God? Prayer by Moses In Sura 7:155-157 we find a prayer by Moses and then Allah's response to him (Yusuf Ali's translation): [7:155] And Moses chose seventy of his people for Our place of meeting: when they were seized with violent quaking, he prayed: "O my Lord! if it had been Thy will Thou couldst have destroyed, long before, both them and me: wouldst Thou destroy us for the deeds of the foolish ones among us? this is no more than Thy trial: by it Thou causest whom Thou wilt to stray, and Thou leadest whom Thou wilt into the right path. Thou art our Protector: so forgive us and give us Thy mercy; for Thou art the best of those who forgive. [7:156] And ordain for us that which is good, in this life and in the Hereafter: for we have turned unto Thee." He said: "With My punishment I visit whom I will; but My mercy extendeth to all things. That (mercy) I shall ordain for those who do right, and practise regular charity, and those who believe in Our signs;[7.157] those who follow the messenger, the unlettered Prophet, whom they find mentioned in their own (scriptures),- in the law and the Gospel;- for he commands them what is just and forbids them what is evil; he allows them as lawful what is good (and pure) and prohibits them from what is bad (and impure); He releases them from their heavy burdens and from the yokes that are upon them. So it is those who believe in him, honour him, help him, and follow the light which is sent down with him,it is they who will prosper." [7.158] Say: "O men! I am sent unto you all, as the Messenger of Allah, to Whom belongeth the dominion of the heavens and the earth: there is no god but He: it is He That giveth both life and death. So believe in Allah and His Messenger, the Unlettered Prophet, who believeth in Allah and His words: follow him that (so) ye may be guided." The structure of the text is clear and the various parts are highlighted with different colors. 155-156a is Moses praying to Allah for mercy and forgiveness. Then, in 156b (second part of verse 156) Allah's response to Moses begins and it continues through to the end of 157. Allah gives criteria for the people whom he will be merciful with, introducing each criterion with "those, who ..." (1) do right, (2) believe, (3) follow the messenger. Then in 158 a new discourse begins. In Yusuf Ali's Qur'an, it is set apart even more strongely by giving it the header "[Section 20]". In verse 158 then the text continues with Allah's command to Muhammad to recite (to his own people) that he is this messenger, the unlettered prophet that was mentioned to Moses in verse 157. As such, 157 is the preparation of 158, the authentication for Muhammad that he is indeed a/the true prophet from God because he has already been foretold in the Torah and the Gospel. Isn't that powerful proof for the prophethood of Muhammad? I would be part of positive evidence if it were true. But there are two major problems with this claim. Many verses in the Qur'an make clear that the Gospel is given to Jesus - but Jesus was born over a thousand years [about 1400] after Moses. For Allah to speak to Moses and say that the people can find the unlettered prophet mentioned in the Gospel is a strong anachronism since the Gospel is not available to Moses and will not be available for another 1400 years. those who follow the messenger, the unlettered Prophet, whom they find mentioned in their own (scriptures),in the Law and the Gospel;- ... " This is one of several time compressions which are found in the Qur'an, i.e. stories involving several persons (or items) who in historical reality are separated by hundreds of years. The obvious problem is that since the Gospel has not yet been revealed at Moses' time, nobody was able to find anything in this nonexisting gospel. Muhammad was indeed unlettered, i.e. not well educated in the earlier scriptures, and this is a quite obvious blunder which is hard to reconcile with divine authorship, let alone with the direct speech of God in response to Moses. A second problem surfaces when we focus on the phrase "the unlettered prophet". Nowhere in the Torah or the Gospel is there any mentioning of an unlettered prophet. There are prophecies about future prophets, particularly about "the prophet like Moses", but the Qur'an gives one and only one distinctive characteristic by which we may recognize which prophecy is meant and this characteristic is that the prophet is refered to as unlettered. But that is a false statement since nowhere in the Torah or the Gospel is a (future or any) prophet called "unlettered". If that which is given as evidence of authenticity for Muhammad's prophethood turns out to be false, what then is the conclusion we have to draw from that? Even though there starts a new discourse in 7:158 I have included it above since I heard from one Muslim, responding to the problem by claiming: Since the verses 157 & 158 both contain the word "ummi" (unlettered) and the present tense in the word "follow", this shows that 7:157 is really directed to Muhammad just like verse 158. But this obviously tortures the structure of the text beyond reasonableness on grammatical grounds as well as destroying the very argument 157 tries to present namely that the earlier prophet Moses already knew about this unlettered prophet to come. It remains, Muhammad is his own and his only witness. He claims to be a prophet and for authentication he points to the words he himself speaks. Whether they are made to look like coming from Allah, or not, they are the words coming to us from Muhammad and there is no outside confirmation of his prophethood. Even if there were prophecies about an unlettered prophet in Torah and Gospel, any person (not educated in the Biblical scriptures) could claim them as refering to himself. On which basis should we accept such a claim? But as it is, there are no such prophecies and therefore this claim put into the mouth of Allah by Muhammad is the undoing of his claim to prophethood. Muslim Response by [email protected] Date: Sat, 9 Aug 1997 Those who follow the Apostle, the unlettered Prophet, whom they find mentioned in their own (Scriptures) - in the Law and the Gospel. Surah 7.157 you made a comment that there is no mention of the unlettered prophet in the Scriptures, well i would like to correct you on that Account..And the Book is delivered to him that is no learned, saying: 'Read this I pray thee'. And he saith: 'I am not learned.' ' (Isaiah 29:12). Tell me to whom does God Give his revelations to.... This the Exact Question the angel Gabriel Gave to the Prophet , Read.... I am not learned,"And I will put my words in his mouth." (Deut 18:18). To whom does God put his words in there mouths, what does it mean.... It means that, that person will be given what to say by God....History tells us that when Muhammed was forty years of age he was in a cave some three miles north of the City of Mecca. In the cave the Archangel Gabriel commands him in his mother tongue: 'Eqra!', which means 'Read!', or 'Recite!' Muhammed was terrified, and in his bewilderment replied that he was not learned!. The angel commands him a second time with the same result. For the third time the angel continues. Now Muhammed, grasps that what was required of him was to repeat! to rehearse! And he repeats the words as they were put into his mouth. Likewise Jesus says of the Spirit of Truth that He shall not speak from himself....John 16;7-15 proves my point , who is this person that will not speak from himself in the old testament and the new testament, the person that will not speak but in the name of God.... You have not read it carefully. The Qur'an claims it is in the Torah and the Gospel, but Isaiah is neither of the two. The Jewish Scriptures have three parts: Law (Torah), Prophets (Nebiim), Writings (Kethuvim). And Isaiah is not in the Torah, but in the Prophets. As such your answer doesn't solve anything. Also, please read all of Isaiah 29 in context and you will see that it doesn't talk about an unlettered Prophet at all. In addition that is something which happens in Jerusalem, not in Arabia. Also, if you want to connect verse 12 with Muhammad, are you prepared to apply verse 13 to Muhammad as well? I suggest you better quickly drop this line of argument or the very text you propose proves that Muhammad doesn't know a thing about the true God. Because the whole point of this passage is that there is NO revelation from God with the people the passage speaks about. Punishment for future disobedience? This is part of a series of issues where the Qur'an seemingly has time compressions its account of historical events. In Sura 4:155-161 (in Pickthall's translation) we find this account: [155] Then because of their breaking of their covenant, and their disbelieving in the revelations of Allah, and their slaying of the prophets wrongfully, and their saying: Our hearts are hardened Nay, but Allah set a seal upon them for their disbelief, so that they believe not save a few [156] And because of their disbelief and of their speaking against Mary a tremendous calumny; [157] And because of their saying: We slew the Messiah, Jesus son of Mary, Allah's messenger -- they slew him not nor crucified him, but it appeared so unto them; and lo! those who disagree concerning it are in doubt thereof; they have no knowledge thereof save pursuit of a conjecture; they slew him not for certain. [158] But Allah took him up unto Himself. Allah was ever Mighty, Wise. [159] There is not one of the People of the Scripture but will believe in him before his death, and on the Day of Resurrection he will be a witness against them -- [160] Because of the wrongdoing of the Jews We forbade them good things which were (before) made lawful unto them, and because of their much hindering from Allah's way, [161] And of their taking usury when they were forbidden it, and of their devouring people's wealth by false pretences, We have prepared for those of them who disbelieve a painful doom. Yusuf Ali translates 4:160 as "For the iniquity of the Jews We made unlawful for them certain (foods) good and wholesome which had been lawful for them; ..." and by this clarifying that the things forbidden pertain to dietary laws, i.e. they are certain kind of foods. This is in accordance with this yet another aya in the Qur'an, Sura 6:146, stating: And to those who were Jews We made unlawful all of those who have claws, and of oxen and sheep We made unlawful to them the fat of both, except such as was on their backs or the entrails or what was mixed with bones: this was a punishment We gave them on account of their rebellion, and We are surely Truthful. There are many errors in the above Qur'anic statements. Fact 1: The nation of Israel only came into being at the time of Moses and this is the only time Israel received any law. It is also anachronistic to speak of "the Jews" for this time. It was the children of Israel. The name "Jews" only came into use nearly a thousand years after that. When the ten tribes from the northern kingdom had been deported from Israel by the Assyrians and only the tribe of Judah and some remnants from other tribes were left behind, the tribe of Judah came to represent all of them. But to speak of the Israelites as "the Jews" is something that only became reality after the return from the exile to Babylon by the tribe of Judah. Fact 2: The later prophets speak out against Israel's disobedience many times, but never does God add any further laws to those given through Moses in the Torah. All the dietary laws, the laws against usury and all other laws are in the Torah. No later additions are made at any time. Moses lived about 1,400 B.C. Fact 3: The Jewish scriptures do report the slaying of various prophets but all of these are in the time after David, i.e. at least 500 years after Moses and the time the Torah was given. Fact 4: The last part of the Jewish scriptures was written about 400 B.C. There was no prophet to the Jews between that time and the time of John the Baptist and Jesus. John the Baptist and Jesus lived and preached about A.D. 25-30. But they are not recognized as prophets by the Jews. It remains that the last recognized Jewish prophet dates about 400 B.C. Sura 4:156-157 in particular state that the Jews received harsher laws because they rejected Jesus and insulted Mary, his mother. Seemingly, the dietary laws are in view. But these laws and all other laws were given 1,400 years before the birth of Jesus. How could these acts of disobedience be the reason for the dietary laws in the Torah? This is a clear error of timing in the Qur'an. As this and the other historical compressions show, the Qur'an has little comprehension of historical sequence and exibits several such blunders. Are millions of Jews punished by Allah because some of their descendents many generations into the future will reject Jesus? Are the Israelites of Moses' and Joshua's day punished with harsh dietary laws because some "Jews" in the time after king David commit the sin of usury? The above are factual problems. That is the part that is contradictory to both Bible as well as history. In the next section we need to ask then what could be the background and motivation for such faulty accusations? It seems that the section against the Jews from 156-161 is caused by the fact of Muhammad's disappointment and anger against the Jews in Medina who rejected him as a messenger from God, who also asked for interest for the money they had lent to Muhammad, and whose open resistence to his message did hinder what Muhammad believed to be "the way of Allah" (4:160). [160] Because of the wrongdoing of the Jews We forbade them good things which were (before) made lawful unto them, and because of their much hindering from Allah's way, [161] And of their taking usury when they were forbidden it, and of their devouring people's wealth by false pretences, We have prepared for those of them who disbelieve a painful doom. [162] But those of them who are firm in knowledge and the believers believe in that which is revealed unto thee, and that which was revealed before thee, especially the diligent in prayer and those who pay the poor-due, the believers in Allah and the Last Day. Upon these We shall bestow immense reward. Muhammad seems to define as believers those who believe in his mission. Those Jews who see him as a false prophet he denies to even be "believers" anymore. Other issues can be raised in regard to these verses.  Sura 4:157 and the Crucifixion.  The dietary law "We made unlawful all of those who have claws." (Sura 6:146) Qur'an Contradiction: Mary, Sister of Aaron & Daughter of Amram In several Suras the Qur'an confuses Mary the mother of Jesus [Miriam in Hebrew] with Miriam the sister of Aaron and Moses, and daughter of Amram which is about 1400 years off. At length she brought (the babe) to her people, carrying him (in her arms), They said: "O Mary! Truly a strange thing has thou brought! "O sister of Aaron, thy father was not a man of evil, nor your mother a woman unchaste!" -- Sura 19:27-28 And Mary, the daughter of `Imran, ... -- Sura 66:12 I am aware what Muslims claim to be a solution to this problem. Yusuf Ali for example writes in his footnote 2481 commenting on the above verse: "Aaron the brother of Moses was the first in the line of Israelite priesthood. Mary and her cousin Elisabeth (mother of Yahya) came from a priestly family, and were therefore, 'sisters of Aaron' or daughter of `Imran (who was Aaron's father)." This is faulty reasoning. Only Aaron became a Priest of the Lord and in fact the first High Priest. And only Aaron's descendents became priests. Neither Moses nor their sister Miriam are ever understood to be in "priestly lineage." Amram is definitely not a priest. If Mary's lineage of being part of a priestly family should be stressed then necessarily she would have to be called a daughter of Aaron, since all of Israel's priests are descendants of Aaron, while his brother and sister are not counted among the priestly line. I do agree that "father", "daughter" and "sister" might be used sometimes rather losely and only indicate a "general family relationship." Therefore we have to carefully read in each mentioning to see what is meant. And the Qur'an makes clear that the narrow, physical meaning of daughter and (hence) sister is meant in this case as I will demonstrate below. Even if there were no concern about the issue of "priestly" but only such a wider family relationship was in view, why does the Qur'an not say "daughter of Aaron" who is her most famous forefather? Even though "sister" might be used in a wider meaning than a sister within the same immediate family, isn't it the use even in Islam that "brothers and sisters" live on roughly the same generational level (like cousins) while "father and daughter" signifies a generational difference between the two persons compared? Why are the wives of Muhammad not called the "sisters of the believers" but "the mothers of the believers"? [Today's believers! - Aisha certainly was not called the mother of 'Uthman, Umar, Abu Bakr and the other believers of Muhammad's life time.] For what reason call her sister of the famous Aaron (being 1400 years older than Mary) but daughter of `Imran (Bible: Amram) of whom we know nothing at all apart from the fact that his name is mentioned in the genealogical tables in Exodus 6 and 1 Chronicles 23? This is perfectly clear if the two Miriams were indeed confused. But the attempts of harmonization don't really sound very logical. The above points are just some "minor questions". The big problem is that the Qur'an is explicitely not talking about wider clan relationships as we see in the following verse. Behold! wife of `Imran said: "O my Lord! I do dedicate unto Thee what is in my womb for Thy special service ... When she was delivered, she said: "O my Lord! Behold! I am delivered of a female child!" ... "... I have named her Mary ..." -- Sura 3:35-36 Muslims are usually very particular about whose wife a woman is and it is definitely not allowed that just anybody can have sex with a woman only because he is a "wider relative of hers." If Mary is the female child that came out of the womb of the wife of `Imran, then she is the direct daughter of `Imran and there is no question that the theory of "far descendency" is contradicted by the Qur'an itself. Yusuf Ali in his footnote 375 to Sura 3:35 even goes so far to invent (?) a second `Imran by claiming that "by tradition Mary's mother was called Hannah ... and her father was called `Imran," in order to somehow save the Qur'an from this contradiction. But the same tradition that calls Mary's mother Hanna, also gives the name of her husband as Joachim. Why would Y. Ali accept one part of this tradition (e.g. in the Proto-Evangelion of James the Lesser) and reject the other? Yusuf Ali does not give any reference for this "tradition" he refers to. Until I see any reference to that, there is no reason to accept this theory. As to my current knowledge there is no such tradition that predates Muhammad. Some Muslim commentators might have made something up later to explain this very problem, but such a late theory / "tradition" is not very credible. And a last question: Is there any other instance in the Qur'an where a person is consistently called daughter [son] or sister [brother] of people which are only wider relatives? Even if there was to be one name in the clan so overpowering that everybody is named in his or her relationship to that one person, it is doubly improbable that anybody would be named always after two distant relatives in the place of "father" and "brother", and never be mentioned in relationship to his or her real parents' or brothers' names. If this is the only instant then the Muslim explanation is even more strained since ad hoc explanations, i.e. explanations which serve no other purpose than to explain away this one problem but are not used anywhere else are not very credible. It does appear to be such an artificial reasoning in this case. And the fact that Aaron is indeed `Imran's son and this is a direct and correct genealogical relationship, also indicates that the rest is understood as daughter and sister in the normal everyday sense. Thomas Patrick Hughes in his "Dictionary of Islam", page 328, writes on this issue that "it is certainly a cause of some perplexity to the commentators. Al-Baidawi says she was called `sister of Aaron' because she was of Levitical race; but Husain says that the Aaron mentioned in the verse is not the same person as the brother of Moses." As always, conflicting explanations are evidence that there is indeed a problem and no one clear and satisfactory solution is available. Note: Moses and Aaron are called "Musa ibn `Imran" and "Harun ibn `Imran" in the Hadiths, just the same way as Mary is called "Maryam ibnat `Imran" in Sura 66:12. Further detailed discussion of this issue is found in Silas' article, Is Mary the Sister of Aaron? Sam Shamoun's article, Mary, the Mother of Jesus and Sister of Aaron provides further quotations from Muslim sources that shed more light on the issue. Qur'an Contradiction: Pharaoh, Haman, and the tower of Babel Pharaoh and Haman, and their hosts were sinners ... And Pharaoh said, "Council, I know not that you have any god but me. Kindle me, Haman, a fire upon the clay, and make me a tower, that I may mount up to Moses' god; for I think that he is one of the liars." [Sura 28:8,38] Pharaoh said, "Haman, build for me a tower, that haply so I may reach the cords, the cords of the heavens, and look upon Moses' God; for I think that he is a liar." [Sura 40:36-37] This is another possible example of two historical compressions in the same story and the same confusion in both texts that recount the event. At least in this case, the Qur'an is consistent within itself. According to Surah 28:35-42 and 40:36-37, Haman was a minister or official of the Pharoah (king of Egypt) who lived in the same time as Moses. According to Jewish history Haman served as the minister of Ahasuerus (king of Persia, Xerxes I is his name in Greek). Apart from the error in location, this is placing Pharaoh (Moses) and Haman in the same story even though they lived 1,000 years apart. [See Esther 3:1.] Furthermore, in the Qur'an Haman is ordered by Pharaoh to build a tower reaching into heaven ("the Tower of Babel") which is a well known story of an event that took place long before Abraham, who lived at least 400 years before Moses. [See Genesis 11:1-9, especially the verses 3-4, "Let us build make bricks and bake them thoroughly. ... and build a ... tower that reaches to the heavens."] This connection is confirmed through another piece of historical, archaeological evidence. Further thoughts on the issue in the following newsgroup postings: [1], [2], [3] Abraham's name In the Torah, Genesis 17:1,3,5 we read: When Abram was ninety-nine years old, the LORD appeared to him and said, "I am God Almighty, walk before me and be blameless. ... Abram fell facedown, and God said to him ... No longer will you be called Abram, your name will be Abraham for I have made you father of many nations." From then onwards his name is "Abraham", the name most people know of the Biblical patriarch, even if they have never heard of his original name. Similar to most people who are not very Bible-literate, it seems that Muhammad was not aware of the God-given name change for Abram at the occasion of God's covenant confirmation with Abram and his announcement of Isaac's birth. Consequently, we find the Qur'an speak of him as "Abraham" already in his youth: They said: "We heard of the youth talked of them: He is called Abraham." -- Sura 21:60 Calling him "Abraham" about eighty years too early can be viewed as one example of the Qur'anic errors of historical compression but that might be too big a term for this simple mistake of oversight or rather common ignorance. Abraham and Solomon Sahih Bukhari, Volume 4, Book 55, Number 585: Narrated Abu Dhar: I said, "O Allah's Apostle! Which mosque was first built on the surface of the earth?" He said, "Al-Masjid-ul-Haram (in Mecca)." I said, "Which was built next?" He replied "The mosque of Al-Aqsa (in Jerusalem)." I said, "What was the period of construction between the two?" He said, "Forty years." He added, "Wherever (you may be, and) the prayer time becomes due, perform the prayer there, for the best thing is to do so (i.e. to offer the prayers in time)." See also Vol. 4, No. 636 with a different concluding remark, but essentially the same narration for the part concerning the "historical information". In rought estimates, Abraham lived about 2000 BC, and Solomon about 950 BC. According to Muhammad Abraham built the Kaaba (Bukhari, Vol. 4, No. 584), calling its original or true foundations "the foundations of Abraham" (Vol. 5, No. 587). That Abraham ever went to Mecca is contrary to Biblical records, and none has been able to give me any historical confirmation of this claim. Whether this is true or not is, however, irrelevant for our observation. It is only important that Muhammad believed it to be true. It was Solomon who built the first temple in Jerusalem. This is obviously not a difference of 40 years, but a difference of over 1000 years. Even though this is not a Qur'an contradiction I have included it here since it gives additional evidence from the Hadith that the feature of historical time compression that is observed in many Qur'anic passages was a characteristic of Muhammad's mind and can also be seen in his other pronouncements outside the Qur'an. See also The Farthest Mosque? All truth is God's Truth Here is an important question. Muslims affirm that the Qur'an / Islam encourages to seek knowledge. What happens if that knowledge doesn't match what the Qur'an teaches? I strongly believe that "all truth is God's truth." That also means that God will not contradict himself in the "natural" revelation of history and science and in the "special" revelation of his written word. But if the Qur'an contradicts what we so clearly know from history or science, does this indicate that maybe the author of truth in the natural realm and the author of the Qur'an might not be the same? A Muslim's Response by Randy Desmond: You ask, "What happens if that knowledge doesn't match what the Qur'an teaches?" The answer is simply that there will never be any knowledge found which contradicts any knowledge within the Qur'an. So, try to find one if you can, and you can't, then we can entertain answers to such a question as the above. So far, I have seen no such contradictory knowledge. What I have seen in these particular web pages proposing contradictions in the Qur'an are nothing more than misunderstandings which, God willing, will be straightened out as I post responses to the owner and he puts them up. One other food for thought, what is the intention of asking such a question as to what happens if a knowledge is found contrary to the Qur'an? I thought that was a strange answer, telling that it simply is "that there will never be any knowledge found which contradicts any knowledge within the Qur'an." After all, I have already listed several such instances and provided links to more of them. This above comment might have been fair AFTER sending me refutation for all of them. But this was the FIRST of all responses received. Therefore I found it strange. So far you "have not not seen such contradictory knowledge"? But I do display lots of it. Please first refute and then give your claims. But I will give you the benefit of the doubt and patiently wait for the refutations. Qur'an Contradiction: Conscious Mountains? How can mountains both be able to "refuse the trust" and "feel fear" as Sura 33:72 says? Qur'an Contradiction: Embryonic Development Take, for example, the Quran's highly controversial statement that human beings are formed from a clot of blood. "Then We made the sperm into a clot of congealed blood; then of that clot We made a (foetus) lump; then We made out of that lump bones and clothed the bones with flesh" (23:14). This is hardly a scientific description of embryonic development. It ignores to mention the female egg (the second and equally important half) and the process of fertilization when egg and sperm unite to form one new cell. It mentions the obvious [the sperm], the visible, that which all mankind knew for a long time that it is necessary to "make" a baby. The Qur'an does NOT mention the invisible, that which we know only through modern medicine. Had God really wanted to reveal something nobody could know at that time, in order to prove the divine origin of his revelation, he would have talked e.g. about the "equal contribution of the female through the ovum to form the new person and how the two come together and form one being". Qur'an & Science Problem: The place of Sun rise and Sun set Till, when he [the traveller Zul-qarnain] reached the setting-place of the sun, he found it going down into a muddy spring, ... -- Sura Sura 18:86 Till, when he reached the rising-place of the sun, he found it rising on a people for whom We had appointed no shelter from it. -- Sura Sura 18:90 First: It is scientifically proven that the sun does not go down in a muddy spring. Second: This seems to presuppose a flat earth, otherwise how can there be an extreme point in the West or in the East? It does not say, he went as far as possible on land in these directions and then observed the sun-rise or sun-set while standing at this shore. A sunrise there would be basically just the same as at any other place on this earth, at land or sea. It would still look as if it is setting "far away". It does say, that he reached THE PLACE where the sun sets and in his second journey the place where it rises. See also the thorough discussion of this issue in Islam and the Setting of the Sun. Furthermore: Yusuf Ali in his commentary reports that Zul-qarnain is thought to be Alexander the Great. And so does the "Concise Dictionary of Islam." Looking at verses 98101, this would make Alexander the Great a Muslim -- 1000 years before Muhammad. Yet that is for sure not true. The history does not relate that Alexander the Great had any other religion than the pagan Greeks he came from and ruled over. This is historically blatantly false. Many more details about this historical issue are available in the article Zul-Qarnain, his gate, and the place of sunset. Muslim Response by Randy Desmond Date: Thurs, 13 Mar 1997 I looked in the translation by Abdullah Yusuf Ali, "Towards Understanding the Qur'an" by Mawdudi, a small translation by two muslims whose names I have forgotten (but their translation reflects some famous tafsirs and sources of ahadith), and, lastly, my (new) Arabic dictionary. I found that Mawdudi's tafsir and the Arabic dictionary to be the most comprehensive in giving information about this subject matter (second, of course, to just plain reading the Qur'an). Those verses are talking from Dhul-Qarnayn's perspective of where the sun set/rose. Dhul-Qarnayn found the sun setting in a murky spring, and DhulQarnayn found the sun rising on a certain people. Allah gives His factual descriptions BEFORE describing how Dhul-Qarnayn found where/when the sun was setting/rising. Until (Hattaa) as (idhaa) he reached (balagha) the place or time of sunset/west (maghriba)... (18:86) As (idhaa) he reached (balagha) the rise/time of rising [of celestial bodies]/break [of day] (maTli`a)... (18:90) To further explain: just like Morocco is called Al-Maghrib (the West) and we have a prayer at sunset time called maghrib (the "a" on the end of the word in the verse is a vowel denoting accusative grammatical case) and maghrib is used today even today to mean the direction west. The key here is that Dhul-Qarnayn found the sun setting in a murky spring. The verse is very explicite in showing that the setting of the sun (and the rising) are from Dhul-Qarnayn's perspective. Knowing this information, we can understand the description of where the sun set and rose (from Dhul-Qarnayn's perspective) to be simply human descriptions of the areas (both westerly and easterly) of Dhul-Qarnayn's reign. I hope that clears it up. As for Dhul-Qarnayn being Alexander the Great, that is only speculation at best. So don't jump on accusing the Qur'an of what it does not say. Some scholars say it was Alexander the Great, but some scholars may be wrong sometimes too. They are not prophets. Muslims are warned not to follow blindly. We are taught to seek knowledge and correct our brothers if they do wrong. Know this, at best the answer to the question of who is the personage of Dhul-Qarnayn is simply speculation. Having said that, I know some scholars say it was King Cyrus, the Persian Emperor, who is described in the Book of Ezra as a God-fearing king who liberates the Israelites because he is such a God-fearing individual. (source: Mawdudi's "Towards understanding the Qur'an") Additionally, Mawdudi writes, "Nevertheless, the information available to date does not enable us to form a definitive opinion concerning Dhul-Qarnayn's identity." God knows best. Qur'an Contradiction: Throwing Stars at the Devils? And We have (from of old), adorned the lowest heaven with lamps, and we have made such (Lamps as) missiles to drive away Satans, ... -- Sura 67:5 We have indeed decked the lower heaven with beauty (in) the stars, (for beauty) and for guard against all obstinate rebellious Satans. (So) they should not strain their ears in the direction of the Exalted Assembly but be cast away from every side. -- Sura 37:6-8 See also Suras 15:16-18, 55:33-35 etc. which seem to speak about the same thing. The stars were created by Allah as missiles to throw at the devils? In order to not let them eavesdrop on the heavenly coucil? Not exactly a "scientific" world view. Qur'an & Science Problem: Are Sun and Moon subject to mankind? And He has made subject to you the sun and the moon, both diligently persuing their courses; and the night and the day has He (also) made subject to you. -- Sura 14:33 They were never subject to me. They pursue their courses whether or not I want them to, and I am sure, the reader does not have more influence on them than I do. The contrary is true. Mankind is subject to them in various ways. The presence or absence of sunlight (day and night) determines to a great degree what we can or cannot do. The moon heavily influences high tide and low tide of the oceans. People living in coastal areas are subject to it, they cannot change it but have to adjust their lives to it. The invention of electricity has changed much of this "being subject" to the availability of sunlight, at least in the industrialized areas of the world. We have found a certain substitute for the natural light. Nevertheless, although we can "locally" make night into day and day into night because of our modern technology, sun and moon are still not influenced by us at all. They are not subject to us. It would have been acceptable to say that God placed sun and moon in the sky for our benefit, but to claim they are subject to us is simply not true since we cannot influence them in any way. Noah and his son (Remember) Noah, when he cried (to Us) aforetime: We listened to his (prayer) and delivered him and his family from great distress. -- Sura 21:76 So the Ark floated with them on the waves (towering) like mountains, and Noah called out to his son, who had separated himself (from the rest): "O my son! embark with us, and be not with the unbelievers!" The son replied: "I will betake myself to some mountain: it will save me from the water." Noah said: "This day nothing can save, from the command of Allah, any but those on whom He hath mercy!" And the waves came between them, and the son was among those overwhelmed in the Flood. -- Sura 11:42-43 One of Noah's sons dies in the Flood in contradiction to 21:76 which states that Allah saved him and his family. Now, this contradiction is "solved" in the Qur'an itself. When we read on in Sura 11 up to verse 46 we find Allah replying to Noah in regard to exactly this complaint that he has not saved his son: "O Noah! He is not of thy family: For his conduct is unrighteous. So ask not of Me that of which though Hast no knowledge!" So, we see that this problem is solved by "divine exclusion" and the Qur'an even admits that this can be something rather difficult to comprehend for normal human beings, even for the prophet of God, Noah. It is certainly possible to disinherit sons or otherwise to deny them the legal status of a son, but it is impossible even for God that a biological son looses the property of being the seed of his father. As such, the formulation in Sura 37:77 "And made his seed the survivors" (of the Flood), is still difficult to reconcile with Allah's answer in Sura 11:46. A further question might be raised from Sura 11:27 in regard to the identity of those saved and those drowned in the flood. But the chiefs of the Unbelievers among his people said [in response to Noah]: "We see (in) thee nothing but a man like ourselves: Nor do we see that any follow thee but the meanest among us, in judgment immature: Nor do we see in you (all) any merit above us: in fact we think ye are liars!" It is clear that Noah found some who believed his message and followed him. That the unbelievers call the believers "mean" and "immature" is to be expected and angry rethorics. But it cannot be denied that he had some followers, apart from his immediate family (which would not create this reaction, given that it is expected that the family follows the head of the family). This is again hinted at in Sura 7:64 stating: But they rejected him, and We delivered him, and those with him, in the Ark: but We overwhelmed in the flood those who rejected Our signs. They were indeed a blind people! Those "in the Ark" are contrasted with (i.e. are the opposite of) those "who rejected", i.e. they are those who believed. It is not as clear as 11:27, but it is pointing in the same direction. Two issues arise here: 1. This contradicts the Torah where it is clear that only his family and all of his family are saved (eight people, Noah, and his wife and the three sons and their wives). 2. Given that the Qur'an speaks of further people who believe him, why were those who followed him outside his family not saved as well? Again, it says: "And made his seed the survivors" (37:77). The inclusion / exclusion dynamics are rather complex in this story. In Sura 66:10, Noah's wife is assigned to Hell, and Yusuf Ali's commentary implies she perished in the flood. In Sura 11:40, we find the command for embarking on the Ark: At length, behold! there came Our command, and the fountains of the earth gushed forth! We said: "Embark therein, of each kind two, male and female, and your family - except those against whom the word has already gone forth,and the Believers." but only a few believed with him. Here again, we read of "a few believed with him", but why are they seemingly not saved according to Sura 37:77? And looking again at 11:42-43 (above), Noah calls out to his son to embark the Ark. So, he was not one "against whom the word has already gone forth" since then Noah would not have called him in disobedience to Allah's command. Clearly he was not forewarned about the perishing of this son as his prayer to Allah shows: And Noah called upon his Lord, and said: "O my Lord! surely my son is of my family! and Thy promise is true, and Thou art the justest of Judges!" -- Sura 11:45 Allah's answer is: He said: "O Noah! He is not of thy family: For his conduct is unrighteous. So ask not of Me that of which thou hast no knowledge! I give thee counsel, lest thou act like the ignorant!" -- Sura 11:46 Those Allah excluded beforehand are still called "your family" in 11:40, but in regard to the son, of whose exclusion Noah had no knowledge (until Allah's response in 11:46), it is said that he is not of his family. This is a substantial inclusion-exclusion confusion. Furthermore, there is a completely different, scientific problem. This whole conversation in 11:42-43 is impossible in the way it is reported. If you ever have been at sea when the waves are towering like mountains then you know how loud it is. Conversation, even when shouting is absolutely impossible. Note, it does not say that the water was already as deep as a mountain is high (but with a calm surface), it specifically speaks of waves, which means that there have to be strong winds to produce these waves. And that is always very loud. Also, the Ark, a big ship was already afloat, i.e. "out on the water", while Noah's son seems during this conversation to be standing on the dry land in a distance allowing conversation (even if there were no noise around), and not swimming in the water and struggling with the waves. This is physically impossible for any normal landscape imaginable. After all this was not in a haven build for regular docking of ships. Muhammad was a son of the desert, not aquainted very well with large amounts of water as at an ocean. That might explain why this story is narrated in such an unrealistic way. Qur'an Contradiction: Shaking the Trunk of a Palm Tree? From one of our readers we received this message: Dear friends, I am sure you might know this, but I haven't seen it mention in any of the sites I have visited. Its about the contradiction in Quran. In surat Maryam Aya # 25 where the verse asks Maryam " And shake toward thyself the trunk of the palm tree: It will let fall fresh ripe dates upon thee." Okay we are the people of the desert and we know the palm dates come only in the summer. How come all Christian sects thinks the birth of Jesus is in December or January. No dates fruit during that time. If that was a miracle, then why the Quran does not say so? And if Quran want to differ with what the Christianity believes then why not stating that? And anyway you need to be really super strong to shake a trunk of a palm tree! May be you publish this... and my apology of my ignorance if you are already aware of it. Best, H. Remark: And as is well known, women are particularly strong when they have just given birth... Qur'an Difficulty: Mountains and Earthquakes The Prophets (Al-Anbiya') 21:31, Middle Meccan, ``And We have set on the earth firm mountains, lest it should shake with them...'' The Bee (Al-Nahl) 16:15, Late Meccan, ``And He has cast onto the earth firm mountains lest it should shake with you...'' Luqman 31:10, Late Meccan, ``He has created the heavens without supports that you can see, and has cast onto the earth firm mountains lest it should shake with you..'' The News (Al-Naba') 78:6-7, Early Meccan, ``Have We not made the earth an expanse, and the mountains as stakes.''(``as those used to anchor a tent in the ground'' Bucaille p182.) The Overwhelming (Al-Ghashiya) 88:17,19, Early Meccan, ``Do they (the unbelievers) not look...at the mountains, how they have been pitched (like a tent)'' (Translation Bucaille p 181) I have heard several Muslims talk about this and how this is the latest scientific insight. On the scientific discussion of this issue see the chapter in Dr. Campbell's book. I have a different question here: Given that this idea is given quite some emphasis in the Qur'an since it is repeated several times, I am wondering what Muslims think about the several dozens of earthquakes that happen every year? Some of them of greatly devastating power! If the prevention of earthquakes was the purpose for mountains, why are they not preventing them? Isn't this claim [without any science] refuted by anybody who is able to read a newspaper? You might want to inform yourself at the QUAKES Home Page I didn't find anything about mountains as a means of quake-prevention... A Muslim's Response by Shaahin Amiri-Sharifi Date: Sun Nov 24 21:44 EST 1996 this is to answer: --Mountains and Earthquakes. --regarding earthquke and its relation to these verses of quran i have to say that, for the thousandth time, this misunderstanding of quran happened to you (and some others) because of reading translations in english instead of the arabic text! when quran says montains are there to prevent from shaking, the "surface" is not meant, but the "whole sphere earth" is the matter here! without mountains the revolutional movement of earth around its axis would'nt be "smoth", and it would "shake" as n the case of a nonhomogeneous roulette. when earth was in its original liquid state, these mountains appeared in exactly right places (according to laws of physics, fluid dynamics, if we want to be accurate) to prevent it "shaking" (as described above). so these mountains are there to make the earth an overall "homogeneous" object to be able to have a smoth (non "shaky") revoloution around its axis. this is an undisputeable "fact", scientifical fact, now, and i can provide you with exact mathematical and physical explanations in this regard. as a further explanation, one can observe the revoloutional movement of asteroids. they have never been in liquid state so the "mountains" on their surface do not adjust this rotational movement and therefore thier spinning is "shaky". that would cause very strong and wild, at the same time periodical, "tides" that makes living or even sticking to the ground on them so hard, if not impossible! this fact has nothing to do with earthquakes! shaahin Then I do have to wonder why Dr. Bucaille talks about mountains and earthquakes in his book "The Bible, Qur'an and Science" which is so highly praised by Muslims? How come Muslims haven't protested yet about this completely erroneous mistranslation? Please do read Dr. Campbell's chapter on the issue following the first link on this page. It is fantastic how Muslims are often able to completely change their interpretations within the time you need to blink with your eyes as soon as they see the thing propagated so far doesn't work anymore. ... But maybe your interpretation is sustainable from the Arabic language. Let us assume so. Please do give the exact mathematical and physical explanation for your assertions. I am a mathematician, I am not affraid of it. And I am teaching Calculus II currently and have just finished the center of mass topic which is relevant to this rotation axis issue. I am pretty convinced this is scientifically even more shaky than you suppose the asteroids to be. I wonder if you could give me even one scientific reference to tumbling asteroids. Never heard of such a thing. Qur'an Difficulty: Thinking located in the breasts? Surely He knows well all the thoughts within the breasts. -- Sura 11:5 Die in your rage; God knows the thoughts in the breasts. -- Sura 3:119 The above is Arberry's translation. Yusuf Ali translates "heart" instead of "breasts," but whether heart or breast, the question would be the same. This wouldn't even be worth mentioning as a "problem" if Muslims were not stressing so much the scientific accuracy of the Qur'an. The Semitic people thought the location of "thinking" to be in the chest/heart area [many Bible verses show the same view]. I can easily accept it for both Bible and Qur'an that these verses do not make any scientific claims nor do they give medical descriptions of the seat of thinking, but that they just employ the commonly used expressions to communicate the truth the author wants to express here, namely that God knows our deepest secrets and thoughts. To this day we say (in English) that God knows our "heart" and we don't mean the muscle in our physical body but our motives and desires. And we speak that way due to tradition even though we know those are to be located in the brain if one can give it a location at all. I don't want to parade this example as a difficulty or contradiction in the Qur'an. It only shows that this was the common way of speaking about it in the Middle East and even until today in our "scientific age." But it is one passage which shows that the Qur'an uses the normal language to communicate, and is indeed very unscientific by doing so. I believe that the Qur'an is equally unscientific in many other verses where Muslims try to extract scientific miracles and which are just lending themselves in their vageness better to be twisted into harmony with some modern science theories even though nothing like that was intended in the text. But if Muslims insist in a general scientific accuracy of the Qur'an and want to make scientific accuracy of the Qur'an a proof for its divine inspiration, then the above verses are indeed a clear mistake and Muslims who want to make a case for the Qur'an on the basis of scientific accuracy will have to deal with it. I didn't think there was really anything to reply to, but here comes a reply anyway. Shaahin is basically affirming what I have said in the above, even though he expresses it a bit differently. He seemingly doesn't want to accept "current scientific knowledge" when it is not in harmony with the Qur'an, but does accept it when it appears to confirm the Qur'an. This is inconsistent, turning the whole thing into a rather subjective endeavor and rendering it utterly useless for verification of divine origin. A Muslim's Response by Shaahin Amiri-Sharifi Date: Wed Nov 27 22:52 EST 1996 this is to answer: --Thinking with the breasts? --about quran and science, a lot has been said! most important point is: quran is NOT a text book to learn science from. it is not meant to do so. it is a book of general guidence. it gives you hints about them (scientific facts) to make you think and try to comprehende them, but it never explains the details, this is our job. to give an example quran talks about "unseen columns" holding the skies above us, after discovery of "gravitation" this has a scientific explanation, now. this way science helps us to understand quran better. this is what we mean by scientific accuracy of quran, progress of science helps (better) understanding of quran. side point is, here, there will never be an ultimate comprehension of quran! (this is what god means by: only "allah" knows quran!), we mortals, just keep enhancing our understanding of quran. another important point about quran is, its multi-dimensionality. a verse could be about, say, economics, yet giving a scientific impression, too(in biology, physics, ...) so, one should not interpret it "partly" scientific and partly something else, they should rather do it this way OR the other wat, and not mix the issues. these two interpretations are both correct, but one talks about, say, biology and the other about laws of inheritance! to make it clear, consider your example: god knows what you have in your "breasts" (or hearsts), this means, again as you mentioned, He is aware of all secrets, but lets look at it scientificaly, is really the location of "thoughts" in the breasts, hearts?! is there a scientific interpretation of this verse, relating thoughts to breasts, hearts? A. Carel winner of nobel prize in biology, in his book about praying, (i do not remember the title exactly), doesnt deny the relation. but if it is the final explanation, scientificaly, i do not know! the isuue is not well-searched yet. so what will the scientific explanation be? who knows!? we should just wait for the day somebody reveals the secret! in this regard, there are a lot of other questions. thus, please note that, asking these kind of questions about quran is easy, answering them is not! it takes a big deal of scientific knowledge, that might not even be known to humanity. all people who comment of quran admit this as a fact. I remember a speech of imam khomeini, who mentioned the importance of the job of a commentator on quran, he mentioned, as an example, this verse of quran that says, god is the "noor" of skies and earth. (noor=light), he then said, all commentators, explain as :god is "monavvar" of skies and earth! (monavvar=the one who sheds light) this shows the delicacy of commenting on quran. as a summary, if you ask scientific questions about quran and i (or anybody else) cannt answer, this is not because there is something wrong! i can ask thousands of questions about physics that nobody, absolutely nobody not even the giants of the science, can answer! this only shows that, there is a lot to be learn from quran. shaahin And Of Every Thing We Have Created Pairs That ye may receive instruction. -- Sura 51:49 And in his commentary on this verse Yusuf Ali writes: All things are in twos: sex in plants and animals, by which we are individual is complementary to another, in the subtle forces of nature, Day and Night, positive and negative electricity, forces of attraction and repulsion: and numerous other opposites, each fulfilling its purpose, and contributing to the working of God`s Universe: and in the moral and spiritual world, Love and Aversion, Mercy and Justice, Striving and Rest, and so on; all fulfilling their functions according to the Artistry and wonderful purpose of God. Everything has its counterpart, or pair, or complement. God alone is one, with none like Him, or needed to complement Him. These are noble things to contemplate. and they lead to a true understanding of God`s Purpose and Message. To make a claim about everything is always bold and indeed only God will ever be able to make claims about everything since such claims need omniscience. But on the other hand, they are also very dangerous since one counterexample proves such a bold claim wrong. In electricity there is positive and negative charge creating electrical force fields, this is true. But where is the counterpart for the force of gravitation? It always is attracting. There is no repelling gravity. But maybe Yusuf Ali was just a bit too enthusiastic with his interpretation of everything? Mayby the Qur'an meant only things that are somehow "alive" like plants and animals? The Qur'an does say "everything" but let us look then to the restricted part of living beings. I took the freedom to ask around on the biology newsgroups to find out more about this claim. Here a list of some responses I got. There are quite a few examples of organisms which are exclusively parthenogenetic. I might refer you to Graham Bell's "The Masterpiece of Nature", a weighty tome which has all you could care to know about the evolution of sexual reproduction. Even though there are quite a few example of parthenogens, they tend to be taxanomically isolated, suggesting that they are all of recent origin (often due to hybridization between two disparate specied) and are short-lived in evolutionary time. There is one notable exception, however, which is the topic of study in my lab. Bdelloid rotifers are an entire class of animals which, as far as anyone can tell, has been reproducing entirely without any form of genetic exchange for quite some time (perhaps more than 50 million years), with over 350 species identified. If you're interested in more info about bdelloids and our work, I'd refer to our lab web page, which includes a copy of our research proposal which gives a fair amount of background material. You can reach the page at http://golgi.harvard.edu/meselson/. and Actually, one of the students here told me that there is such a thing as a purely asexual reproducing organism. Here is the reference: Science 203: 1247-1249. 1979. It is a lizard called Cnemidophoras. Personnally I don't believe it to be possible, but this "accident" may have arrived quite late in the evolution. Unless this organism "reverts" to sexuality, it is in my view in an evolutive pitfall, if it is an asexual reproducer. The list is actually decently long : bacteria, fungi imperfecti, etc. All members of the Monera Kingdom reproduce asexually only. Yes, the Plantae and Protista Kingdoms do produce both ways, but almost never only asexually. As for the fungi, a certain group, the fungi imperfecti, are classified as such because no forms of sexual reproduction have been observed. Concerning your question about "higher" species, no members of the Kingdom Animalia produce only asexually (the scientific term is not non-sexual). There are some rare cases of lysogeny (sp?), but it is very rare. Hope this helps. There is a whole group of fungi (Deuteromycete/Fungi Imperfecti) which do not have sexual cycles. All are related to sexual species but do not reproduce sexually. Many have rather complex mechanisms (parasexual cycles) to allow genetic recombination but they are not based on meiosis and gametic fusion as in true sex. Your best place to start to find out about them is in a good introductory text such as the 4th ed of Alexopoulus, Mimms and Blackwell (Wiley, 1996). This will point yopu to the specific organisms that fulfil the criteria you are looking for. There is a whole group of organisms wich do no practise sex: fungi imperfecti. This is a group of mushrooms, which don't produce gamets and therefore cannot be put in an certain taxon. An other curious member is the european population of Elodea. All plants here are of the same sex and can therefore only use vegetative amplification. Could it be that God is wrong? And wrong in so many cases? Or could it be that the one who was wrong here was not God? Maybe Muhammad was a good observer of the world around him, but he was not omniscient. And it shows in the above and other contradictions collected here. Qur'an Contradiction: Protectors or no protectors? Besides Allah you have NO protector nor helper [2:107, 29:22] But in Sura 41:31 the angels themselves say: "We are your protectors in this life and the Hereafter." And also in other suras is their role described as guarding [13:11, 50:17-18] and protecting [82:10]. Obviously the "solution" is to say that the angels are protectors "by the leave or command of Allah", but then again nothing happens withoutthe leave of Allah and this is a little too convenient an explanation which would cover all contradictions ever imaginable. Even the contradictions in the Qur'an are in there only "by the leave of Allah" and therefore they don't contradict anymore other statements which "Allah" makes in the Qur'an like that "there are no contradictions"? A Muslim's Response by Randy Desmond Date: Fri, 27 Sep 1996 13:45:57 PDT Jochen gave us the obvious solution. Let's keep it. As for the argument that this would make contradictions in the Qur'an uncontradictory because the contradictions would be there by the leave of God, that is a faulty logical arguement. Why? Because one of the commands of Allah is that you would have found a discrepancy if the Qur'an was not from God. To say that a contradiction is present by God's command is to attribute hypocrisy to God (I seek shelter in God from all evil and ask his forgiveness). God is, afterall, the Truth. Now, to say God protects, and by his command angels protect is a coherent explanation. It does not attribute double-talk to God, and logically coincides. Would God say there are not discrepencies and then command that there would be? No way. If you have been following the responses I have put forth, no proposed contradiction has been proven. It is up to you to read what Jochen proposes and what the response is and decide if there is any contradiction at all. I know I am convinced there are no contradictions, but I am still looking at Jochen's web page. Could there be a contradiction? I have enough faith and experience to say that these proposed contradictions are probably misunderstandings. Being honest to ourselves is the most important step in drawing any meaningful conclusion from these discussions. It's time for my question to the reader. What would you do if you also come to the conclusion that there are no contradictions in the Qur'an? I hope you would become a Muslim because of the simple beauty of its message; God is One, and all worship is for him only. Qur'an Contradiction: Everything and Everyone is Obedient to God? To Him belongs every being that is in the heavens and on earth: all are devoutly obedient to Him. -- Sura 30:26 This is just not true. The Qur'an itself talks hundreds of times about the disobedient, the transgressors and the evil-doers, both among men and among jinn. A Muslim's Response by Randy Desmond Date: Fri, 18 Oct 1996 05:12:26 PDT Do you honestly think anything happens that God does not will? If so, what? As long as everything is under the domain of God's will, then it can ONLY be obedient to Him. Obviously, if the "disobedience" of an "evil" person is according to the will of God, then the person is actually obedient (i.e. does what God wants that he does). I.e. according to this answer, no such thing as disobedience exists. Why then does the Qur'an constantly threaten punishment to the disobedient if they are only do what God wants them to do? And the claim of the above verse is not only that they are all factually obedient, some voluntarily, some grudgingly, but it claims that all are devoutly obedient, i.e. voluntary and eagerly. Does Allah forgive shirk? Allah does NOT forgive shirk: Allah forgiveth not that partners should be set up with Him; but He forgiveth anything else, to whom He pleaseth; to set up partners with Allah is to devise a sin most heinous indeed. -- Sura 4:48 Allah forgiveth not (the sin of) joining other gods with Him; but He forgiveth whom He pleaseth other sins than this: one who joins other gods with Allah, Hath strayed far, far away (from the right). -- Sura 4:116 Allah forgives shirk (even in the same sura): ... Yet they [the Israelites] worshipped the calf even after Clear Signs had come to them; even so We forgave them; and gave Moses manifest proofs of authority. -- Sura 4:153 See also Sura 2:51-52, describing the same specific event. [This holds not only for the Israelites, Sura 6:76-78 asserts that even Abraham took the sun, the moon, and the stars as idols. This is sheer polytheism; yet Muslims respect Abraham as he is portrayed in the Qur'an as a great prophet, and nevertheless they believe that prophets are sinless.] I suppose a Muslim could say that God abrogated his previous approach of granting forgiveness of idolatry but now does no longer forgive it. But is that so? In 6:88, after speaking of Abraham (verse 83), Isaac and Jacob (84), Moses, Job, Jesus, Joseph, Noah, David, Solomon, etc., Allah says, "Had they served other gods besides Him, their labours would have been vain indeed." It seems obvious that since Abraham and Isaac are mentioned also (they preceeded Moses and the Hebrew slaves), and who were under the same command of "don't serve idols or your out of luck", that abrogation could not be possible in this case, since otherwise we would have to assume oscillating abrogations (no forgiveness, forgiveness, no forgiveness) suggesting that God cannot make up his mind. This would be utterly unworthy of God, who is eternally the same and as the All-wise does not need change his laws because he is surprised by new developments. On the other hand, we can even find a general statement about the forgiveness of shirk, since Sura 25:68-71 speaks about people who worship gods other than God and when they repent, believe, and work righteousness then God not only forgives them but He even substitutes their sins (sayyi'aat) with righteouss credit (hasannat). Moreover, nearly all the Meccans of Muhammad's time had committed shirk. They were basically all worshipping various idols. Nevertheless Muhammad calls them to repentance and to faith in Islam. Some believed in Muhammad early on, most of them converted only later after Muhammad came with a large army. Most Muslims believe that Allah forgave these Muslims (the companions of Muhammad!) their sins, including their shirk. Why then are there several verses in the Qur'an that claim that the sin of shirk will never be forgiven? A Muslim's Response by Randy Desmond Date: Fri, 18 Oct 1996 05:12:26 PDT "Allah accepts the repentance of those who do evil in ignorance and repent soon afterwards. To them will Allah turn in mercy. Allah is full of knowledge and wisdom" Sura 4:17 You don't seem to read the clear words of the verse given above. Let me make it abundantly clear by giving it in bold face. ... Yet they [the Israelites] worshipped the calf even after Clear Signs had come to them; even so We forgave them; and gave Moses manifest proofs of authority. -- Sura 4:153 Surely, the Qur'an says that this was not in ignorance. The only thing you introduced is another contradiction. Sura 4:17 says he forgives if sins were done in ignorance, but 4:153 says he forgave them even though they clearly knew what they were doing and worshiped the idol anyway. I just came across another verse in surat az-Zumar (39:53) where it is stated in general terms: Say: "O my Servants who have transgressed against their souls! Despair not of the Mercy of Allah: for Allah forgives all sins: for He is Oft-Forgiving, Most Merciful. -- Sura 39:53 Taking this statement in its literal and absolute sense, it clearly contradicts to the first two verses quoted above. Which actually compounds the problem since these next passage says that Allah does not forgive a person who has turned away from the faith: How shall God Guide those who reject Faith after they accepted it and bore witness that the Apostle was true and that Clear Signs had come unto them? But God guides not a people unjust. Of such the reward is that on them (rests) the curse of God, of His angels, and of all mankind; - In that will they dwell; nor will their penalty be lightened, nor respite be (their lot); - Except for those that repent (Even) after that, and make amends; for verily God is OftForgiving, Most Merciful. But those who reject Faith after they accepted it, and then go on adding to their defiance of Faith, - never will their repentance be accepted; for they are those who have (of set purpose) gone astray. As to those who reject Faith, and die rejecting, never would be accepted from any such as much gold as the earth contains, though they should offer it for ransom. For such is (in store) a penalty grievous, and they will find no helpers. -- Sura 3:86-91 Qur'an Contradiction: The Event of Worship to the Golden Calf In the last contradiction we were already looking at idol worship and the golden calf was mentioned in Sura 4:153. Now let us have a closer look at this specific story. In Sura 20:85, Allah told Moses "We have tested thy people in thy absence; the Samiri has led them astray". Allah did not place any blame on Aaron. Aaron admitted that he did no wrong: "O my people! Ye are being tested in this ... so follow me and obey my command" (20:90). Since Moses knew this (because Allah told him already), why did he place the blame on Aaron? "O Aaron! What kept thee back, when thou sawest them going wrong, from following me? Didst thou then disobey my order?" (20:92). And why did he drag him by the hair (7:150)? These two accounts contradict. According to 7:151, Aaron was partly responsible for the sins of his people because Moses prayed for Aaron's forgiveness. And this time (contrary to his other confession), Aaron admits to idol making/idol worshipping in verse 150 "because of the people who nearly killed him when he tried to resist it". But seemingly he gave in and did as they demanded. Furthermore, in 7:149, the people repented about worshipping the golden calf before Moses returned, but according to 20:91 they refused to repent but rather continued to worship the calf until Moses came back. This is all rather confusing. A Muslim's Response by Randy Desmond Date: Fri, 18 Oct 1996 05:12:26 PDT Please reread it. In no place does Aaron (Peace be upon him) admit to idol making and/or worshipping. In fact the people go near to slaying him! (Surah 7:150). Aaron (pbuh) is only guilty of not wanting to split up the Children of Israel. As for the sequence of Moses returning and the Children of Israel repenting, there is no conflict. In Surah 7, verses 149 and 150 both start with the Arabic "wa lammaa" which means "and when(at the time of)" or "as for when". This is not denoting sequence in time according to the Arabic. A second response by Asif Iqbal was published on the Bismikaallahuma website. Both Muslim responses are discussed in detail in this article. Was Jonah cast on the desert shore or was he not? Surah 37 ("as-Saaffaat") reads in verse 145: "fa-nabadhnaahu bil-`araa´i wa-huwa saqeemun" A verbatim translation is: "Then We cast him on the desert plain and he was sick" The well known Muslim translators render this verse: Pickthall: "Then We cast him on a desert shore while he was sick" Yusufali: "But We cast him forth on the naked shore in a state of sickness" Shakir: "Then We cast him on to the vacant surface of the earth while he was sick" Contrary to that, surah 68 ("al-Qalam") has in verse 49: "law laa an tadaarakahu ni`matun min rabbihi la-nubidha bil-`araa´i wa huwa madhmoomun" Translated verbatim this means: "If not had reached him a favour from his Lord, he surely would have been cast on the desert plain and he would have been reprobate." or according to Pickthall: "Had it not been that favour from his Lord had reached him he surely had been cast into the wilderness while he was reprobate." Yusufali: "Had not Grace from his Lord reached him, he would indeed have been cast off on the naked shore, in disgrace." Shakir: "Were it not that favor from his Lord had overtaken him, he would certainly have been cast down upon the naked Found while he was blamed." Though the translations differ in style and in some minor points, all duly agree that in verse 31:145 Jonah (Yunus) is reported to have actually been cast on the desert shore. In contradiction to this, they again duly agree that in verse 68:49 Jonah is reported not to have been cast on the desert shore, because this fate only would have hit him if the divine grace hadn't pardoned him. Qur'an Contradiction: Can Slander be forgiven? Those who slander chaste women are cursed forever [in this life and the Hereafter] according to Sura 24:23. But Sura 24:5 says that they can be forgiven if they repent after they have been beaten with 80 stripes. since it says to let them come back into full rights as members of society, restoring their right to testify, BECAUSE Allah is (also) oft-forgiving, most Merciful. The earthly forgiveness would not have any foundation or counterpart if Allah would not extend forgiveness as well. That is the very basis on which He commands earthly forgiveness. A Muslim's Response by Shaahin Amiri-Sharifi Date: Sun Nov 24 00:17 EST 1996 hi this is to answer: --Can slander of chaste women be forgiven? --verse 24:5 is about "women" in general, even unbelievers but 24:23 talks about "believing women". the punishment in case that the acuser doesn't provide 4 witnesses is 80 stripes and losing the credibility as a witness in the society, unless they repent and DO GOOD after that, to make it clear that they have repented honestly and sincerely. this punishment goes for both cases. but the one who acuses "believing women", is cursed forever too. in the later case, no extra "earthly" punishment is considered. allah is the most forgiving! he may even forgive the people in the second category. this forgiveness is not contradictory to the fact that they are cursed forever. to make it clearer, suppose that you being "retaliated" by a person who suffers from a crime you committed against him. after, say cutting your hand off(!), he may forgive you, but the "curse" of losing hand is yours and with you forever. point is, being "cursed" doesn't mean being "unforgiven". shaahin Qur'an Contradiction: Behind their Back, or in their Left? Sura 84:10 says that the lost people are given the Record (of their bad deeds) behind their back, but in Sura 69:25 it is given in their left hand. Yusuf Ali's commentary states that their hands are tied behind their backs [where does he get that from?] and it is given into their left hand, behind their back ... but that's not what the Quran says, and a "harmonizing assumption" has to be made to resolve the problem. A Muslim's Response by Randy Desmond Date: Fri, 18 Oct 1996 14:12:14 PDT Yusuf Ali assume the Qur'an does not conflict. His "harmonizing assumption" does not assume anything contradictory to the Qur'an and it is perfectly acceptable explanation. Qur'an Contradiction: Can Angels Disobey? About the angels: For NONE are arrogant (before their Lord). They ALL fear their Lord, high above them, and they do ALL they are commanded. -- Sura 16:49-50 And behold, we said to the ANGELS: "Bow down to Adam". And THEY bowed down, EXCEPT Iblis. He refused and was haughty. -- Sura 2:34 The command of Allah is given to the angels. Since Iblis is accused of not being obedient, he has to be one of the angels. Contradicting 16:50, he refused = is disobedient, and is haughty = arrogant (before his Lord). See also 7:11, 15:28-31, 17:61, 18:50, 20:116, 38:71-74. A Muslim's Response by Shaahin Amiri-Sharifi Date: Sun Nov 24 00:39 EST 1996 hi this is to answer: --Can angels disobey? --"iblis" is not from "mala'eka" (angles), but a "jin" according to the exact quote of quran (18:50), and "jin"s do have free will, unlike "mala'eka" (angles). all the angles did bow down to adam, again according to the exact quote of quran (15:30 and 38:73). here is an explanation about why usually, and mistakenly in my opinion, "iblis" is considered as if he is an angle or as if he was ordered to bow down to adam too. the story says: god orders "angles" to bow down to adam (not "iblis"! he isn't included. but he was a member of god's court and therefore present during this scenario), they "all" do, and "iblis" refuses. this "refusal" is not, by itself, the reason that god rejected him from himself, after all he was not included in the given order. but his explanation, when he reveals his racist nature (he is from "smokeless fire" and adam from "mud", so considers himself higher), then god rejects him from his court. shaahin The below responses to Saifullah will make Shaahin Amiri-Sharifi's explanation irrelevant as well. We need not give any further answer to it. Further discussion on the above issue in our responses to Saifullah: 1, 2, 3. Qur'an Contradiction: Can Angels Disobey? Response to Saifullah In our Quran Contradictions section, we stated: About the angels: For NONE are arrogant (before their Lord). They ALL fear their Lord, high above them, and they do ALL they are commanded. -- Sura 16:49-50 And behold, we said to the ANGELS: "Bow down to Adam". And THEY bowed down, EXCEPT Iblis. He refused and was haughty. -- Sura 2:34 The command of Allah is given to the angels. Since Iblis is accused of not being obedient, he has to be one of the angels. Contradicting 16:50, he refused = is disobedient, and is haughty = arrogant (before his Lord). See also 7:11, 15:28-31, 17:61, 18:50, 20:116, 38:71-74. Dr. MSM Saifullah responds to the above with the following: Rebuttal In the verse And behold, We said to the angels: "Bow down to Adam" and they bowed down. Not so Iblis: he refused and was haughty: He was of those who reject Faith. [Qur'ân 2:34] the nature of Iblîs is not mentioned, i.e., whether he was an angel or someone else. But the verse Behold! We said to the angels, "Bow down to Adam": They bowed down except Iblis. He was one of the Jinns, and he broke the Command of his Lord. Will ye then take him and his progeny as protectors rather than Me? And they are enemies to you! Evil would be the exchange for the wrong-doers! [Qur'ân 18:50] clarifies who Iblîs is. He was one of Jinn not angels as wrongly claimed by the Christian missionaries. We have used the traditional method of Qur'ânic exegesis involving Context & Internal Relationships, i.e., al-Qur'ân yufassiru bacduhu bacdan (different parts of the Qur'ân explain each other). What is given in a general way in one place is discussed in detail in some other place in the Qur'ân. What is dealt with briefly at one place is expanded in some other place. And Allah knows best! Response: Actually, the contradiction still remains since the Quran narrates the story of two angels who fell into sin: And follow that which the devils falsely related against the kingdom of Solomon. Solomon disbelieved not; but the devils disbelieved, teaching mankind magic and that which was revealed to the two angels in Babel, Harut and Marut (alal-malakayni bi-Baabila Haaruuta wa Maaruut). Nor did they (the two angels) teach it to anyone till they had said: We are only a temptation, therefore disbelieve not (in the guidance of Allah). And from these two (angels) people learn that by which they cause division between man and wife; but they injure thereby no-one save by Allah's leave. And they learn that which harmeth them and profiteth them not. And surely they do know that he who trafficketh therein will have no (happy) portion in the Hereafter; and surely evil is the price for which they sell their souls, if they but knew. S. 2:102 Pickthall Yusuf Ali comments: "This verse has been interpreted variously. Who were Harut and Marut? What did they teach? Why did they teach? The view which commends itself to me is that of the Tafsir Haqqani, following Baidhawi and the Tafsir Kabir. The word 'angels' as applied to Harut and Marut is figurative. It means 'good men, of knowledge, science (or wisdom), and power'. In modern languages the word 'angel' is applied to a good and beautiful woman. The earlier tradition made angels masculine, and applied to them the attributes which I have mentioned, along with the attribute of beauty, which was implied in goodness, knowledge, wisdom and power... Among the Jewish traditions in the Midrash (Jewish Tafsirs) was a story of two angels who asked God's permission to come down to earth but succumbed to temptation and were hung by their feet at Babylon for punishment. Such stories about sinning angels who were cast down to punishment were believed by the early Christians also... There may be an allusion about sinning angels here, but much spiritualized and we are expressly warned against dabbling in magic or believeing that anything can hurt us except by God's will, and God is just and righteous." (Ali, Holy Quran, f. 104, p. 45) The major problem with Ali's assertion is that the Quran never uses the term "angels" for human beings. The closest the Quran ever comes to calling a human being an angel is in S. 12:31, and even then it is in a metaphorical sense: And when she heard of their sly talk, she sent to them and prepared for them a cushioned couch (to lie on at the feast) and gave to every one of them a knife and said (to Joseph): Come out unto them! And when they saw him they exalted him and cut their hands, exclaiming: Allah Blameless! This is not a human being. This is not other than some gracious angel. Pickthall (cf. 7:20) In fact, angels are called messengers but humans are never called angels. (cf. 11:69, 77, 81; 15:57; 22:75; 35:1) According to the oldest Islamic sources, Harut and Marut were angels that came down and fell into sin: "Islamic commentators claim that demons wrote sorcery as they heard it from Asif's tongue (claiming that Asif b. Barkhia taught King Solomon). The demons wrote it and buried it underneath his chair. That was when Allah stripped him of his monarchy, yet he could not feel it. Others claim that the Israelites made their living by teaching sorcery when its time was ripe, yet Solomon prevented them from doing that. Apparently he took their books and hid them underneath his bed. When he died, demons brought them out and said to the Jews: 'Solomon reigned over you by the power of this. So you have to learn it.' The Jews then denied Solomon's prophethood. They claimed that Solomon seized his reign by force. Jinn and humankind were subjugated to him by virtue of sorcery. To this the Quran replied: 'Never did Solomon disbelieve.' Ibn `Abbas relates that in the days of Idris, when angels saw the malicious works done by the sons of Adam ascending to heaven, they reproached them and said: 'These are the ones you created in the earth. They disobey you!' Allah challenged: 'If I were to let you live down there on earth and had given you the same advantages, you would have followed the same course.' They answered: 'God forbid! It is not for us to disobey you.' Allah said: 'Select the best two angels you ever had, because I am going to send them down to earth.' They selected Harut and Marut who were the most righteous angels. Allah inspired them with lust, made them descend to earth, commanded them to judge justly among people, and forbade them to be idolaters or to kill unjustly or to commit adultery or drink wine.' "So they were judging in the daytime and ascending at night. Then the most beautiful woman of Persia came to them. They were infatuated by her. Not only were they on her side in judgment but they also worhipped her idol because they were madly in love with her. When they desired to ascend up to heaven, their wings did not assist them. So, they went to Idris the prophet and asked him to intercede on their behalf. He told them they could choose between the torture of the world or the torture of the Last Day. They chose the torture of the world. So they hang from their hair in Babylon until the Last Day (see alQurtubi's commentary on Sura al-Baqara 2:102)" (The True Guidance [Light of Life PO Box 13 A-9503 Villach, Austria], part 5, pp. 24-25; see also Rev. W. St Clair-Tisdall, The Sources of Islam [T. & T. Clark, 38 George Street, Edinburgh, Scotland], pp. 30-36) Muslim Scholar Mahmoud Ayoub comments on S. 2:102: "Commentators likewise have disagreed with regard to the meaning of the phrase 'and that which was sent down to the two angels in Babel, Harut and Marut.' Tabari relates on the authority of Ibn 'Abbas, 'The word ma means "not" [instead of its alternate meaning, "that which"]; that is to say, magic was not sent down [ma unzila] to the two angels. Thus the exegesis of the verse would be, "And they followed the magic which the satans recited concerning the reign of Solomon; yet neither did Solomon reject faith, nor did God send down magic to the two angels. Rather, satans rejected faith in that they taught people magic in Babel, that is, Harut and Marut"' (This tradition assumes that Harut and Marut were the people who learned magic from the satans in Babel; thus they were not angels. The two angels are taken to be Gabriel and Michael.) 'This is because magicians among Jews used to claim that God sent down magic to Solomon by the tongues of Gabriel and Michael. Thus God revealed their false claim, for Gabriel and Michael never brought down magic. Harut and Marut were therefore two men who learned magic from the satans' (Tabari, II, pp. 419420). Tabari also cites Qatadah, who said, ' "Ma" means "that which," or "what." Thus Harut and Marut were two of the angels. They taught men magic, but were charged not to teach anyone until they said, "We are surely a temptation; do not, therefore, reject faith.' Magic here is of two kinds: one which the satans taught, and another which was taught by the two angels' (Tabari, II, p. 420). "Most early commentators have agreed, however, that Harut and Marut were two angels. Their story appears very early in the history of tafsir on the authority of the first masters of science among the Companions and their Successors. The story, as related by Tabari on the authority of Ibn Mas'ud and Ibn 'Abbas, is as follows: 'When the children of Adam had increased in the earth and committed acts of disobedience, the angels, heavens, earth and mountains invoked God against them, saying, "Our Lord, would You not destroy them?" God revealed to the angels, "Were I to put lust in your hearts and give Satan authority over you, and were you to descend to earth, you would do the same." The angels thought in their hearts that if they were sent down, they would not sin. God, then revealed to them, "Choose two of the best angels among you," and they chose Harut and Marut. They were thus sent down to earth, and Venus was sent down as a beautiful Persian woman. They fell into sin [by lusting after her]. They were therefore given the choice between the punishment of this world or that of the world to come, but they chose the punishment of this world' (Tabari, II, pp. 428). "This tradition presents the basic elements of the story, accepted by most classical commentators. Some traditions, however, related the story of the two angels to God's saying, 'Behold I am about to place a vicegerent in the earth' (see above, Q. 2:30). According to this view, God sent down Harut and Marut to demonstrate to the prostrating angels man's uniqueness as a creature endowed with special faculties which even angels could not possess without also falling into sin and disobedience (see Nisaburi, I, p. 391, who relates the story on the authority of Ibn 'Abbas). Razi, on the other hand, for reasons which are discussed below, asserts that the two angels were sent down at th time of the prophet Enoch (Idris) (Razi, III, p. 220)." (Mahmoud M. Ayoub, The Qur'an and its Interpreters [State University of New York Press, Albany 1984], pp. 130-131) Ayoub cites al-Qurtubi as denying that Harut and Marut were angels, believing that they were satans instead. The only problem with this view is that Harut and Marut are specifically called angels in the Quran (S. 2:102). This implies that if Qurtubi is correct, then satans were at one time angels that disobeyed. If this is so then this clearly affirms that angels can disobey God and fall from their position in heaven. Ibn Kathir also objected to Harut and Marut being angels, claiming that there was no sound chain of transmission going back to Muhammad and was a story taken from the Jews. Yet, both Tabari and Nisaburi claimed that their tradition was taken on the authority of Ibn 'Abbas, with Tabari citing Ibn Mas'ud as well. Ayoub himself states that the story of Harut and Marut being angels that sinned finds support from the earliest tafsirs of the first masters of science among the Companions of Muhammad and their followers. (For a complete discussion on the different viewpoints over this issue see Ayoub, pp. 130-136) Finally, the Dictionary of Islam states: "HARUT WA MARUT... Two angels mentioned in the Qur'an. They are said to be two angels who, in consequence of their compassion of the frailties of mankind, were sent down to earth to be tempted. They both sinned, and being permitted to choose whether they would be punished now or hereafter, chose the former, and are still suspended by the feet at Babel in a rocky pit, where they are great teachers of magic." (T. P. Hughes, Dictionary of Islam [Kazi Publications, Chicago Il. 1994], pp. 167-168) In light of the preceding evidence, we ask the following questions. Does God really put lust into his creation in order that they might be tempted? If so, what does this say about the character of God as outlined in the hadiths and the Quran? Since Harut and Marut are angels who actually sinned against God, which verse should we accept? The one where it says that all angels obey God, or this one where two angels clearly broke God's commands and went on teaching mankind magic? Does God actually send angels down to teach man wickedness and magic even if it is done in the context of warning humanity about its harm? Did God not realize that man would take the knowledge given by the angels and use it for wickedness? If the command to prostrate before Adam was given to angels why was Iblis blamed for not obeying the command seeing that he is not an angel but a Jinn? Is there any reference in the Quran where it clearly states that God's command was not limited to angels, but also included the Jinn? Finally, would not the fact that appeal must be made to the Islamic traditions in order to understand certain verses in the Quran prove that it is unintelligible since it narrates events that make little, if any, sense to today's readers? Does this not also prove that the Quran was meant for seventh century Arabs since they lived in the time of Muhammad and had the advantage of knowing the nature of these accounts? Hopefully, the staff at Islamic Awareness will answer these questions for us. Sam Shamoun Further remarks on Saifullah's statement, "[Qur'ân 18:50] clarifies who Iblîs is. He was one of Jinn not angels as wrongly claimed by the Christian missionaries." No need to shoot at all Christian missionaries. I have put forward this contradiction and take sole responsibility for it. I would again like to point to the purpose of this collection. I am glad to see that Saifullah & Co. seem to have learnt a lot about responding to contradictions from the way Christians have responded to the Muslim "Bible contradictions" and that it is important to look at all available information. I hope they are willing to accept the same interpretative principles also when examining the Bible. As Sam already observed in the above response, Saifullah ignores the obvious question why Iblis is called disobedient, a rejector of faith, if the command was only given to the angels, and he was supposedly not an angel. At least to some modern Muslims this is a problem, and it has led Rashad Khalifa to translate this verse as "We said to the angels, `Fall prostrate before Adam.' They fell prostrate, except Satan. He became a jinn, for he disobeyed the order of His Lord. ...", i.e. he was originally an angel who was turned into a Jinn because of his disobedience. Whether Khalifa gave an acceptable translation or interpretation is not for us to decide, but it shows he was aware of a problem of fairness that needs to be answered. [Jochen Katz] Qur'an Contradiction: Can Angels Disobey? Part II Response to Saifullah In our Quran Contradictions section, we stated: About the angels: For NONE are arrogant (before their Lord). They ALL fear their Lord, high above them, and they do ALL they are commanded. -- Sura 16:49-50 And behold, we said to the ANGELS: "Bow down to Adam". And THEY bowed down, EXCEPT Iblis. He refused and was haughty. -- Sura 2:34 The command of Allah is given to the angels. Since Iblis is accused of not being obedient, he has to be one of the angels. Contradicting 16:50, he refused = is disobedient, and is haughty = arrogant (before his Lord). See also 7:11, 15:28-31, 17:61, 18:50, 20:116, 38:71-74. Upon reading our rebuttal to his earlier response, Saifullah realized that it was not satisfactory and responds to the above in his Sept. 25, 1999 revision as follows: Rebuttal: In the verse And behold, We said to the angels: "Bow down to Adam" and they bowed down. Not so Iblis: he refused and was haughty: He was of those who reject Faith. [Qur'ân 2:34] the nature of Iblîs is not mentioned, i.e., whether he was an angel or someone else. But the verse Behold! We said to the angels, "Bow down to Adam": They bowed down except Iblis. He was one of the Jinns, and he broke the Command of his Lord. Will ye then take him and his progeny as protectors rather than Me? And they are enemies to you! Evil would be the exchange for the wrong-doers! [Qur'ân 18:50] clarifies who Iblîs is. He was one of Jinn not angels as wrongly claimed by the Christian missionaries. We have used the traditional method of Qur'ânic exegesis involving Context & Internal Relationships, i.e., al-Qur'ân yufassiru bacduhu bacdan (different parts of the Qur'ân explain each other). What is given in a general way in one place is discussed in detail in some other place in the Qur'ân. What is dealt with briefly at one place is expanded in some other place. As a small note, we are tempted to add that: In Islamic literature Shaytân (Eng. Satan, devil) is a name given to disbelieving Jinns. They are created from fire according to Allâh's statement in the Qur'ân; "The Jinns were created from the fire of a scorching wind." (al-Hijr 15:27). They are not fallen angels....[1] Response: This does not solve the problem. As we have already demonstrated, the Quran documents an instance where two angels, Harut and Marut, fell from favor and committed transgressions. Furthermore, if Iblis was a jinn why did God blame him for not obeying a command directed to angels? Is there any reference in the Quran indicating that God's command to prostrate before Adam included more than just the angels? Finally, the early commentators such as al-Tabari actually believed that Iblis belonged to a class of angels called jinn. Tabari documents that the reason why these angels were called jinn is because they were the protectors of Paradise (jannah). The following information is taken from The History of al-Tabari: General Introduction and From the Creation to the Flood, volume 1, trans. by Franz Rosenthal (State University of New York Press, Albany, 1989): According to al-Qasim b. al-Hasan- al-Husayn b. Dawud- Hajjaj- Ibn Jurayj- Ibn `Abbas: Iblis was one of the most noblest angels and belonged to the most honored tribe among them. He was a keeper of Paradise. He had authority to rule over the lower heaven as well as earth. According to al-Qasim- al-Husayn- Hajjaj- Ibn Jurayj- Salih, the mawla of alTaw'amah and Sharik b. Abir Namir, either one or both of them- Ibn `Abbas: There was an angelic tribe of jinn, and Iblis belonged to it. He governed all in between the heaven and the earth. According to Musa b. Harun al-Hamdani- `Amr b. Hammad- Asbat- al-Suddi- Abu Malik and Abu Salih- Ibn `Abbas. Also (al-Suddi)- Murrah al-Hamdani- Ibn Mas'ud and some (other) companions of the Prophet: Iblis was ruler over the lower heaven. He belonged to a tribe of angels called jinn. They were called jinn because they were keepers of Paradise (al-jannah). In addition to being ruler, Iblis was a keeper (of Paradise). According to `Abdan al-Marwazi- al-Husayn b. al-Faraj- Dahhak b. Muzahim, commenting on God's word: "They prostrated themselves, except Iblis. He was one of the jinn": Ibn `Abbas used to say: Iblis was one of the noblest angels and belonged to their most honored tribe. He was a keeper of Paradise, and his was the rule over the lower heaven as well as the earth. According to Ibn Humayd- Salamah- Abu al-Azhar al-Mubarak b. Mujahid- Sharik b. `Abdallah b. Abi Namir- Salih, the mawla of al-Taw'amah- Ibn `Abbas: There is an angelic tribe called jinn. Iblis belonged to them. He used to rule all in between heaven and earth. Then he became disobedient, and God therefore transformed him into a stoned Satan. According to al-Qasim- al-Husayn- Hajjaj- Ibn Jurayj, commenting on: "And whoever among them says: I am a god besides Him": Whichever angel says: "I am a god besides Him" calls to worship of himself, and only Iblis said that. Thus, this verse was revealed with reference to Iblis. (Ibid., pp. 250-251) One of the events that took place during the rule of the enemy of God while he was (still) obedient to God is what was mentioned to us on the authority of Ibn `Abbas in a report told us by Abu Kurayb- `Uthman b. Sa'id- Bishr b. `Umarah- Abu Rawq- alDahhak- Ibn `Abbas: Iblis belonged to a tribal group of angels called jinn. Among the angels it was they who were created from the fire of simoom. He continued. His name was al-Harith. He continued. He was one of the keepers of Paradise. He continued. All the angels except this tribal group were created from light. He continued. The jinn mentioned in the Qur'an were created "from a bright flame (marij) of fire"- (marij being) a tongue of fire blazing on its side(s and top). He continued. And He created man from clay. The first to dwell on earth were the jinn. They caused corruption on it and shed blood and killed each other. He continued. God sent Iblis to them with an army of angels. They were that tribal group called jinn. Iblis and those with him caused a bloodbath among them and eventually banished them to the islands in the oceans and the mountainsides. His success went to his head, and he said: I have done something nobody has ever done before. He continued. God was aware of how Iblis felt, but the angels who were with him were not. (Ibid., pp. 252-253) Ibn Humayd gave us about the same account again, reporting from Salamah- Ibn Ishaq- Khallad b. `Ata'- Tawus or Abu sl-Hajjaj Mujahid- Ibn `Abbas, and others. However, he said: (Iblis) was an angel named Azazil. He was one of the dwellers and cultivators on earth. The dwellers on earth from among the angel used to be called jinn." (Ibid., p. 254) According to all these traditions the jinn are actually a class of angels. The fact that there are good and bad jinn proves that angels can either choose to follow God or reject his commands. This being the case, this proves that the Quran contradicts itself since in one place it claims that all the angels obey God. Yet, in the case of Harut, Marut, Iblis and the jinn angels have and continue to disobey God. This also means that the citation from Bilal Philip's where he claims that jinn are not angels is simply wrong since the comments from the companions of Muhammad disagree with him completely. Hence, the contradiction remains. Sam Shamoun Qur'an Contradiction: Can Angels Disobey? Response to Saifullah In this second revision, Saifullah tries again to harmonize the internal contradiction of the Quran where in one place it claims that angels do not disobey God, yet in another place it states that Iblis, Harut and Marut were angels that disobeyed their Lord. Our earlier arguments still stand and should be read (1, 2) before proceeding with the newest additions of Oct. 1, 1999, so that we can avoid repeating ourselves excessively in this article. Saifullah now writes: Notes Since the belief in the creation of Allah such as angels and jinn is fundamental to the Islamic belief, it is worthwhile to know who they are and what their nature is. Below is a complete quote from the book The Reliance Of The Traveller, which is a manual of Shâfi'i school of Islamic jurisprudence. This quote gives comprehensive information about who jinns and angels are from the Islamic point of view (of course, using the Qur'ân and authentic ahadîth). The Jinn Belief In The Jinn w22.1 (Alâ' al-Dîn cAbidin:) Our prophet Muhammad (Allah bless him and give him peace), who was truthful in all that he did and said, has informed us of matters that are mandatory – personally obligatory for each of us - to believe, accept, and not doubt or be sarcastic about the slightest bit of. Among the things of which he informed us is that Allah Most High has created angels that are pure spirits, neither masculine nor feminine, and created jinn, fiery beings that can assume various forms. The good jinn are Muslims and believers, and will be with us in paradise, where we will see them but they will not see us - the opposite of this world - while the immoral and wicked of them are called devils, being of the offspring of Satan, who used to be in paradise, but disobeyed the command of his Lord, and is now "of those reprieved till the day of a known time" (Koran 15:37-38). The Difference Between Jinn & Angels w22.2 (Muhammad Sacîd Burhanî:) The difference between jinn and angels is that angels are created of light, while jinn are created of fire. Angels (upon whom be peace) do not reproduce, while jinn do. Angels do not commit disobedience, while jinn include both the obedient and the disobedient, both believer and unbeliever, the rebellious of them being called devils. Jinn assume various forms, both noble and base, such as that of a snake and the like, while the angels (upon whom be peace) only assume noble forms, like that of a human being. Angels live in the heavens and earth, while jinn live only on earth. Angels are not called to account on the Day of Judgement, but rather enter paradise, and whoever disparages one of them has committed unbelief. Angels like circles of religious learning and dhikr, and supplicate Allah to bless our Prophet (Allah bless him and give him peace) and us, and they ask forgiveness for those on earth. They rejoice at whoever visits the ill or seeks religious knowledge, out of pleasure with what he is doing.[1] From the above quote, it is clear that angels can't be jinn and vice versa. They both are distinct entities created by Allah. So, Iblîs who is a jinn can't be a "fallen angel." A "fallen angel" would mean that Iblîs was not a jinn and that the angels have free will. But these two concepts are clearly refuted in the Qur'ân itself, i.e., that Iblîs is a jinn (18:50) and the angels obey Allah with questioning (66:6). As a brief note, we are tempted to add that: In Islamic literature Shaytân (Eng. Satan, devil) is a name given to disbelieving Jinns. They are created from fire according to Allâh's statement in the Qur'ân; "The Jinns were created from the fire of a scorching wind." (al-Hijr 15:27). They are not fallen angels... and angels can't disobey God according to Allah's statement in the Qur'ân, ... angels stern and severe, who do not disobey Allâh in what he orders them, but do whatever they are commanded (Sura at-Tahreem 66:6).[2] Response: Saifullah tries to completely ignore the fact that traditions attributed to Muhammad and his companions clearly affirm that jinn were a class of angels that were created from a different substance from the other angelic beings. In fact, the Quran never says that jinn are not angels, but simply makes a distinction in the way they were created, a fact that did not prevent the early Muslims from viewing jinn as a special class of angels. Furthermore, even if we were to accept the fact that the jinn are not angels, this would still leave us with a difficulty. Why was Iblis cast out from God's presence for disobeying a command directed to angels, not to the jinn? Saifullah goes on to say: The Use Of Al-Tabarî's Tarîkh The Christian missionaries have used al-Tabarî's Tarîkh to show that indeed in Islamic literature there is a concept of "fallen angels." It is always worthwhile to read the introduction to his book where al-Tabarî makes an important set of statements, that clearly state: Let him who examines this book of mine know that I have relied, as regards everything I mention therein which I stipulate to be described by me, solely upon what has been transmitted to me by way of reports which I cite therein and traditions which I ascribe to their narrators, to the exclusion of what may be apprehended by rational argument or deduced by the human mind, except in very few cases. This is because knowledge of the reports of men of the past and of contemporaneous views of men of the present do not reach the one who has not witnessed them nor lived in their times except through the accounts of reporters and the transmission of transmitters, to the exclusion of rational deduction and mental inference. Hence, if I mention in this book a report about some men of the past, which the reader of listener finds objectionable or worthy of censure because he can see no aspect of truth nor any factual substance therein, let him know that this is not to be attributed to us but to those who transmitted it to us and we have merely passed this on as it has been passed on to us.[3] Thus, al-Tabarî faithfully displayed the accounts in the exact manner through which he received them. Can he then be held liable or attributed if any objectionable accounts should arise? To translate this into laymen's terms, al-Tabarî has simply refused accountability by avoiding the task of historical as well as hadîth criticism. Therefore, any spurious/objectional accounts are not to be attributed to him. He only faithfully transmitted what he received, whether authentic or spurious. To say that alTabarî said such-and-such about "fallen angels" and Iblîs (and claiming it to be authentic!) simply shows one inability to grasp the fundamentals of al-Tabarî's book Tarîkh al-Tabarî: Tarîkh al-Umam wal-Mulûk. And Allah knows best! Response: This is perhaps the weakest evidence the author has yet presented. It is weak since Tabari's statement can be applied to the entire hadith collection. Note what Tabari said in the above citation and compare it with the hadith as a whole: "... This is because knowledge of the reports of men of the past and of contemporaneous views of men of the present do not reach the one who has not witnessed them nor lived in their times except through the accounts of reporters and the transmission of transmitters, to the exclusion of rational deduction and mental inference ..." Tabari's point is not so much a denial of the authenticity of his writings as it is of the transmission of the hadith itself. There is no way for a person to authenticate any hadith, let alone Tabari's writings, since the collection of traditions were not written down until over a hundred years after the life of Muhammad and his companions. To then try and use Tabari's citation as proof that Tabari's works are unverifiable simply because this is what he seems to be claiming is going beyond the intended meaning of the writer. This point is solidified by the fact that Tabari was able to establish the authenticity of certain reports by his ability to distinguish the sound traditions from those that were questionable. Note the following citations taken from the History of al-Tabari, Volume 1- General Introduction and from the Creation to the Flood (trans. Franz Rosenthal, State University of New York Press, Albany 1989): "We have stated before that time is but hours of night and day and that the hours are but traversal by the sun and the moon of the degrees of the sphere. Now then, this being so, there is (also) a sound tradition from the Messenger of God told us by Hannad b. al-Sari, who also said that he read all of the hadith (to Abu Bakr)- Abu Bakr b. `Ayyash- Abu Sa'd al-Baqqal- `Ikrimah- Ibn Abbas: The Jews came to the Prophet and asked him about the creation of the heavens and the earth. He said: God created the earth on Sunday and Monday. He created the mountains and the uses they possess on Tuesday. On Wednesday, He created trees, water, cities and the cultivated barren land. These are four (days). He continued (citing the Qur'an): `Say: Do you really not believe in the One Who created the earth in two days, and set up others like Him? That is the Lord of the worlds. He made it firmly anchored (mountains) above it and blessed it and decreed that it contain the amount of food it provides, (all) in four days, equally for those asking'- for those who ask. On Thursday, He created heaven. On Friday, He created the stars, the sun, the moon, and the angels, until three hours remained. In the first of these three hours He created the terms (of human life), who would live and who would die. In the second, He cast harm upon everything that is useful for mankind. And in the third, (He created) Adam and had him dwell in Paradise. He commanded Iblis to prostrate himself before Adam, and He drove Adam out of Paradise at the end of the hour. When the Jews asked: What then, Muhammad? He said: `Then He sat straight upon the Throne.' The Jews said: You are right, if you had finished, they said, with: Then He rested. Whereupon the Prophet got very angry, and it was revealed: `We have created the heavens and the earth and what is between them in six days, and fatigue did not touch Us. Thus be patient with what you say.'" (Ibid., pp. 187-188) "The two reports transmitted by us from the Messenger of God have made it clear that the sun and the moon were created after God had created many things of His creation. That is because the hadith of Ibn Abbas on the authority of the Messenger of God indicates that God created the sun and the moon on Friday. If this is so, earth and heaven and what was in them, except the angels and Adam, had been created before God created the sun and the moon. All this (thus) existed while there was no light and no day, since night and day are but nouns designating hours known through the traversal by the sun and the moon of the course of the sphere. Now, if it is correct that the earth and the heaven and what was between them, except what we have mentioned, were in existence when there was no sun and no moon, the conclusion is that all existed when there was no night or day. The same (conclusion results from) the following hadith of Abu Hurayrah reported on the authority of the Messenger of God: God created light on Wednesday- meaning by `light' the sun, if God wills." (Ibid., pp. 190-191) "Abu Ja'far (al-Tabari) says: Regarding this, the correct statement, in our opinion, is the one who said: God created the earth on Sunday. He created the heaven on Thursday, and He created the stars and the sun and the moon on Friday. (We consider it correct) because of the soundness of the report mentioned by us earlier on the authority of Ibn `Abbas from the Messenger of God. The tradition transmitted to us on the authority of Ibn `Abbas is not impossible. It says that God created the earth but did not spread it out. Then he created the heavens "and fashioned them (into seven heavens)," and thereafter "spread out" the earth. He then brought forth from it its water and its pasture, and the mountains He anchored firmly." Indeed, in my opinion this is the correct statement. That is because the meaning of "spreading out" is different from that of "creating." God says: "Are you more difficult to create than the heaven He constructed? He raised high its roof and fashioned it. He darkened its night and brought forth its morning. And it was the earth He spread out thereafter." (Ibid., p. 216) The claim that Tabari uncritically accepted reports does not stand in light of the preceding citations where Tabari clearly distinguishes between sound traditions from those that were questionable in nature. In fact, Saifullah and his staff indirectly attest to Tabari's ability to separate authentic from inauthentic statements. In the paper on the science of hadith, we find Saifullah providing an example of a fabricated tradition that circulated during the time of Umar: "Mauduc ahadîth are also recognised by external evidence related to a discrepancy found in the dates or times of a particular incident.81 For example, when the second caliph, Umar b. al- Khattab decided to expel the Jews from Khaibar, some Jewish dignitaries brought a document to Umar apparently proving that the Prophet (may Allah bless him and grant him peace) had intended that they stay there by exempting them from the jizyah (tax on nonMuslims under the rule of Muslims); the document carried the witness of two Companions, Sa'd b. Mucadh and Mu'awiyah b. Abi Sufyan. Umar rejected the document outright, knowing that it was fabricated because the conquest of Khaibar took place in 6 AH, whereas Sa'd b. Mucadh died in 3 AH just after the Battle of the Trench, and Mu'awiyah embraced Islam in 8 AH, after the conquest of Makkah!82" When we go to footnote 82, we find the following statement: "82.see Ibn al-Qayyim, al-Manar al-Munif fi 'l- Sahih wa 'l-Dacif (ed. A.F. Abû Ghuddah, Lahore, 1402/1982), pp. 102-105 for a fuller discussion. Ibn al-Qayyim mentions more than ten clear indications of the forgery of the document, which the Jews repeatedly attempted to use to deceive the Muslims over the centuries, but each time a scholar of Hadîth intervened to point out the forgery - such incidents occurred with Ibn Jarîr al-Tabarî (d. 310), al-Khatîb al-Baghdâdî (d. 463) and Ibn Taimiyyah (d. 728), who spat on the document as it was unfolded from beneath its silken covers." Saifullah includes Tabari as one of those who had been aware that the document circulated by the Jews was an obvious forgery. Yet, how would Tabari have known this if he were simply recording traditions uncritically? Furthermore, notice that Saifullah in this citation lists Tabari as "a scholar of Hadith", contradicting the very point that he tries to establish in this paper. Another argument leveled by Saifullah and his staff against Tabari is that the latter included material from the Jews and integrated it with Islamic sources. Presumably, this would affirm that Tabari's collection is of a questionable nature since he fused unreliable Jewish material into the Islamic traditions. In actuality, we find that Tabari was able to distinguish material that was Jewish in nature from that which originated from the Muslims. Note the following quotes from Tabari's book: "The other report, referring to a different concept, is what I was told by Muhammad b. Abi Mansur- Khalaf b. Wasil- Abu Nu'aym- Muqatil b. Hayyan- Ikrimah: One day when Ibn `Abbas was sitting (at home or in the mosque), a man came to him and said: Ibn `Abbas, I heard Ka'b, the Rabbi, tell a marvelous story about the sun and the moon. He continued. Ibn `Abbas who had been reclining sat up and asked what it was. The man said: He suggested that on the Day of Resurrection, the sun and the moon will be brought as if they were two hamstrung oxen, and flung into Hell. `Ikrimah continued. Ibn `Abbas became contorted with anger and exclaimed three times: Ka'b is lying! Ka'b is lying! Ka'b is lying! This is something Jewish he wants to inject into Islam. God is too majestic and noble to mete out punishment where there is obedience to Him. Have you not heard God's word: "And He subjected to you the sun and the moon, being constant" – referring to their constant obedience. How would He punish two servants that are praised for constant obedience? May God curse that rabbi and his rabbinate! How insolent is he toward God and what a tremendous fabrication has he told about those two servants that are obedient to God! ..." (Ibid., pp. 232-233) Tabari concludes with Kab's reaction: "Ikrimah said: I got up with the individuals who were told the story, and we went to Ka'b and informed him about Ibn `Abbas' emotional outburst at (hearing) his story and about the story Ibn `Abbas had reported on the authority of the Messenger of God. Ka'b got up with us, and we went to Ibn `Abbas. Ka'b said: I have learned about your emotional outburst at my story. I am asking God for forgiveness and I repent. I have told the story on the basis of a well-worn book that has passed through many hands. I do not know what alterations made by the Jews it may have contained. Now you have told a story on the basis of a new book recently revealed by the Merciful One and on the authority of the lord and best of the prophets. I would like you to tell it to me so that I can retain it in my memory as told on your authority. When I have been told it, it will replace my original story." (Ibid., pp. 243-244) This again presumes the fact that Tabari must have been aware that there were traditions that had been "polluted" by the Jews. He cites an example of such "pollution" and then proceeds to expose it on the authority of Ibn Abbas! Furthermore, Saifullah does not apply his method of criticism consistently. In one of his articles, he cites the hadith collection of Wahb b. Munabbih to prove that there were early records of Islamic traditions. Yet, Saifullah conveniently fails to mention that Wahb also included material from the Jews. This has led prominent Muslims to doubt Wahb's credibility as a compiler of hadith: "Wahb was from San'aa of Yemen; died 110 or 114 H. He was Ikhbary (a storyteller) AND NOT A HADITH TRANSMITTER. But his main interest was what we call 'Isra'iliyat' which were transmitted to him through men like K'ab al Ahbar (who died 32-34 H.)... which Wahb inserted into Islamic stories." (Muhammad Abd el-Ghani Hasan from his book, Attarikh 'end al-Musleman as found in Ketaboka no. 32, p.12) "What disfigured our literary heritage, especially the field of expounding the Quran (Tafsir) were the Israi'liyat that crept into it, and disturbed its order. This started, regretfully, VERY EARLY, that is, SINCE THE TIME OF THE COMPANIONS LIKE K'AB AL-AHBAR AND WAHB IBN MUNABBEH, AND OTHERS WHO WERE COVERTED TO ISLAM FROM THE PEOPLE OF THE BOOK [i.e. Jews and Christians] The infiltration of the Isra'iliyat was small at the beginning, then it began to increase, unintentionally. THIS GAVE WAY TO PLOTTING, SCHEMING AND INTENTIONAL CONSPIRACY. "Because the Jews were defeated militarily by the Muslims and wanting to resist by using another weapon-an intellectual one-they slipped into the Isra'iliyat and, WITHIN A SHORT PERIOD, THE MUSLIM BOOKS WERE FULL OF IT." (Dr. Yusuf Qaradawi Thaqafat al-Da'iah, Mu'saasat al-Resalah [Beirut, 1979], p. 41) These statements not only cast doubt on Wahb's credibility but the entire hadith collection. Dr. Qaradawi admits that the Islamic traditions became polluted by the Jews from the very start. Hence, if Saifullah is to remain consistent he must toss out both Wahb and Tabari together. Finally, we must point out that scholars of both the past and the present have called into question the integrity of the entire Islamic traditions, not just Tabari's. John Gilchrist notes: "... Western scholars have, however taken a far more sceptical approach to the subject in the last century. The whole body of Hadith literature has been called into question and it has been suggested that none of the traditions surviving can be accepted as genuine at face value. Conclusions of some of the more prominent writers to this effect read as follows: "In fine, we may from all that has been said, conclude that tradition cannot be received with too much caution, or exposed to too rigorous a criticism; and that no important statement should be accepted as securely proved by tradition alone, unless there be some farther ground of probability, analogy, or collateral evidence in its favour. (Muir, The Life of Mahomet, p. lx). "Every legal tradition from the Prophet, until the contrary is proved, must be taken not as an authentic or essentially authentic, even if slightly obscured, statement valid for his time or the time of the Companions, but as the fictitious expression of a legal doctrine formulated at a later date. (Schacht, The Origins of Muhammadan Jurisprudence, p. 149). "There seems to be little doubt that practically the whole body of tradition was spurious. (Robson, "Tradition: Investigation and Classification", The Muslim World, Vol 1.41, p. 101). "Extensive studies into the legal character of most of the traditions have led Western scholars to the opinion that, as the laws of the widespread Muslim community developed, so traditions were forged to provide an authority for them allegedly stretching back to the time of Muhammad himself. After all, if the law was based on the decree of the founder of Islam, it could hardly be queried or rejected. For some writers the fabrication of the whole tradition literature has become such a fait accompli that every tradition is automatically treated as the product, and not the source, of the early development of Islamic law. Efforts are therefore made to place the origin of each hadith within the growing framework of Islamic law in those early days. "Traditions from Companions are as little genuine as traditions from the Prophet, and must be subjected to the same scrutiny in order to ascertain their place in the development of legal doctrine. (Schacht, The Origins of Muhammadan Jurisprudence, p. 150). "Even Muslim scholars of Hadith freely admit that wholesale fabrication took place but argue that the major works of Hadith literature contain, on the whole, genuine traditions only and that the forgeries have largely been eliminated. Consensus has, at any rate, been reached on the following points: that many traditions were fabricated to uphold the Ummayad and Abbasid dynasties respectively, that early schools of law created traditions to support their specific points of view, and that opposing schools fabricated similar hadith to counter these. So widespread was hadith fabrication that a tradition was even invented to the effect that Muhammad anticipated the forgery of sayings attributed to him and declared that whoever alleged that he had said anything other than what he did say would be cast into hell. This must surely rank as one of the most remarkable of pious frauds! Others produced a less exclusive but nonetheless equally preemptive assessment of the practice of hadith fabrication to follow after Muhammad's death in the following saying which has been attributed to him: "After my death sayings attributed to me will multiply just as a large number of sayings are attributed to the prophets who were before me. What is told you as a saying of mine you must compare with the Quran. What is in agreement therewith is from me whether I have actually said it or not". (Guillaume, The Traditions of Islam, p. 53). "In the West, however, the prevailing distrust of the authenticity of the whole body of tradition literature has led to the general conclusion that the Hadith represent what Islam became during its development and not what it was during the formative period of Muhammad's life and the early Caliphate. "The result is that the sum of tradition represents the history of the first two centuries of Islam. (Tritton, Islam, p. 32). "In the first place it has become ever more evident that the thousands of traditions about Mohammed, which, together with the Qoran, form the foundation upon which the doctrine and life of the community are based, are for the most part the conventional expression of all the opinions which prevailed among his followers during the first three centuries after the Hijrah. (Hurgronje, Mohammedanism, p. 20) "As we investigate the sources of the traditions, we find that we know less about Mohammed; but we learn more about the history of Islam. (Margoliouth, "On Moslem Tradition" The Muslim World, Vol. 2, p. 121). "During the middle of the last century Sir William Muir first expressed the form of scepticism which has become the norm in Western studies of the Hadith to this day and his brief study was followed up with a thorough criticism by the great Hungarian scholar Ignaz Goldziher. The latter's thesis has become the foundation upon which all succeeding studies have been based and is found in the second volume of his Muhammedanische Studien first published in 1889 (the work quoted in this book is an English translation of his book). His most prominent successor says of his study that he "has not only voiced his 'sceptical reserve' with regard to the traditions contained even in the classical collections, but shown positively that the great majority of traditions from the Prophet are documents not of the time to which they claim to belong, but of the successive stages of development of doctrines during the first centuries of Islam" (Schacht, The Origins of Muhammadan Jurisprudence, p. 4). "Even though Islamic orthodoxy has accepted almost without question the formulation of the Hadith literature in the early days (i.e. that the six major works are generally authentic, especially the two Sahihs, and that the other early collections contain many genuine traditions), Muslim scholars tended to appreciate the Western interest in this subject in the beginning. The pessimistic conclusions of the major scholars has, however, naturally made them unwilling in recent times to sustain this appreciation and, while the works of these scholars have been treated on the whole with respect, their Muslim counterparts have fallen back on the exact conclusions, based almost exclusively on the isnad-system, reached during the days of Bukhari and Muslim. Islam, rightly or wrongly, is strongly resistant to critical analyses of its heritage and finds its security in the unanimity of opinion maintained over successive centuries of its history. It fears that such an approach to its received records of Muhammad's life might lead to an undermining of its whole legacy. "Islamic orthodoxy has rigidly kept to the tenets concerning tradition once they were formulated. On the other hand, Western scholars who did research into the hadith came to entirely different conclusions, as was seen above. Their ideas about the hadith are objectionable to orthodox Muslim scholars, so that they tend no longer to recognize the achievements of Orientalists in other fields, which formerly they appreciated. (Juynboll, The Authenticity of the Tradition Literature, p. 9)." (Gilchrist, Muhammad And The Religion Of Islam [Jesus To The Muslims; PO Box 1804, Benoni, Republic of South Africa], pp. 239-242) Gilchrist also mentions Muslims who have come to question certain aspects of the traditions: "... In some circles, however, there are more broadly-minded Muslim scholars who are willing to approach this subject from a more objective, analytical point of view and even the hitherto almost sacred works of Hadith have been tested and, at times, found wanting. One such scholar says: "Despite the great care and precision of the Hadith scholars, much of what they regarded as true was later proved to be spurious. In his commentary on the collection of Muslim, al Nawawi wrote: "A number of scholars discovered many hadiths in the collections of Muslim and Bukhari which do not fulfill the conditions of verification assumed by these men". (Haykal, The Life of Muhammad, p. lxxxii)." (Ibid., p. 242) In fact, there are many Muslims today who have dismissed the entire collection of hadiths as forgeries concocted centuries after Muhammad and his first followers. For those interested, here are some articles written by Muslims who have discredited, dismissed, and discarded the entire collection of traditions altogether [1] , [2] ! As we conclude, we would like to point out the fact that our usage of the Quran and the hadith is not due to our belief that these sources are reliable. We appeal to these traditions to simply demonstrate the fact that Islam is logically and inherently inconsistent, contradicting both scientific and historical facts, as well as contradicting itself. Sam Shamoun Qur'an Contradiction: Gabriel, the Holy Spirit, Confirmation and Pure Arabic Say: Whoever is an enemy to Gabriel for he brings down the (revelation) to thy heart by Allah's will, a confirmation of what went before, and guidance and glad tidings for those who believe, - ... -- Sura 2:97 When We substitute one revelation for another, and Allah knows best what He reveals, - they say, "Thou art but a forger": but most of them understand not. Say, the Holy Spirit has brought the revelation from thy Lord in Truth, in order to strengthen those who believe, and as a Guide and Glad Tidings to Muslims. We know indeed that they say, "It is a man that teaches him." The tongue of him they wickedly point to is notably foreign, while this is Arabic, pure and clear. -- Sura 16:101-103 This gives three contradictions: First, 2:97 says that it is the (angel) Gabriel who brings down the revelation from Allah to Muhammad, while 16:102 says it is the Holy Spirit. BECAUSE of these two verses Muslims usually identify the Holy Spirit with Gabriel and say that this is just another name for Gabriel. However, in another context they completely forget that they have made this identification already since they ALSO want Muhammad to be the Holy Spirit and Comforter promised by Jesus in John 14-16 in order to desperately find a prophecy of Muhammad as claimed in Sura 61:6. But obviously the Holy Spirit cannot be both, he cannot be Gabriel and Muhammad at the same time. That is, unless Muslims believe Gabriel is Muhammad! [There has been a Muslim response to this observation by Moiz Amjad. Sam Shamoun has two detailed and carefully argued articles on the issue: Is "the Holy Spirit" only another name for the Angel Gabriel?, The Quranic Confusion Concerning Identity of the Spirit and Gabriel] Second, in Sura 2:97 the Qur'an claims to be a confirmation of the earlier revelation (as it does in many other verses), while in Sura 16:101 the Qur'an is viewed as "substituting" the earlier revelations. And the people call him a forgerer exactly because it does not fit together with the established revelation of God. What is Muhammad's answer? "They just don't understand" (verse 101). Third, despite the fact that 16:103 says "this is Arabic, pure and clear" — a statement that is supposedly refuting those who say Muhammad learned his message from a human teacher who was not fluent in Arabic —, the Qur'an contains words and phrases that belong to other languages. Just two of many examples: "Pharoah" comes from the Egyptian language and means king or potentate. The word for "king" in Arabic is different. "Injil", which means "gospel" = "good news", comes from the Greek language. The correct word in Arabic is "bisharah". For a detailed treatment of this topic, see the scholarly work, The Foreign Vocabulary of the Qur'an by the late scholar Arthur Jeffery. A Muslim's Response by Shaahin Amiri-Sharifi Date: Wed Nov 27 00:19 EST 1996 this is to answer: --Three contradictions in 16:101-103 , --according to muslim belief, based on quran, "gabriel" is the name for "holy spirit" the dearest angle of god. and it is NOT the prophet. it is also mentioned in quran as (angle) "rouh" , meaning spirit. about john 14:16, the verse never mentiones the comforter is holy spirit. if it is a christian interpretation of the verse (John 14:16) i adont know about that, but what muslims say is that, this comforter is mohamed(pbuh). so if christians believe that "comforter" is holy spirit, and muslims belive that "comforter" is mohamed(pbuh), this does NOT result in that holy spirit is mohamed(pbuh)! you are reffering to oposite sides to get a result. regarding 2:97 and 16:101, and "confirmation" of the earlier revelations and at the same time "substituting" them, quran does confirm earlier revelations (not the changed vertion of them of course!), and please note that the word translated as "substituting" means rather "transforming" and not substituting . and what is meant is like "updating". point is, islam is the religion of adam (pbuh) to mohamed (pbuh), but in different levels. it was "updated" untill it reached the final form which was brought by mohamed (pbuh). so while maintainig the same spirit, it was "transformed" to what it is now. i hope this explanation makes the situation clear! about quran being in "pure" arabic. yet another misunderestanding of quran caused by looking a "translated" copy rather than arabic! the word "mobeen" means clear with explanation, understandable, NOT pure (in the way you percieve). and of course it is not in pure arabic. there is no "pure" language at all! in every language you can find the trace of other languages, older or contemporary ones. shaahin I have read that Muslims believe all of the revealed books are exact copies from (part) of the book kept by God in heaven, [not sure if that is Qur'anic, but it is tradition]. If it is being "updated" one might wonder if the tablets in heaven became updated too... And how can God and his word be perfect if his word needs "updating"? I am often amazed how utterly unable Yusuf Ali seems to be in his translation.... Yes, I do know I read a translation, but please, do give me a translation you think is a good one and I will then argue based on that translation. If you say it is not translatable, then why would I believe that you can give a better translation for the word above than Ali gives? Anyway. Let us look at the context and not just at one word. Isn't the point that verse 103 makes exactly that it cannot originate from this person charged to be behind the forgery, because this person is a foreigner, not speaking pure Arabic, while the Qur'an is pure Arabic? If this means not "pure" then the whole point that this verse is trying to make falls to the ground. There is no reason why a foreigner cannot explain and speak "clearly" and "understandably". The contrast is "that this foreigner doesn't speak pure Arabic" with the "purity of the language of the Qur'an". And this is exactly what Yusuf Ali says in his footnote 2143: "... They must need to postulate some human teacher. Unfortunately for their postulate, any possible human teacher they could think of would be poor in Arabic speech if he had all the knowledge that the Qur'an reveals of previous revelations. Apart from that, even the most eloquent Arab could not, and cannot, produce anything of the eloquence, width and depth of the Qur'anic teaching, as is evident from every verse of the Book." (That is quite an exaggeration in itself, I cannot resist to add.) But let us assume this word does mean "clear and understandable". Then you are only trading in one contradiction for another. He it is Who has sent down to thee the Book: In it are verses basic or fundamental (of established meaning); they are the foundation of the Book: others are allegorical. But those in whose hearts is perversity follow the part thereof that is allegorical, seeking discord, and searching for its hidden meanings, but no one knows its hidden meanings except Allah. And those who are firmly grounded in knowledge say: "We believe in the Book; the whole of it is from our Lord:" and none will grasp the Message except men of understanding. -- Sura 3:7 If this verse says anything, then it is this: There are verses in the Qur'an which are far from clear in their meaning. Sura 26 Sura 26: 192 It (the Qur'an) is indeed a revelation from the Lord of the Worlds, 193 with it came down the spirit of truth 194 Upon your heart so that you may be one of the warners 195 in clear Arabic speech 196 and indeed IT (the Qur'an) is in the writings of the earlier (prophets). A Muslim's comment (on the Islamic newsgroup)was: "YES! The Qur'an is IN them and they are complete IN the Qur'an. What does this tell you? They are identical!" Now, I am not sure if how many Muslims hold to this opinion, but here are nevertheless two powerful self-contradictions in the verses 195-196. One important reason for the revelation of the Qur'an in Arabic is that the earlier books were NOT in Arabic and therefore the Arabs could not understand them. Now even if the Qur'an and the earlier books are not identical [apart from translation in a different language] verse 196 does say that the Qur'an is contained in the earlier books. Now we have the choice between two different lies in God's revelations. Either, because of verse 196, the verse "in clear Arabic speech" is contained in the earlier revelations. This is a lie, because they are not in Arabic.Therefore it cannot be in the earlier revelation. But then verse 196 becomes a lie in the Qur'an. Maybe this situation can be saved by regarding "in clear Arabic speech" to be only belonging to "so that you (Muhammad) may be one of the warners" and NOT refering to the Qur'an (it) in verse 192. But then, what were the warnings of Muhammad in Arabic? The verses of the Qur'an... But there are more such verses, for example 16:103 also claims that "this is Arabic pure and clear" which refers to the Qur'an without doubt. But verse 196 is a jewel of contradiction just within itself. How many "earlier writings" were there? Finitely many or infinitely many? Have you ever written a computer program that went into an infinite loop? Well, you have before your very eyes a recursion without a condition for termination. And you are not allowed to change the program. Talk about the worst nightmare imaginable for a computer programmer. Verse 196 is part of the Qur'an, and hence by its very statement also part of the earlier writings. Let say, it is in earlier writing A. Now, by the very same reason, there has to be an earlier writing B, containing this verse, and earlier writing C containing this verse, and .... without end and you need infinitely many earlier writings because you otherwise end up in the lie of verse 196 claiming to be contained in a non-existing earlier writing. But infinitely many writings are physically impossible. Isn't that a most interesting contradiction / error / problem in just one verse? But take heart, some of the best and most intelligent people have written programs with such errors. It is no shame for Muhammad to overlook that bug. The problem is not the bug, but that he decreed that nobody is allowed to correct the bugs. And since no provision was made to update and maintain the program, it sadly has to be abandoned. Nobody wants to be stuck in an infinite loop without being allowed to stop the program. Verse 196 is indeed producing numerous problems. There are many things in the Qur'an which become utter non-sense if you imagine them to be in the Torah or the Gospel. The consequence would be that God gives foolish revelations and talks gibberish. This is obviously not true, so that we have to reject verse 196 as illogical. Muslim Responses by Randy Desmond Date: Thu, 9 Jan 1997 Simply put, when it says *it* is in the writings of the earlier prophets, it may be referring to the teachings of the Qur'an, a reference to the Qur'an, etc. When we say something is *in* something else do we mean it is literally and completely in it? "YOU are *in* trouble!" Now do I mean YOU are somehow interrelated and a part of the concept trouble? Or do I mean the word "YOU" is a subset of the word "trouble"? Or is the meaning of "YOU" the same as "trouble"? Or have I told you *how* YOU are in trouble? No. Well in a similar manner, the author of the contradiction should not assume "it is in" means "it is". That is assuming one particular understanding of *how* it is in the writings of earlier prophets. A contradiction is not proven again. All praise is due to God. Do we throw out the verse as illogical (that is what the contradiction's author proposes) or do we throw out the author(of the contradiction)'s analysis of the verse as illogical? Feel free to personally throw whatever you want. The responding party does make invalid comparisons. Saying that I am in my room, then this means I am fully located inside this room, a physical entity. I am either in it or out. "Trouble" is not a location, it is a "state". Being "in trouble" means to face difficult circumstances. Now, the question is: Are the Torah and the Gospel (physical or at least clearly defined) entities or are they "states" or "circumstances"? If we want to ask whether a quotation, a paragraph, or a chapter is in certain book, then it either is or it is not. This is a clearcut black and white question. No need to confuse the issue with other uses of the word "in" [even taken from the English language when usually the emphasis is that we have to look to the Arabic!!]. The question is not other possible ways of using the word "in" in English, but what this sura means and if it makes sense. So far, I am aware of only one verse in the Qur'an that can be found more or less verbatim in the earlier revelation. Do you think that is enough to make this statement in Sura 26 true? What is "it"? Qur'an Contradiction: What happened to Lot's family? He [Lot] said [to the evil people around him]: "I do detest your doings." "Oh my Lord! deliver me and my family from such things as they do!" So we delivered him and his family, - all exept an old woman who lingered behind. -- Sura 26:168-171 But we saved him and his family, exept his wife: she was of those who lagged behind. -- Sura 7:83 Either this is a contradiction, since at one time it is "an old woman" and in the other "his wife", or, according to the Muslim commentators, his wife is the same as the old woman. This "solves" the identity problem but it is not conveying much respect for the wife of this prophet. "An old woman" which is not even worth to be properly "identified." Is this contempt for women in general or for old women? Isn't the most important person in a man's life his wife? How much respect does the wife of a prophet deserve? Why did Allah not hear Lot's prayer for his family which seemed to include his wife? They said: O Lut! we are the messengers of your Lord; they shall by no means reach you; so remove your family in a part of the night -and let none of you look back -- except your wife, for surely whatsoever befalls them shall befall her; surely their appointed time is the morning; is not the morning nigh? -- Sura 11:81 Now, obviously, God can command whatever he wants to. But here it becomes clear that it is not stubborn disobedience of Lot's wife to look back despite God's command, but it is Allah himself who has no interest to save Lot's wife and Lot is told by the angels to not even bother about his wife since God will distroy her anyway. If that is not cruel as a response to a prayer to God to save him and his family, ... My problem is not so much with contemtuous expression of "an old woman", but it is with the character of God as it is displayed here in the Qur'an. The description of his wife as "an old woman" is in keeping with Allah's disinterest in the fate of Lot's wife. See also Sura 27:57 which reads "her we destined to be of those who lagged behind". Muslim Responses by Randy Desmond Date: Thu, 9 Jan 1997 I am sorry that the author(of the contradiction)'s response is an expression of his personal dissatisfaction with the Qur'an more than it is a logical argument. Certainly that author, himself, could see (and in fact did point out) a resolution to the proposed contradiction. Ironically, he then decides to criticize God's character because he did not approve of a man's wife being called "an old women." As if being an old women and not being mentioned by name or family relationship is demeaning somehow. Haven't you ever heard a story where the characters are referenced in many ways? In fact, when you consider that she was among those left behind, God is even then the most Kind. God doesn't speak ill words about her, but only states the facts of her situation. So how do you reckon the fate of Lot's wife within the Biblical story? Let's look in Genesis 19... [15] When morning dawned, the angels urged Lot, saying, "Arise, take your wife and your two daughters who are here, lest you be consumed in the punishment of the city." . . . [24] Then the LORD rained on Sodom and Gomor'rah brimstone and fire from the LORD out of heaven; [25] and he overthrew those cities, and all the valley, and all the inhabitants of the cities, and what grew on the ground. [26] But Lot's wife behind him looked back, and she became a pillar of salt. Sounds pretty similar to the Qur'an. Do you then question God's character in the Bible? Yes, the punishment for Lot's wife is in the end the same in Bible and Qur'an. The important difference is that God does not predetermine her punishment in the Bible. All of Lot's family is called to be saved. The wife then disobeys the orders of the angels and is turned to a pillar of salt. In the Qur'an on the other hand, God predecides that he will punish Lot's wife and tells him to not even bother with her. The contempt and judgment is decreed beforehand. There is no door open to salvation and obedience. God has decided to punish and lead astray. No discussion about it. Just as Allah silences Noah in 11:45-47 when he asks about the son of his who got lost in the flood. But we saved him and his family, exept his wife: her We destined to be of those who lagged behind. -- Sura 27:57 Sura 7 and Sura 29 And his people gave NO answer but this: They said, "Drive them out of your city: these are indeed men who want to be clean and pure!" -- Sura 7:82 & 27:56 But his people gave NO answer but this: They said: "Bring us the Wrath of Allah if thou tellest the truth." -- Sura 29:29 Obviously the answer is different. And since it says both times "no answer but this" they could not have said both with one part reported in one sura and the other part in another, because then there would be "another answer" contradicting the "no answer but this". Muslim Responses by Randy Desmond Date: Thu, 9 Jan 1997 There are two obvious ways I can think of which we can solve this proposed contradiction. One way is to consider the context within the questions Lut(Peace be upon him)'s people answer. The second way is to consider the questions themselves. If we look at the context of the questions (see the verses which precede the one's listed here), we notice that for similar contexts, we get the same answer. And where the context is slightly different, we get a different answer. This would mean that with respect to the same context, the answer is only one. When the question was changed (and with it the context), the answer was different, and that answer is the only answer given for that context. The other way to solve this proposed contradiction is to entertain possiblility that because the questions themselves differ for each verses, then it can be understood that for each of these questions answer was given for each question and so for two of the questions answers happened to be the same. the of the only one the Look at it this way: If you asked me what color is a red car and a different time you asked me what color is a red truck, because my only answer would be red for both questions, does that mean you asked the same question both times? I think it is a bit sneaky to just compare the answers without considering the questions that were asked, and as already pointed out the context of the questions disprove any discrepency there too. There is no contradiction here. My faith keeps growing. Islam has all the answers to any challanges. God is one. I like and can accept the first answer. And the second one is actually the same as the first. So, it is repetitive but still okay. Even though 7:80 and 29:28 are basically the same wording, sura 29 adds some more charges and might be a different occasion. Also, it would be strange to assume that a prophet would speak up on the sins of the people only once. No, usually he will continually preach and warn about the judgement of God. So, at one occasion they might have said this, and on another occasion they might have said the other in response. One would have to look at the Arabic if the tense of the verb would preclude this and indicate that this was each time meant to be their 'constant' answer to his ongoing preaching or if that is indeed indicating one time events on the time line. Whether Islam has answers to all questions that is difficult to conclude from one issue. And I haven't challenged that God is one. No clue what this has to do with the discussion. I also testify that there is only one God, creator and sustainer of the Universe. This is confirmed by both of us. None of the contradictions on this site calls this into question. The question is which of the two revelations claimed to be from this one God is indeed the true one. Sura 29 and Sura 14 He punishes whom He pleases, and He grants mercy to whom He pleases, ... -- Sura 29:21 Allah leads astray whom he pleases, and he guides whom He pleases, ... -- Sura 14:4 Does Allah "take pleasure" in punishing people and leading them astray? A Muslim's Response by Randy Desmond Date: Tue, 1 Oct 1996 13:07:27 PDT The Arabic word used in these verses means "he wills" (NOT he pleases). Does the then mean his own will is not pleasing to Allah? Any way you turn it, Allah's action in the above verses seem very arbitrary and it is Allah's will or pleasure to lead some astray and punish them and nothing can be done on our side to counter this decision. The question of free will and predestination is difficult in Christian theology as well. But Muslims need to find an answer for themselves and cannot be consoled that Christians are struggling in this area too. Ultimately the question is: Who is responsible for my life and is punishing me for something God has "forced" me to do still possible to be called "justice"? Both Christianity and Islam uphold that God is sovereign and that God is just. Qur'an Contradiction: What Action Did Abraham Take? The accounts of Abraham, Suras 19:41-49, 6:74-83 differ quite a bit from Sura 21:51-59. In 21:51-59 Abraham destroys the idols to show the people that they have no power and argues with them, in consequence they try to kill him by throwing him into fire. [Furthermore: in verse 57 he destroys their idols (their property) behind the back of the people (the owners) and in verse 63 he lies about it. Is that the behavior of an honest prophet?] Anyway, while in Sura 21 Abraham confronts his people strongly, and even destroys the idols, in Sura 19 Abraham shuts up after his father threatens him to stone him for speaking out against the idols. And he seems not only to become silent, but even to leave the area ("turning away from them all"). Nothing of destroying the idols is said. In Sura 6 he also only argues with the people without taking any action to destroy idols. Furthermore Sura 6 differs from the other two in the respect that Abraham does initially also worship the creation instead of the creator and only later realizes his mistake [sin] of worshiping that which is not God.. Qur'an Contradiction: Was Noah Driven Out? After much dispute between Noah and his people (11:32) and their rejection of his message, Noah is commanded to build the Ark (11:37). Then we read: Forthwith he (starts) constructing the Ark: Every time that the Chiefs of his people passed by him, they threw ridicule on him. -- Sura 11:38 And then after the Ark is finished the fountains of the earth open up and the flood happens to judge the earth. In contrast to the above record we find elsewhere: Before them the people of Noah rejected (their messenger): They rejected Our servant and said, "Here is One possessed!" And he was driven out. -- Sura 54:9 After that the water comes and the Ark is mentioned and comes somehow "out of nowhere"... Anyhow, if he was driven out of the country or out of the area, he obviously couldn't build the Ark where his people would regularly pass by. On the other hand, if he build the Ark before their very eyes, and was then driven out, how did he get back to the Ark for the flood? This was not a toy ship, he couldn't take that with him while "being driven out" and away from this ship. Furthermore, it contradicts the record of Noah in the Tora, which is in this respect in harmony with Sura 11 but not with Sura 54. Qur'an Contradiction: Pharaoh's repentance in the face of death? According to Sura 10:90-92, Pharaoh repented "in the sight of death" and was saved: And WE brought the children of Israel across the sea; and Pharaoh and his hosts pursued them wrongfully and aggressively, till when the calamity of drowning overtook him, he cried, ‗I believe that there is no god but HE in Whom the Children of Israel believe, and I am of those who submit to Him.‘ What! Now! while thou wast disobedient before this and wast of the mischief-makers. So this day WE will save thee IN thy body alone (nunajjeeka BIbadanika) that thou mayest be a Sign to those who come after thee. And surely many of mankind are heedless of Our Signs. S. 10:90-92 Shakir But Sura 4:18 says that such a thing can't happen: Of no effect is the repentance of those who continue to do evil, until death faces one of them, and he says, "Now have I repented indeed;" nor of those who die rejecting Faith: for them have We prepared a punishment most grievous. S. 4:18 Y. Ali So does this next Sura: For when their apostles came to them with Clear Signs, they exulted in such knowledge (and skill) as they had; but that very (Wrath) at which they were wont to scoff hemmed them in. But when they saw Our Punishment, they said: "We believe in God, - the one God - and we reject the partners we used to join with Him." But their professing the Faith when they (actually) saw Our Punishment was not going to profit them. (Such has been) God's Way of dealing with His Servants (from the most ancient times). And even thus did the Rejecters of God perish (utterly)! S. 40:83-85 The Arabic text of Sura 10:92 clearly says that Allah will save Pharaoh IN his body. In fact, compare how the following translations render 10:92: A.J. ARBERRY: So today We shall deliver thee WITH thy body ... YUSUF ALI: This day shall We save thee IN the body ... PICKTHALL: But this day We save thee IN thy body ... DARYABADI: So this day We deliver you IN your body ... SHAKIR: But We will this day deliver you WITH your body ... SAHEEH INTERNATIONAL TRANSLATION: So today We will save you IN body ... T.B. IRVING: However today We will preserve you IN your body ... SHER ALI: So this day WE will save thee IN thy body alone ... E.H. PALMER: but to-day we will save thee IN thy body ... Even Muhammad Asad, who renders the verse as "We saved only thy body", admits in a footnote: Lit. "We saved thee IN thy body" ... (Muhammad Asad, The Message of the Qur'an [Dar alAndalus Limited, 3 Library Ramp, Gibraltar 1993], p. 306, fn. 112) It is obvious from the consensus of all these translations that the Arabic text is saying that Allah saved more than simply Pharaoh‘s body. 10:100 does say that "no soul can believe, except by the Will of Allah" and verse 103 affirms that "This is it fitting on Our part that We should deliver those who believe!" And in 10:90 Pharaoh clearly confesses "I believe that there is no god except Him whom the Children of Israel believe in: I am of those who submit." So, according to 100 and 103 this was a work of Allah and he will deliver him. But 4:18 says this is impossible. But if this cannot be eternal deliverance from the judgment, then "as it seems" maybe it is deliverance from the drowning? I.e. physical deliverance? But this doesn't fit either, because Sura 17:103 makes clear that Pharaoh was indeed drowned and no repentance is indicated in this passage. A Muslim's Response by Randy Desmond Date: Fri, 8 Nov 1996 05:13:58 PST Surah 4:18 "Of no effect is the repentance of those who continue to do evil until death faces one of them and he says, "Now have I repented indeed." Nor of those who die rejecting faith; For them We have prepared a punishment most grievous." This is certainly one of your least coherent responses so far. You only gave the text of Sura 4:18 which I refered to above, but then don't say anything to resolve the contradiction with Sura 10:90-92, where it is clear that the Pharaoh who had seen many signs and miracles at the hand of Moses, stubbornly refused to believe and indeed only recognized himself as god (Sura 28:38). But Sura 10:90-92 makes clear he is saved. It does not say "We will save your body" but Yusuf Ali translates "We shall save thee in thy body." Now, if the Pharaoh were drowned, then he could certainly not have been saved in his body. If he drowned (died) and his soul left his body what was "in his body" that was saved? And how is this even deserving the term "saved" if he drowned? Qur'an Contradiction: Pharaoh's repentance in the face of death? Response to Saifullah In our Quran Contradictions section, we stated: According to Sura 10:90-92, Pharaoh repented "in the sight of death" and was saved. But Sura 4:18 says that such a thing can't happen. I am actually not sure what it means when Allah said in response to his repentance and confession of faith that "This day shall We save you in your body, ..." 10:100 does say that "no soul can believe, except by the Will of Allah" and verse 103 affirms that "This is it fitting on Our part that We should deliver those who believe!" And in 10:90 Pharaoh clearly confesses "I believe that there is no god except Him whom the Children of Israel believe in: I am of those who submit." So, according to 100 and 103 this was a work of Allah and he will deliver him. But 4:18 says this is impossible. But if this cannot be eternal deliverance from the judgment, then "as it seems" maybe it is deliverance from the drowining? I.e. physical deliverance? But this doesn't fit either, because Sura 17:103 makes clear that Pharaoh was indeed drowned and no repentence is indicated in this passage. Dr. MSM Saifullah responds to the above with the following: Rebuttal Now what is left unclear by the Christian missionaries rather delibrately is that what is meant by Pharaoh being 'saved' in the verse 10:90-92. If we read the verse again We took the Children of Israel across the sea: Pharaoh and his hosts followed them in insolence and spite. At length, when overwhelmed with the flood, he said: "I believe that there is no god except Him Whom the Children of Israel believe in: I am of those who submit (to Allah in Islam)." (It was said to him): "Ah now!- But a little while before, wast thou in rebellion!- and thou didst mischief (and violence)! "This day shall We save thee in the body, that thou mayest be a sign to those who come after thee! but verily, many among mankind are heedless of Our Signs!" [Qur'ân 10:90-92] it is clear that the Pharaoh's body was saved and that he was not saved from the hell fire. This is because the Pharaoh repented only when the death approached him. And repentence at the face of death is not accepted as Allah says: Allah accept the repentance of those who do evil in ignorance and repent soon afterwards; to them will Allah turn in mercy: For Allah is full of knowledge and wisdom. Of no effect is the repentance of those who continue to do evil, until death faces one of them, and he says, "Now have I repented indeed;" nor of those who die rejecting Faith: for them have We prepared a punishment most grievous. [Qur'ân 4:17-18] Further, this can be clarified by comparing verses 10:90-92, 4:17-18 with 38:42. Pharaoh said: "O Chiefs! no god do I know for you but myself: therefore, O Haman! light me a (kiln to bake bricks) out of clay, and build me a lofty palace, that I may mount up to the god of Moses: but as far as I am concerned, I think (Moses) is a liar!" And he was arrogant and insolent in the land, beyond reason,- He and his hosts: they thought that they would not have to return to Us! So We seized him and his hosts, and We flung them into the sea: Now behold what was the end of those who did wrong! And we made them (but) leaders inviting to the Fire; and on the Day of Judgment no help shall they find. In this world We made a curse to follow them and on the Day of Judgment they will be among the loathed (and despised). [38:42] So, it is pretty clear that the Pharaoh instead of being admitted into the paradise, would be one of the companions of the hell-fire. So, he is not saved from the Hell-fire rather his body is saved. In other words, the verses are in perfect agreement with each other and they clarify each other. It is worthwhile to point here that this method of exegesis using internal relationships, i.e., al-Qur'ân yufassiru bacduhu bacdan (different parts of the Qur'ân explain each other), is widely employed in the stories of the Prophets and the people of the past. Certain themes have been treated in more than one place in the Qur'ân, including, for instance, God's power and grace, the hereafter, stories of earlier prophets, etc. The conciseness or expansion in one place or another depends on muqtadâ'i 'l-hâl, and an expanded statement in one place clarifies a concise one in another. And Allah knows best! Response: What is actually clear is the authors' assumptions that are evidently at work throughout their exegesis of these passages. For instance, the authors must assume that the phrase, "We save thee in thy body" means that God saved Pharaoh's body. The only problem is that the phrase, "thee in thy body" presumes that more than Pharaoh's body shall be saved. Hence, what would be in Pharaoh's body except his soul? This implies that Allah promised to save both his soul and his body from destruction. Yet, this leaves a couple of problems for Saifullah and his staff. If "saving Pharaoh in his body" meant that God would save him from drowning then this is in clear contradiction of S. 38:42 where it states that both Pharaoh and his army were flung into the sea and destroyed (cf. 17:102-103; 28:40). If the phrase "saving thee in thy body" implies that both Pharaoh's body would be preserved and his soul spared from eternal destruction, then this verse would again contradict S. 38:42 where it clearly claims that Pharaoh will be one of those that enter hell. In fact, early Muslim exegetes believed that S. 10:92 clearly affirmed that Pharaoh had been forgiven of his sin: It was quoted on the strength of Ibn Abbas' report, that Muhammad said: `When Allah drowned Pharaoh, the latter said: "I believe that there is no god but He in whom the Children of Israel believe." Gabriel said: "O Muhammad, I would that you saw me taking of the mire of the sea and stuffing it in his mouth, for fear that Allah's mercy should reach him."' It was said in another report that Gabriel filled Pharaoh's mouth with mud, lest he should say: `There is no god but Allah,' and thus Allah's mercy should reach him. Others said: `Lest Allah should show mercy on him,' (see al-Tabari's commentary on Sura Yunis 10:90-92). Al-Razi objected to this and said: `Is it right that Gabriel filled Pharaoh's mouth with mud, that the latter might not repent, because he was angry with him? The most probable answer is no, because in that case it would be asked, Did Allah command Pharaoh to believe, or not? If he did, then it would not be permissable for Gabriel to prevent him from repenting; rather he ought to help him repent and obey Allah in all respects. But if, on the other hand, the commandment to Pharaoh did not exist at that time, then what was said about Gabriel would be of no effect. Also, if Gabriel prevented him from repenting, he would be approving of Pharaoh's remaining an infidel, and the approval of infidelity is infidelity. Moreover how does it fit the majesty of God to forbid Gabriel to prevent Pharaoh from believing? If you say that Gabriel did this of his own accord and not by God's injunction, your words would be annulled (or disproved) by Gabriel's statement in Sura Maryam 19:64: "We come not down, save at the commandment of they Lord"' (see al-Razi's commentary on Sura Yunis 10:90-92). Al-Razi's argument was answered by saying that the aforementioned hadith (concerning Gabriel's filling Pharaoh's mouth with mud) is sound, and that God may stand as a barrier between a man and his heart (namely, to prevent him from believing), etc. (True Guidance [Light of Life, PO Box 13, A-9503 Villach Austria], pp. 141-142) Applying Razi's logic, the fact that God commanded Pharaoh to repent, leading him to believe, meant that the latter no longer remained an infidel and therefore was spared from eternal destruction. Furthermore, on the authors' allusion that the body of Pharaoh has been found is not entirely correct. Scholars are in disagreement over the identity of the Pharaoh of the Exodus. Some scholars are of the opinion that the Exodus took pace in the 19th dynasty period of Egypt, making Seti 1 and Rameses 2 the Pharaohs of the oppression and Exodus. Others, citing 1 Kings 6:1 as evidence, believe that the Exodus took place in 1446 B.C. due to the statement in 1 Kings that Israel's deliverance from Egypt took place 430 years before "The fourth year of Solomon's reign over Israel" (i.e. 966 B.C.). This would make Thutmose 3 and his son Amunhotep 2 the Pharaohs of that period. This is a fact with which at least one Muslim commentator agrees: Lit. `We shall save thee in thy body': Probably an allusion to the ancient Egyptian custom of embalming the bodies of their kings and nobles and thus preserving them for posterity. Some Egyptologists assume that the `evil Pharaoh' of the Quran and the Bible was Ramses II (about 1324-1258 B.C.), while others identify him with his unlucky predecessor, Tut-ankhamen, or even with Thotmes (or Thutmosis) III, who lived in the 15th century B.C. However, all these `identifications' are purely speculative and have no definitive historical value. In this connection it should be remembered that the designation `Pharaoh' (fir'awn in Arabic) is not a proper name but a title born by all the kings of ancient Egypt." (Muhammad Asad, The Message of the Qur'an [Dar al-Andalus Limited, 3 Library Ramp, Gibraltar 1993], p. 306, f. 112) Finally, the story of Pharaoh's repentance at the face of destruction was not a new revelation. The Talmud documented this story long before the Quran was ever compiled. Perceive the great power of repentance! Pharaoh, king of Egypt, uttered very wicked words 'Who is the god whose voice I shall obey? (Exod. 5:2). Yet as he repented, saying. 'Who is like unto thee among the gods?' (Exod. 15:2). God saved him from death; for it saith; Almost had I stretched out my hands and destroyed; but God let him live, that he might declare his power and strength.' " (Pirke Rabbi Elieazer, xliii; Midrash Yalkut, ccxxxviii - see also T.P. Hughes, Dictionary of Islam [Kazi Publications Inc., Chicago Il. 1994], p. 241) Hence, there is nothing in the Quran that had not been previously known by the Jews, Christians and pagans. Sam Shamoun Qur'an Contradiction: Abrogation? The words of the Lord are perfect in truth and justice; there is NONE who can change His words. He both heareth and knoweth. -- Sura 6:115 None can change the words of God; -- Sura 6:34 There is no changing the words of God; that is the mighty triumph. -- Sura 10:64 And recite what has been revealed to you of the Book of your Lord, there is none who can alter His words; and you shall not find any refuge besides Him. -- Sura 18:27 However: And for whatever verse we abrogate and cast into oblivion We bring a better or the like of it; knowest thou not that God is powerful over everything? -- Sura 2:106 And when We exchange a verse in place of another verse -and God knows very well what He is sending down -they say, 'Thou art a mere forger!' Nay, but the most of them have no knowledge. -- Sura 16:101 Here is Ibn Kathir's commentary on Sura 18:27 taken from Tafsir Ibn Kathir, Abridged Volume 6 (Surat Al-Isra‟, verse 39 To the end of Surat Al-Mu‟minun), abridged by a group of scholars under the supervision of Shaykh Safiur-Rahman Al-Mubarakpuri, Darussalam Publishers & Distributors, Riyadh, Houston, New York, Lahore; First Edition, July 2000: The Command to recite the Qur’an and to patiently keep Company with the Believers Commanding his Messenger to recite his Holy Book and convey it to mankind, Allah says, <None can change His Words,> meaning, no one can alter them, distort them or misinterpret them. (p. 142) Muhammad Asad comments on the same verse: "... According to Razi, it is on this passage, among others, that the great Qur’an-commentator Abu Muslim al-Isfahani based his rejection of the so-called ‘doctrine of abrogation’ discussed in my note 87 on 2:106." (Asad, Message of the Qur’an [Dar Al-Andalus Limited 3 Library Ramp, Gibraltar rpt. 1993], p. 443, fn. 35; online edition) The following Muslim cites Sura 10:64 as proof that the Quran is unchangeable: 5. Why don't Muslims adapt the Quran to the needs of the modern age? a. The Quran states: there is no changing the words of God. (1) (GF Haddad, Frequent Questions About Islam And Religion; online source) In the footnote, this is what we find the author citing: 1 Those who believe and guarded (against evil): They shall have good news in this world's life and in the hereafter; there is no changing the words of Allah; that is the mighty achievement. Sura Yunus (10) verses 63/64 (Source) The problem is obvious: On the one hand, Sura 6:115, 6:34, 10:64, 18:27 make it clear that NONE CAN change the words of God (which is supported by the explanation of the commentators quoted). But, on the other hand, God DOES exchange one verse for another verse (Sura 2:106, 16:101). And he does so through his messengers like Jesus [supposedly changing some rules given through Moses] and like Muhammad who gives rules different again from those of Moses and of Jesus. Muhammad Asad‘s above mentioned footnote 87 on Sura 2:106 is quite interesting: "... The principle laid down in this passage - relating to the supersession of the Biblical dispensation by that of the Qur‘an - has given rise to an erroneous interpretation by many Muslim theologians. The word ayah ('message') occurring in this context is also used to denote a ‗verse‘ of the Qur‘an (because every one of these verses contains a message). Taking this restricted meaning of the term ayah, some scholars conclude from the above passage that certain verses of the Qur‘an have been ‗abrogated‘ by God‘s command before the revelation of the Qur‘an was completed. Apart from the fancifulness of this assertion WHICH CALLS TO MIND THE IMAGE OF A HUMAN AUTHOR CORRECTING, ON SECOND THOUGHT, THE PROOFS OF HIS MANUSCRIPT, deleting one passage and replacing it with another - there does not exist a single reliable Tradition to the effect that the Prophet ever declared a verse of the Qur‘an to have been ‗abrogated‘. At the root of the so-called ‗doctrine of abrogation‘ MAY LIE THE INABILITY OF SOME EARLY COMMENTATORS TO RECONCILE ONE QUR'ANIC PASSAGE WITH ANOTHER; a difficulty which was overcome by declaring that one of the verses in question had been „abrogated‟. This arbitrary procedure explains also why there is no unanimity whatsoever among the upholders of the „doctrine of abrogation‟ as to which, and how many, Qur‟an-verses have been affected by it; and furthermore, as to whether this alleged abrogation implies a total elimination of the verse from the context of the Qur‟an, or only a cancellation of the specific ordinance or statement contained in it. In short, the ‗doctrine of abrogation‘ has no basis in historical fact, and must be rejected ..." (Asad, Message of the Qur‟an [Dar Al-Andalus Limited 3 Library Ramp, Gibraltar rpt. 1993], pp. 22-23, n. 87; online edition; bold and capital emphasis ours) Asad correctly points out that abrogation is an indication of human imperfections and weakness. Another Muslim, the Maulana Muhammad Ali of the Ahmadiyya sect, rejected the doctrine of abrogation because it violates the claim of the Quran that it is free from errors and discrepancies. Yet he readily admitted that this concept was developed because Muslims were confronted with references that conflicted with one another which they could not satisfactorily explain: The principle on which the theory of abrogation is based is unacceptable, being contrary to the clear teachings of the Qur'an. A verse is considered to be abrogated when the two cannot be reconciled with each other; in other words, when they appear to contradict each other. But the Qur'an destroys this foundation when it declares that no part of it is at variance with another: "Will they not then meditate on the Qur'an? And if it were from any other than Allah, they would have found in it many a discrepancy" (4 : 82). It was due to lack of meditation that one verse was thought to be at variance with another; and hence it is that in almost all cases where abrogation has been upheld by one person, there has been another who, being able to reconcile the two, has repudiated the alleged abrogation. (Ali, The Religion of Islam [The Ahmadiyya Anjuman Isha'at Islam (Lahore) U.S.A., Eighth Edition 2005], p. 32; bold and italic emphasis ours) What Ali's candid admission shows is that the Muslims who appeal to abrogation do so primarily because they are unable of reconciling the errors within the Quran. Abrogation therefore becomes the convenient way of explaining away these discrepancies. Discussions and links on the doctrine of abrogation God Guides To Truth Say: 'God - He guides to the truth; and which is worthier to be followed -He who guides to the truth, or he who guides not unless he is guided? What then ails you, how do you judge? -- Sura 10:35 You would sure agree, that this verse argues that we should follow only God, because he is the one who guides to truth. And any other can only guide to truth if he himself is guided. Therefore, why rely on any other and not directly follow God? But, this argument only holds water when we can indeed trust that God leads to truth those who trust him and doesn't deceive those who follow his words and deeds. That they said (in boast) "We killed Christ Jesus the son of Mary the Apostle of Allah"; but they killed him not nor crucified him but so it was made to appear to them and those who differ therein are full of doubts with no (certain) knowledge but only conjecture to follow for of a surety they killed him not. -- Sura 4:157 WHO did make this appear to them as if Jesus was crucified? Isn't it clear that that is God's acting? Now, in this verse God does both deceive the onlookers about what is happening and then "complain" about the fact that the people believe what he has made them believe. God made it appear as if Jesus is crucified and killed, but God shifts the blame of being ignorant and full of doubt on those who believe in what is the deed of God himself. This testimony about God given in the Qur'an doesn't inspire much confidence in this God and his revelations. After all, how do I know that at any time, he isn't currently deceiving me? But taken together with 10:35 which says that God is the one who guides to the truth, that is a contradiction. Sura 10:35 does NOT say He guides to truth EXCEPT in a few circumstances. "God guides to truth" is an ABSOLUTE statement. And it is wrong, because in 4:157 he does make believe people in something that is false. And the problem is, he mislead also those who want to follow God, not only those who are his enemies anyway. Or how do you explain that the disciples and all of early Christianity believed in the crucifixion? Allah leads astray whom he pleases, and he guides whom He pleases, ... -- Sura 14:4 And how do we know in which of Allah's categories of pleasure we fall? How sure can a Muslim be that he is one of those guided right and not one of those led astray? Indeed how do we know that all of Islam is not the "leading astray" category and Christianity is the right one? Muslim Response by Tim Date: Sat, 09 Aug 1997 You have quoted: Allah leads astray whom he pleases, and he guides whom He pleases, ... -- Sura 14:4 in support of your point. However, like many points, you take things out of context, or overlook other texts that clarify things. Allah addresses Sura 14:4 in Sura 2:26, and many other Suras clarify what he means when he says he leads astray. I have asked someone else about this because it was of interest to me as well. His explanation is better than any I could give, so here it is: ---[14.4]-"....Then ALLAH leaves to go astray whom He wills and guides whom He wills. And He is the Mighty, the Wise." Now who are the people who are astray and what are their characteristics, this is abundantly clarified in the Qur'an at many places.Some verses that define those who are astray according to the law (will) of Allah are given below.Do note,if you have the qualities as mentioned in those verses then you are also astray according to Allah's laws. [vi] WHO ARE THE PEOPLE WHO ARE LED ASTRAY ACCORDING TO THE LAW OF ALLAH ? (1) Those who are TRANSGRESSORS (Fasiqoon) [2.26]"Surely Allah is not ashamed to set forth any parable-- (that of) a gnat or any thing above that; then as for those who believe, they know that it is the truth from their Lord, and as for those who disbelieve, they say: What is it that Allah means by this parable: He causes many to err by it and many He leads aright by it! but He does not cause to err by it (any) EXCEPT the transgressors" (2) Those who are take shiaateen (Satans) as friends and protectors 7:30"Some He hath guided: Others have (by their choice) deserved the loss of their way; in that they took the DEVILS in preference to God for their friends and protectors and think that they receive guidance." 22:4"About the (Evil One) it is decreed that whoever turns to him for friendship him will he lead astray and he will guide him to the Penalty of the Fire." (3) Those who disobey Allah and His messenger 33:36-".... and whoever disobeys Allah and His Messenger, he surely STRAYS off a manifest straying." (4) Those who are oppressors and are unjust (Zalimun) [14.27]"Allah confirms those who believe with the sure word in this world's life and in the hereafter, and Allah causes the unjust to go astray, and Allah does what He pleases." (5) Those who do not use their faculties of reasoning and listening to analyse the message of Allah [25.44] Or do you think that most of them do hear or use their reasoning? They are nothing but as cattle; nay, they are straying farther off from the path. (6) Those who follow the opinions of their chiefs and great men instead of the message of Allah [33.67] And they shall say: O our Lord! surely we obeyed our leaders and our great men, so they led us astray from the path; (7) Those who are blind and heedless to the message of Allah 17:72 But those who were blind in this world will be blind in the hereafter and most astray from the Path. (8) Those who follow the opinions of the people who are in a majority. [6.116] And if you obey most of those in the earth, they will lead you astray from Allah's way; they follow but conjecture and they only lie. (9) Those who follow their desires [6.56] Say: I am forbidden to serve those whom you call upon besides Allah. Say: I do not follow your desires. for then indeed I should have gone astray and I should not be of those who go aright. The above verses describe who are those people who are led astray. Anyone who has above mentioned qualities in him is astray according to the law of Allah. Compare above with what Quran says about who are the people who will get Allahs guidance ? See these verses 39:18, 13:27, 6:125 etc. Above verses are clear in describing that man has the freedom of choice to select right or wrong in his life.He will be rewarded according to the type of actions he does. Allah is not to be blamed for his wrongdoings but he is to blame himself.People are led astray not because Allah wants them to go astray but by choosing those qualities for themselves which Allah has termed to be of those who are astray from his path. Their free selection of those qualities eg transgression, disobedience, following -- Peace, Love, and Light, Tim Punishment The woman and the man guilty of adultery or fornication, flog them each with a hundred stripes. -- Sura 24:2 If any of your women are guilty of lewdness, take the evidence of four (reliable) witnesses from amongst you against them; and if they testify, confine them to houses until death do claim them, or Allah ordain for them some (other) way. If two (men) among you are guilty of lewdness, punish them both. If they repent and amend, leave them alone; for Allah is Oft-returning, Most Merciful. -- Sura 4:15-16 Yusuf Ali says "men", other translations just say "two". It is the masculine dual form of the word. This "could" also mean a man and a woman, but it might be more natural as reading this as a rule how to deal with homosexual acts, since verse 15 deals only with women, and so the attention turns to men in verse 16. If 4:16 is about male homosexual acts, then interestingly, the homosexual men are to be left alone when they repent of their deed, while adulterers are to be punished in any case. This alone is not a contradiction, but certainly strange. Maybe because in an homosexual act no other man's right over a woman is violated? While in adultery with the wife of another man the "property" or right of an undefiled wife of this man is violated? A homosexual act would would violate only the wife of this other man but the violation of a woman is not as severe? Nevertheless, there is the contradiction whether for a female adulteress the is punishment one hundred stripes [Sura 24:2] or confinement in the house until death [4:15]. If 4:16 does not speak only about homosexual acts but also about adultery of man and woman, then another contradictory element is added: If they repent they can get off the hook without punishment? Who will not repent with the prospect of a hundred stripes waiting for them? Apart from the question whether the punishment should be as in 24:2 or 4:15, how come the man and woman are treated equal in 24:2, but seemingly different in 4:15? All this is further complicated by the fact that in the Sharia the actual punishment for adultery is stoning on the basis of the Sunna of Muhammad and various hadiths and there are even traditions that the verse of stoning was originally part of the Qur'an. Are Christians Believers Or Unbelievers? Believers, Jews, Sabaeans and Christians whoever believes in God and the Last Day and does what is right shall have nothing to fear or regret. -- Sura 5:69 But just three verses further in the text it says Unbelievers are those that say: "God is the Messiah, the son of Mary." For the Messiah himself said: "Children of Israel, serve God, my Lord and your Lord." He that worships other gods besides God, God will deny him Paradise, and the fire shall be his home. None shall help the evil-doers. -- Sura 5:72 So, are Christians believers or unbelievers? Are they allowed to remain as Christians (knowing they worship Christ) as long as they do what is right, or are they condemned outright for their faith? Do we have to worry or not to worry according to the Qur'an? Sometimes I even wonder if single Suras were even completely authored by the same person. Now, the obvious answer that a Muslim would give is that the "true" Christians do not worship Jesus as God. Hence there is no contradiction. But the first verse does not specify that. It only talks about the belief in the existence of God and in the (Judgment of the) Last Day and doing right. Any serious Christian will fall in this category. Muslims try to save the Qur'an by claiming that any Trinitarian is not a true Christian and hence verse 72 does not apply to them. But the problem is only shifted. Either the contradiction is as above, or, with the shift, the contradiction is with reality. It is historical fact that Christianity has always considered Jesus to be the LORD, to be of the same nature of God. Therefore, either the Qur'an contradicts itself, or it shows itself very ignorant of historical Christianity. One more comment: No Christian would ever say that Jesus is "another god" as this verse mistakenly says, nor that "God is Jesus". It is only the other way around: "Jesus is God, but not 'all of God'". But this is a big topic that cannot be dealt with in a few sentences here, so let me point you to the material on the deity of Christ and Trinity that is on this site. The Trinity is a great, insightful presentation. A collection of much further material on the topic of the Trinity A Muslim's Response by Randy Desmond Date: Wed, 2 Oct 1996 05:12:50 PDT Jochen gives the correct answer for the Muslim perspective; true Christians do not worship Jesus(Peace be upon him) as God, and, as such, there is no contradiction. For Jochen to prove there is any sort of contradiction, he must show that it is a "historical fact" that Christianity has always considered Jesus to be "LORD, to be of the same nature of God." (Are you saying Jesus is God or not? Never mind, I see you say "he is God, but not 'all of God'") Where are these "historical facts"? I have yet to be shown where Jesus(pbuh) is said to mention he is God or even shares in the Godhead (I seek shelter in God from such thoughts). As for historical facts that Christians have only worshipped God only, just take a look at a history book about the stuff. I have read the stuff before - I did not keep a record of the books. I'm sure if anyone interested enough they can go to the library and find the material. And what does "the same nature of God" mean? In refuting a contradiction about what a "day" means in some verses of the Qur'an, I was unjustly accused of "moving God around" when I wanted to illustrate the relativity of time without saying or implying God physically moves around. However, having God (or part of God) become man, then "moving God around" on Earth is a perfectly acceptable logical belief? God is One. I have submitted to Him in Islam, and you are also invited. Just a reminder before the Day comes when a reminder will be too late. But you didn't take a look at the Trinity articles I pointed to, did you? What point it is to be asked again and again for proof if you don't read the proof I have already provided? I give up. But looking the other way and demanding proof while refusing to look at it isn't very smart. There is a second set of these statements: Those who believe (in the Qur'an), and those who follow the Jewish (Scriptures), and the Christians and tha Sabians, any who believe in Allah and the Last Day, and work righteousness, shall have their reward with their Lord on them shall be no fear, nor shall they grieve. -- Sura 2:62 If anyone desires a religion other than Islam never will it be accepted of him; and in the Hereafter He will be in the ranks of those who have lost. -- Sura 3:85 In 2:62, those of the religions of Jews or Christians, in fact any who believes a small set of things and does good deeds will be saved [what else is the meaning of "will not grieve"?] yet in 3:85 those who are part of religions other than Islam are unacceptable and among those who are lost. Qur'an Difficulty: God alone or also men? Sura 16:103 states that the Qur'an is "clear Arabic speech." If it were really clear, why is this explanation even necessary? But it doesn't seem to be so clear after all when we read: He it is Who has sent down to thee the Book: In it are verses basic or fundamental (of established meaning); they are the foundation of the Book: others are allegorical. But those in whose hearts is perversity follow the part thereof that is allegorical, seeking discord, and searching for its hidden meanings, but no one knows its hidden meanings except Allah. And those who are firmly grounded in knowledge say: "We believe in the Book; the whole of it is from our Lord:" and none will grasp the Message except men of understanding. -- Sura 3:7 In the same verse it says that ONLY Allah knows the meaning of these difficult allegorical verses in the Qur'an ... and then it goes on to tell that "men of understanding" can grasp it. Is that a contradiction or do we want to resolve it with the concept of "incarnation" [God becoming man] which is so much looked down upon by Muslims? But Christianity believes God became man only once. The Qur'an talks about men in the plural... Actually Arberry translates "... desiring its interpretation; and none knows its interpretation, save only Allah." It does not talk about having a plain clear meaning and also a hidden meaning, but that there are verses which none knows at all what they mean, even though they desire its explanation or interpretation. A Muslim's Response by Randy Desmond Date: Wed, 2 Oct 1996 04:40:06 PDT First, this verse talks about no one knows its hidden meanings except God. The basic or fundamental meanings are clear to all. Second, what has been translated as "and none will grasp the Message" actually means "and none will take correction/admonition/reminder". So in this case, proposing a contradiction within the verse is irrelevant. Third, I have read that this verse can also be read as "... but no one knows its hidden meanings except Allah and those who are firmly grounded in knowledge. They say "We believe...". A. Yusuf Ali (if I am recalling correctly) mentions this. In this case, the proposed contradiction is exactly opposite of the meaning (aside from the fact that the second point above still holds). It is instructive to read Yusuf Ali's commentary in the footnote. He is aware of the problem, but also admits that most commentators agree that the sentence ends as he has translated it and then it IS a problem. Making a different sentence structure is ONLY motivated by avoiding a problem, not by the Arabic structure of the sentence. Look at the second paragraph in the initial response. It is mentioned exactly where A. Yusuf Ali's translation renders "take reminder/admonition/ correction" to be "grasp the Message". There is a HUGE difference in meaning between these two phrases which Jochen uses as a basis for proposing a contradiction. I only mention my third point as another alternative point of view which would also disprove your proposed contradiction. (You may consider it a problem, but A. Yusuf Ali is just mentioning it for reference.) Suffice it to say, you can throw this point a view out, and you are still disproven in your accusation. And Jochen is right - it is instructive to read A. Yusuf Ali's commentary regarding the third point to the initial response. Reread it and the verse above. A. Y. Ali is not commenting on the "and none will grasp the message" it is the "and those who are firmly grounded in knowledge" that he is commenting upon. Jochen is mixing apples and oranges here. Injil Of Jesus Many verses in the Qur'an make clear that the Injil is given to Jesus who was born several hundred years [about 1,400] after Moses. But in Sura 7:155-157 is the problem that Moses prays to Allah and in Allah's response to Moses we read Those who follow the Messenger, the unlettered Prophet, whom they find mentioned in their own (Scriptures), in the Taurat and the Gospel - .... -- Sura 7:157 The obvious problem is that the Gospel has not been revealed yet at that time, and nobody was able to find anything in it a nonexisting gospel. A Muslim's Response by Randy Desmond Date: Fri, 18 Oct 1996 14:02:51 PDT We should realize that this is God telling Moses(pbuh) that Muhammad(pbuh) will be found in the Tawrah (Torah) and Injil (Gospel). If the past tense seems confusing, it shouldn't. Arabic and Hebrew both used past tense when prophecies were mentioned. But it isn't speaking in past tense but in present tense ("whom they find mentioned). More details on this issue and a discussion of the verse in its context. Qur'an Difficulty Was Pharaoh Drowned or Saved? In Sura 10:92, Allah speaks to Pharaoh who ferociously chased the Children of Israel, "But this day We save you in your body, that you may be a portent for those after you." Although this verse makes it clear that Allah saved Pharaoh from drowning, Suras 28:40, 17:103, and 43:55 contradict this, stating that Pharaoh was drowned: "Therefore We seized him and his hosts and abandoned them unto the sea ... But We drowned him and those with him, all together ... And [We] drowned them, everyone." Muslim Response by Basar, Timucin Date: Tue, 19 Aug 1997 Selam and Peace to all Readers! Let me begin with Sura 10:93 (all quotations will be after H.M.Shakir's Version - note to add one Verse, because Shakir is using the verse numbers while taking the Basmala: Bismillahir-ar-rahman-ar-rahim as ONE verse.) Let us now take a look at both verses in an sober way, withouth own interpretations: [Yunus 10:92] But We will this day deliver you with your body that you may be a sign to those after you, and most surely the majority of the people are heedless to Our communications. vs. [al-Qasas 28:40] So We caught hold of him and his hosts, then We cast them into the sea, and see how was the end of the unjust. + [bani Isra'il 17:103] So he desired to destroy them out of the earth, but We drowned him and those with him all together; + [az-Zukhruf 43:55] Then when they displeased Us, We inflicted a retribution on them, so We drowned them all together, My humble answer: It is obviously and true that the Pharao and his soldiers were drowned into the sea. The next Day or some Days later the BODY of the Pharo was found and enbalmed in the rituals of these days with an high percentage (because he was Pharao). So i cant see ANY contradiction inhere. The Pharao was drowned - True! His Body was saved - True! He died, but HIS body was saved, as described in the Quran. I cant see ANY problems here: If someone is drowned, his body is coming to the surface of the water after a few days, so that he can be buried (or enbalmed). His body was saved for us, for the later generations as PREDICTED in the Quran in 10:93. This become all true, Menpthera was the Pharao after Pharao Ramses the II. According to what we know today from Science, Egyptology, Bible, Quran and Chronology of the Pharaons, it must be Menpthera whom we see today as an mummy in the Museum of Cairo! If someone has questions please dont hesitate to ask me by email. Peace Timucin My response has two parts, a lingustic question and a historical information. When the Qur'an says "But this day We save you in your body, ..." what exactly does this mean? Today Muslims want us to believe that this means "We will preserve your body for posterity", but why doesn't then the Arabic say "We will save your body" (but not your life)? Why does it use the preposition "in" (Arabic: bi) when it says "save you IN your body (nunajjeeka BI-badanika)"? The "you" is distinguished from "your body" and what is saved is not "the body" but the "you". The text clearly refers to the saving of the life of Pharaoh [you in your body, i.e. you will stay alive in this body] not "you will die but your body will be preserved for those after you." Also, it was well known that the Egyptians were embalming their Pharaohs and all through the centuries there have been grave robberies and people have been rediscovering those bodies. Maybe it is the background knowledge of this "general truth" of embalmed Pharaohs that Muhammad then applied it specifically to this Pharaoh without any special knowledge about him. (Just like all Pharaohs are embalmed, so you will be preserved also and people will remember what mighty sign God did on you because of your disobedience when Moses brought you the message of God. Then this would not be a prophecy of any special impact even if it is true.) If it is a special prophecy about this specific Pharaoh, then the next information below will maybe spell more trouble for the Qur'an instead of being a great vindication of the Qur'an as many Muslims believe this "prophecy" to be. This last point was argued a bit more detailed but similar by another Muslim on the Islamic newsgroup: i think you have not dug hard enough to find the information. the best book to start with is "Mummies of the Pharaoh" by Maurice Bucaille. it is written for more serious kind of students of egyptology who are interested in forensic studies of the pharaohs. this book is also quoted by other authors who deal in the similar field for its rather exhaustive investigation. this book also has a small section on the verses of the qur'an dealing with the preservation of the body of the pharaoh who pursued after moses (as) during the time of exodus and was overcome by the sea. bucaille identifies Merneptah as the pharoah of exodus because of many reasons: the most important one being the stela of israel which says: "the seed of israel is no more and palestine has become the slave of egypt" (for exact quote please refer the book "chronicle of the pharaohs"). this stela is from the time of Merneptah *not* Ramases II. and many bible archeologists use this stela to make their point on this issue. there is also a verse in the qur'an which talks about the pharaoh killing all the male children i.e., the seed of israel is annihilated. Truly Pharaoh elated himself in the land and broke up its people into sections, depressing a small group among them: their sons he slew, but he kept alive their females: for he was indeed a maker of mischief. (Qur'an 28:4) the body of Mernaptah has been found and it is a sign for those who believe. and allah knows best. Some comments: Others don't have so high an opinion of Dr. Bucaille. This book is incredibly biased in its presentation and frequently plain wrong. For details please see Dr. Campbell's rebuttal to Dr. Bucaille's book "The Bible, the Qur'an and Science". I don't think Dr. Campbell touches on the issue with the Pharaoh, but since Dr. Campbell wrote his book even more things have come to the attention of the scientific community. Maurice Bucaille wrote his book in the early seventies, long before the current reconstruction of Egyptian history. If indeed this body is of Merneptah as both of the above Muslims confirm just as it is the claim of Dr. Bucaille, then it is most probably not the body of the Pharaoh of Moses' time. New research during the last 5 years or so tells a different story. For details please see the review of David Rohl's new Egyptian chronology. By the way, David Rohl who is putting forth this research is not a Bible believer (to my knowledge). The fact that all his research dovetails very well with the Biblical account was a surprise to him. Furthermore, a careful investigation of the text on Merneptah's Stela mentioned above is contrary to the presented claim since there is a strong indication that Merneptah is not the Pharaoh of the Exodus. You will easily be able to conclude this after reading the following article on the Menerptah stela. Mysteries of the Bible: Another Series on Egyptian and Biblical Chronology. Dr. Bucaille's chapter on Menerptah's Mummy And one last thought. Much of the old knowledge has been lost. Maybe it was still known at the time of Muhammad that this particular Pharaoh was preserved and he just used the information he had and put it into the Qur'an. This wouldn't qualify as prophecy since prophecy is about something that will happen in the future, but as a historical fact which he was aware of and which he then couched in words of a prophecy spoken to the Pharaoh. Let us look at the Qur'anic text to see what we can observe there. Sura Yunus, 10:90-93 reads in Yusuf Ali's translation: (10:90) We took the Children of Israel across the sea: Pharaoh and his hosts followed them in insolence and spite. At length, when overwhelmed with the flood, he said: "I believe that there is no god except Him Whom the Children of Israel believe in: I am of those who submit (to Allah in Islam)." (10:91) (It was said to him): "Ah now! - But a little while before, wast thou in rebellion! and thou didst mischief (and violence)! (10:92) This day shall We save thee in the body, that thou mayest be a sign to those who come after thee! but verily, many among mankind are heedless of Our Signs!" (10:93) We settled the Children of Israel in a beautiful dwelling-place, and provided for them sustenance of the best: it was after knowledge had been granted to them, that they fell into schisms. Verily Allah will judge between them as to the schisms amongst them, on the Day of Judgment. "At length, when overwhelmed with the flood" tells me that he is already (nearly) drowning, at least the water is rushing at him. On the other hand the children of Israel were securely on the other side across the sea as the Qur'an says in verse 90. Who then told Pharaoh the words of verses 91 and 92? Was there another prophet with him other than Moses who drowned with him? Was the Pharaoh a prophet himself that God would speak to him directly? But it doesn't say "we said to him", it only gives the content of what was (supposedly) said to him. There is only Yusuf Ali's interpolation "it was said to him" (which isn't in the Arabic at all). Who said this to the Pharaoh? This very much looks like it is something "made up" that was put in the Qur'an only by its author for his own reasons (it has a meaning, a message for the listener), but it is hardly possible to think this was actually said to the Pharaoh himself while he was drowning. As such, Muhammad certainly being aware of the ancient practice of the Egyptians to embalm their Pharaohs he might just have taken up this general fact and worded it as a prophecy applying it to this Pharaoh who chased Moses. Even if he knew of this particular Pharaoh being preserved in his tomb it is still not a prophecy about what WILL happen in the future. These details may well have been common knowledge in Muhammad's time and what we see in the Qur'an is then merely a projection back of what HAD already happened and putting that into the mouth of some person (whom?) telling (Pharaoh) about the future. The Qur'an itself only came into existence (or at least into an accessible state) 2000 years after Moses at a time when the preservation of this body was already a fact. Hence this is no prophecy at all. All this, obviously, is assuming this particular mummy is actually the right Pharaoh. This is not at all clear as we noted above. Finally, there seems to be some support that Pharaoh having been saved may have been common knowledge to Muhammad and his contemporaries. The Bible implies that Pharaoh's dead body lay prone after he had drowned: "The water flowed back and covered the chariots and horsemen - the entire army of Pharaoh that had followed the Israelites into the sea. Not one of them survived. But the Israelites went through the sea on dry ground, with a wall of water on their right and on their left. That day the LORD saved Israel from the hands of the Egyptians, and Israel saw THE EGYPTIANS LYING DEAD ON THE SHORE. And when the Israelites saw the great power the LORD displayed against the Egyptians, the people feared the LORD and put their trust in him and in Moses his servant. Exodus 14:28-30 The next reference leads us to infer that one of these dead Egyptians was the Pharaoh: "To him who divided the Red Sea asunder His love endures forever. And brought Israel through the midst of it, His love endures forever. But swept Pharaoh and his army into the Red Sea; His love endures forever." Psalm 136:13-15 We even find the rabbis claiming that God saved Pharaoh because the latter had repented in the face of drowning. For instance, T. P Hughes in the Dictionary of Islam stated: "Perceive the great power of repentance! Pharaoh, king of Egypt, uttered very wicked words — ‗Who is the god whose voice I shall obey?‘ (Exod. 5:2). Yet as he repented, saying, ‗Who is like unto thee among the gods?‘ (Exod. 15:2). God saved him from death; for it saith; Almost had I stretched out my hands and destroyed; but God let him live, that he might declare his power and strength." (Pirke Rabbi Elieser, xliii; Midrash Yalkut, ccxxxviii, as cited in T.P. Hughes, Dictionary of Islam [Kazi Publications Inc., Chicago Il. 1994], p. 241; bold emphasis ours) The late Syed Abu-Ala' Maududi concedes the fact that the Quranic story of the drowning of the Pharaoh at S. 10:90-91 finds parallels in the Talmud: "... Though this is not mentioned in the Bible, it is explicitly recorded in the Talmud in the following words: 'Who is like Thee, O Lord, among the gods?'" (Towards Understanding the Qur'an - Volume IV, Surahs 10-16, an English translation of Tafhim al-Qur'an by Zafar Ishaq, assisted by A.R. Kidwai [The Islamic Foundation (printed and bound in Great Britain by the Cromwell Press), rpt. 1999], p. 63, n. 91; bold emphasis ours) Since Muhammad had lots of interaction with Jews it is quite possible, in fact highly probable, that he got the idea of Pharaoh being saved in his body from them. At the very least, this shows that Pharaoh's body being preserved was already known since the Bible already alluded to it, with the rabbis contradicting the Bible with their claim that the Pharaoh hadn't drowned at all. Hence, the rabbis contradicted the Bible much like Muhammad contradicted himself in the Quran! Qur'an Difficulty: When Commanded Pharaoh the Killing of the Sons? Sura 40:23-25 says, "And truly We sent Moses with our revelation and a clear warrant unto Pharaoh and Haman and Qarun, but they said, `A lying sorcerer!' And when he brought them the truth from our presence, they said, `Slay the sons of those who believe with him....'" From this, we learn that Pharaoh ordered the killing of the sons of the Jews when Moses approached him with the truth. But Sura 20:38-39 says, "When We inspired in your mother that which is inspired, saying, `Throw him into the ark, and throw it into the river....'" This means that Pharaoh commanded his men to kill the sons of the Jews when Moses was a child. Moses had not yet received any revelation from God. Qur'an Difficulty: When/how are the fates determined? Sura 97:3,4 says, "The night of power is better than a thousand months. The angels and the spirit descend therein, by the permission of their Lord, with all decrees." Sura 44:3 also says, "Lo! We revealed it on a blessed night." To Muslims, the "Night of Power" is a blessed night on which fates are settled and on which everything relating to life, death, etc., which occurs throughout the year is decreed. It is said to be the night on which Allah's decrees for the year are brought down to the earthly plane. In other words, matters of creation are decreed a year at a time. Contradicting this, Sura 57:22 says, "No affliction befalls in the earth or in your selves, but it is in a Book before we create it." This means it is written in the Preserved Tablet, being totally fixed in Allah's knowledge before anyone was created. Also contradictory is Sura 17:13: "And every man's fate We have fastened to his own neck." This says that man alone is responsible for what he does and what happens to him. Qur'an Contradiction Is Wine good or bad? Wine is forbidden for a Muslim here on earth: O you who believe! Strong drink and games of chance and idols and divine arrows are only an infamy of Satan's handiwork. Leave it aside that you may succeed. -- Sura 5:90 See also Sura 2:219. On the other hand in Paradise are rivers of wine: A similitude of the Garden which those who keep their duty (to Allah) are promised: Therein are rivers of water unpolluted ... and rivers of wine delicious to the drinkers. -- Sura 47:15 Surely the pious will be in bliss ... their thirst will be slaked with pure wine sealed. -- Sura 83:22,25 Is wine good or bad? Are we forbidden on earth something that is truly good? Or in Paradise are we not only allowed it, but even provided in overflowing measures (rivers of ...) something that is so bad that it is called "Satan's handiwork"? Some Muslims attempt to explain away the discrepancy by appealing to the following passage: Save single-minded slaves of Allah; For them there is a known provision, Fruits. And they will be honoured In the Gardens of delight, On couches facing one another; A cup from a gushing spring is brought round for them, White, delicious to the drinkers, Wherein there is no headache nor are they made mad thereby. And with them are those of modest gaze, with lovely eyes, (Pure) as they were hidden eggs (of the ostrich). S. 37:40-49 Pickthall The heavenly wine, it is claimed, which believers will drink will not cause headaches or madness, thereby justifying Allah's decision to permit it in paradise. The main problem with citing this is that the passage nowhere identifies this drink as wine. It does not even mention either the word wine or strong drinks/intoxicants. It simply says that believers will drink from a cup something which is white in color which does not cause headiness. If anything, one can make an argument that this drink is actually milk. After all, the Quran does mention the fact that believers will be given rivers of milk, and milk is indeed white: A similitude of the Garden which those who keep their duty (to Allah) are promised: Therein are rivers of water unpolluted, and rivers of milk whereof the flavour changeth not, and rivers of wine delicious to the drinkers, and rivers of clear-run honey; therein for them is every kind of fruit, with pardon from their Lord. (Are those who enjoy all this) like those who are immortal in the Fire and are given boiling water to drink so that it teareth their bowels? S. 47:15 Pickthall One can even argue that the reason the passage emphasizes that this particular drink doesn't cause headiness is to distinguish it from the wine which believers will have access to when in paradise. In other words, the qualification presupposes that this drink is different from the wine which believers will be drinking since, unlike wine, this specific drink doesn't cause madness or headaches. Putting it in another way, the passage is not identifying this drink as wine, but is actually contrasting it to wine by highlighting the point that it doesn't have the common affects associated with intoxicants. Further reading: The Quranic Teaching on Wine and Strong Drink Date: Thu, 07 Nov 1996 15:20:05 -0500 From: Shaahin Amiri-Sharifi [email protected] This is to answer "wine good or bad" in your page! --------------Is wine good or bad? --Is us forbidden on earth something that is truly good? --Or is in Paradise not only allowed but provided in overflowing measures (rivers of...) something that is so bad that it is even called "Satan's handiwork"? --Why should we see every thing in black and white?! It is not that it is "bad" or "good" the issue is which one, goodness or badness, is dominant. Prohibition of drinking alcoholic beverages came in three steps, -do not come to worship while you are drunk -...there is "good" in it and bad in it, but the the later in more.. -do not drink it, it is an act of satan... As you can see it is mentioned that "there is good in it", exact quote of Quran. For example, there is alcohol in some medicine, and there is no prohibition in taking those syrops if prescribed by a doctor. Islam encounters with issues realistically. --Answered in the above paragraph! --What does it mean to compare paradise with earth?! Do you really think standards (yes even standards!) are the same?! And how can we (both me, a Muslim and you, a Christian, who both believe in hereafter and paradise) "analyze" what happens or is allowed or forbidden in paradise?! We lack empirical evidence! Don't we?! Point is, about paradise, all I have is my believe, nothing more, stories in Quran and said by Prophet,.... Absolutely no empirical evidence. If I want to see something is O.K (!) there or else, I'll need to know the conditions, circumstances, ..., I rather wait till I see it (insha`allah=God willing). But, all that matters, for now, is this world, and the ruling is clear : DO NOT DRINK (unless for some reason it is necessary, as mentioned in the case of medicine) One more point, the world is translated differently in different translation of Quran, For example Shakir translate it as "drink" and not wine! And Please always remember that Quran is written in a "symbolic" manner (very reasonable, after all it is for everybody everywhere and at any time), and one should consider that words are used mainly in a metaphoric way. To clear this up, if you study about Islamic mystisicm, you realize that "wine" along with so many words that mean : pretty girl, mistress, lover, ... are used frequently, specially in poetry. One should admit that it would be so simplistic to take them as what they mean according to a dictionary!! Note: Generally, describing paradise in Quran, shows the wealth and richness of its residence. All signs (verses) in this regard should be interpreted in this relation. People of paradise have no economical problems! They are free to do what a human is meant to do... In this regard, the word "hour" specially when is translated with this kind of interpretation (yours) of "wine", means nothing more than a prostitute! But if we consider the root of this word, it means nothing but a "companion" ! Notice that "Companions of Jesus (Peace be Upon Him)" are translated to Arabic as "havarion"(plural for "havari" of Jesus. Where "havary" is from the same root as "hour"! --------------------Shaahin *************************************************************************** * E-mail --> [email protected] * Shaahin * * WWW --> http://www.math.nyu.edu/phd_students/amirishs* Amiri-Sharifi * *************************************************************************** Muslim Response by Randy Desmond Date: Thursday, 27 Feb 1997 Just read the Qur'an... Surah 37:43-47 [43] In gardens of felicity [44] facing each other on thrones, [45] round will be passed a cup from a clear flowing fountain, [46] crystal white, of a taste delicious to those who drink thereof, [47] Free from headiness; Nor will they suffer intoxication therefrom. Are Martyrs Spared or Will all Muslims go to Hell? From the entry under Martyrs in The Concise Encyclopedia of Islam by Cyril Glassé: Believers who die for their faith, in defense of it, or persecuted for it, are assured of Heaven. They are buried as they died, unwashed and in the same clothes, the bloodstains testifying to their state. This is also expressed in various hadiths. For example we find in Bukhari, Volume 9, Book 93, Number 621: Narrated Al-Mughira: Our Prophet has informed us our Lord's Message that whoever of us is martyred, will go to Paradise. The following passages of the Qur'an support the general Muslim belief that the martyrs go to paradise immediately: And if ye are slain, or die, in the way of Allah, forgiveness and mercy from Allah are far better than all they could amass. And if ye die, or are slain, Lo! it is unto Allah that ye are brought together. -- Sura 3:157-158 Think not of those who are slain in Allah's way as dead. Nay, they live, finding their sustenance in the presence of their Lord; -- Sura 3:169 Allah hath purchased of the believers their persons and their goods; for theirs (in return) is the garden (of Paradise): they fight in His cause, and slay and are slain: a promise binding on Him in truth, through the Law, the Gospel, and the Qur'an: and who is more faithful to his covenant than Allah? then rejoice in the bargain which ye have concluded: that is the achievement supreme. -- Sura 9:111 On the other hand, we read also that, There will be no one of you who will not enter it (Hell). This was an inevitable decree of your Lord. Afterwards he may save some of the pious, God-fearing Muslims out of the burning fire. -- Sura 19:71-72 Or as Arberry translates it more literally: No one of you there is, but he shall go down to it; That for thy Lord is a thing decreed, determined. Then We shall deliver those that were god-fearing; and the evildoers We shall leave there, hobbling on their knees. -- Sura 19:71-72 This verse tells clearly that all Muslims [everybody] will go to Hell, (inevitable, decreed, determined) and only some of them will eventually be rescued from Hell, while others will be left there forever. Obviously, it cannot be that all go through hell (Sura 19:71) and that martyrs go directly to paradise, being spared hell, and "they live (present tense), finding their sustenance in the presence of their Lord." Besides being contradictory, Sura 19:71-72 must be incredibly disturbing to Muslims, who can only look forward to go to Hell when they die. At least it was disturbing to Sultan Muhammad Khan, who was moved to carefully study everything that Islam says about salvation and later became a Christian because of his research. You can read about this in his testimony. Side remark on Sura 9:111 stating that "theirs is the garden: they fight in His cause, and slay and are slain: a promise binding on Him in truth, through the Law, the Gospel, and the Qur'an: and who is more faithful to his covenant than Allah?" -- There are no such passages in the Torah or the Gospel which promise paradise to those slain in a military battle for God. This is another false claim in the Qur'an. I am not sure there is even any such concept as us fighting a military battle for God. It is usually God who fights for us. God is much more powerful and glorious that he needs our weapons or strength to fight for him. Mishaal Al-Kadhi responds to the question "Will all Muslims go to Hell?" with this paragraph: Mariam(19):71 is described by the prophet (pbuh) and also by the companions ibn Masood and Sulaiman ibn Murrah among others. The verse is a description of how all mankind shall have to pass over Hellfire upon the "sirat" (path) in order to reach Heaven. Only the pious make it across. The prophet (pbuh) was quoted by the Companion Sulaiman ibn Murrah as saying that for the pious this traversal shall not harm them since God shall make it safe for them just as He made the fire of earth safe for prophet Abraham (pbuh). This traversal shall be at speeds directly proportional to that person's piety and obedience on earth, with some of them passing as fast as lightning, some as fast as a swift wind, some running, some walking, some crawling, etc. All of this information can be found in various hadeeths of the prophet. Let me repeat, Mr. Al-Kadhi claims that they (pious Muslims) will not be entering Hell, but just be passing over Hell via some sort of a bridge. He claims that this is a traversal that will not harm. Obviously, he is more devoted to "some traditions" (which he refuses to provide specific references for so that we can't even check them out) than he is to the clear word of the Qur'an: There will be no one of you who will not enter it (Hell). This was an inevitable decree of your Lord. Afterwards he may save some of the pious, God-fearing Muslims out of the burning fire. -- Sura 19:71-72 Or as Arberry translates it more literally: No one of you there is, but he shall go down to it; That for thy Lord is a thing decreed, determined. Then We shall deliver those that were god-fearing; and the evildoers We shall leave there, hobbling on their knees. -- Sura 19:71-72 Both translators agree that Sura 19:71 speaks of "entering it" or "going down to it" which is certainly different from passing over it without harm. I wonder if Mr. Al-Kadhi has ever had a close look at this verse. Who is the Father of Jesus? Is Jesus the son of Allah? The Qur'an says no. Yet it is also entirely consistent with the Qur'an to consider Allah the Father of Jesus for the following reasons: 1) Allah caused Mary to become pregnant with Jesus 2) Allah determined some of the physical characteristics of Jesus 3) All of the genetic characteristics of Jesus were determined by just two parties: Allah and Mary. A Muslim might argue "Being a father implies having sex", and therfore Allah cannot be the father. Not necessarily so. Modern science has brought us "test tube babies", which are conceived without any sex. There is nothing to support the idea that if Allah wants a baby, he must resort to normal human means to have one. Again, a Muslim may say that if we are going to call Jesus the son of Allah, then we should say that Adam is the son of Allah too. No, we cannot compare Adam to Jesus this way because Adam came into existence without a mother. Let us first review some background material. What does the Qur'an say about how Mary became pregnant with Jesus? In Surah 3:45-49 we read: The angels said to Mary: "Allah bids you rejoice in a word from him. His name is the Messiah, Jesus the son of Mary. He shall be noble in this world and the hereafter, and shall be favored by Allah. He shall preach to men in his cradle and the prime of manhood, and shall lead a righteous life." "Lord", she said, "how can I bear a child when no man has touched me?" He replied: "Such is the will of Allah. He creates whom He will. When He decrees a thing He need only say: 'Be' and it is. He will instruct him in the Scriptures and in wisdom, in the Torah and in the Gospel, and send him forth as an apostle to the Israelites..." From this passage we can draw the conclusions presented above: 1) Allah caused Mary to become pregnant with Jesus. Muslims infer from this passage and others like it that Jesus was conceived while Mary was a virgin by the word spoken by Allah, and not by a man. Not that this in itself implies that Allah is the father. When a doctor causes a woman to become pregnant by artificial insemination, he is not considered the father. Hence the following two points: 2) Allah determined some of the physical characteristics of Jesus. When Allah said "Be", did he have something specific in mind? Certainly! Allah had a very detailed plan in mind for Jesus. In particular, Allah decided that Jesus would be male. Normally, it is the sperm that decides the gender of the baby. Here Allah made the choice instead. 3) All of the genetic characteristics of Jesus were determined by precisely two parties: Allah and Mary. This is clear because they were the only two parties involved. So we conclude that Allah and Mary are the only two possible candidates for the title "Father". Hence it appears legitimate to call Allah the father of Jesus, at least in a figurative sense. Therefore we are at a loss to explain why the Qur'an spends so much space arguing against this. Certainly more and better justification is needed than what appears in these passages: Surely they lie when they declare: "Allah has begotten children". -- Sura 37:151 Where is the "lie" in our reasoning above? They say: "Allah has begotten a Son". Glory be to Him! His is what the heavens and the earth contain; all things are obedient to Him. Creator of the heavens and the earth! When he decrees a thing, He need only say "Be", and it is. -- Sura 2:116 Allah made Mary pregnant. What more would Allah have to do if he wanted a legitimate son? Allah forbid that He Himself should beget a son! When He decrees a thing He need only say "Be," and it is. -- Sura 19:35 So is Allah unable to beget a son by saying "Be"? Say: "If the Lord of Mercy had a son, I would be the first to worship him". -- Sura 43:82 We would prefer something more convincing from the Qur'an than this. Muslim Response by Randy Desmond Date: Thursday, 27 Feb 1997 This proposed internal contradiction (that Allah has a son) is so outside the scope of logical deduction, that I am compelled to refute this sectionby-section (and line-by-line where necessary). Additionally, I have made the text which I am responding to smaller than my response. The purspose of this is to distinguish the response from the original argument and highlight the response as opposed to the origianl text (which can be seen in the normal font elsewhere anyway). Who is the Father of Jesus? ANSWER: No one. (to be expounded upon by refuting any claims that God is) Is Jesus the son of Allah? The Qur'an says no. Yet it is also entirely consistent with the Qur'an to consider Allah the Father of Jesus for the following reasons: 1) Allah caused Mary to become pregnant with Jesus 2) Allah determined some of the physical characteristics of Jesus 3) All of the genetic characteristics of Jesus were determined by just two parties: Allah and Mary. Let me say that (1) is a justified claim, (2) and (3) are questionable because God shapes everyone according to His will as He pleases. I personally do not know "how" God made Mary pregnant - but I guess you know! Did God turn Mary's egg into an embryo directly, or did He create a sperm to fertilize it, or did He just put an embryo there without Mary's egg or a created sperm? Tell me if you really know! A Muslim might argue "Being a father implies having sex", and therfore Allah cannot be the father. No. Modern science has brought us "test tube babies", which are conceived without any sex. The key word there is "might". I, as a Muslim, think it would take sperm from a man to fertilize an egg from a women in order for there to be two biological parents. God is not a biological parent because God is NOT a biological being. God is uncreated. Anyway, where do the test tube sperms come from? Or did you think they created a sperm in the lab?! And why don't you worship these test-tube babies since they don't have a father or mother (according to your logic anyway)? There is nothing to support the idea that if Allah wants a baby, he must resort to normal human means to have one. Correct. So if you are saying God is not a biological parent, fine. What kind of parent is he? A metaphorical one? Well, we know that's how the Bible describes God often. Remeber God calls Israel His first born (according to the Bible)? Is God then the parent? And yet Israel came from biological parentage! Or do you claim that Israel's parentage is a metaphorical parantage and Jesus(pbuh)'s is literal? Again, a Muslim may say that if we are going to call Jesus the son of Allah, then we should say that Adam is the son of Allah too. No, because Adam popped into existence without a mother. We cannot compare Adam to Jesus this way. Then what is the difference between the creation of Adam and Jesus which makes Adam not a Son of God and Jesus a Son of God? Is your answer, "because Jesus's mother was a creation of God therefore Jesus is the Son of God, but since Adam had no earthly mother, Adam is not the Son of God."? Another point, it is not that Muslims say Adam is the Son of God. Read your Bible. Email me if you need the verse. Let us first review some background material. What does the Qur'an say about how Mary became pregnant with Jesus? In Surah 3:45-49 we read: The angels said to Mary: "Allah bids you rejoice in a word from him. His name is the Messiah, Jesus the son of Mary. He shall be noble in this world and the hereafter, and shall be favored by Allah. He shall preach to men in his cradle and the prime of manhood, and shall lead a righteous life." "Lord", she said, "how can I bear a child when no man has touched me?" He replied: "Such is the will of Allah. He creates whom He will. When He decrees a thing He need only say: 'Be' and it is. He will instruct him in the Scriptures and in wisdom, in the Torah and in the Gospel, and send him forth as an apostle to the Israelites..." From this passage we can draw the conclusions presented above: 1) Allah caused Mary to become pregnant with Jesus. Muslims infer from this passage and others like it that Jesus was conceived while Mary was a virgin by the word spoken by Allah, and not by a man. Muslims do not know "how" Mary was made to be pregnant with Jesus (pbuh). How she became pregnant is God's knowledge. We only know that God commanded it. Not that this in itself implies that Allah is the father. When a doctor causes a woman to become pregnant by artificial insemination, he is not considered the father. Hence the following two points: Good thinking! You are right. This does not imply Allah is a father. 2) Allah determined some of the physical characteristics of Jesus. When Allah said "Be", did he have something specific in mind? Certainly! Allah had a very detailed plan in mind for Jesus. In particular, Allah decided that Jesus would be male. Normally, it is the sperm that decides the gender of the baby. Here Allah made the choice instead. 3) All of the genetic characteristics of Jesus were determined by precisely two parties: Allah and Mary. This is clear because they were the only two parties involved. So we conclude that Allah and Mary are the only two possible candidates for the title "Father". Ever hear of surrogate mothers? Perhaps mary was just that; a surrogate mother. I mean really, how do you know "how" Jesus was formed? It seems you are assuming that Mary supplied the egg and God suppled the sperm. May Allah protect us from such blasphemous thoughts! I'm not hiding that I don't know "how" Mary became pregnant with Jesus(pbuh), and I am not pretending to know. God said "Be" and it happened. I'm just asking, "How do you know Mary's egg was part of the process? How do you know?" The truth is you don't know. Admit you don't know "how" Jesus(pbuh) was placed in the womb of Mary and be humble to your Lord, God. Hence it appears legitimate to call Allah the father of Jesus, No... at least in a figurative sense. Interesting... He is not the biological father. He does not beget children. So what kind of father is he? A metaphorical/figurative one at best! Just refer to what I said above about Israel being God's first born in the Bible. Or do you also worship Israel? Or if you think God is then a figurative father, did he then supply a figurative "sperm"? Again, may God protect us from such blasphemous thoughts! Therefore we are at a loss to explain why the Qur'an spends so much space arguing against this. How can you not understand this? May God make you see it. The Qur'an is an a message to straighted out the errors which the followers of previous prophets have fallen into. You may not believe it is an error, but if it was not, then there would be no reason to correct it, would there? I mean the message of the Qur'an id Guidance and part of that is pointing out the errors we should not fall victim to. Certainly more and better justification is needed than what appears in these passages: Surely they lie when they declare: "Allah has begotten children". - - Sura 37:151 Where is the "lie" in our reasoning above? I have shown it. You assume two postulates ( numbers 2 and 3 above) which are assumed truths. They are nothing but conjecture and the Qur'an has mentioned that Christians follow nothing but conjecture. You can't make up your own religion. That is equivalent to worshipping Satan. They say: "Allah has begotten a Son". Glory be to Him! His is what the heavens and the earth contain; all things are obedient to Him. Creator of the heavens and the earth! When he decrees a thing, He need only say "Be", and it is. -- Sura 2:116 Allah made Mary pregnant. What more would Allah have to do if he wanted a legitimate son? Excuse me, but you assume God wants a son in the first place. That may be a whole other discussion, but certainly has nothing to do with a proposed inconsistency in the Qur'an. The Qur'an never says that God ever wanted a son (metaphorical or literal - whatever a "literal" son of God may mean a'uuthu billah! I seek shelter in God from such blasphemous thoughts!). Allah forbid that He Himself should beget a son! When He decrees a thing He need only say "Be," and it is. -- Sura 19:35 So is Allah unable to beget a son by saying "Be"? Your wrong assumption here is that saying "Be" is the same as begetting a son. It has been shown that that is not the case. Do you doubt that? How can you doubt it, if you do? Or should I say that because God commanded all of us to "Be", we then are the children of God? Do we then worship ourselves? (I am mentioning that because that is really the point of trying to proven God has a son, isn't it? You want Muslims to become deluded and worship a creature like you do. The Qur'an is right when it says that the Jews and Christians would never be satisfied unless we follow their form of religion. Well, may God protect us from that.) Why can't Christians just understand that "son of God" and "children of God" are not literal terms, but literary devices and expressions? Say: "If the Lord of Mercy had a son, I would be the first to worship him". -- Sura 43:82 We would prefer something more convincing from the Qu'ran than this. That is the key comment in your post. What is it that would convince you that God did not beget a son? I mean, if it is true that God did not have a son, then what is the convincing proof you would require? What's the proof that he had a son? You seem to agree with the Qur'an's description of God's capability to create Jesus(pbuh). I mean even the Qur'an says that if the Qur'an wasn't from God there would be dicrepencies. Does your religion offer you a proof of authenticity? Is it the supposed Resurrection of Jesus? Just compare the four gospels in detail to each other, along with the book of Acts, and see if the Resurrection really happened. Go on... Do it. I dare you. Are you afraid of what you will find? How will you rationalize the inconsistencies? Is it that you have no discrepencies in your Bible? If you think so, you are deluding yourself (or Satan is deluding you). Even the maintainer of these web pages admits to those contradictions, and yet none of the proposed contradiction of the Qur'an are proven to be contradictions. That's right. None have been proven to be contradictions. If so, which ones? Be honest. Are they conclusively contradictions? Have you considered the Arabic? All contexts? All meanings? God's word (the Qur'an) is protected. Don't kid yourself. I hope you realize you've disappointed a lot of people here. First, you attempted to find a contradiction in the Qur'an where none existed. Second, you claimed knowledge of "how" Jesus(pbuh) was formed (and that is knowledge you just don't have). Third, you used that false knowledge in trying to concoct an argument as to how Jesus could be the son of God unsuccessfully. Lastly, you take the Qur'an and interpret it to your own desires -something the Qur'an says we can not do. So you have used the Qur'an incorrectly to try to prove something the Qur'an doesn't support based on assumed knowledge you just don't have. Do you think your arguments have any crediblity now? Look, it is not too late to say, "hey, I made a mistake," and move on. The doors of Mercy from God are still open. If I have been harsh in my response it is because I want the message to get through. You really don't know the joy of believing in God without concocted beliefs added in by Satan until you become a Muslim. Please think about the arguments I have put forth. Thank you for reading my response in full. The original authors response to Randy Desmond's reply: "I Guess You Know!" This article is a response to Randy Desmond's reply to "Who is the Father of Jesus?" The purpose is to answer his concerns and to clarify and elaborate on the original article. We will not discuss his response section-by-section, as this would lead us astray into peripheral discussions. We are confident that the dilligent reader will be able to judge the merits of our respective positions. "So what kind of Father is he?" "... A metaphorical/figurative one at best!" Randy fails to effectively refute the claim that Allah can be considered the Father of Jesus in a figurative sense. Figurative is good enough! If it is valid to consider Allah the Father of Jesus, on what basis can the Qur'an dispute that Jesus is the Son of Allah? It would be possible for Allah to say that he does not wish to be considered the Father of Jesus and perhaps grant us an explanation for why Jesus was "Be!"gotten in this unique way. However, the explanations found in the Qur'an are disappointingly shallow. Let's remind ourselves about the implications of Surah 3:45-49 again: 1) Allah caused Mary to become pregnant with Jesus. 2) Allah determined some of the physical characteristics of Jesus. Allah decided that Jesus would be male. 3) All of the genetic characteristics of Jesus were determined by no one other than Allah and Mary. Randy draws attention to a fourth point: 4) Mary is called the Mother of Jesus. Surah 5:75. This is important because Randy suggests that Mary may have merely acted as a surrogate mother. If this is the case, why is she not called by the more accurate term "surrogate mother" in the Qur'an? If no suitable word was available in Arabic, at least she could have been described as "the woman who gave birth to Jesus". Randy says that (1) is a justified claim, (2) and (3) are questionable because God shapes everyone according to His will as He pleases. First of all, (2) and (3) are a direct inference from the Qur'an. Secondly, our genetic background is shaped by our parents. If the Qur'an contradicts modern genetic science, Randy is welcome to describe that. Finally, Randy is saying that Allah is pleased to inflict congenital diseases and birth defects on babies. That would make the work of pediatric doctors evil--they resist the will of Allah! What kind of father is He? We assert that it is legitimate to consider Allah the Father of Jesus in a figurative sense. But he is also the Father in a more direct sense. Across cultures and throughout time, the word "Mother" refers to the woman who gave birth to the child. But humanity has known that women do not get pregnant alone; that person who initiated the pregnancy is called the "Father". Allah, by His actions which resulted in Jesus being born, fully deserves this title of "Father". "Why can't Christians just understand that 'son of God' and 'children of God' are not literal terms, but literary devices and expressions?" The Bible is full of figurative language. Here is a small sample, showing examples where figurative use is made of the "child" concept. The reader is encouraged to verify that there are many more examples like these: Why do you not understand what I say? It is because you cannot accept my word. You are from your father the devil, and you choose to do your father's desires. John 8:43-44 So he also appointed the twelve: Simon (to whom he gave the name Peter); James son of Zebedee and John the brother of James (to whom he gave the name Boanerges, that is, Sons of Thunder)... Mark 3:16-17 A crowd was sitting around him [Jesus]; and they said to him, "Your mother and your brothers and sisters are outside, asking for you." And he replied, "Who are my mother and brothers?" And looking at those who sat around him, he said, "Here are my mother and my brothers! Whoever does the will of God is my brother and sister and mother." Mark 3:32 You have heard that it was said, "You shall love your neighbor and hate your enemy." But I say to you, Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, so that you may be children of your Father in heaven; for he makes his sun rise on the evil and on the good and sends rain on the righteous and on the unrighteous. Matthew 5:43-45 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten son, that whosoever believes in him should not perish, but have everlasting life. John 3:16 It is convenient for muslims to say that Christians believe that Jesus is the Son of God in a literal sense, because this gives them an easy target. Sometimes the last verse, John 3:16, is used to demonstrate that Christians believe that Jesus was "begotten" in a literal sense. However, there is little justification for this within the context of the Bible. After all, the verse is talking about God's love, and not the way Jesus was conceived. The Greek word translated "only begotten" is monogenes, and Christians do not read very much meaning into this, except that it means that Jesus is special. "None of the proposed contradiction of the Qur'an are proven to be contradictions" By Allah making Mary pregnant, but not claiming to be the father, the Qur'an puts itself in a logically precarious situation. This represents an opportunity for the Qur'an -- opportunity to grant us a brilliant insight worthy of Allah the Creator, or opportunity to fail. Therefore, the passages in the Qur'an describing why Allah should not be considered the father of Jesus are of particular interest. A more detailed description of the weaknesses of the Qur'anic passages will be provided in this revised article. Why would Allah support a statement with such empty words? They say: 'God has begotten a son.' Glory be to him! His is what the heavens and the earth contain; all things are obedient to Him. Creator of the heavens and the earth! When He decrees a thing, He need only say 'Be,' and it is. Surah 2:116 Notice that the nothing in this verse supports the initial statement. The very same justification could be used to prove that Allah has a son, for example: They say: 'God has not begotten a son.' Glory be to him! His is what the heavens and the earth contain; all things are obedient to Him. Creator of the heavens and the earth! When he decrees a thing (that he will have a son), He need only say 'Be,' and it is. Hypothetical Therefore, we find this statement weak. The contradiction is implied -- Allah knows better than to make weak statements. No one can look at God's creation and find things that could have been done better. How "All-Powerful" is Allah? He is the Creator of the heavens and the earth. How should He have a son when He has no consort? He created all things and has knowledge of all things. Surah 6:101 Why is Allah asking us? Allah is All-Powerful! (Surah 59:23), but too weak to have a son. When he decrees a thing, He need only say 'Be,' and it is -- unless it is something too difficult. Allah is limited from having a son. He can't find a consort, can't create one, can't have a son without one. Do the Jews really say this about Ezra? The Jews say Ezra is the son of God, while the Christians say the Messiah is the son of God. Such are their assertions, by which they imitate the infidels of old. God confound them! How perverse they are! Surah 9:30 There is nothing in the Bible, Jewish or Christian, to suggest that Ezra was or is the son of God. And in place of an explanation of the reason for the virgin birth, we find an insult. Who is the Father of Jesus? They say: 'God has begotten a son.' God forbid! Self-sufficient is He. His is all that the heavens and the earth contain. Surely for this you have no sanction. Would you say of God what you know not? Surah 10:68 In writing "Surely for this you have no sanction", this Surah overlooks our position that Jesus can legitimately be considered the son of Allah, using 1) - 4) above. All of these four points are implied by Surah 3:45 and Surah 5:75. Also, once again, the reasoning does not support the initial assertion. It could just as easily be used to "prove" the opposite! For example: They say: 'Allah is unable to beget a son.' God forbid! Self-sufficient is He. His is all that the heavens and the earth contain. Surely for this you have no sanction. Would you say of God what you know not? Hypothetical Who can judge Allah? Those who say: 'The Lord of Mercy has begotten a son,' preach a monstrous falsehood, at which the very heavens might crack, the earth break asunder, and the mountains crumble to dust. That they should ascribe a son to the Merciful, when it does not become the Lord of Mercy to beget one! Surah 19:88 In other verses it says, in effect, that Allah is unable to beget a son. But now "it does not become Him to beget one"? Does Allah have to answer to some council of ethical criticism? No! If Allah were to beget a son, nobody could object to it on any grounds. 1, 2, 1+2, 4, 5... People of the Book, do not transgress the bounds of your religion. Speak nothing but the truth about God. The Messiah, Jesus the son of Mary, was no more than God's apostle and His Word which He cast to Mary: a spirit from Him. So believe in God and His apostles and do not say: 'Three.' Forbear, and it shall be better for you. God is but one God. God forbid that He should have a son! His is all that the heavens and the earth contain. God is the all-sufficient protector. The Messiah does not distain to be a servant of God, nor do the angels who are nearest to Him. Those who through arrogance disdain His service shall all be brought before him. Surah 4:171 How can anyone recite the Qur'an without saying 'Three' ??? Conclusion  To be applicable to Christians, the Qur'an must say why it is bad to call Jesus the Son of God in a figurative sense, because that is how Christians understand this relationship.    The Qur'an has a hard time to start with, because it makes it legitimate to call Allah the Father of Jesus in a figurative sense (at least) because he got Jesus' mother pregnant. What the Qur'an actually does is talk about why it is bad to describe Jesus as the Son of Allah in a literal sense (Surah 6:101). Even then, in addition to being inapplicable, the arguments the Qur'an puts forth are weak. We find that these statements in the Qur'an do not exhibit any extraordinary insight, and are not worthy of being attributed to the Creator of the universe. Noticeably absent is an explanation for why Jesus was "Be!"gotten in the way he was. Many Were Made For Hell I have only created Jinns and men, that they may serve Me. -- Sura 51:56 Many are the Jinns and men We have made for Hell: .... -- Sura 7:179 It would be no problem to say that all of them were created to worship and serve God, but because they have free will and some or many decided to disobey they will be punished in Hell. But to state that many were made for Hell is an obvious contradictions to the first statement - or else we must conclude that they were created in order to serve Allah in Hell, but this would require a serious shift in the understanding of the meaning of Hell as well as the issue of justice in who is sent to hell. Qur'an Contradiction: Will Jesus burn in Hell? Jesus is given in the Qur'an a position very close to Allah, he is not only raised to paradise, but to Allah Himself, he has the place "nearest to Allah" as 3:45 even says: Sura 4:158. Nay, Allah raised him [Jesus] up unto Himself; ... Sura 3:45. ... Jesus, Son of Mary; high honored shall he be in this world and the next, near stationed to Allah. The Qur'an condemns with strong words those who worship Jesus as God (through the rethorical device of Jesus himself denying to ever have asked for such worship): They do blaspheme who say: "Allah is Christ the son of Mary." But said Christ: "O Children of Israel! worship Allah my Lord and your Lord." Whoever joins other gods with Allah - Allah will forbid him the garden and the Fire will be his abode. There will for the wrong-doers be no one to help.. -- Sura 5:75 And behold! Allah will say: "O Jesus the son of Mary! Didst thou say unto men worship me and my mother as gods in derogation of Allah?" He will say: "Glory to Thee! never could I say what I had no right (to say). Had I said such a thing thou wouldst indeed have known it. Thou knowest what is in my heart Thou I know not what is in Thine. For Thou knowest in full all that is hidden. Never said I to them aught except what Thou didst command me to say to wit 'worship God my Lord and your Lord'; and I was a witness over them whilst I dwelt amongst them; when Thou didst take me up Thou wast the Watcher over them and Thou art a witness to all things. -- Sura 5:119-120 And now the verse that brings the contradiction to the above: Surely you and what you worship besides Allah are the firewood of hell; to it you shall come. -- Sura 21:98 The logic is clear, Jesus is not God [5:75], millions of Christians are worshiping Jesus today and even the Qur'an acknowledges this [5:119], therefore Jesus will be fuel for the Hell fire [21:98] together with the Christians. This clearly contradicts the verses on Jesus' special place near to Allah [Sura 3:45; 4:158 and others]. ==> Muhammad himself gave this response after his revelation was questioned on those same grounds: An alert Muslim will point out that I need to just look ahead a few verses in this sura and the problem introduced in verse 98 will find its solution in verses 101-103. Surely you and what you worship besides Allah are the firewood of hell; to it you shall come. -- Sura 21:98 Surely (as for) those for whom the good has already gone forth from Us, they shall be kept far off from it; They will not hear its faintest sound, and they shall abide in that which their souls long for. The great fearful event shall not grieve them, and the angels shall meet them: This is your day which you were promised. -- Sura 21:101-103 It is now necessary to look carefully at the occasion for the revelation of this verse. It is described in detail in Ibn Ishaq's Sirat Rasul Allah, translated as "The Life of Muhammad" by A. Guillaume, page 163: The apostle sat one day, so I have heard, with al-Walid b. al-Mughira in the mosque, and al-Nadr b. al-Harith came and sat with them in the assembly where some of Quraysh were. When the apostle spoke al-Nadr interrupted him, and the apostle spoke to him until he silenced him. Then he read to him and to the others: "Verily ye and what ye serve other than God is the fuel of hell. You will come to it. If these had been gods they would not have come to it, but all will be in it everlastingly. There is wailing and there they will not hear". Then the apostle rose and `Abdullah b. al-Ziba`ra al-Sahmi came and sat down. Al-Walid said to him: "By God, al-Nadr could not stand up to the (grand)son of `Abdu'l-Muttalib just now and Muhammad alleged that we and our gods are fuel for hell" `Abdullah said: "If I had found him I would have refuted him. Ask Muhammad, `Is everything which is worshipped besides God in Gehenna with those who worship it?' We worship the angels; the Jews worship `Uzayr; and the Christians worship Jesus Son of Mary." AlWalid and those with him in the assembly marvelled at `Abdullah's words and thought that he had argued convincingly. When the apostle was told of this he said: "Everyone who wishes to be worshipped to the exclusion of God will be with those who worship him. They worship only satans and those they have ordered to be worshipped." So God revealed concerning that "Those who have received kindness from us in the past will be removed far from it and will not hear its sound and they abide eternally in their heart's desire", i.e. Jesus Son of Mary and `Uzayr and those rabbis and monks who have lived in obedience to God, whom the erring people worship as lords beside God. And He revealed concerning their assertion that they worship angels and that they are the daughters of God, "And they say the Merciful has chosen a son, (exalted be He above this); nay, they are but honoured slaves, they do not speak before He speaks, and they carry out His commands", as far as the words, "and he of them who says, I am God as well as He, that one we shall repay with Gehenna. Thus do they repay the sinful ones." As we can see, the contradiction was identified by the critics of Muhammad on the very day the verse was uttered. And Muhammad gave a response which supposedly solves the issue. ... Or does it? What is the problem with this story? Every contradiction can be saved and reconciled when we allow to add in or add on some extra information, or some conditional clause ("except...") or similar constructions. IF this text from 21:98 to 21:101 had been revealed together, in one sitting, then I would say, yes, verse 101 dissolves the problem. And God surely knew that verse 98 by itself would be contradicting both reality and the other passages of the Qur'an. Knowing that this is contradictory and that God does not give contradictory revelation [cf. Sura 4:82], would it not be reasonably to assume that God would have revealed all of it at once to make sure his revelation is free of contradiction at any given given time? But as it is, and ackowledged in al-Sirat, Muhammad was caught in this contradiction first and then in response to it he brings another verse. Obviously he claims that this is just the next part of revelation from God. But I hope you can see that this looks awefully like Muhammad patching up the faulty text. Does God make errors? Humans make errors. And if these humans are reasonable they will acknowledge they were wrong and correct their errors. Here some "revelation" had to be repaired by an extra piece of "further revelation" to dissolve a contradiction. That looks very much like a human being would act - not like the nature of God, the All-Wise. Do you think the Quraish caught God by surprise? No. Do you think they could catch Muhammad by surprise with a clever question/conclusion? They certainly could. And they clearly did. This is not a 100% proof that this part of the Qur'an is made up by Muhammad. You always can say: I cannot explain it, but who am I to question Allah if he in his wisdom chooses to reveal in bits and pieces and in response to the Quraish ... Allah does as he pleases ... But such a response could be used to cover anything, even the worst nonsense. "Allah knows better" solves everything for the one who already believes ... and is determined not to let anything shake his faith and confidence. But if you don't have already predecided that the Qur'an is from God, then how do you test this? The above story could be part of the test and one indication that something is wrong here. Essential question: Would Allah be in need to repair a faulty revelation? And if the author of the Qur'an apparently is in this need, then, maybe, he is not the God he claims to be? This is something to think about. Further discussion: The response by M Ghoniem & MSM Saifullah is rebutted by Bassam Khoury (grammar) and further aspects by Sam Shamoun. Responses to Islamic Awareness Will Jesus burn in Hell?! (The argument from grammar) In their article, Muhammad Ghoniem & M S M Saifullah have done some really nice work in an attempt to refute this argument, but I am sorry to inform them that it is not that easy. Saifullah and Ghoniem tell us that they base their reply on the meaning of the verse - which is a good thing to do. In order to understand the meaning of any verse, we must study the verse within the context in which it was written. Let us now see what it really says. Saifullah and Ghoniem tell us: "The word "mâ" translated as "what" (and underlined with red) in verse 21:98 is used to refer to things/objects and seldom would it refer to people. Otherwise, it would be "man" (i.e. who or whom). Thus Jesus(P) is not referred to in that verse. This verse would rather refer to idols worshipped by the pagan Arabs who lived in the time of Prophet Muhammad" Actually, the the Quran itself doesn't help them out here. Sura 109:2-5 says: I worship not that which ye worship, nor will ye worship that which I worship. And I will not worship that which ye have been wont to worship, nor will ye worship that which I worship. The word Yusuf Ali translated four times as "that which" is "MA", the same word as in 21:98 (cf. transliteration below). So, we have one of two choices to make here: 1. We agree with Saifullah and Ghoniem's argument that "Ma" refers to things/objects, therefore, "Muslims worship a thing or an object" Or, 2. The word "Ma" means both people and things. Therefore, Jesus and the Angels were included in Sura 21:98. The word "Ma" here means "Alathi" (a synonym of it). This can be translated as "who" or "which" depending on the translator's understanding of the word. There is one more thing I would like to ask: What does Sura 21:101 mean? If ma is for things, then why didn't Mohammed say so putting an end to the debate on this subject? Doesn't this verse state the Quran's agreement with the Arabs' understanding for "Ma"? Anyway, I still think it was a nice try. Bassam Khoury Since not everything was clear to me, and after further discussions with Bassam, I would like to point out a few more observations - hopefully clarifying the short comments above for the readers who are like myself not conversant with Arabic. Comparing 21:98 and 109:2, we not only find the same relative pronoun "ma", but the whole phrase translated as "what you worship" or "that which ye worship" is identical in the Arabic original. Sura 21:98 : Innakum wama taAAbudoona min dooni Allahi hasabu jahannama antum laha waridoona. Sura 109:2 : La aAAbudu ma taAAbudoona. [Note: All Roman transliterations of the Arabic Qur'an are taken from http://www.muslimnet.net/Contentss1.htm.] Given that 109 is one of the short suras at the end of the Qur'an - and as such among those that are often memorized first by Muslims - it is hardly comprehensible that Ghoniem and Saifullah were not aware of it, all the more as this sura contains the same verse twice (vv. 3 & 5) for emphasis by repetition, using "ma" for "that which" Muhammad worships. Even those who do not speak Arabic, can readily see that the words and grammatical construction is absolutely identical to the one used for the object of worship by the pagan Arabs. Again, Sura 109:2-5 : I worship not that which ye worship, (2) nor will ye worship that which I worship. (3) And I will not worship that which ye have been wont to worship, (4) nor will ye worship that which I worship. (5) The Arabic transliteration of this passage: La aAAbudu ma taAAbudoona. Wala antum AAabidoona ma aAAbudu. Wala ana AAabidun ma AAabadtum. Wala antum AAabidoona ma aAAbudu. To better understand Bassam's last paragraph above, let me also add the transliteration of Sura 21:101 : Inna allatheena sabaqat lahum minna alhusna ola-ika AAanha mubAAadoona The translation of 21:101 including the explanation by Ibn Ishaq was given by Ghoniem and Saifullah themselves in these words: "Those who have received kindness from us in the past will be removed far from it and will not hear its sound and they abide eternally in their heart's desire", i.e., Jesus Son of Mary and `Uzayr and those rabbis and monks who have lived in obedience to God, whom the erring people worship as lords beside God. [coloring and bold face for emphasis are mine] In other words, when the author of the Qur'an patched up the original "revelation" that had caused the unintentional and troublesome understanding pointed out by `Abdullah Ibn azZibi`ra, he used "alatheen" (plural of "alathi", the above mentioned synonym of "ma") to refer to Jesus, Ezra etc. (people, not things) whom he wants to exclude from Hell through this extension of his "revelation"! If they had not been included in 21:98, there were no necessity to exclude them in 21:101 and this verse would have no reason to exist, let alone in a book that claims to have existed from eternity unchanged. For details on the historical circumstances how this passage came into being, see this page. Finally, we fully agree with the principle stated again - as so often before (repetitio ad nauseam) - by Ghoniem and Saifullah at the end of their article, i.e., "that the best tafsîr of the Qur'ân is Qur'ân itself ... (different parts of the Qur'ân explain each other). ... Such an exegesis involves the use of Context & Internal Relationships." One needs to choose, however, the proper context (it is sometimes enough to look ahead three verses - from 21:98 to 21:101 - instead of jumping 22 chapters), and using the most applicable, the closest internal relationship (like identical phrases as in 21:98 and 109:2). It is not enough to know the right principles, one also needs to apply them correctly. Case closed. There is, however, a further issue that needs to be mentioned. There is another choice of two alternatives that the careful reader of this article has to make. 1. The authors of this article, Ghoniem and Saifullah, have uncritically taken over the reasoning of various Muslim "scholars of tafsir" like al-Qurtubi, as-Sabuni / Ibn Kathir. This neither excuses their carelessness and nor does it recommend the scholarship of those commentators to the critical reader. Or, worse, 2. Ghoniem and Saifullah were well aware that the reasoning of those scholars was false, but they have themselves not found any better response and hoped we would not find the mistake. In this case, they would be guilty of deliberate deception of the public readership, Muslim and non-Muslim alike. To raise such an accusation even as an option needs evidence. Maybe I am making too much of this, but I am wondering about the following observation: Ghoniem and Saifullah present in their discussion of the scholars only absolute quotations, sometimes even explicitly denying any exceptions, e.g. "The scholars say that Jesus, `Uzayr and the angels are not meant by verse 21:98 because "mâ" [i.e., "what"] refers to inanimate things and not to people" (al-Qurtubi), and "while they know that their argument is not applicable to this verse since it refers to things only" (as-Sâbûnî), etc. Even though this point is repeated over and over again in the grammar section, in the introduction to their article Ghoniem and Saifullah, defeating their own argument, make this strange admission: "The word "mâ" translated as "what" ... in verse 21:98 is used to refer to things/objects and seldom would it refer to people. ... More details are available in the section Grammatical considerations & tafsîr." [bold emphasis mine] Why - if they already know that "ma" can refer to people as well - do we find in their discussion of grammar and tafsir no mentioning at all of those cases? Why are they not presenting the readership with an honest and thorough scholarly evaluation of all the facts? If they were not aware of those counterexamples presented by us in our response above (or further ones), and if they were truly convinced by and in agreement with "the scholars of tafsir", why would they weaken their argument with this added phrase? To me, this looks as if the authors know more than they are willing to admit, and that they deliberately hide facts that are essential in this argument. Therefore, they are consciously misleading the readership. Was the admission itself a Freudian slip, accidentally revealing the truth against their own will, or was it deliberate in an attempt to protect themselves against the charge of being liars, thinking that this way, strictly speaking, their own statement is true, and their discussion of the scholars is true as well, so that on such a literal level no one can accuse them of lying? But obviously, deeds and articles are not judged on such fine twists of wording, but by intention, i.e. what they wanted the general reader to conclude from their article. And this intended conclusion is obvious to all who can read. How torn the authors are in their own presentation becomes clear from another one of their statements in the discussion part, contradicting their introductory statement when writing: Firstly, the grammatical considerations that we made in the beginning of this article according to which only inanimate things are included in verse 21:98. Did they at first intend to mention the exceptions and then realized their case will crumble, and therefore went ahead with only absolute statements in the discussion part (forgetting they had already an admission to the contrary in the introduction), or have they written the introduction last, and suddenly they were struck by a bad conscience and for whatever reason felt they had to include their disclaimer that "seldom would it refer to people" against the argument of the quoted scholars and claims of the article itself? The reader will have to come to his own conclusion whether the case presented by Ghoniem and Saifullah in their article was eloquent but ignorant, or, whether this was an attempt of deception, backfiring on their credibility and on their cause of defending Islam. Truth has no reason to fear anything. If someone feels the need to twist the truth to defend his faith, why would he want to defend it in the first place? Jochen Katz Another detailed response to Ghoniem and Saifullah dealing also with various other claims and arguments made in their article is given by Sam Shamoun. Responses to Islamic Awareness Refutation Of The Internal Contradictions In The Qur'ân Will Jesus Burn in Hell? Saifullah & Ghoniem attempt to rebut the following Quranic difficulty, yet prove incapable of providing a meaningful rebuttal as we shall shortly demonstrate: Saifullah & Ghoniem: Will Jesus burn in Hell? Jesus is raised to Allah, [Sura 4:158], near stationed with him [Sura 3:45], worshiped by millions of Christians, yet Sura 21:98 says, that all that are worshiped by men besides Allah will burn in Hell together with those who worship them. Muhammad Ghoniem & M S M Saifullah Assalamu-alaikum wa rahamatullahi wa barakatuhu: According to the Christian missionaries: Surely you and what you worship besides Allah are the firewood of hell; to it you shall come. -- Sura 21:98 The logic is clear, Jesus is not God [5:75], millions of Christians are worshiping Jesus today and even the Qur'an acknowledges this [5:119], therefore Jesus will be fuel for the Hell fire [21:98] together with the Christians. This clearly contradicts the verses on Jesus' special place near to Allah [Sura 3:45; 4:158 and others]. Rebuttal What is logically clear is that the Christian missionaries have not shown any support for their statement that the verse 21:98 indeed refers to Jesus(P). The issues here are: i.What does the verse 21:98 actually say? ii.Why should Jesus(P) go to hell-fire? iii.Grammatical considerations & tafsîr Response: Christians do not necessarily believe that this verse was revealed specifically with Jesus in mind, but that taken to its logical conclusion this verse would include Jesus as well. If indeed all that is worshiped will become firewood of hell, then this would definitely include Jesus since he is worshiped by millions. Furthermore, unless the authors want to claim that this verse has no significance apart from the intended audience originally addressed when it was "revealed", then this means that this passage is still valid today. Hence, this implies that everything and everyone that is worshiped even today would also be included as firewood for hell. Therefore, the authors' assertion that Christians must show that this verse refers to Jesus is a straw man, since the point is not necessarily who or what the verse is addressing, but what ramifications does it have on the Christian worship of Christ. Does the fact that Christians worship Jesus imply that he, much like the pagan idols, will be tossed into hell? Or shall we simply assume, as Muslims do, that Jesus never condoned worship and hence is not held accountable for what others have chosen to do in his name? Saifullah & Ghoniem What Does The Verse 21:98 Actually Say? Let us see what the Arabic actually says in the verse 21:98. Surely you and what you worship besides Allah are the firewood of hell; to it you shall come. [Qur'ân 21:98] The word "mâ" translated as "what" (and underlined with red) in verse 21:98 is used to refer to things/objects and seldom would it refer to people. Otherwise, it would be "man" (i.e. who or whom). Thus Jesus(P) is not referred to in that verse. This verse would rather refer to idols worshipped by the pagan Arabs who lived in the time of Prophet Muhammad(P). More details are available in the section Grammatical considerations & tafsîr. Response: Again, the straw man arguments persist. Christians do not believe that this verse originally referred to Jesus, but that Jesus would naturally be included in a verse that condemns the worship of anything or anyone apart from God. Furthermore, the authors admit that the word "ma" can seldom refer to people, not just things. This is essential since the impersonal "ma" is used of God in the Quran: By the heaven and THAT WHICH built it. S. 91:5 Arabic: Was-samaaa-i wa MAA ba-naahaa. And the earth and THAT WHICH spread it, S. 91:6 Arabic: Waal-ardi wa MAA tahaha And a soul and THAT WHICH perfected it S. 91:7 Arabic: Wanafsin wa MAA sawwaha Finally: And THAT WHICH hath created male and female, S. 92:3 Arabic: Wa MAA khalaqa alththakara waal-ontha Either the authors will agree that the impersonal ma can include persons, or they must argue that Allah is an impersonal force. (See also S. 109:2-5.) Finally, the authors claim that S. 21:98 is referring to the idols of the pagan Arabs but forgot to point out that some of these idols represented personal beings. For instance, Allat, AlUzza, Manat and Hubal were clearly viewed as living entities, not impersonal objects. In fact, one idol that was venerated in the Kaba according to some Muslim sources was an icon of the Virgin Mary and the baby Jesus. Does this imply that the Virgin Mary and Jesus are impersonal objects simply because an idol was made in their image? Obviously not, which means that the impersonal ma does not deny the fact that the Quran is attacking the veneration of both the images and the persons represented by these images. Hence, we are left with the problem that if Jesus is worshiped then this implies that he too will be firewood of hell (God forbid!). Saifullah & Ghoniem Why Should Jesus(P) Go To Hell-fire? It is true that many Christians worship Jesus(P) and that according to the Qur'ân [21:98] whoever worships any deity except God would be the firewood of hell. In this context, what will happen to Jesus(P)? The Christian missionaries say rightfully that Jesus(P) is highly esteemed in Islam: Behold! the angels said: "O Mary! Allah giveth thee glad tidings of a Word from Him: his name will be Christ Jesus, the son of Mary, held in honour in this world and the Hereafter and of (the company of) those nearest to Allah; [Qur'ân 3:45] For the sake of debate, the question would be: What was the mischief committed by Jesus(P) for which he would deserve hell? Did he order the Christians to worship him? We, the Muslims, believe he did not: And behold! Allah will say: "O Jesus the son of Mary! Didst thou say unto men, take me and my mother for two gods beside Allah.?" He will say: "Glory to Thee! never could I say what I had no right (to say). Had I said such a thing, Thou wouldst indeed have known it. Thou knowest what is in my heart, Thou I know not what is in Thine. For Thou knowest in full all that is hidden. "Never said I to them aught except what Thou didst command me to say, to wit, 'Worship Allah, my Lord and your Lord'; and I was a witness over them whilst I dwelt amongst them; when Thou didst take me up Thou wast the Watcher over them, and Thou art a witness to all things. [Qur'ân 5:116117] Response: Nor do Christians believe that Jesus ever commanded his followers to venerate both him and his mother as TWO GODS APART FROM GOD. Instead, Jesus commanded his followers to honor him as they honor the Father since he and the Father are one and, along with the Holy Spirit, comprise the unity of the ONE true Godhead. Saifullah & Ghoniem And God Almighty also says: On no soul doth Allah place a burden greater than it can bear. It gets every good that it earns, and it suffers every ill that it earns. [...] [Qur'ân 2:286] and No bearer of burdens can bear the burden of another: nor would We punish until We had sent a messenger (to give warning). [Qur'ân 17:15] So, as shown in verses 5:116-117, Jesus(P) will be confronted with those who worship him. After he washes his hands from the Christian polytheism, each one will be accountable for his own deeds because the messenger (Prophet Muhammad(P)) has warned the Christians against their error and they refused to follow him and the consequences of not heeding to the advice (see verse 17:15). Response: Actually, all this verse states is that Jesus will wash his hands from those who claimed that he and his mother were two gods along with God, turning the Godhead into a triad. Hence, according to the Quranic claim, Jesus will rebuke individuals who believe that there are three gods consisting of Father, mother and son. Since this is not the historic position of Biblebelieving Christians, this verse does not apply to them at all. Saifullah & Ghoniem Grammatical Considerations & Tafsîr Coming back to the original issue, verse 21:98 (saying that what is worshipped besides God will be the firewood of hell) refers to things/objects and not to the people for obvious grammatical reasons. Response: As we have demonstrated, the grammatical reasons prove nothing unless the authors are willing to admit that Allah is an impersonal force or object as well, not a personal being. Saifullah & Ghoniem Moreover, as discussed above Jesus(P) is innocent from the Christian worship and thus he cannot be accountable for the Christian misguidance after his ascension to the Heaven. Of course, Jesus(P) is honoured by Islam and there is no contradiction between this fact and the Christian misguidance from which he is totally innocent (according to the Qur'ân too). Response: Actually, Jesus is innocent of the misinformation of the Quranic assertion that Christians believe that Jesus and his mother are two gods apart from the true God. Since neither Jesus or his true followers ever taught this, S. 5:116 has no bearing on the true biblical teaching and historic orthodox Christian belief. Saifullah & Ghoniem: Some missionaries go further with this argument by quoting Sîrah concerning the revelation of verse 21:98. We have cross-checked the quotation from as-Sîrah anNabawiyyah by Ibn Hishâm which says: Here is its English translation: Ibn Ishâq said: The Apostle of God(P) sat one day, so I have heard, with al-Walîd Ibn al-Mughîrah in the mosque, and an-Nadr Ibn al-Harith came and sat with them in the assembly where some of Quraysh were. So the Apostle spoke but an-Nadr interrupted him. Then the Apostle spoke to him until he silenced him. Then he read to him and to the others: "Verily ye and what ye serve other than God is the fuel of hell. You will come to it. If these had been gods they would not have come to it, but all will be in it everlastingly. There is wailing and there they will not hear". Ibn Ishâq said: Then the Apostle of God(P) left and Abdullâh Ibn az-Zibirâ as-Sahmî came and sat down. al-Walîd said to him: "By God, an-Nadr could not stand up to the (grand)son of Abdul-Muttalib just now and Muhammad alleged that we and what we worship among these deities of ours [mâ nabudu min 'âlihatinâ hâdhihî] are fuel for hell". Abdullâh Ibn az-Zibirâ said: "If I had found him I would have refuted him. Ask Muhammad, "Is everything which is worshipped besides God in hell with those who worship it?' We worship the angels; the Jews worship Uzayr; and the Christians worship Jesus the Son of Mary." Al-Walîd and those with him in the assembly wondered at the words of Abdullâh Ibn az-Zibirâ and saw that he had argued convincingly. When the Apostle of God(P) heard of the speech of Ibn az-Zibirâ, he said: "Everyone who appreciates being worshipped to the exclusion of God will be with those who worship him. They worship only devils and whom they have ordered to be worshipped." So God Almighty revealed concerning that "Those who have received kindness from us in the past will be removed far from it and will not hear its sound and they abide eternally in their heart's desire", i.e., Jesus Son of Mary and Uzayr and those rabbis and monks who have lived in obedience to God, whom the erring people worship as lords beside God. And He revealed concerning their assertion that they worship angels and that they are the daughters of God, "And they say the Merciful has chosen a son, (exalted be He above this); nay, they are but honored slaves, they do not speak before He speaks, and they carry out His commands", as far as the words, "and he of them who says, I am God as well as He, that one we shall repay with Hell. Thus do they repay the sinful ones." [1] In the quotation above, the pagans of Makkah understood that verse 21:98 concerned them specifically as well as their idols (see how they stress: "what we worship among these deities of ours"- in Arabic: mâ nabudu min 'âlihatinâ hâdhihi). No mention of deified humans was understood. However, the question of Abdullâh Ibn az-Zibirâ even if it was out of the real scope of the verse - came as a relief for them especially after Prophet Muhammad(P) had silenced Ibn an-Nadr one of their best orators. Response: The fact that az-Zibira's question brought them relief affirms that the pagans did indeed have in mind "deified humans" as well as other divine agents whom the pagans believed were actual personal beings, refuting the authors' assertion that they only had idols in mind. Furthermore, that az-Zibira would use a passage that originally referred to idols, applying it to other objects of worship proves our point. It proves that this verse implies that every object in general that is worshiped, whether things or persons, shall be firewood of hell. Saifullah & Ghoniem When the Prophet(P) heard of Abdullâh's objection, he brought an answer to his specific question, i.e., what about the humans that are worshipped? Response: Notice the trick the authors play upon their readers and the liberties they take in interpreting the text. Nowhere does the passage even make a distinction between the impersonal objects of worship and the so-called "deified human" beings. The authors assume that this must be the case due to the impersonal usage of "ma" but have failed to show us why this must be the case. Furthermore, az-Zibira indicates that the idols venerated by the pagans symbolized the angels that they worshiped: "... Ask Muhammad, "Is everything which is worshipped besides God in hell with those who worship it?' WE WORSHIP THE ANGELS; the Jews worship Uzayr; and the Christians worship Jesus the Son of Mary..." The Arabs were not simply venerating stone or wooden objects, but worshiped what these objects represented, namely angels etc. In fact, according to the earliest traditions al-Uzza manifested as a real person and was killed: "Then the apostle sent Khalid to al-'Uzza which was in Nakhla. It was a temple which this tribe of Quraysh and Kinana and all Mudar used to venerate. Its guardians and wardens were B. Shayban of B. Sulaym, allies of B. Hashim. When the Sulami guardian heard of Khalid's coming he hung his sword on her, climbed the mountain on which she stood, and said: O 'Uzza, make an annihilating attack on Khalid, Throw aside your veil and gird up your train. O 'Uzza, if you do not kill this man Khalid Then bear a swift punishment or become a Christian. "When Khalid arrived he destroyed her and returned to the apostle." (Ishaq, Sira Rasulullah- trans. Alfred Guillaume, The Life of Muhammad [Oxford University Press, Karachi, tenth impression 1995], p. 565) The Muslim author Martin Lings continues: "The nearest to Mecca of the three most eminent shrines of paganism was the temple of al'Uzza at Nakhlah. The Prophet now sent Khalid to destroy this centre of idolatry. At the news of his approach the warden of the temple hung his sword on the statue of the goddess and called upon her to defend herself and slay Khalid or to become a monotheist. Khalid demolished the temple and its idol, and returned to Mecca. 'Didst thou see nothing?' said the Prophet. 'Nothing,' said Khalid. 'Then thou has not destroyed her,' said the Prophet. 'Return and destroy her.' So Khalid went again to Nakhlah, and out of the ruins of the temple there came a black woman, entirely naked, with long and wildly flowing hair. 'My spine was seized with shivering,' said Khalid afterwards. But he shouted ''Uzza, denial is for thee, not worship,' and drawing his sword he cut her down.." (Lings, Muhammad His Life Based On the Earliest Sources [Inner Traditions, International, Ltd.; Rocheter Vermont, 1983], pp. 301-302) These traditions affirm that what the pagans worshiped were not just impersonal objects, but spirits or humans that were represented by these icons and images. Saifullah & Ghoniem The answer was: if and only if their being worshipped pleased them, then they will meet the same fate as their worshippers - Hell. This saves Jesus(P), Mary(P), the Angels and whatever pious people who were later worshipped against their own consent. Response: The problem is that according to the inspired eyewitness record of the New Testament, which the Quran agrees is the uncorrupt word of God, it is Jesus who personally demanded his followers to worship him: "Moreover, the Father judges no one, but has entrusted all judgment to the Son, that all may honor the Son JUST AS THEY HONOR THE FATHER. He who does not honor the Son does not honor the Father, who sent him." John 5:22-23 NIV "And I will do whatever YOU ASK IN MY NAME, so that the Son may bring glory to the Father. YOU MAY ASK ME FOR ANYTHING IN MY NAME, and I will do it." John 14:13-14 NIV Hence, it is Jesus who demands that we should honor him just as we honor the Father, which also includes praying directly to him. Interestingly, Ibn Ishaq quotes the Gospel of John without ever hinting that it is corrupt: "Among the things which have reached me about what Jesus the Son of Mary stated in the Gospel which he received from God for the followers of the Gospel, in applying a term to describe the apostle of God, is the following. It is extracted from what John the Apostle set down for them when he wrote the Gospel for them from the Testament of Jesus Son of Mary: 'He that hateth me hateth the Lord. And if I had not done in their presence works which none other before me did, they had not sin: but from now they are puffed up with pride and think that they will overcome me and also the Lord. But the word that is in the law must be fulfilled, 'They hated me without a cause' (i.e. without reason). But when the Comforter has come whom God will send to you from the Lord's presence, and the spirit of truth which will have gone forth from the Lord's presence he (shall bear) witness of me and ye also, because ye have been with me from the beginning. I have spoken unto you about this that ye should not be in doubt.' The Munahhemana (God bless and preserve him!) in Syriac is Muhammad; in Greek he is the paraclete." (Ishaq, pp. 103-104) Despite the obvious change from "Father" to "Lord" and Ishaq's erroneous assertion that this is a prophecy of Muhammad, the Gospel citation is virtually identical to what we find in John 15:23-16:1. Ishaq claims that John wrote down the Gospel, affirming that his writing is that which the Quran refers to as the Gospel of Christ. This citation along with the following from Ishaq establishes the reliability of the NT text in our possession: "Rafi b. Haritha and Sallam b. Mishkam and Malik b. al-Sayf and Rafi b. Huraymila came to him and said: 'Do you not allege that you follow the religion of Abraham AND BELIEVE IN THE TORAH WHICH WE HAVE AND TESTIFY THAT IT IS THE TRUTH FROM GOD?' He replied, 'CERTAINLY, but you have sinned and broken the covenant contained therein and concealed what you were ordered to make plain to man, and I disassociate myself from your sin.' They said, 'We hold by what we have. We live according to the guidance and the truth and we do not believe in you and we will not follow you.' So God sent down concerning them: 'Say O Scripture folk, you have no standing until you observe the Torah and the Gospel and what has been sent down to you from your Lord. What has been sent down to thee from thy Lord will assuredly increase many of them in error and unbelief. But be not sad because of the unbelieving people.'" (Ishaq, p. 268) This being the case, this means that Jesus is the one responsible for Christians worshiping him. This means that if the Quran is correct, Jesus will then be tossed into hell (God forbid!)! Saifullah & Ghoniem Moreover, many Qur'ânic commentaries such as those of al-Tabarî, al-Qurtubî and Ibn Kathîr mention this quotation of Sîrah concerning the following passage of surat az-Zukhruf: When (Jesus) the son of Mary is held up as an example, behold, thy people raise a clamor thereat (in ridicule)! And they say, "Are our gods best, or he?" This they set forth to thee, only by way of disputation: yea, they are a contentious people. He was no more than a servant: We granted Our favor to him, and We made him an example to the Children of Israel. And if it were Our Will, We could make angels from amongst you, succeeding each other on the earth. And (Jesus) shall be a Sign (for the coming of) the Hour (of Judgment): therefore have no doubt about the (Hour), but follow ye Me: this is a Straight Way. [Qur'ân 43:57-61] Very interestingly, al-Qurtubî had the following to say in his tafsîr, while commenting on verse 43:57: (Arabic Text Follows) Ibn Abbâs said: This verse refers to the argument between Abdullâh Ibn az-Zibirâ and the Prophet of God(P) concerning Jesus. The one who held the example [in the verse] is Abdullâh Ibn az-Zibirâ while he was still a pagan. This took place when Quraysh reported to him that Muhammad recites: "Verily ye and what ye serve other than God is the fuel of hell." [21:98]. He said: "If I had attended him, I would have replied to him." They asked him: "What would you say?" I would say: "The Christ is worshipped by the Christians and the Jews worship Uzayr. Are they among the firewood of hell?" Then Quraysh wondered at his words and saw that he had argued convincingly and this is the meaning of yasiddûn [raise a clamour in ridicule]. So, God revealed: "Surely (as for) those for whom the good has already gone forth from Us, they shall be kept far off from it;" [21:101] If Ibn az-Zibirâ had pondered on verse 21:98, he wouldn't have objected to it because it makes mention of "what ye serve" and not "whom you serve" because the verse speaks about the idols and other things, and not about Jesus nor the angels even if they are worshipped.[2] Two things stand out from this quotation: Firstly, the grammatical considerations that we made in the beginning of this article according to which only inanimate things are included in verse 21:98. Al-Qurtubî stands by this opinion when commenting on verse 43:57 as well as verse 21:98. The scholars say that Jesus, Uzayr and the angels are not meant by verse 21:98 because "mâ" [i.e., "what"] refers to inanimate things and not to people. If the verse pointed to them, it would use "man" [i.e., "who" or "whom"] instead.[3] As-Sâbûnî in Mukhtasar Tafsîr Ibn Kathîr points out this argument too in the explanation of verse 43:58 Regarding His divine words: "This they set forth to thee, only by way of disputation: yea, they are a contentious people" means: they say so for the sake of argument while they know that their argument is not applicable to this verse since it refers to things only [i.e., in the Arabic language "mâ" is used to refer to things and God Almighty used "mâ" and not "man"] and so it is in His divine speech "Verily ye and what ye serve other than God is the fuel of hell." Moreover, this verse was addressed at Quraysh who were used to worship idols and they did not worship Jesus so that he could be included here. Therefore, their answer is no more than a fake argument in which they do not believe themselves.[4] Response: Actually, had all these writers meditated upon the Quran they would have seen that az-Zibira was correct since the impersonal "ma" is used of Allah. Either the authors must say that the Quran is grammatically wrong for using the impersonal term for Allah in S. 91:5, or must admit that the usage of "ma" can and does refer to persons. Hence, the grammatical construction fails to prove anything. Saifullah & Ghoniem: Secondly, it is implied that Abdullâh Ibn az-Zibirâ, the one who opposed the Prophet(P) about verse 21:98, became a Muslim. The reader may check entry number 4682 in al-Isâbah[5] by Ibn Hajar where we get the confirmation that Ibn Zibicrâ converted to Islam and praised the Prophet(P) with his poetry. If he knew that there were a contradiction in the Qur'ân concerning Jesus(P) and whether he would go to hell, would he believe in Muhammad(P) and convert to Islam? Response: The authors introduce irrelevant arguments to defend the mistake within the Quran. It is irrelevant to discuss the conversion of az-Zibira when the issue at hand is not az-Zibira. Rather, the issue centers on the Quranic difficulty that individuals who receive and/or accept worship will be tossed into hell, which would also include Jesus. Az-Zibira could have had many ulterior motives for converting to Islam such as power, wealth and woman seeing that Islam became the dominant force in Arabia: "The alms are only for the poor and the needy, and those who collect them, and those whose hearts are to be reconciled, and to free the captives and the debtors, and for the cause of Allah, and (for) the wayfarer; a duty imposed by Allah. Allah is Knower, Wise." S. 9:60 Al-Baidawi comments: "Those whose hearts are brought together are a group of people who converted to Islam but had a weak intention to continue in it, whose hearts were brought together by the freewill offerings [that were given them]. Or they could be some of the nobility who would turn to Islam if they saw how their fellows were given both honour and money. The Messenger has indeed given [money to] 'Uyaina Ibn Hisn, al-'Aqra Ibn Habis, and al-'Abbas Ibn Mirdas for that reason. It was said they were some of the nobility whose hearts Muhammad had united by giving them money; some also he promised to give money if they were ready to fight the unbelievers. It was said that the portion of money allotted to making converts was for the purpose of increasing the number of Muslims, so when God made him strong and increased his followers, that portion was canceled." ('Abdallah 'Abd al-Fadi, Is the Qur'an Infallible? [Light of Life, PO Box 13 A-9503 VILLACH AUSTRIA], pp. 99-100) According to the Mishkat, the fact that money played a dominant role in the Muslim zeal in striving against unbelievers is admittedly true: "After the Battle of Badr, the verse dealing with the booties was first revealed. The verse introduced the rule for the first time that the spoils of war would be the property of the soldiers who actually take part in the battle... THAT IS ONE OF THE REASONS why the soldiers of Islam fought tooth and nail. They would get Paradise in case of death in a Holy War, and booties in the case of CONQUEST. Jihad is therefore the best source of all acquisitions." (Mishkat II, p. 406) Furthermore, az-Zibira could have also been coerced into embracing Islam by the threat of death seeing that many others had converted due to the threat of the Islamic sword: Narrated Anas ibn Malik: On the Day of Hunayn, Umm Sulayman took out a dagger she had in her possession. AbuTalhah saw her and said: Messenger of Allah, this is Umm Sulayman. She is holding a dagger. The Messenger of Allah (peace_be_upon_him) asked (her): Why are you holding this dagger? She said: I took it up so that I might tear open the belly of a polytheist who comes near me. The Messenger of Allah (peace_be_upon_him) began to smile (at these words). She said: Messenger of Allah, kill all those people --other than us-- whom thou hast declared to be free (on the day of the Conquest of Mecca). (They embraced Islam because) they were defeated at your hands (and as such their Islam is not dependable). The Messenger of Allah (peace_be_upon_him) said: Umm Sulayman, God is sufficient (against the mischief of the polytheists) and He will be kind to us (so you need not carry this dagger). (Sahih Muslim, Book 18, Number 4453) In either case, az-Zibira's conversion is trivial and has no bearing on the discussion. The authors have confused a question of relevance (i.e. that az-Zibira's conversion is irrelevant to our discussion) with a question of fact (i.e. the fact that the Quran condemns all who are worshiped apart from the true God to hell). Saifullah & Ghoniem: In conclusion, it can said that there is no difference between the arguments of Abdullâh Ibn az-Zibirâ when he was a pagan and the Christian missionaries of this day. The verse 21:98 does not refer to Jesus(P) at all and neither does the Qur'ân say that Jesus(P) would be going to hell. Everything points to the fact that the missionaries' argument is hollow and that they are contentious indeed! Response: In conclusion, we have discovered that either the authors didn't understand the point of the Christian argument, or badly misrepresented it in order to attack a straw man. Seeing that the Christians have never claimed that S. 21:98 originally referred to Jesus, or had Jesus in mind when it was revealed, we are left wondering why the authors chose to misrepresent the Christian argument? The fact remains that if everything that is worshiped will be firewood for hell, and since Jesus commanded his followers to worship him, this implies that if the Quran is true then Jesus will be one of those tossed into hell as firewood. Saifullah & Ghoniem: This issue is also discussed as a logical fallacy committed by the Quraysh. The reader would also notice that the best tafsîr of the Qur'ân is Qur'ân itself (notice how 21:98 is explained using 43:57-58), i.e., al-Qur'ân yufassiru baduhu badan (different parts of the Qur'ân explain each other). What is given in a general way in one place is discussed in detail in some other place in the Qur'ân. What is dealt with briefly at one place is expanded in some other place. Such an exegesis involves the use of Context & Internal Relationships. And Allah knows best! Response: Indeed, the Quran is its best interpreter and once a person allows it to speak for itself, the gross errors within it remain. And Jesus knows best! And what he wants mankind to know is revealed in the Holy Bible, the only inspired word of God. QUESTION FOR SAIFULLAH & GHONIEM : In light of the fact that the authors claim that those who allowed others to worship them will be held responsible, and hence tossed into hell, what do the authors do with the following verses where God commanded angels to worship Adam? : "And when We said unto the angels: Prostrate yourselves before Adam, they fell prostrate, all save Iblis. He demurred through pride, and so became a disbeliever." S. 2:34 "And We created you, then fashioned you, then told the angels: Fall ye prostrate before Adam! And they fell prostrate, all save Iblis, who was not of those who make prostration. He said: What hindered thee that thou didst not fall prostrate when I bade thee? (Iblis) said: I am better than him. Thou createdst me of fire while him Thou didst create of mud. He said: Then go down hence! It is not for thee to show pride here, so go forth! Lo! thou art of those degraded." S. 7:11-13 "And (remember) when thy Lord said unto the angels: Lo! I am creating a mortal out of potter's clay of black mud altered, So, when I have made him and have breathed into him of My Spirit, do ye fall down, prostrating yourselves unto him. So the angels fell prostrate, all of them together Save Iblis. He refused to be among the prostrate. He said: O Iblis! What aileth thee that thou art not among the prostrate? He said: I am not one to prostrate myself unto a mortal whom Thou hast created out of potter's clay of black mud altered!" S. 15:28-33 "And when We said unto the angels: Fall down prostrate before Adam and they fell prostrate all save Iblis, he said: Shall I fall prostrate before that which Thou hast created of clay?" S. 17:61 "And when We said unto the angels: Fall prostrate before Adam, they fell prostrate (all) save Iblis; he refused." S. 20:116 All these verses state that it was Allah who commanded the angels to prostrate before Adam. The word signifying prostration is only used in relation to a believer prostrating before God in adoration and worship. Abdiyah Akbar Abdul Haqq comments on S. 7:12: "The story, as a whole, involves a difficult issue. Why did God order all His angels to fall prostrate before a being inferior to them in nature? The manner of prostration is reserved for the worship of God. It was not proper, therefore, to employ it in showing respect to creatures, including Adam. Realizing the problem involved in the use of the term 'Sajda' (prostration) in the passage under discussion, Jalal al-Din made the following observation: The original word signifies properly, to prostrate one self till the forehead touches the ground, which is the humblest posture of adoration and strictly due to God only; but it is sometimes used to express civil worship or homage which may be paid to creatures. (W.T. Wherry, A Comprehensive Commentary on the Quran, Vol. I, p. 301) "Despite Jalal al-Din's apology, strictly speaking, 'Sajda' (prostration) is due only to God. That is why the commentator did not support adequately the exception he has made to the rule, from the Koran. The 'Wahhabis,' who consider themselves strict Muslims and true Monotheists, forbid worship of any creature. God alone deserves to be worshipped, according to them. They would not allow 'Sajda' to a civil authoritythe kind of prostration which is meant to be used in prayers to God... Moreover, it is true that strictly speaking prostration before any being other than God is a practice against monotheism and spirit of the Koran, as Wahhabis would say." (Haqq, Sharing Your Faith with a Muslim [Bethany House Publishers, Minneapolis, MN 1980], p. 78 emphasis ours) If the Quran is right that anyone that is worshiped besides God will be firewood for hell, does this mean Adam will be thrown in hell as well? Does this also mean that since Allah commanded angels to worship Adam that Allah will now toss himself into hell? If the authors claim that Allah allowed the angels to show respect to Adam by bowing down before him, then why is it forbidden for Muslims to do so today? Why are Christians condemned for worshiping Jesus seeing that he is greater than Adam and more worthy of the "Sajda" that was given to the latter? It seems that when the authors try to solve one contradiction, another arises to take its place. Sam Shamoun Marrying Adopted Son The following verse is about the story of Muhammad marrying Zainab, the wife of Muhammad's adopted son. Behold! Thou didst say to one who had received the grace of Allah and thy favour: "Retain thou (in wedlock) thy wife, and fear Allah." But thou didst hide in thy heart that which Allah was about to make manifest: thou didst fear the people, but it is more fitting that thou shouldst fear Allah. Then when Zaid had dissolved (his marriage) with her, with the necessary (formality), We joined her in marriage to thee: in order that (in future) there may be no difficulty to the Believers in (the matter of) marriage with the wives of their adopted sons, when the latter have dissolved with the necessary (formality) (their marriage) with them. And Allah's command must be fulfilled. -- Sura 33:37 There is a considerable moral problem with such a self-serving revelation. It is quite clear that Muhammad was attracted to Zainab before Zaid divorced her and it might well have been the true reason for the divorce itslelf. There are Muslim traditions which indicate this, but the Qur'an verse itself does make clear that there was something going on before Zaid's divorce from Zainab. In any case, this marriage with Zainab, wife of his adopted son seemingly caused quite a scandal in the Muslim community as this was looked upon as incest [the wife of the son]. Therefore it was necessary that a revelation will exhonorate Muhammad for his action. What better step can be taken than declaring that this was a step of obedience to Allah's will and command? Who wants to question Allah's command? But there is more in this strange story. That this action is immoral and this revelation / justification of it self-serving and not fitting for a true word of God is an important aspect, but not a contradiction within the Qur'an - even though contradicting the true character of God, who is moral purity. In this verse in Sura 33:37 there is stated a particular purpose for this revelation and action of Muhammad. It is not for himself, but it is for the future of the Muslim community. It is so that in future there may not be a problem if anybody wants to marry the divorced wife of an adopted son. And that is the logical difficulty: Adoption is forbidden in Islam ([1, 2]). This prohibition is based for example on these two verses from the same sura: Allah has not made for any man two hearts in his (one) body: nor has He made your wives whom ye divorce by Zihar your mothers: nor has He made your adopted sons your sons. Such is (only) your (manner of) speech by your mouths. But Allah tells (you) the Truth, and He shows the (right) Way. Call them by (the names of) their fathers: that is juster in the sight of Allah. But if ye know not their father's (names, call them) your Brothers in faith, or your maulas. But there is no blame on you if ye make a mistake therein: (what counts is) the intention of your hearts: and Allah is Oft-Returning, Most Merciful. -- Sura 33:4-5 Without adoption there cannot be any adopted son either. And so the explicitely stated reason for the revelation of this verse does not even exist. Muhammad himself dissolved the original adoption of Zaid when the above revelation came. To summarize, the logical difficulty is that Allah(?) causes a scandal and then sends Gabriel to officially justify the action with a revelation and the express purpose for this revelation is "so that there will be no problem in future" with a situation that is not even possible under Islam. Those who are Muslims and are obedient to the Qur'an will not have adopted sons. This logical problem is a further indication that this revelation was really not from God, but from Muhammad who wanted to justify his action before the community. It was not for the future (even though that certainly sounded better) but it was to calm down the emotional upheaval and resulting doubts about his integrity because of this action which was considered indecent.[1] Notes: 1. That this act caused quite some havoc is also acknowledged at the very beginning of Maududi's book The Finality of Prophethood Begetting and Self-sufficiency This is a self-contradiction due to confusion of terms. 10:68 They say [the Christians]: "Allah hath begotten a son!" Glory be to Him! He is self-sufficient! His are all things in heaven and on earth! No warrant have ye for this! (An essentially identical statement is made in Sura 2:116-117.) This above verse 1) denies that God has a begotten Son, and 2) explains this by saying that God is self-sufficient; he doesn't need anyone to depend on. 10:68 tells us the reason God wouldn't have a begotten Son is because God is self-sufficient. We are going to use a rule from formal logic to make another statement about what this verse tells us. The rule is that (A implies B) is equivalent to (not B implies not A). IF: It tells us that: God does not have a begotten Son, for He is self-sufficient. THEN, according to the Law of Contrapositives, the Qur'an also tells us: If God HAS a begotten Son, then God is NOT self-sufficient. Since "not self-sufficient" means the same as "dependent," the above can be restated as: If God HAS a begotten Son, God is dependent. This reasoning is very Qur'anic, as we find it this implication clearly spelled out for example in Sura 6:101 (see below). According to C.S. Lewis, "To beget is to become the father of: to create is to make. And the difference is this. When you beget, you beget something of the same kind as yourself. But when you make, you make something of a different kind from yourself. What God begets is God; just as what man begets is man. What God creates is not God; just as what man makes is not man." So, what God begets is God; so if God had a begotten Son, it would not mean he would be dependent on some other entity; it would mean that He would be dependent on Himself. DEPENDENT ON HIMSELF. That is the very meaning of self-sufficience. So that verse is obviously self-contradictory and therefore wrong. The Qur'anic argument receives its force from the reasoning that in order to "beget" God needs a consort, a wife, and would therefore be dependent, i.e. longer self-sufficient. For example, we read in Sura 72:3 "And exalted is the Majesty of our Lord: He has taken neither a wife nor a son." on which Yusuf Ali comments in note 5730: "They abjure ... the doctrine of a son begotten by Allah, which would also imply a wife of whom he was begotten." This is not only the reasoning of the commentators though, since the Qur'an itself gives this argument in Sura 6:101 stating: Wonderful Originator of the heavens and the earth; how can he have a son when He has no consort? He created all things, and He hath full knowledge of all things. Obviously, the author of the Qur'an cannot answer this question and and has not the necessary knowledge of all things, since nowhere in the Bible is a wife mentioned. This begotten Son comes from the Father only, without any involvement of a third party, and therefore God was not dependent on anyone. This begetting is a begetting with full selfsufficiency. The author of the Qur'an might not have understood this, but the Qur'anic logic is wrong if it is supposed to be a response to the Biblical revelation. This topic obviously begs the question what "begetting" means in regard to God, and how there can be still only one God in the "bringing forth" of the Son from the Father. (Note: I did not say "after" but "in" since this is a reality from eternity and not subject to our time frame. The Son was God from all eternity. And this "begetting" is without the involvement of a wife or any sexual act.) Some of these topics can be explored in the sections on the identity of Jesus and the doctrine of Trinity. An article on the terminology of "begotten" will be forthcoming. Could Allah have a Son? In the Qur'an we find the following two statements: 39:4 Had Allah wished to take to Himself a son, He could have chosen whom He pleased out of those whom He doth create: but Glory be to Him! (He is above such things.) He is Allah, the One, the Irresistible. (Yusuf Ali) If Allah had willed to choose a son, He could have chosen what He would of that which He hath created. Be He Glorified! He is Allah, the One, the Absolute. (Pickthall) 6:101 Wonderful Originator of the heavens and the earth; How can He have a son when He has no consort? He created all things, and He hath full knowledge of all things. Sura 39:4 and 6:101 agree on the actuality, that Allah does not have a son, but they contradict each other in the issue of ability or possibility. Sura 39:4 clearly states that God could have taken Himself a son from among his creation, i.e. without the necessity of a consort to father such a son. But Sura 6:101 clearly rejects the same idea as a logical impossibility. Quran Contradiction: Did Jesus Die Already? This observation I learned from an Ahmadiyya as this group claims that Jesus did indeed die. 4:157. That they said (in boast) "We killed Christ Jesus the son of Mary the Apostle of Allah"; but they killed him not nor crucified him but so it was made to appear to them and those who differ therein are full of doubts with no (certain) knowledge but only conjecture to follow for of a surety they killed him not. Nay Allah raised him up unto Himself; ... The Messiah, son of Mary, was only a Messenger; ... And Muhammad is but a Messenger. Verily all Messengers have passed away before him ... (Translation by Maulvi Sher Ali) 4:158. 5:75 3:144 Does 3:144 not not imply that Jesus has died? This contradicts the standard Muslim interpretation of 4:158 that God raised him to himself alive and he will come back to die after his second coming, i.e. after and not before Muhammad. The word used here for "messengers" is al-russul, which means THE messengers (al = the, russul = messengers), indicating that this verse refers to ALL the messengers. If I were to translate it, it would be like:indeed (all) the Messengers have passed away before him. For a detailed discussion of the Qur'anic passage on the crucifixion (4:157-158) see chapter 5: "Jesus Christ: Crucified?" in Chawkat Moucarry's Islam and Christianity at the Crossroads and Sam Shamoun's article The Crucifixion of Christ - A Christian Critique of the Quran. It is interesting to make some observations how different the verse 3:144 is rendered by the various translators of the Qur'an. They are clearly struggling with this problem. For this verse, it seems the above Ahmadiyya translation is indeed closest to the actual meaning. As such, accepting the Ahmadiyya interpretation, the contradiction would be resolved. But it remains a contradiction in the classical and orthodox understanding of the Qur'an. How many creators are there? Then fashioned We the drop a clot, then fashioned We the clot a little lump, then fashioned We the little lump bones, then clothed the bones with flesh, and then produced it as another creation. So blessed be Allah, the Best of creators! -- Sura 23:14 Will ye cry unto Baal and forsake the Best of creators, ... ? -- Sura 37:125 How can it be that Allah is the best of creators (plural)? What other creators are in view when the Qur'an makes these statements? After all, we find it stated very clearly that there is only one creator (2:54, 6:102, 12:101, 13:16, 14:10, 15:86, 35:1, 35:3, 36:81, 39:46, 39:62, 40:62, 42:11, 56:59, 59:24), in particular: Allah is Creator of all things, and He is Guardian over all things. -- Sura 39:62 Such is Allah, your Lord, the Creator of all things, There is no God save Him. How then are ye perverted? -- Sura 40:62 Such is Allah, your Lord. There is no God save Him, the Creator of all things, so worship Him. And He taketh care of all things. -- Sura 6:102 Say: Who is Lord of the heavens and the earth? Say: Allah. ... Say: Allah is the Creator of all things, and He is the One, the Almighty. -- Sura 13:16 If all things are created by Allah, the One, then nothing is created by anyone else, and so, none else can legitimately be called a creator. Do all the above use the same word for "creator" and "creators"? The various translators deal with this issue differently ... Comment to the above by MaSeeHi: To tell you the truth, I see no contradiction in it (Arabically Speaking). In a way it's like saying "Allahu Akbar = God is greater". Two others points:According to Tafseer Al-Qurtubi, it is used like this because Jesus created too (remember the Quranic story where the young Jesus created a bird, which is similar to the apocrypha). And another point in the Tafseer, creation can be linked to man in the sense of making. Like I created this email message. In other words, I think that it's a weak contradiction. However, even though not a fatal contradiction, given the strong emphasis on the oneness of God, it is still an oddity of expression, some kind of inconsistency in the message. There is often the claim that everything fits together in the Qur'an perfectly. Here is not a contradiction, but a discrepancy nevertheless. Furthermore, al-Qurtubi's explanation serves to strengthen the recognition of the unique position Jesus is given in the Qur'an. From among all nations or from Abraham's seed? In Surah 29:27 we read: And and and and We bestowed on him Isaac and Jacob, We established the prophethood and the Scripture among his seed, We gave him his reward in the world, lo! in the Hereafter he verily is among the righteous. Some debate whether "his seed" refers to Jacob as the last person mentioned or to Abraham (him) whom Isaac and Jacob were given to. In either case, the prophethood is stated to belong to Abraham's descendents. If all prophets are from Abraham's seed as Surah 29:27 declares, it can hardly be possible that at the same time there are messengers from among every people: And verily We have raised among every people a messenger, (proclaiming): Serve Allah and shun false gods. ... Surah 16:36 Does anybody intend to claim that all people groups are physical descendants of Abraham? And there are further problems with the prophets from Abraham's progeny. Qur'an Contradiction: Will Allah reward the good deeds of Unbelievers? All religions exhort their followers to do good deeds, i.e. to help the weak and the poor.[1] Even people who do not believe in God at all, i.e. who do not believe that there will be eternal reward or punishment for what they do in this life, still make it a point that people should do good and help those in need. The topic of reward and punishment for all we do in this life is a very prominent theme througout the Qur'an. Many passages speak about the good deeds of the believers or the bad deeds of the unbelievers, and there is little surprise when looking at the outcome of those. Things become more difficult when we want to know what the Qur'an teaches regarding the good deeds of those who reject Islam. So whoever does righteous good deeds while he is a believer (in the Oneness of Allah Islamic Monotheism), his efforts will not be rejected. Verily! We record it in his Book of deeds. S. 21:94 Al-Hilali & Khan This verse promises Muslims that their good deeds will not be rejected by Allah. On the other hand, this condition implies that those who are not (Muslim) believers are at least at risk that their good deeds will be rejected. That this is indeed so, is made explicit in some other passages. Unbelievers, i.e. those who rejected the message of Muhammad, cannot hope that their good deeds will receive any reward from God: It is not for the Mushrikun (polytheists, idolaters, pagans, disbelievers in the Oneness of Allah), to maintain the Mosques of Allah (i.e. to pray and worship Allah therein, to look after their cleanliness and their building, etc.), while they witness against their ownselves of disbelief. The works of such are in vain and in Fire shall they abide. S. 9:17 Al-Hilali & Khan As in the case of those before you: they were mightier than you in power, and more flourishing in wealth and children. They had their enjoyment of their portion: and ye have of yours, as did those before you; and ye indulge in idle talk as they did. They! - their work are fruitless in this world and in the Hereafter, and they will lose (all spiritual good). S. 9:69 Yusuf Ali The next verse states something similar, but this time the context deals with the specific case of a Muslim who leaves Islam. It seems to be irrelevant whether he subsequently becomes a polytheist, an atheist, or a Christian: ... And they will never cease fighting you until they turn you back from your religion (Islamic Monotheism) if they can. And whosoever of you turns back from his religion and dies as a disbeliever, then his deeds will be lost in this life and in the Hereafter, and they will be the dwellers of the Fire. They will abide therein forever. S. 2:217 Al-Hilali & Khan On the other hand, speaking of the last days and God's final judgment of mankind, Sura 99 states: In the Name of Allah, the Most Beneficent, the Most Merciful. (1) When the earth is shaken with its (final) earthquake. (2) And when the earth throws out its burdens, (3) And man will say: "What is the matter with it?" (4) That Day it will declare its information (about all what happened over it of good or evil). (5) Because your Lord has inspired it. (6) That Day mankind will proceed in scattered groups that they may be shown their deeds. (7) So whosoever does good equal to the weight of an atom (or a small ant), shall see it. (8) And whosoever does evil equal to the weight of an atom (or a small ant), shall see it. (AlHilali & Khan) This whole sura is completely general, there is no restriction to (Muslim) believers, but it says in verse 7 that everyone who does good, even if only a little, will see it, and this certainly implies some kind of reward. The passage speaks of all of mankind (6). This general promise is confirmed again in Sura 4:40: God is never unjust in the least degree: If there is any good (done), He doubleth it, and giveth from His own presence a great reward. (Yusuf Ali) Surely! Allah wrongs not even of the weight of an atom (or a small ant) but if there is any good (done), He doubles it, and gives from Him a great reward. (Al-Hilali & Khan) Since S. 99:7 and 4:40 make absolute statements that apply to all people, they contradict those other passages which explicitly state that there will be no reward whatsoever for the good deeds of the unbelievers. Apart from these very general statements found in S. 99:7 and 4:40, the Qur'an also gives Jews and Christians an explicit promise of reward for their good deeds: Verily! Those who believe and those who are Jews and Christians, and Sabians, whoever believes in Allah and the Last Day and do righteous good deeds shall have their reward with their Lord, on them shall be no fear, nor shall they grieve. S. 2:62 Al-Hilali & Khan This passage promises even more. "No fear" and "nor shall they grieve" can only mean that they will go to Paradise and not to Hell, which is even more than a certain reward for some good deeds. Just as there are plenty of Muslims who do not truly believe and do not live according to the rules of Islam, so there are plenty of people who consider themselves to be Jews or Christians but do not truly believe in the teachings of the Bible nor live according to its moral standards. Therefore it makes sense that the Qur'an specifies some minimum requirements: (1) Belief in Allah, (2) belief in the Last Day (the Final Judgment), and (3) doing righteous good deeds. Whoever meets those three requirements among those who are either Muslims, Jews, Christians or Sabians, they shall have their reward for their good deeds. Even more, they shall not have any fear or a need to grieve in regard to the life to come. The very fact that this verse is formulated as it is, presupposes that — according to the Qur'an — Jews and Christians believe in the same God as the Muslims. The conditions (1) - (3) merely emphasize that this promise holds only for those who are serious about their faith and live according to the teachings of their scriptures. People of religions that worship other gods are not included. Add to this the specific statement: And argue not with the people of the Scripture (Jews and Christians), unless it be in (a way) that is better (with good words and in good manner, inviting them to Islamic Monotheism with His Verses), except with such of them as do wrong, and say (to them): "We believe in that which has been revealed to us and revealed to you; our Ilah (God) and your Ilah (God) is One (i.e. Allah), and to Him we have submitted (as Muslims)." S. 29:46 Al-Hilali & Khan Thus, Jews and Christians who truly believe and follow their scriptures satisfy those first two conditions stipulated in S. 2:62, since the Bible clearly teaches that there will be a Last Day on which God will judge mankind (e.g., Joel 3:1-3, 11-13; Psalm 62:12, 96:13, 98:9; Isaiah 40:10, 62:11; Jeremiah 17:10; Matthew 25:31-46; Acts 10:42, 17:30-31; Romans 2:5-6, 16, 14:10; 2 Corinthians 5:10; 2 Thessalonians 1:5-10; Revelation 20:11-15). However, the Qur'an also calls the Jews and Christians unbelievers and idolaters. The word for unbeliever comes from the term kafir, which refers to one who makes kufr. According to the Quran, the Jews and Christians (specifically the latter) fall under these categories of mushrik and kafir: O ye who believe! surely, the idolaters are unclean (al-mushrikoona najasun). So they shall not approach the Sacred Mosque after this year of theirs. And if you fear poverty, ALLAH will enrich you out of HIS bounty, if HE pleases. Surely, ALLAH is All-Knowing, Wise. Fight those from among the people of the Book, who believe not in ALLAH, nor in the Last Day, nor hold as unlawful what ALLAH and HIS Messenger have declared to be unlawful, nor follow the true religion, until they pay the tax considering it a favour and acknowledge their subjection. And the Jews say, „Ezra is the son of ALLAH,‟ and the Christians say, „the Messiah is the son of ALLAH;‟ that is what they say with their mouths. They only imitate the saying of those who disbelieved (kafaroo) before them. ALLAH's curse be on them! How they are turned away. They have taken their priest and their monks for lords besides ALLAH. And so have they taken the Messiah, son of Mary. And they were not commanded but to worship the One God. There is no God but HE. Holy is HE far above what they associate (yushrikoona) with Him! They seek to extinguish the light of ALLAH with their mouths; but ALLAH refuses but to perfect HIS light, though the disbelievers (al-kafiroona) may resent it. HE it is Who has sent HIS Messenger with guidance and the religion of truth, that HE may make it prevail over every other religion, even though the idolaters (al-mushrikoona) may resent it. S. 9:28-33 Sher Ali The above passage claims that not only are Christians idolaters (or of those who associate partners with God) and blasphemers (or disbelievers), but the Jews are as well. It even classifies the Jews and Christians as unclean! They indeed have disbelieved (kafara) who say, `Surely ALLAH - He is the Messiah, son of Mary.' Say, `Who then has any power against ALLAH, if HE desired to destroy the Messiah, son of Mary, and his mother and all those that are in the earth?' And to ALLAH belongs the Kingdom of the heavens and the earth and what is between them. HE creates what HE pleases and ALLAH has power over all things. S. 5:17 Sher Ali They are unbelievers (kafara) who say, 'God is the Messiah, Mary's son.' For the Messiah said, 'Children of Israel, serve God, my Lord and your Lord. Verily whoso associates with God anything (innahu man yushrik biAllahi), God shall prohibit him entrance to Paradise, and his refuge shall be the Fire; and wrongdoers shall have no helpers.' S. 5:72 Arberry Certainly they disbelieve (kafara) who say: Surely Allah is the third (person) of the three; and there is no god but the one God, and if they desist not from what they say, a painful chastisement shall befall those among them who disbelieve. S. 5:73 Shakir To summarize, the Qur'an makes the following statements: 1. Christians will (a) have reward for their good deeds and (b) will have nothing to fear for the life to come (S. 2:62). 2. Christians are mushriks and kafirs (S. 9:28-33; 5:17, 72-73) 3. Mushriks will (a) have no reward and (b) will abide in Hell forever (S. 9:17) The contradiction is glaringly obvious. Jochen Katz Note: [1] Although all religions and even most non-religious world views exhort their followers to do good deeds, the motivation for those good works may be very different. This article has the limited purpose of pointing out an inconsistency in the Qur'an. It is beyond the scope of this short paper to provide a detailed comparison of the very different concepts of good works in Islam and Christianity, let alone other religions. Nevertheless, the most fundamental difference should at least be mentioned. Islam is a work based system. Good deeds are done for the reward that the believers expect to earn for them. The future of a Muslim depends to a good part on how he performs here on earth. Islam does not have a concept of redemption or salvation. People are seen as basically good (though weak and temptible), and as being able to be obedient to God's will and to perform all that God demands of man. Thus, there is no need for a savior. The Bible teaches something very different. After the Fall, man became sinful and so distant from God that he is no longer able do anything that is fully good. All of us have become like one who is unclean, and all our righteous acts are like filthy rags; we all shrivel up like a leaf, and like the wind our sins sweep us away. Isaiah 64:6 Man ist totally lost. He cannot by his own strength satisfy the righteous demands of God. Yet, God himself does all that is necessary to take care of the problem of sin and salvation is offered as a free gift. For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith—and this not from yourselves, it is the gift of God—not by works, so that no one can boast. For we are God's workmanship, created in Christ Jesus to do good works, which God prepared in advance for us to do. Ephesians 2:8-10 Thus, good works are the consequence of the grace we have experienced in our lives. We can never earn God's grace by trying hard. Salvation is God's free gift. However, because we have been given such a great gift, the forgiveness of our sins and the love of God and the fellowship of the Holy Spirit that transforms our lives, therefore we gladly do good works out of gratefulness. God is good. It is his joy and desire to do good. And if our life has been touched by him, we become able to gladly do what he wants. Being his children, our character and actions should display the "family values". Our life should show whom we belong to, God's nature should find its reflection in our life. We are called to do good deeds, not to earn God's favor, but so that God be glorified: You are the salt of the earth. ... You are the light of the world. ... let your light shine before men, that they may see your good deeds and praise your Father in heaven. ... "You have heard that it was said, 'Love your neighbor and hate your enemy.' But I tell you: Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, that you may be sons of your Father in heaven. He causes his sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous. If you love those who love you, what reward will you get? Are not even the tax collectors doing that? And if you greet only your brothers, what are you doing more than others? Do not even pagans do that? Be perfect, therefore, as your heavenly Father is perfect. Matthew 5:13, 14, 16, 43-48 If you desire to learn more about God's Gospel of salvation by grace, I recommend The Bridge to Eternal Life and other articles in the section on Basic Christianity. Qur'an Difficulty: Ants Cannot Talk At length, when they came to a valley of ants, one of the ants said: "O ye ants, get into your habitations, lest Solomon and his hosts crush you (under foot) without knowing it." So he smiled, amused at her speech; and he said: "O my Lord! so order me that I may be grateful for Thy favours, which Thou has bestowed on me and on my parents, and that I may work the righteousness that will please Thee: And admit me, by They Grace to the ranks of Thy Righteous Servants." -- Sura An-Naml [The Ant] (27):18-19 But then there are these Amazing Facts About Ants that in contradiction to the Qur'an, ants do communicate using smells, not modulation of sounds. Solomon could not have heard any talk since ants do not produce any. Additionally, to imagine that ants communicate such sophisticated information as the Qur'an claims seems rather to belong into the land of fairy tales than science (e.g. an ant being able to distinguish between Solomon and a soldier). Even though basically all communication between ants is through chemical signals, there are, however, a few subspecies of ants which do use some sound communication. But of what kind and complexity is it? The use of vibrational signals is weakly developed in ants in comparison with communication by pheromones. ... Two forms of sound production have been identified., body rapping against the substratum and stridulation, the latter employing files and scrapers clearly evolved for a communicative purpose. ... [p. 255] It has long been known, thanks to the experiments of ... that ants are nearly deaf to airborne vibrations but extremely sensitive to vibrations carried through the substratum ... [p. 257] No evidence exists to rank the chirps of stidulation as anything more than simple unitary signals. In other words, ants do not "talk" by modulating sound through time. ... sounds ... do not appear to vary within species or within the repertory of one worker ant through time. ... stridulation in ants produces a monotonous series of chirps with limited meaning. [p. 257] The signaling pattern is independent of the triggering stimulus. That is, the ants do not modify the drumming to identify the category of danger to the nest. [p. 256] All the above is taken from: Bert Hölldobler and Edward O. Wilson The Ants Cambridge, Mass., Belknap Press of Harvard University Press, 1990. xii, 732 p., ISBN 0674040759, Library Call Number: QL568 .F7 H57 1990 Chapter 7, pages 227-297 speak about communication. Page 228 gives a table of different signals in communication between ants. Of the 17 "messages" listed 14 are chemical, 2 are tactile, 1 is "chemical or tactile". In all the intensive studies of ants, "speech" (modulated sound of complex meaning) has never been observed. When a live ant is marked with the chemical [one that develops in dead ants], i.e. sending the message that this ant is dead, the struggling ant is nevertheless taken by the others and carried out to the rubbish dump. Chemicals take the precedence over anything else. Surely no intelligent speech communication as claimed in this Qur'an passage. Action is blind reaction to the chemical message [pheromones]. (See From Gaia to selfish genes : selected writings in the life sciences, edited by Connie Barlow, Cambridge, Mass., MIT Press, 1991, 273 p, the chapter "From ants to anthropology" by E. O. Wilson, page 153-154.) A recommendation I got: The great Harvard biologist Edward O. Wilson has spent his life studying the captivating ants. See your local bookstore for his several works available on his studies of ants. If you live near a Barnes and Noble bookstore, they stock his books. This verse is the only one in the Qur'an talking about ants and the information it conveys is wrong. The Qur'an only shows an understanding on the common level of other fables known from the same time in history. Last edited: January 16, 1997 Muslim responses by and my answers to Randy Desmond, Moiz Amjad, Amer Yousafzai, Shibli Zaman : Muslim Response by Randy Desmond Date: Friday, 14 March 1997 Confusing Miracles with Science Read the Qur'an. This is associated with the miracle(s) given to Solomon. Would you say Jesus raising of the dead was scientifically sound? Or do you propose that this (refer to the verse below) is also "scientifically" wrong? "I as by by have come to you with a sign from your Lord: I make for you out of clay, it were, a figure of a bird, and breathe into it and it becomes a bird God's leave. And I heal the blind, and the lepers, and I raise the dead God's leave." (Surah 3, Ayat 49) Or do you propose that Moses'(peace be upon him) staff turning into a snake is "scientifically" wrong? Don't confuse special miracles given to prophets with "scientific" proofs. A miracle, by definition, is something which human reasoning (culminated in science) can not explain, but which the human is made to feel awe at the power of God! Entertaining the Proposed Arguments Anyway Besides being an illogical accusation (since the subject matter is a specific miracle given to Soloman - peace be upon him), it seems that the Qur'an may actaully be more correct than you assume. I will, insha'Allah (God willing), explain. You quote from "The Ants" by Holldobler and Wilson. You quote them as saying "Two froms of sound production have been identified, body rapping against the substratum and stridulation." You then quote the book out of sequence (I suppose to fit your agenda - but I will give you the benefit of the doubt and call it an honest mistake), then you go back a page and quote again, "The signaling pattern is independent of the triggering stimulus That is, the ants do not modify the drumming to identify the category of danger to the nest." Now, what you have proven (if I can piece the puzzle back in order) is that a sound is used to warn the nest (is that true?). If you have shown that, then thank you! What you try to disprove is that the ant mentioned in the Qur'an did not specify the type of danger to warn the nest. I'll hold out for further scientific studies - just from your quotes I do not know how those studies were performed. What was used to cause a threatening danger to the nest? Does the body rapping against the substratum in conjunction with stridulation specify the type of danger? There seems to be many logical possiblities. Especially when we consider that smell is also used as a means of communication. Oops! Seems I got caught up in one of your presuppositions, so let me clear that up before continuing. The verse is actually talking about an ant telling the other ants to get into their habitations, not "look out the nest is in danger" (as you presuppose by your quote of page 256). You may be quoting somthing irrelevant to the matter at hand and if so I retrack my thank you above. What about the Arabic The word in Arabic for ant is naml and the verbal root word is namila which means "to tingle, to prickle". Could it be that the name in Arabic denotes something with respect to how ants communicate? Could it be inferring stridualtion? Or the sensation of scent? God knows best. Anyway, the worker ants are female. Neat. The Qur'an uses the feminine gender when talking about this ant! (Another knowledge comes from the Qur'an which I wonder if it was descovered before Muhammad's time - peace be upon him). Another note to point out is that the Qur'an does not use the word for hearing in Solomons case. It only mentions that the ant "said" and "speech(of the ant)". Interesting, don't you think? How often do we say the newspaper said something, but, in fact, the newspaper never "says" anything. In conclusion, let me point out that. (1) you have tried to break a miracle from God into scientific rational. (2) you have pointed out something about communication of ants - but not everything and you have not shown what the communication modality(ies) is for the specific situation which is described in the Qur'an. Other Ant Web Sites Lastly, anyone interested can do a net search on ants and find out what they can about their communication. The link you provided was strictly to suit your claims. That is not honest scholarship. Amazing Ants "Eyes are not of great importance to ants because the antennae help ants smell, communicate and explore." Department of Behavioral Physiology and Sociobiology This site is by one of the authors of the book quoted above. In it there is a mention of the Johnston's organ of bees used to pick up sound. An Introduction to Insect Morphology and Anatomy See the section on Antennae. The point is that the same organ (Johnston's) is associated with ants as it is with bees. Then if you go to the "Hearing and other Senses" part of the page, you will find in the "Ears" section further mention of the Johnston's organ - it is closely associated with the movement of hairs on the antennal scape. Then go on to read out the sense of smell. Fascinating. Remember I said that the arabic word is naml and comes from a verbal root which means "to tingle, to prickle"? That is exactly what happens all over the bodies of these ants. Let me quote that web page. "Most insects communicate using smell or chemoreception and it is not surprising that they have evolved a large variety of ways of detecting the moloecules involved. Insects do not have noses like us which concentrate all our sense of smell in one place, instead they have a lot of small sensory bodies scattered over their body, though they tend to have a concentration of them on their antennae." Is smell and touch the tingling and prickling of molecules against our sensory organs? Can you imagine the tingling sensation they would get? Talk Your Feelers Out Another Excellent site. So where is the contradicion? Can any other religion offer its adherents such comfort in knowledge and faith? To show that my whole approach is miguided you write: Don't confuse special miracles given to prophets with "scientific" proofs. A miracle, by definition, is something which human reasoning (culminated in science) can not explain, but which the human is made to feel awe at the power of God! I have no problem with miracles, and to a certain extent they are for what you say is their purpose. But Solomon's hearing of ant speech does not fit your own criteria. If it is a miracle at all, then it is one of those "senseless" miracles of the Qur'an. But it is not presented as a miracle. It is a totally casual event that happened 'in passing by'. Especially the purpose of miracles according to your claim is not achieved, because nobody other than Solomon heard it and therefore nobody could be awed by it. You might claim it as a continual miracle that Solomon understood the animal speech [he is talking to birds as well which is as unscientific as the other one] but the Qur'an does not call it a miracle but instead seems to assume that these animals communicate on a highly intelligent and sophisticated level. And it is clear that neither ants nor the birds are able to communicate (among themselves) information as structured and sophisticated as claimed by the Qur'an. You would need to claim two miracles. Namely the miracle that Solomon understood (this I would grant you as a Qur'anic claim) and the miracle that these particular animals are even able to talk with such sophisticated content as presented in the Qur'an. But the latter is not described as a miracle. This seems to be assumed as reality. Feel free to believe so, but for my taste, this is the stuff legends are made of. Was Aesop also a prophet because animals talked and behaved like humans in his stories? As to the name of the ant in Arabic, derived from "tingle, prickle", it should be obvious to everybody who has ever been bitten by ants where this comes from. Furthermore, the name of the animal was not revealed but the Qur'an used the name that was there in the Arabic language before the Qur'an and you would have to claim that the earlier idolatrous Arabs had miraculous knowledge about the behavior of ants when you want to make a point on that. It certainly would not be an argument for the Qur'an since the word was not originated through the Qur'an. In summary, I do sure see that you are able to invest great imagination into this. It does not convince me and I prefer to read the Qur'an in its plain text and the meaning the Arabs in Muhammad's time would have understood. After all, it was for them first and foremost. Allegorizing it afterwards can be done with any text. Muslim Response by Randy Desmond Date: Friday, 14 March 1997 You said, "I prefer to read the Qur'an in its plain text and the meaning the Arabs in Muhammad's time would have understood." Do you know Arabic? If not, then why are you even questioning and/or saying that this is not a miracle? Read the verses of 27:15 and 16 too! The Arabs of Muhammad's (peace be upon him) times would have know this was a miracle from Allah. That should be a sufficient response, but I still have to address your latest presupposition when you say... "Was Aesop also a prophet because animals talked and behaved like humans in his stories?" Can't you see the error here with your use of logic? What you've said is just like as if I said the earth is round, and you were to reply, "Was the baseball also an Earth because it is round?" You are simply making an argument confusing attributes of two incomparable objects with the objects as a whole. And so your point is unestablished. But perhaps the reason for this use of poor logic is inherent in maintaining your position. Having been a Christian, I know a common loaded question with great logical fallacies; "Was Jesus either a lunatic, liar, or God?" As if those are the only possiblities! An Muslim scholar (Ghazali) wrote a whole treatise regarding logic and where Shaytan gets in and causes misunderstandings and illogical conclusions. Your example is one such case, and the "lunatic, liar, or God" example is another such case. In fact, in hypnosis, the "lunitic, liar, or God" is a common type of question used to give the illusion of choice. In other words, tricking people! Furthermore, the Qur'an is revealed in Arabic on purpose. That means that the Arabic language (with all its grammar, word derivations, and definitions) was chosen for a reason for the Last Prophet (peace be upon him). Think about it. Don't accuse me of delusions. I had only put forth possibilities with reagrd to the name "naml" for ant. But I don't expect you to understand this point anyway. But to clarify, I had talked with an Arab brother when discussing the root "to tingle" and he said that same root is what is used when the Arabs describe the tingling sensation when something like an arm or leg falls asleep. What I can't figure out is how you come up with these ideas for what is a contradiction. I mean I would like to know what is your specific criteria for establishing a contradiction. I don't want vague answers like "if equal positions are deliniated to dissimilar meanings". I want to know what is your methodology? Do you read a verse and say, "how could this be a contradicion?" and then only look for evidence to support that? When I look for contradictions, I test it against the criteria I had mentioned in a previous response. Why don't you do the same, or at least post a web page detailing your methodology. Perhaps you could get comments on your methodology which would refine your methods. Yes. I would love to see a detailed webpage of your method of finding contradicitons. Maybe in a step-by-step laid out plan. That way, I can test your methodology to see how it works and test it also for soundness. Would you be willing to do that? About logic: I never presented your above alternative of "Lunatic, liar, or God?" You are building up straw men. Yes it is a common type alternative and it is a correct alternative when you present the whole argument and not only part of it. For example it is presented in "A Case for Christianity." I trust that when you read it you will see how you misrepresented the argument. "In other words, tricking people" by misrepresenting their true arguments? Think about it. As to logical fallacies, Muslims are masters of presenting invalid alternatives. I am constantly presented with them. I just started to record them at Common logical falllacies of Muslim apologetics. If you want to have meticulously logical defenses of Christianity, here are two book recommendations. I have never seen anything from the Islamic side coming even near this quality of presentation: Dr. William Lane Craig: Reasonable Faith Dr. J.P. Moreland: Scaling the Secular City Does Islam have anything to present for it on a similar level? I am really interested to know about it. Method of finding contradictions? I don't have a method. I read the Qur'an, I read books about the Qur'an, I read many other things and I make connections between them. Every once in while, things don't fit together. And then I record it. That is all. Quran Contradiction The Quran‟s Slander of Solomon: The Communion of Demons Muslims complain about the biblical portrayal of prophets and messengers being sinners, committing gross sinful acts, and view this as an indication that the Holy Bible has been corrupted. We have discussed these points elsewhere on our site, so we are not seeking to explain or defend the reason why the Holy Bible presents specific prophets in a negative light. We, instead, want to use this criterion against the Quran and show that the Muslim scripture is guilty of slandering Allah‘s messengers. This is basically a continuation of a series of articles on this subject that can be read here: http://answering-islam.org/Shamoun/sins_of_prophets.htm http://answering-islam.org/Shamoun/adam_and_eve_shirk.htm Here, we want to examine the Quran‘s claim that Solomon had demons working for him and under his authority. The Holy Bible says that demons know God is one: "You believe that God is one; you do well. Even the demons believe--and shudder!" James 2:19 They even know that Jesus is the Holy Son of God who can destroy them: "for he had healed many, so that all who had diseases pressed around him to touch him. And whenever the unclean spirits saw him, they fell down before him and cried out, ‗You are the Son of God.‘" Mark 3:10-11 "When he saw Jesus, he cried out and fell down before him and said with a loud voice, ‗What have you to do with me, Jesus, Son of the Most High God? I beg you, do not torment me.‘ For he had commanded the unclean spirit to come out of the man. (For many a time it had seized him. He was kept under guard and bound with chains and shackles, but he would break the bonds and be driven by the demon into the desert.) Jesus then asked him, ‗What is your name?‘ And he said, ‗Legion,‘ for many demons had entered him. And they begged him not to command them to depart into the abyss." Luke 8:28-31 But despite this, no believer can have fellowship or work with Satan or his demons: "What do I imply then? That food offered to idols is anything, or that an idol is anything? No, I imply that what pagans sacrifice they offer to demons and not to God. I do not want you to be participants with demons. You cannot drink the cup of the Lord and the cup of demons. You cannot partake of the table of the Lord and the table of demons. Shall we provoke the Lord to jealousy? Are we stronger than he?" 1 Corinthians 10:19-22 "Do not be unequally yoked with unbelievers. For what partnership has righteousness with lawlessness? Or what fellowship has light with darkness? What accord has Christ with Belial? Or what portion does a believer share with an unbeliever? What agreement has the temple of God with idols? For we are the temple of the living God; as God said, ‗I will make my dwelling among them and walk among them, and I will be their God, and they shall be my people.‘" 2 Corinthians 6:14-16 The Holy Scriptures clearly warn true believers from having fellowship with Satan and the demons. If a prophet decided to fellowship or partner with Satan he would clearly be sinning against God. Even the demons know that true believers cannot and do not have fellowship with them: "When He came to the other side into the country of the Gadarenes, two men who were demon-possessed met Him as they were coming out of the tombs. They were so extremely violent that no one could pass by that way. And they cried out, saying, ‗What business do we have with each other, Son of God? Have You come here to torment us before the time?‘ Matthew 8:28-29 The demons ask Jesus what business do they have with each other, with the implied answer being "absolutely nothing". Believers and demons have no common ground by which to come and work together or have communion with each other. Yet the Quran says that Solomon had demons, or jinn, working for him and that he was in communion with them: And to Solomon the wind, strongly blowing, that ran at his command unto the land that We had blessed; and We had knowledge of everything; and of the Satans some dived for him and did other work besides; and We were watching over them. S. 21:81-82 He said, 'O Council, which one of you will bring me her throne, before they come to me in surrender?' An efreet of the jinns said, 'I will bring it to thee, before thou risest from thy place; I have strength for it and I am trusty.' Said he who possessed knowledge of the Book, 'I will bring it to thee, before ever thy glance returns to thee.' Then, when he saw it settled before him, he said, 'This is of my Lord's bounty that He may try me, whether I am thankful or ungrateful. Whosoever gives thanks gives thanks only for his own soul's good, and whosoever is ungrateful -- my Lord is surely All-sufficient, All-generous.' S. 27:38-40 Ibn Kathir wrote: <O chiefs! Which of you can bring me her throne before they come to me surrendering themselves in obedience (as Muslims)>." ... <An `Ifrit from the Jinn said:> Mujahid said, "A giant Jinn." Abu Salih said, "It was as if he was a mountain." ... <I will bring it to you before you rise from your place.> Ibn `Abbas, may Allah be pleased with him, said, "Before you get up from where you are sitting." As-Suddi and others said: "He used to sit to pass judgements and rulings over the people, and to eat, from the beginning of the day until noon." ... <And verily, I am indeed strong and trustworthy for such work.> Ibn `Abbas said: "Strong enough to carry it and trustworthy with the jewels it contains. Sulayman, upon him be peace, said, "I want it faster than that." From this it seems that Sulayman wanted to bring this throne as a demonstration of the greatness of the power and authority that Allah had bestowed upon him and the troops that He had subjugated to him. Power such as had never been given to anyone else, before or since, so that this would furnish proof of his prophethood before Bilqis and her people, because this would be a great and wondrous thing, if he brought her throne as if he were in her country, before they could come to it, although it was hidden and protected by so many locked doors. When Sulayman said, "I want it faster than that, ... <One with whom was knowledge of the Scripture said:> Ibn `Abbas said, "This was Asif, the scribe of Sulayman." It was also narrated by Muhammad bin Ishaq from Yazid bin Ruman that he was Asif bin Barkhiya' and he was a truthful believer who knew the Greatest Name of Allah. Qatadah said: "He was a believer among the humans, and his name was Asif." ... <I will bring it to you within the twinkling of an eye!> Meaning, lift your gaze and look as far as you can, and before you get tired and blink, you will find it before you. Then he got up, performed ablution and prayed to Allah, may He be exalted. Mujahid said: "He said, O Owner of majesty and honor." ... (Source) And here now is the final Quranic text: And to Solomon the wind; its morning course was a month's journey, and its evening course was a month's journey. And We made the Fount of Molten Brass to flow for him. And of the jinn, some worked before him by the leave of his Lord; and such of them as swerved away from Our commandment, We would let them taste the chastisement of the Blaze; fashioning for him whatsoever he would -- places of worship, statues, porringers like watertroughs, and anchored cooking-pots. 'Labour, O House of David, in thankfulness; for few indeed are those that are thankful among My servants.' And when We decreed that he should die, naught indicated to them that he was dead but the Beast of the Earth devouring his staff; and when he fell down, the jinn saw clearly that, had they only known the Unseen, they would not have continued in the humbling chastisement. S. 34:12-14 The true Word of God says that it was human agents, not demons or devils, which did the work for Solomon under his supervision (Cf. 1 Kings 3-8; 1 Chronicles 22, 28-29; 2 Chronicles 2-7). Thus, not only do the above Quranic texts slander Solomon by accusing him of working with demons, but they also attack God‘s character by claiming that God permitted demons to work on building his holy temple! The Quran says that certain people followed what Satans slanderously said about Solomon: and they follow what the Satans recited over Solomon's kingdom. Solomon disbelieved not, but the Satans disbelieved, teaching the people sorcery, and that which was sent down upon Babylon's two angels, Harut and Marut; they taught not any man, without they said, 'We are but a temptation; do not disbelieve.' From them they learned how they might divide a man and his wife, yet they did not hurt any man thereby, save by the leave of God, and they learned what hurt them, and did not profit them, knowing well that whoso buys it shall have no share in the world to come; evil then was that they sold themselves for, if they had but known. S. 2:106 Since the Quran slanderously accuses Solomon of working with demons, these stories must have originated from these very same Satans as a means of degrading David‘s son. These tales must have been some of the things which Satan interjected into Muhammad‘s message: We sent not ever any Messenger or Prophet before thee, but that Satan cast into his fancy, when he was fancying; but God annuls what Satan casts, then God confirms His signs -surely God is All-knowing, All-wise -- S. 22:52 All Quranic quotations taken from A. J. Arberry‘s version. Sam Shamoun Qur'an Contradiction: Who Suffers the Consequence of Sins according to the Qur'an? The Qur'an states that a person will only be responsible for his/her actions: And every man's work have WE fasten to his neck; and on the Day of Resurrection WE shall bring out for him a book which he will find wide open. It will be said to him, ‗Read thy book. Sufficient is thy own soul as a reckoner against thee this day.‘ He who follows the right way follows it only for the good of his own soul; and he who goes astray, goes astray only to his own loss. And no bearer of burden shall bear the burden of another. And WE shall never punish until WE have sent a Messenger. S. 17:13-15 Sher Ali That no bearer of burden shall bear the burden of another, And that man will have nothing but what he strives for; And that the result of his striving shall soon be known; Then will he be rewarded for it with the fullest reward; And that with thy Lord is the final judgment; S. 53:38-42 Sher Ali The Qur'an also states that even people who simply followed the (wrong) customs of their ancestors, i.e. were misled by them into transgressing God's law, cannot pass the burden and punishment to those who led them astray, but will have to bear their punishment in full: So be not thou in doubt concerning that which these (folk) worship. They worship only as their fathers worshipped aforetime. Lo! we shall pay them their whole due unabated. S. 11:109 I.e. no deduction from the punishment for the reason of having been misled. Yet these statements are contradicted by the next set of passages: That they may bear their burdens entirely on the day of resurrection and also of the burdens of those whom they lead astray without knowledge; now surely evil is what they bear. S. 16:25 Shakir And those who disbelieve say to those who believe: Follow our path and we will bear your wrongs. And never shall they be the bearers of any of their wrongs; most surely they are liars. And most certainly they shall carry their own burdens, AND OTHER BURDENS WITH THEIR OWN BURDENS, and most certainly they shall be questioned on the resurrection day as to what they forged. S. 29:12-13 Shakir Interestingly, the Qur'an contradicts itself in a space of two verses. This last passage says that disbelievers will not carry the believers' sins. But right after saying this, the Qur'an says that on the resurrection day the unbelievers will not only carry their own burden of sins, but the burden of others as well! Now someone may say that these passages are only denying that the unbelievers will carry the burdens of the believers' sins, but it doesn't deny that they will carry the burdens of other disbelievers. Even with this proposed harmonization, these passages still contradict Surahs 17:13-15 and 53:38-42 mentioned above. Those surahs say that a person will not carry the burden of anyone else's sins, whether he is a believer or not. We are not the first to observe that this constitutes a contradiction. Scholar of Islamic Studies, Arthur Jeffery has this note on Surah 16:25: "This is in contradiction with the oft-repeated statement that no burdened soul will bear the burden of another. But that statement seems meant to exclude hope in a Redeemer who will take on himself the guilt of others, whereas here the meaning is that some of the guilt of those led astray will be placed on those who have led them astray." (The Koran, Selected Suras, footnote 4 to Sura 16) Another verse contradicting the principle that "no bearer of burden shall bear the burden of another" is the following: O ye who believe! respond to ALLAH, and the Messenger when he calls you that he may give you life, and know that ALLAH comes in between a man and his heart, and that HE it is unto Whom you will be gathered. And beware of an affliction which will surely not smite exclusively those among you who have done wrong. And know that ALLAH is severe in requiting. S. 8:24-25 Sher Ali Here, even the innocent will suffer the affliction that will smite the wrongdoers just as the commentators show. The two Jalals said regarding Surah 8:25: And guard yourselves against a trial which, if it were to fall upon you, would certainly not fall exclusively upon the evildoers among you, but would encompass them and others, and the way to guard against it is to repudiate that evil which necessarily results in [precipitating] it; and know that God is severe in retribution, against those who oppose Him. (Tafsir alJalalayn; source; underline emphasis ours) Tanwîr al-Miqbâs min Tafsîr Ibn 'Abbâs states: (And guard yourselves against a sedition) any sedition that happens (which cannot fall exclusively on those of you who are wrong-doers) but rather befalls on both the wrong-doers AND THE WRONGED, (and know that Allah is severe in punishment) when He punishes. (Source; capital emphasis ours) The Qur'an also blames the Jews of Muhammad‘s time for the sins their ancestors had committed before their time, like making the golden calf: And remember the time when Moses prayed for water for his people and WE said, ‗Strike the rock with thy rod;‘ And there gushed forth from it twelve springs, so that each tribe knew their drinking place. And they were told, ‗Eat and drink of what ALLAH has provided, and commit not iniquity in the earth, creating disorder.‘ And remember when YOU said, O Moses, surely we will not remain content with one kind of food; pray, then, to thy Lord for us that HE may bring forth for us of what the earth grows - of its herbs and its cucumbers and its wheat and its lentils and its onions.‘ He said, ‗Would you take in exchange that which is worse for that which is better? Go down to some town and there is for you what you ask.‘ And they were smitten with abasement and destitution, and they incurred the wrath of ALLAH; that was because they rejected the Signs of ALLAH and sought to slay the Prophets unjustly; this was because they rebelled and transgressed... And remember the time when WE took a covenant FROM YOU AND RAISED YOU ABOVE THE MOUNT, saying, ‗Hold fast that which WE have given you and bear in mind what is therein, that you may be saved.‘ Then YOU turned back thereafter; and had it not been for ALLAH's grace and HIS mercy upon YOU, YOU would surely have been of the losers. And surely, you have known the end of those AMONGST YOU, who transgressed in the matter of the Sabbath. So WE said to them, ‗Be ye apes, despised.‘ Thus WE made it an example to those of its time and to those who came after it, and a lesson to those who fear God. S. 2:60-61, 63-66 Sher Ali And remember the time when YOU killed a person and differed among yourselves about it, and ALLAH, would bring to light what YOU were hiding. Then WE said, ‗Compare this incident with some other similar ones‘ and YOU will discover the truth. Thus does ALLAH give life to the dead and show YOU HIS Signs that YOU may understand. Then YOUR hearts became hardened after that, till they were like stones or harder still; for of stones there are some out of which gush forth streams, and of them there are some out of which flows water when they cleave asunder. And indeed of them are some that humble themselves for the fear of ALLAH. And ALLAH is not unmindful of what YOU do. S. 2:72-73 Sher Ali And Moses came to YOU with manifest Signs, THEN YOU TOOK THE CALF FOR WORSHIP IN HIS ABSENCE, and YOU were transgressors. And remember the time when WE took a covenant from YOU and raised high above YOU the Mount, saying ‗Hold firmly to what WE have given you and hearken;‘ They said, ‗We hear and we disobey;‘ and their hearts were saturated with the love of the calf because of their disbelieve. Say ‗Evil is that which your faith enjoins on you if you are believers,‘ Say ‗If the abode of the Hereafter with ALLAH is solely for you to the exclusion of all other people, then wish for death if you are truthful.‘ But never shall they wish for it, because of what their own hands have sent on before them; and ALLAH knows the wrongdoers well. S. 2:92-95 Sher Ali The first quotations state clearly that nobody shall have to bear the sins of other people. Each person is only responsible for his own sins. Yet, the Qur'an (Allah / Muhammad) levels accusations at the Jews in the 7th century for the sins of some of their ancestors in about 1400 BC, roughly 2000 years earlier. These accusations are clearly in contradiction to the "general principle" that nobody shall bear the sins (burdens) of others. Significantly, this is not a thing of the past, but has consequences in our time. To this day, Muslims vilify the Jews because of the sins of some Jews of long ago. Jews are still the favorite objects of Muslim contempt based on the quranic condemnation of them. Also Christians are still summarily accused and maligned for the crusades, although the last one was some 700 years ago. Now, one reason for even bringing this up is because of the common appeal by Muslims to similar statements of the Holy Bible in order to "prove" contradictions within the Sacred Scriptures. For instance, Muslims will try to pit Ezekiel 18:1-4, 20 against passages such as Deuteronomy 5:9-10 and Romans 5:12-21, especially as it relates to the Christian belief in Original Sin and the concept of Imputation (i.e., the sin of Adam and the righteousness of Christ being imputed to others). The Muslim must deal with the preceding quranic passages, and yet whatever answer he/she comes up with to reconcile them will apply equally to the biblical passages. In other words, it becomes an issue of consistency and integrity. Muslims in general, and Muslim apologists specifically, need to learn to apply their methodology fairly and not simply adopt a method which seeks to undermine the Holy Bible when that same method can be used equally, if not more forcefully, against the Qur'an. For more on Ezekiel 18 and Deuteronomy 5:9-10, we recommend the following article: http://www.tektonics.org/lp/paydaddy.html Sam Shamoun and Jochen Katz P.S.: S. 16:25 and 29:12 are also in contradiction to S. 34:50 which is the topic of another article, Who suffers loss if Muhammad was wrong? The Muslim website Bismikaallahuma published a response to the above. It can be accessed together with our answer in this article. The Quran, Moses and the Tablets of Stone Another historical error in the Quran The Holy Bible, God‘s true Word and the oldest existing record on Israel‘s history, says that God gave Moses two stone tablets containing the laws and commands which Israel had to follow: "And he gave to Moses, when he had finished speaking with him on Mount Sinai, the two tablets of the testimony, tablets of stone, written with the finger of God." Exodus 31:18 "When Moses came down from Mount Sinai, with the two tablets of the testimony in his hand as he came down from the mountain, Moses did not know that the skin of his face shone because he had been talking with God." Exodus 34:29 "And he declared to you his covenant, which he commanded you to perform, that is, the Ten Commandments, and he wrote them on two tablets of stone." Deuteronomy 4:13 "These words the LORD spoke to all your assembly at the mountain out of the midst of the fire, the cloud, and the thick darkness, with a loud voice; and he added no more. And he wrote them on two tablets of stone and gave them to me." Deuteronomy 5:22 "And the LORD gave me the two tablets of stone written with the finger of God, and on them were all the words that the LORD had spoken with you on the mountain out of the midst of the fire on the day of the assembly." Deuteronomy 9:10 The Quran, however, contradicts the oldest extant written record of Israel‘s history by claming that Moses actually received more than two tablets: And We wrote for him on the Tablets (al-alwahi) of everything an admonition, and a distinguishing of everything: 'So take it forcefully, and command thy people to take the fairest of it. I shall show you the habitation of the ungodly. S. 7:145 And when Moses returned to his people, angry and sorrowful, he said, 'Evilly have you done in my place, after me; what, have you outstripped your Lord's commandment?' And he cast down the Tablets (al-alwaha), and laid hold of his brother's head, dragging him to him. He said, 'Son of my mother, surely the people have abased me, and well nigh slain me. Make not my enemies to gloat over me, and put me not among the people of the evildoers. S. 7:150 And when Moses' anger abated in him, he took the Tablets (al-alwaha) and in the inscription of them was guidance, and mercy unto all those who hold their Lord in awe. S. 7:154 The word for Tablets is alwah and is in the plural form. Arabic has not only singular and plural but also a dual form, that is used when two of something are referred to. The plural is used when three or more are in view. Had the author of the Quran spoken of two tablets, he would have used the form al-lawhayni (the two tablets) in all three verses. Since the plural refers to any number greater than two the number of tablets has to be at least three according to the Quran, and could be anything between 3 and three million! The passages simply do not limit the possible number of stones that Moses received. They only say that there were more than two, in clear contradiction to the Torah. Tafsir Al-Jalalayn, one of the classical commentaries of the Quran, suggests the number of the tablets may have been seven or ten which is mere speculation but again supports our claim that (a) the Arabic definitely talks about more than two, and (b) that Muslims are left guessing how many they really were. Moreover, the same commentary claims that those tablets were made of paradise wood tree or some kind of pearls. This also contradicts the Torah which explicitly mentions that they were made of stone. A Muslim may argue that the Quran uses the plural to refer to the two occasions where Moses received the tablets, since he had broken the first two. Such an interpretation doesn't fit the facts since in Sura 7:150, cited above, the Quran says that Moses received more than two tablets in his first encounter with God which he then "cast down" out of his anger at Israel making and worshiping the calf (cf. 7:148-154). Thus, a Muslim cannot turn to the Holy Bible in order to tell us how many tablets Moses received since God‘s true Word falsifies the Quran. It doesn‘t help it in the least. Sam Shamoun Qur'an Contradiction Do not say, "Three"? The following "contradiction" is dedicated to the eminent Muslim scholar and top apologist of Islam, Osama Abdallah, who loves to understand statements only in a hyperliteral way, to the point of the ridiculous. The reason for the publication of this little gem — sufficient to invalidate the whole Qur'an all by itself — will be readily apparent to anyone who has read this article. In the Qur'an, we find the following command: ... So believe in Allah and His messengers, and say not "Three" - Cease! (it is) better for you! ... S. 4:171 Pickthall The Qur'an is very clear: People should believe in Allah and His messengers and not say the word "three." More specifically, they should not say the Arabic word for three. On the other hand, Muslims are expected to recite the Qur'an in Arabic. Traditionally, at least during Ramadan, the complete Qur'an is recited in most mosques. That is impossible to do without also reciting the word for three in this verse (and plenty of other verses as well, cf. S. 2:196, 228, 3:41, 4:3, 19:10, 24:58, 56:7, 77:30, etc.). In a nutshell: It is impossible to recite S. 4:171 without being disobedient to the command it contains. This must be the shortest contradiction or logical problem contained in the Qur'an. Jochen Katz P.S. I agree that this problem can be resolved when taking the context into account, but that would clearly be against the rules in the discipline of hyperliteral interpretations, see the above mentioned article. Qur'an Contradiction: Good News About Painful Torture? Sura 84:20-24 states (in the translation by Arthur J. Arberry) : Then what ails them, that they believe not, and when the Koran is recited to them they do not bow? Nay, but the unbelievers are crying lies, and God knows very well what they are secreting. So give them good tidings of a painful chastisement. The translations by Muhammad Sarwar and by Hilali & Khan render the last term more correctly as "a painful torment". A transliteration of the Arabic of Verse 24 is: Fa-bashshirhum bi-‘Adhaabin ’aliimin The meaning of "adhab" is "torture". The infinitive verb "adhaba" is translated in the Arabic / English dictionary as follows and in order: to torment, to torture, to put in extreme pain ... "'Aliim" means painful, "bash'shirhum" is from the verb "bashshara" and means to give or announce good or cheerful news. The announcement of torture is certainly not good news. It is not cheerful news but a horrible threat. This wrong use of the word bashir in the context of suffering is a semantic contradiction in the Qur'an. That this is indeed a very inappropriate term to use can be seen from the following fact: Most Muslims seem to be so embarrassed by it that they hide the exact meaning in their English translations: Pickthall Yusuf Ali Shakir Sher Ali Khalifa So give them 84:24 tidings of a painful doom, So announce to them a Penalty Grievous, Irving Give them news of painful torment, So announce to them a painful punishment So give them tidings of a painful punishment. Palmer Promise them painful retribution. Sarwar tell them that they will all 84:24 suffer a painful torment Hilali & Khan Arberry So announce to them a painful torment. So give them the glad tidings of grievous woe! So give them good tidings of a painful chastisement. So far, I have found only non-Muslim scholars of Arabic, like Arberry and Palmer, giving a correct translation in this verse. This is, however, not the only verse in the Qur'an giving "cheerful news about a painful torture". We shall quote the other passages according to the translation of A. J. Arberry: 3:21 Those who disbelieve in the signs of God and slay the Prophets without right, and slay such men ad bid to do justice - do thou give them the good tidings of a painful chastisement 4:138 Give thou good tidings to the hypocrites that for them awaits a painful chastisement. 9:3 ... And give thou good tidings to the unbelievers of a painful chastisement; 9:34 ... Those who treasure up gold and silver, and do not spend them in the way of God - give them the good tidings of a painful chastisement, 31:7 And when Our signs are recited to such a man he turns away, waxing proud, as though he heard them not, and in his ears were heaviness: so give him good tidings of a painful chastisement. 45:7-8 Woe to every guilty impostor who hears the signs of God being recited to him, then perseveres in waxing proud, as if he has not heard them; so give him the good tidings of a painful chastisement. Only once in these passages Yusuf Ali's pen slipped. He was seemingly not on guard when translating Sura 4:138 correctly as To the Hypocrites give the glad tidings that there is for them (but) a grievous penalty;- This word appears more than a hundred times in the Qur'an and - whether as verb or noun - Yusuf Ali nearly always translates it as "Glad Tidings". Some examples are: But give glad tidings to those who believe and work righteousness, that their portion is Gardens, beneath which rivers flow. ... (2:25) Verily, We have sent thee in truth as a bearer of glad tidings and a warner: but of thee no question shall be asked of the Companions of the Blazing Fire. (2:119) ... and We have sent down to thee the Book explaining all things, a Guide, a Mercy, and Glad Tidings to Muslims. (16:89) Say, the Holy Spirit has brought the revelation from thy Lord in Truth, in order to strengthen those who believe, and as a Guide and Glad Tidings to Muslims. (16:102) So have We made the (Qur'an) easy in thine own tongue, that with it thou mayest give Glad Tidings to the righteous, and warnings to people given to contention. (19:97) And before this, was the Book of Moses as a guide and a mercy: And this Book confirms (it) in the Arabic tongue; to admonish the unjust, and as Glad Tidings to those who do right. (46:12) This should be sufficient to establish the meaning "glad tidings" for bashir/bushra. Conclusion: The passages 3:21, 4:138, 9:3, 9:34, 31:7, 45:8, and 84:24 announcing "good news of painful torment" contain a semantic / linguistic contradiction. I welcome feedback to this article. The Qur'an Attacks ... Christianity? In this short article I discuss a consistent theme in the Qur'an. On the one hand, it appears to be something important based on the number of times it is mentioned. Yet it is not obvious how to find a convincing interpretation for these verses in the Qur'an. They say: "Allah has begotten a Son". Glory be to Him! His is what the heavens and the earth contain; all things are obedient to Him. Creator of the heavens and the earth! When he decrees a thing, He need only say "Be", and it is. Who says "Allah has begotten a Son"? —Qur'an 2:116 Then God will say: ‘Jesus, son of Mary, did you ever say to mankind: "Worship me and my mother as gods besides God?"’ —Qur'an 5:116 Mary worshipped as a god. Possibly part of this theme. Do you know what a consort is? Wonderful Originator of the heavens and the earth; how can He have a son when He has no consort? He created all things, and He hath full knowledge of all things. —Qur'an 6:101 con·sort (n. kon‘sôrt; v. kèn sôrt‘), n. 1. a husband or a wife, esp. of a reigning monarch. 2. one vessel or ship accompanying another. —v.i., v.t. 3. to keep company. 4. to agree or harmonize. If Christians believed in a consort of God, I would not have had to look it up in a dictionary. But if this verse is not about Christians, then what is it about? The Jews say Ezra is the son of God, while the Christians say the Messiah is the son of God. Such are their assertions, by which they imitate the infidels of old. God confound them! How perverse they are! —Qur’an 9:30 It's perverse of Jews and Christians to say God has a son. Like the infidels of old. God confound them! They say, ‘God has begotten a son.’ God forbid! Self-sufficient is He. His is all that the heavens and the earth contain. Surely for this you have no sanction. Whould you say of God what you know not? —Qur’an 10:68 Self-sufficient is He means he does not need a consort to have a son. Such was Jesus, the son of Mary. That is the whole truth, which they still doubt. God forbid that He Himself should beget a son! When He decrees a thing He need only say: ‘Be,’ and it is. —Qur’an 19:35 Who are they that still doubt? Allah does not need to beget a son the way men have children, with a wife or consort. He can just say ‗Be.‘ Those who say: ‘The Lord of Mercy has begotten a son,’ preach a monstrous falsehood, at which the very heavens might crack, the earth break asunder, and the mountains crumble to dust. That they should ascribe a son to the Merciful, when it does not become the Lord of Mercy to beget one! —Qur’an 19:88 Strong words in reference to God begetting a son. Say: ‘How then can you be so bewitched?’ We have revealed to them the truth, but they are liars all. Never has God begotten a son, nor is there any other god besides Him. Were this otherwise, each god would govern his own creation, each holding himself above the other. Exalted be God above their falsehoods! —Qur‟an 23:91 Surely they lie when they declare: "Allah has begotten children". —Qur'an 37:151 More strong words in reference to God begetting a son. If there were multiple gods, then they would all act in a way that mere humans would consider immature. Had it been His will to adopt a son, He would have chosen whom He pleased out of His own Creation. —Qur'an 39:4 Say: 3 "If the Lord of Mercy had a son, I would be the first to worship him". —Qur'an 43:82 Footnote 3 of N. J. Dawood's translation says, 3 To the Christians. He (exalted be the glory of our Lord!) has taken no wife, nor has He begotten any children. The Blaspheming One among us has uttered a wanton falsehood against God, although we had supposed no man or jinee could tell of Him what is untrue. —Qur'an 72:3 Say: ‘GOD is One, the Eternal God. He begot none, nor was He begotten. None is equal to Him.’ —Qur’an 112:1-4 Notice these two points:   The words consort, wife, son, and beget are used in a very human, procreative sense. They are not used in a figurative sense. These Qur'anic verses appear to be targeting Christianity. I have written an article, called Jesus: The Only Begotten Son of God which I would like you to read. Here are some conclusions: Topic Bible Wife or Consort of God Not found in the Bible at all. Absent from the Bible. God Begets or is Begotten with a Wife or Consort Some, usually older, English translations of the Bible use begotten to describe Jesus. However, the word being translated really has nothing to do with begetting. Even when begotten is used in an English translation (for lack of a clear single equivalent word in English) Christian readers do not interpret this word in the way the Qur'an suggests Christians do. I think most Christians would be shocked and dismayed to know that the Qur'an mis-represents their faith as it does. I certainly was when I first read the Qur'an. Yes, in the Bible. Son of God However, the Gospel uses the title Son of God in a welldefined, figurative sense, which is totally different from how the Qur'an claims that it is used. Further Reading   Ezra, the Son of God? Was 'Uzayr (Ezra) Called The Son Of God? The Qur'an says in one of the verses above: The Jews say Ezra is the son of God... You must admit that this statement is false. Do the Jews today say Ezra is the son of God? No, the vast majority do not. When did they change? Did the Jews ever say Ezra is the son of God? No, the vast majority did not. Here is my point: In the article below, I discuss the words begotten and son as they are used to describe Jesus in the Bible:  Jesus: The Only Begotten Son of God Because the Qur'an makes one statement about Jews that is false, may I ask you, dear Muslim reader, to consider the possibility that statements in the Qur'an concerning Christianity may also be in some way inaccurate? Is Allah the only Wali? The Quran and Ahadith on the Concept of Protection and Friendship Sam Shamoun The Quran says that Allah alone is a believer‘s wali (protector, helper, friend etc.): Allah has full knowledge of your enemies, and Allah is Sufficient as a Wali (Protector), and Allah is Sufficient as a Helper. S. 4:45 Verily, Allah! Unto Him belongs the dominion of the heavens and the earth, He gives life and He causes death. And besides Allah you have neither any Wali (protector or guardian) nor any helper. S. 9:116 Allah it is He Who has created the heavens and the earth, and all that is between them in six Days. Then He Istawa (rose over) the Throne (in a manner that suits His Majesty). You (mankind) have none, besides Him, as a Wali (protector or helper etc.) or an intercessor. Will you not then remember (or be admonished)? S. 32:4 And He it is Who sends down the rain after they have despaired, and spreads abroad His Mercy. And He is the Wali (Helper, Supporter, Protector, etc.), Worthy of all Praise. S. 42:28 The Quran, in many places, outright prohibits Muslims from seeking friends and protectors from any other entity besides Allah, even if they happen to be his servants like the prophets: Do then those who disbelieve think that they can take My slaves [i.e., the angels, God's Messengers, 'Iesa (Jesus), son of Maryam (Mary), etc.] as Auliyâ' (lords, gods, protectors, etc.) besides Me? Verily, We have prepared Hell as an entertainment for the disbelievers (in the Oneness of God Islâmic Monotheism). S. 18:102 The two Jalals comment: Do the disbelievers reckon that they can take My servants, namely, My angels, [as well as] Jesus and Ezra, as patrons, as lords, beside Me? (awliya'a, 'as patrons', constitutes the second [direct] object of [the verb] yattakhidhu, 'that they can take'; the second direct object of [the verb] hasiba, 'reckon', has been omitted). The meaning is: do they suppose that the mentioned 'taking [as patrons]' will not incur My wrath and that I will not punish them for this? No! Truly We have prepared Hell for the disbelievers, these [the ones mentioned above] and others, as [a place of] hospitality, in other words, it has been prepared for them just as a house is prepared for a guest. (Tafsir al-Jalalayn, source) The Quran continues: The likeness of those who take Auliya' (protectors and helpers) other than Allah is as the likeness of a spider, who builds (for itself) a house, but verily, the frailest (weakest) of houses is the spider's house; if they but knew. S. 29:41 And as for those who take as Auliya' (guardians, supporters, helpers, protectors, etc.) others besides Him [i.e. they take false deities other than Allah (as) protectors, and they worship them] Allah is Hafiz (Protector) over them (i.e. takes care of their deeds and will recompense them), and you (O Muhammad SAW) are not a Wakil (guardian or a disposer of their affairs) over them (to protect their deeds, etc.). S. 42:6 Or have they taken (for worship) Auliya' (guardians, supporters, helpers, protectors, etc.) besides Him? But Allah, He ALONE is the Wali (Protector, etc.). And it is He Who gives life to the dead, and He is Able to do all things. S. 42:9 In front of them there is Hell, and that which they have earned will be of no profit to them, nor (will be of any profit to them) those whom they have taken as Auliya' (protectors, helpers, etc.) besides Allah. And theirs will be a great torment. S. 45:10 The Quran even says that Allah has no wali and partner in his sovereignty: And say: "All the praises and thanks be to Allah, Who has not begotten a son (nor an offspring), and Who has no partner in (His) Dominion, nor He is low to have a Wali (helper, protector or supporter). And magnify Him with all the magnificence, [Allahu-Akbar (Allah is the Most Great)]." S. 17:111 Yet the Quran contradicts itself since it expressly says that Allah is not the only wali a Muslim has! Verily, your Wali (Protector or Helper) is Allah, His Messenger, and the believers, - those who perform As-Salat (Iqamat-as-Salat), and give Zakat, and they bow down (submit themselves with obedience to Allah in prayer). S. 5:55 The believers, men and women, are Auliya' (helpers, supporters, friends, protectors) of one another, they enjoin (on the people) Al-Ma'ruf (i.e. Islamic Monotheism and all that Islam orders one to do), and forbid (people) from Al-Munkar (i.e. polytheism and disbelief of all kinds, and all that Islam has forbidden); they perform As-Salat (Iqamat-as-Salat) and give the Zakat, and obey Allah and His Messenger. Allah will have His Mercy on them. Surely Allah is All-Mighty, All-Wise. S. 9:71 In fact, the ahadith say that Muslims will seek the protection of the prophets such as Muhammad from the wrath of Allah, with Allah accepting their aid and intercession on behalf of the believers: Narrated 'Abdullah bin 'Umar The Prophet said, "A man keeps on asking others for something till he comes on the Day of Resurrection without any piece of flesh on his face." The Prophet added, "On the Day of Resurrection, the Sun will come near (to the people) to such an extent that the sweat will reach up to the middle of the ears, so, when all the people are in that state, they will ask Adam FOR HELP, and then Moses, and then Muhammad (p.b.u.h)." The sub-narrator added, "Muhammad will intercede with Allah to judge amongst the people. He will proceed on till he will hold the ring of the door (of Paradise) and then Allah will exalt him to Maqam Mahmud (the privilege of intercession, etc.). And all the people of the gathering will send their praises to Allah. (Sahih Al-Bukhari, Volume 2, Book 24, Number 553) ... 'Surely! Allah wrongs not even of the weight of an atom (or a smallest ant) but if there is any good (done) He doubles it.' (4.40) The Prophet added, "Then the prophets and Angels and the believers will intercede, and (last of all) the Almighty (Allah) will say, „Now remains My Intercession.‘ He will then hold a handful of the Fire from which He will take out some people whose bodies have been burnt, and they will be thrown into a river at the entrance of Paradise, called the water of life ... (Sahih Al-Bukhari, Volume 9, Book 93, Number 532s) This expressly contradicts Sura 18:102 which threatens those who take prophets as their auliya (the plural form of wali)! The Quran further says that even Allah has many a wali or auliya! No doubt! Verily, the Auliya' of Allah [i.e. those who believe in the Oneness of Allah and fear Allah much (abstain from all kinds of sins and evil deeds which he has forbidden), and love Allah much (perform all kinds of good deeds which He has ordained)], no fear shall come upon them nor shall they grieve - S. 10:62 And that he does have helpers who assist him: And what is wrong with you that you fight not in the Cause of Allah, and for those weak, ill treated and oppressed among men, women, and children, whose cry is: "Our Lord! Rescue us from this town whose people are oppressors; and raise for us from You one who will protect, and raise for us from You one who will help." S. 4:75 Moreover, Muhammad is said to share in Allah‘s dominion since the earth has been given to him: And whatever Allah restored to His Apostle from them you did not press forward against it any horse or a riding camel but Allah gives authority to His apostles against whom He pleases, and Allah has power over all things. Whatever Allah has restored to His Apostle from the people of the towns, it is for Allah and for the Apostle, and for the near of kin and the orphans and the needy and the wayfarer, so that it may not be a thing taken by turns among the rich of you, and whatever the Apostle gives you, accept it, and from whatever he forbids you, keep back, and be careful of (your duty to) Allah; surely Allah is severe in retributing (evil): S. 59:6-7 Shakir Allah is said to have restored towns and property to Muhammad, with the implication being that these originally and rightfully belonged to him. This view is supported by the following narrations: Narrated Abu Huraira: While we were in the Mosque, the Prophet came out and said, "Let us go to the Jews." We went out till we reached Bait-ul-Midras. He said to them, "If you embrace Islam, you will be safe. You should know that the earth belongs to Allah and His Apostle, and I want to expel you from this land. So, if anyone amongst you owns some property, he is permitted to sell it, otherwise you should know that the earth belongs to Allah and His Apostle." (Sahih al-Bukhari, Volume 4, Book 53, Number 392) Narrated Abu Huraira: While we were in the mosque, Allah's Apostle came out to us and said, "Let us proceed to the Jews." So we went along with him till we reached Bait-al-Midras (a place where the Torah used to be recited and all the Jews of the town used to gather). The Prophet stood up and addressed them, "O Assembly of Jews! Embrace Islam and you will be safe!" The Jews replied, "O Aba-l-Qasim! You have conveyed Allah's message to us." The Prophet said, "That is what I want (from you)." He repeated his first statement for the second time, and they said, "You have conveyed Allah's message, O Aba-l-Qasim." Then he said it for the third time and added, "You should Know that the earth belongs to Allah and His Apostle, and I want to exile you fro, this land, so whoever among you owns some property, can sell it, otherwise you should know that the earth belongs to Allah and His Apostle." (See Hadith No. 392, Vol. 4) (Sahih al-Bukhari, Volume 9, Book 85, Number 77) It is quite evident that Muhammad believed that he had a share in Allah‘s sovereignty and ownership. Muslims are also expressly forbidden from befriending unbelievers, specifically Jews and Christians: Let not the believers take the disbelievers as Auliya (supporters, helpers, etc.) instead of the believers, and whoever does that will never be helped by Allah in any way, except if you indeed fear a danger from them. And Allah warns you against Himself (His Punishment) and to Allah is the final return. S. 3:28 O you who believe! Take not the Jews and the Christians as Auliya' (friends, protectors, helpers, etc.), they are but Auliya' to one another. And if any amongst you takes them as Auliya', then surely he is one of them. Verily, Allah guides not those people who are the Zalimun (polytheists and wrongdoers and unjust). S. 5:51 O you who believe! Take not for Auliya' (protectors and helpers) those who take your religion for a mockery and fun from among those who received the Scripture (Jews and Christians) before you, nor from among the disbelievers; and fear Allah if you indeed are true believers. S. 5:57 And had they believed in Allah, and in the Prophet (Muhammad SAW) and in what has been revealed to him, never would they have taken them (the disbelievers) as Auliya' (protectors and helpers), but many of them are the Fasiqun (rebellious, disobedient to Allah). S. 5:81 Yet Muhammad violated this teaching since he sought the protection and aid of the Christian ruler of Abyssinia. As the late Abdullah Yusuf Ali noted in his comments to Sura 5:82: "The meaning is not that they merely call themselves Christians, but that they are such sincere Christians that they appreciate Muslim virtues, as did the Abyssinians to whom Muslim refugees went during the persecution in Mecca. They would say: 'It is true we are Christians, but we understand your point of view, and we know that you are good men.' They are Muslims at heart, whatever their label may be." (Ali, The Holy Qur'an, p. 268, fn. 789; bold emphasis ours) Thus, the Muslims had no problem seeking the protection and aid of unbelievers when it was expedient for them! Recommend Reading http://answering-islam.org/Quran/Contra/intercession.html http://answering-islam.org/Shamoun/christians.htm All citations were taken from the Hilali-Khan version of the Quran unless noted otherwise. Quran Contradiction Warners Sent to All Mankind Before Muhammad? The Quran claims that Allah has sent Warners to every nation. In fact, some of these verses imply that even prior to the coming of Muhammad, Allah had sent Warners to the Arabs: To every people (was sent) a messenger: when their messenger comes (before them), the matter will be judged between them with justice, and they will not be wronged. S. 10:47 The worshippers of false gods say: "If Allah had so willed, we should not have worshipped aught but Him - neither we nor our fathers,- nor should we have prescribed prohibitions other than His." So did those who went before them. But what is the mission of messengers but to preach the Clear Message? For We assuredly sent amongst every People a messenger, (with the Command), "Serve Allah, and eschew Evil": of the People were some whom Allah guided, and some on whom error became inevitably (established). So travel through the earth, and see what was the end of those who denied (the Truth). S. 16:35-36 To every people did We appoint rites (of sacrifice), that they might celebrate the name of Allah over the sustenance He gave them from animals (fit for food). But your god is One God: submit then your wills to Him (in Islam): and give thou the good news to those who humble themselves,- S. 22:34 To every People have We appointed rites and ceremonies which they must follow: let them not then dispute with thee on the matter, but do thou invite (them) to thy Lord: for thou art assuredly on the Right Way. S. 22:67 The last two verses claim that Allah prescribed rituals and ceremonies for all the people, with the implication being that Allah sent messengers and/or prophets to instruct the people regarding these rituals. Allah must have also sent prophets and messengers to the Meccan Arabs, otherwise how would they have known that Allah required sacrifices and rituals? Unless, of course, one wants to claim that the phrase "every people" doesn‘t necessarily include Arabs. This, however, a Muslim cannot hold to since Islam teaches that the rituals of the pagan Meccan Arabs that Muhammad took over into Islam, were actually instituted by Abraham and Ishmael. So the inhabitants of Mecca already had had their first messengers. Verily We have sent thee in truth, as a bearer of glad tidings, and as a warner: and there never was a people, without a warner having lived among them (in the past). S. 35:24 But (there were people) before them, who denied (the Signs),- the People of Noah, and the Confederates (of Evil) after them; and EVERY PEOPLE plotted against their prophet, to seize him, and disputed by means of vanities, therewith to condemn the Truth; but it was I that seized them! and how (terrible) was My Requital! Thus was the Decree of thy Lord proved true against the Unbelievers; that truly they are Companions of the Fire! S. 40:5-6 Combining all the above texts we are left with the conclusion that Allah sent a warner to every people, and that in each case the people plotted against the prophet that had been sent to them. Renowned Sunni commentator Ibn Kathir stated in relation to Sura 35:24: And there never was a nation but a warner had passed among them.) means, there was never any nation among the sons of Adam but Allah sent warners to them, and left them with no excuse. This is like the Ayat: … <You are only a warner, and to every people there is a guide> (13:7)… <And verily, We have sent among every Ummah a Messenger (proclaiming): "Worship Allah, and avoid all false deities.'' Then of them were some whom Allah guided and of them were some upon whom the straying was justified> (16:36). And there are many similar Ayat. (Source; bold and underline emphasis ours) Furthermore, the Quran claims that Ishmael was a prophet: We gave him (Abraham) Isaac and Jacob: all (three) guided: and before him, We guided Noah, and among his progeny, David, Solomon, Job, Joseph, Moses, and Aaron: thus do We reward those who do good: And Zakariya and John, and Jesus and Elias: all in the ranks of the righteous: AND ISMA‟IL and Elisha, and Jonas, and Lot: and to all We gave favour above the nations: (To them) and to their fathers, and progeny and brethren: We chose them, and we guided them to a straight way. This is the guidance of Allah: He giveth that guidance to whom He pleaseth, of His worshippers. If they were to join other gods with Him, all that they did would be vain for them. These were THE MEN to whom We gave THE BOOK, and authority, and prophethood: if these (their descendants) reject them, Behold! We shall entrust their charge to a new people who reject them not. S. 6:84-89 Lo! We inspire thee as We inspired Noah and the prophets after him, as We inspired Abraham and Ishmael and Isaac and Jacob and the tribes, and Jesus and Job and Jonah and Aaron and Solomon, and as We imparted unto David the Psalms; S. 4:163 Pickthall And relate the story of Ishmael as mentioned in the Book. He was indeed true to his promises. And he was a Messenger, a Prophet. He used to enjoin Prayer and alms-giving on his people, and he was well pleasing to his Lord. S. 19:54-55, 58 Sher Ali Ishmael is included as one of those who received the Book and prophethood, and is said to have also enjoined prayer and charity (Zakat) upon his people/seed. Furthermore, Muslims are commanded to believe in what Allah revealed/inspired to Ishmael: Say ye, `We believe in ALLAH and what has been revealed to us, and what was revealed to Abraham and Ishmael, and Isaac and Jacob and his children and what was given to Moses and Jesus, and what was given to all other Prophets from their Lord. We make no distinction between any of them; and to HIM we submit ourselves.' S. 2:136 Sher Ali Say (O Muhammad): We believe in Allah and that which is revealed unto us and that which was revealed unto Abraham and Ishmael and Isaac and Jacob and the tribes, and that which was vouchsafed unto Moses and Jesus and the prophets from their Lord. We make no distinction between any of them, and unto Him we have surrendered. S. 3:84 Pickthall The foregoing passages imply that Ishmael had enjoined on his seed the Book and religious instructions which he had received. This means that the Meccan Arabs, whom Muslims claim are the seed of Ishmael, did in fact receive a book prior to the Quran. The Quran even claims that Abraham and Ishmael built a house for Allah, which Muslims traditionally identify as the Kabah in Mecca: And when We appointed the House to be a place of visitation for the people, and a sanctuary, and: 'Take to yourselves Abraham's station for a place of prayer.' And We made covenant with Abraham and Ishmael: 'Purify My House for those that shall go about it and those that cleave to it, to those who bow and prostrate themselves.' And when Abraham said, 'My Lord, make this a land secure, and provide its people with fruits, such of them as believe in God and the Last Day.' He said, 'And whoso disbelieves, to him I shall give enjoyment a little, then I shall compel him to the chastisement of the Fire -- how evil a homecoming!' And when Abraham, and Ishmael with him, raised up the foundations of the House: 'Our Lord, receive this from us; Thou art the All-hearing, the All-knowing; and, our Lord, make us submissive to Thee, and of our seed a nation submissive to Thee; and show us our holy rites, and turn towards us; surely Thou turnest, and art All-compassionate; and, our Lord, do Thou send among them a Messenger, one of them, who shall recite to them Thy signs, and teach them the Book and the Wisdom, and purify them; Thou art the All-mighty, the All-wise.' S. 2:125-129 Arberry So, if Abraham and Ishmael built the Kabah then they surely would have also given the instructions for the rituals to be performed there (of course, this is according to Muslim thinking and beliefs and not based on any actual historical facts). And if Ishmael and Abraham received books, would they not have shared them with those they lived among? There is more. The Quran makes reference to two non-Israelite prophets/messengers named Hud and Salih: Behold, their brother Hud said to them: "Will ye not fear (God)? I am to you an apostle worthy of all trust:" S. 26:124-125 Y. Ali; cf. 7:65-67, 11:58-59 Behold, their brother Salih said to them: "Will you not fear (God)? "I am to you an apostle worthy of all trust. S. 26:142-143 Y. Ali The author of the Quran presupposes that his readers/hearers were already familiar with the story of the fate of the peoples of Hud and Salih. This is perhaps why he didn‘t feel it was necessary to explain exactly who they were, where they were exactly from etc. Y. Ali, in his notes to Sura 7:65 and 73, provides additional details for those of us left in the dark regarding the story of Hud and Salih: … The ‗Ad people, with their prophet Hud, are mentioned in many places… This story belongs to Arabian tradition. Their eponymous ancestor ‗Ad was fourth in generation from Noah, having been a son of ‗Aus, the son of Aram, the son of Sam, the son of Noah. They occupied a large tract of country in Southern Arabia, extending from ‗Umman at the mouth of the Persian Gulf to Hadhramaut and Yemen at the southern end of Red Sea… (Ali, The Meaning of the Holy Quran: Translation and Commentary, p. 358, fn. 1040) … The Thamud people were the successors to the culture and civilization of the ‗Ad people… They were cousins to the ‗Ad, apparently a younger branch of the same race. Their story also belongs to the Arabian tradition, according to which their eponymous ancestor Thamud was a son of ‗Abir (a brother of Aram), the son of Sam, the son of Noah. Their seat was in the north-west corner of Arabia (Arabia Petraea), between Medina and Syria. It included both rocky country (hijr, xv. 80), and the spacious fertile valley (Wadi) and plains country of Qura, which begins just north of the City of Medina and is traversed by the Hijaz railway… The recently excavated rock city of Petra, near Ma‘an, may go back to the Thamud, though its architecture has many features connecting it with Egyptian and GrecoRoman culture overlaying what is called by European writers Nabataean culture. Who were the Nabataeans? They were an old Arab tribe which played a considerable part in history after they came in conflict with Antigonus I in 312 B.C. Their capital was Petra, but they extended their territory right up to the Euphrates. In 85 B.C. they were lords of Damascus under their king Haritha (Aretas of Roman history). For some time they were allies of the Roman Empire and held the Red Sea littoral. The Emperor Trajan reduced them and annexed their territory in A.D. 105. The Nabataeans succeeded the Thamud of Arabian tradition. The Thamud are mentioned by name in an inscription of the Assyrian King Sargon, dated 715 B.C., as a people of Eastern and Central Arabia (Encyclopaedia of Islam)… (Ibid., p. 360, fn. 1043) Muhammad Asad writes in regards to the same verses: … Hud is said to have been the first Arabian prophet. He may be identical with the Biblical `Eber, the ancestor of the Hebrews (`Ibrim) who - like most of the Semitic tribes - had probably originated in South Arabia. (References to `Eber are found in Genesis x, 24-25 and xi, 14 ff.) The ancient Arabian name Hud is still reflected in that of Jacob's son Judah (Yahudah in Hebrew), which provided the subsequent designation of the Jews. The name `Eber - both in Hebrew and in its Arabic form `Abir -signifies "one who crosses over" (i.e., from one territory to another), and may be a Biblical echo of the fact that this tribe "crossed over" from Arabia to Mesopotamia in pre-Abrahamic times.-The tribe of `Ad, to which Hud belonged ("their brother Hud"), inhabited the vast desert region known as Al-Ahqaf, between `Uman and Hadramawt, and was noted for its great power and influence (see 89: 8 - "the like of whom has never been reared in all the land"). It disappeared from history many centuries before the advent of Islam, but its memory always remained alive in Arabian tradition. (Asad, The Message of the Qur'an [Dar Al-Andalus Limited 3 Library Ramp, Gibraltar rpt. 1993], p. 213, fn. 48) … The Nabataean tribe of Thamud descended from the tribe of 'Ad mentioned in the preceding passage, and is, therefore, often referred to in pre-Islamic poetry as the "Second `Ad". Apart from Arabian sources, "a series of older references, not of Arabian origin, confirm the historical existence of the name and people of Thamud. Thus the inscription of Sargon of the year 715 B.C. mentions the Thamad among the people of eastern and central Arabia subjected by the Assyrians. We also find the Thamudaei, Thamudenes mentioned in Aristo, Ptolemy, and Pliny" (Encyclopaedia of Islam IV, 736). At the time of which the Qur'an speaks, the Thamad were settled in the northernmost Hijaz, near the confines of Syria. Rock-inscriptions attributed to them are still extant in the region of Al-Hijr.-As in the case of the `Adite prophet Had-and the prophet Shu'ayb spoken of in verses 85-93 of this surah Salih is called the "brother" of the tribe because he belonged to it. (Ibid., p. 214, fn. 56) Asad says of S. 26:195: … The other prophets mentioned in the Quran who "preached in the Arabic tongue" were Ishmael, Hud, Salih and Shu‘ayb, all of them Arabians. In addition, if we bear in mind that Hebrew and Aramaic are but ancient Arabic dialects, all the Hebrew prophets may be included among "those who preached in the Arabic tongue." (Ibid., p. 572, fn. 82; bold emphasis ours) According to Islamic theology, a messenger (rasul) is one who receives a book. Renowned Mu`tazila scholar al-Zamakhshari claimed: We have never sent any messenger or prophet: (This) is a clear proof that a distinction exists between a messenger (rasul) and a prophet (nabi). (It is related) from the Prophet that he was asked about the prophets, whereupon he said: ‗(There are) one hundred and twenty-four thousand.‘ When he was then asked how many messengers there were among them, he answered: ‗The great host of three hundred and thirteen.‘ The distinction between the two is that a messenger is one of the prophets to whom, together with the verification miracle (mu„jiza), the Book is sent down. A prophet, on the other hand, who is not a messenger, is one to whom no book is sent down, but who was commanded only to restrain the people on the basis of the earlier revealed law (shari„a). (Helmut Gätje, The Qur'an and its Exegesis [Oneworld Publications, Oxford 1996], p. 54; bold emphasis ours) The Quran states, contrary to the view of al-Zamakhshari, that prophets do indeed receive divine books: (All) people are a single nation; so Allah raised PROPHETS as bearers of good news and as warners, and He revealed WITH THEM THE BOOK WITH TRUTH, that it might judge between people in that in which they differed; and none but the very people who were given it differed about it after clear arguments had come to them, revolting among themselves; so Allah has guided by His will those who believe to the truth about which they differed and Allah guides whom He pleases to the right path. S. 2:213 Shakir It is not (possible) that a man, to whom is given the Book, and Wisdom, and the prophetic office, should say to people: "Be ye my worshippers rather than God's": on the contrary (He would say) "Be ye worshippers of Him Who is truly the Cherisher of all: For ye have taught the Book and ye have studied it earnestly." S. 3:79 Y. Ali Behold! God took the covenant of the prophets, saying: "I give you a Book and Wisdom; then comes to you an apostle, confirming what is with you; do ye believe in him and render him help." God said: "Do ye agree, and take this my Covenant as binding on you?" They said: "We agree." He said: "Then bear witness, and I am with you among the witnesses." S. 3:81 Y. Ali Hence, taking both the Quran and Islamic theology at face value, Ishmael, Hud and Salih were prophets/messengers that received books for their respective communities. In other words, all of the preceding verses presume that, even prior to Muhammad, Allah had sent prophets and messengers to every nation which would obviously includes the Arabs, especially the Meccan Arabs whom Muslims claim are descendants of Ishmael. See Sahih AlBukhari, Volume 4, Book 55, Number 583 for further details. The conclusions outlined above lead to several contradictions since the next verses claim that no warner was sent to the Arabs, and no book was given to them, until Muhammad‘s time: Nor wast thou at the side of (the Mountain of) Tur when we called (to Moses). Yet (art thou sent) as Mercy from thy Lord, to give warning to a people to whom no warner had come before thee: in order that they may receive admonition. S. 28:46 Or do they say, "He has forged it"? Nay, it is the Truth from thy Lord, that thou mayest admonish a people to whom no warner has come before thee: in order that they may receive guidance. S. 32:3 They swore their strongest oaths by Allah that if a warner came to them, they would follow his guidance better than any (other) of the Peoples: But when a warner came to them, it has only increased their flight (from righteousness),- S. 35:42 By the Wise Koran, thou art truly among the Envoys on a straight path; the sending down of the All-mighty, the All-wise, that thou mayest warn a people WHOSE FATHERS WERE NEVER WARNED, so they are heedless. S. 36:2-6 Arberry And this is a Book which We have revealed as a blessing: so follow it and be righteous, that ye may receive mercy: Lest ye should say: "The Book was sent down to two Peoples before us, and for our part, we remained unacquainted with all that they learned by assiduous study:" Or lest ye should say: "If the Book had only been sent down to us, we should have followed its guidance better than they." Now then hath come unto you a clear (sign) from your Lord,- and a guide and a mercy: then who could do more wrong than one who rejecteth Allah's signs, and turneth away therefrom? In good time shall We requite those who turn away from Our signs, with a dreadful penalty, for their turning away. S. 6:155-157 But We had not given them Books which they could study, nor sent messengers to them before thee as Warners. S. 34:44 What! have We given them a Book before this, to which they are holding fast? S. 43:21 In light of the preceding, what do we say about Ishmael, Salih, and Hud who were sent to Arab nations as messengers, which is in direct contradiction with Sura 34:44? Furthermore, Ishmael is explicitly said to have received the Book (S. 6:89), but S. 34:44 states that the Arabs had not received any book before Muhammad's time. [We might ask the same question about the books of Hud and Salih, since they are called messengers and by al-Zamakhshari‘s definition of the term, a messenger (rasul) is one who received a book while one who is only called a prophet may not have had a book. So, this would imply that Hud and Salih also had books.] We will leave it to the Muslims to try and make sense of these glaring contradictions. Furthermore, what are we supposed to think of Ishmael‘s Book? Did he not pass it on to his alleged descendants, which Muslims claim were the Meccan Arabs? If he did, then how can the Quran claim that the Arabs hadn‘t received a book prior to Muhammad‘s time? If Ishmael didn‘t pass it on, then what happened to his Book? Even worse, would that not imply that Ishmael was disobedient by not delivering the message given to him? Put differently, it seems that the Arabs are worse than the Jews. They completely lost, or even deliberately destroyed the book that Allah gave to Ishmael, not to mention the books of Hud and Salih, while the Jews have carefully kept the Torah up to this day. The Quran accuses the Jews only of misinterpreting it or hiding part of their revelation from the Muslims, but not of having lost or destroyed it (see these articles). Why would Allah give the Arabs another book if they have treated his first one with such contempt? And this question becomes even more pressing if they did not only lose or destroy Ishmael‘s book but also the books of Hud and Salih! Sam Shamoun Muhammad and the Unbelievers: Worshipping the Same or a Different God? More Evidence for the Incoherence and Incompleteness of the Qur‟an According to the 109th Surah of the Qur‘an, Muhammad and the unbelievers did not worship the same Being: Say: O disbelievers! I worship not that which ye worship; Nor worship ye that which I worship. And I shall not worship that which ye worship. Nor will ye worship that which I worship. Unto you your religion, and unto me my religion. S. 109:1-6 Pickthall The problems that this Surah poses should be apparent to anyone familiar with both the Qur‘an and the Islamic traditions. First problem: Whom exactly is this Surah referring to? (a) The People of the Book (Jews, Christians, perhaps Sabians)? (b) The Meccan idolaters? The Qur‘an itself does not specify whom Muhammad is supposed to address this way. Second problem: Whether it is option (a) or (b) above, Surah 109 contradicts other passages in the Qur‘an which state that both groups were worshipping the same God as the Muslims. Passages claiming that group (a) worshipped the same God: Surely those who believe, and those who are Jews, and the Christians, and the Sabians, whoever believes in Allah and the Last day and does good, they shall have their reward from their Lord, and there is no fear for them, nor shall they grieve. S. 2:62 Shakir Say (unto the People of the Scripture): Dispute ye with us concerning Allah when He is our Lord and your Lord? Ours are our works and yours your works. We look to Him alone. S. 2:139 Pickthall Say: O People of the Scripture! Come to an agreement between us and you: that we shall worship none but Allah, and that we shall ascribe no partner unto Him, and that none of us shall take others for lords beside Allah. And if they turn away, then say: Bear witness that we are they who have surrendered (unto Him). S. 3:64 And argue not with the People of the Scripture unless it be in (a way) that is better, save with such of them as do wrong; and say: We believe in that which hath been revealed unto us and revealed unto you; our God and your God is One, and unto Him we surrender. S. 29:46 Pickthall Passages showing that group (b) also worshipped the same God, even though they worshipped a host of other gods and goddesses along with Allah: If indeed thou ask them who has created the heavens and the earth and subjected the sun and the moon (to his Law), they will certainly reply, "Allah". How are they then deluded away (from the truth)? Allah enlarges the sustenance (which He gives) to whichever of His servants He pleases; and He (similarly) grants by (strict) measure, (as He pleases): for Allah has full knowledge of all things. And if indeed thou ask them who it is that sends down rain from the sky, and gives life therewith to the earth after its death, they will certainly reply, "Allah!" Say, "Praise be to Allah!" But most of them understand not. S. 29:61-63 The worshippers of false gods say: "If Allah had so willed, we should not have worshipped aught but Him - neither we nor our fathers,- nor should we have prescribed prohibitions other than His." So did those who went before them. But what is the mission of messengers but to preach the Clear Message? S. 16:35 The pagans in the preceding passage were basically repeating what Allah supposedly said to Muhammad: If it had been Allah's plan, they would not have taken false gods: but We made thee not one to watch over their doings, nor art thou set over them to dispose of their affairs. S. 6:107 Finally: Surely pure religion is for Allah only. And those who choose protecting friends beside Him (say): We worship them only that they may bring us near unto Allah. Lo! Allah will judge between them concerning that wherein they differ. Lo! Allah guideth not him who is a liar, an ingrate. S. 39:3 In the above passage we see that the pagans‘ MAIN direction of worship was Allah, that the other gods were only intermediaries/intercessors for the purpose of bringing them near to Allah! Thus, Allah was not just one of their many gods, but he was the main and highest one of all their gods. In fact, the very name of the worst sin in Islam, SHIRK, means "association". Associating what (other gods) with WHOM? With Allah of course! The very name of this sin would not make sense if their gods were all distinct from Allah. It presupposes that Allah is one of their gods. There is one other passage which refers to unnamed individuals who believed in Allah as the Creator of all things: And if thou ask them, ‗Who has created the heavens and the earth?‘ They will, surely, answer, „ALLAH.‟ Say, ‗All praise belongs to ALLAH.‘ But most of them have no knowledge. S. 31:25 Sher Ali Whether this passage is addressing group A or group B, or even both, it is clear from this that the Quran presumes that the contemporaries of Muhammad knew and believed in Allah. To summarize the above quoted passages: 1. Jews and Christians are said to worship Allah. 2. The pagans and idolaters also worshipped Allah, despite worshipping a host of other gods. This being the case, how can Surah 109 claim that the unbelievers were NOT worshipping that which Muhammad worshipped? This is a clear contradiction. To say that this is referring to the idols that the pagans were wrongly worshipping doesn‘t solve the problem since: 1. How does a Muslim know that this is referring to the pagans? Where is this explicitly stated in the text? 2. Even if this were referring to the pagans, does not the Qur’an say that the pagans knew of and worshipped Allah, and therefore were worshippers of that which Muhammad worshipped? It may be true that Muhammad didn‘t worship (most of) their gods, but the fact remains that both Muhammad and the pagans worshipped Allah, and hence the pagans DID worship that which Muhammad was worshipping, in sharp contradiction to Surah 109:3. For instance, the Quran has Muhammad saying that he doesn‘t worship what the pagans worshipped except for Allah: Say: O people! if you are in doubt as to my religion, then (know that) I do not serve those whom you serve besides Allah but I do serve Allah, Who will cause you to die, and I am commanded that I should be of the believers. S. 10:104 Shakir Say (O Muhammad): I am forbidden to worship those unto whom ye cry beside Allah since there have come unto me clear proofs from my Lord, and I am commanded to surrender to the Lord of the Worlds. S. 40:66 Pickthall These passages presuppose that the pagans were worshipping Allah, along with a host of other gods. Thus, Muhammad may have not worshipped all the host of gods of the pagans, but they were indeed worshipping Allah. There are some translations which put 109:3 into the future instead of the present tense, turning it into a prophecy instead of a statement about the current situation. Yusuf Ali, for example, renders these verses as: Say: O ye that reject Faith! I worship not that which ye worship, nor will ye worship that which I worship. And I will not worship that which ye have been wont to worship, nor will ye worship that which I worship. This is no solution either. What would be the time frame that is referred to: next month, next year, or the rest of their lives? Surah 109 is generally held to be an early Meccan Surah, most inhabitants of Mecca were pagans at the time, and most commentators are convinced Muhammad is addressing the Meccan idolaters. The Meccan pagans, however, never abandoned their worship of Allah which would have been necessary to turn 109:3 into a true prophecy. On the contrary, as hostile as they originally were towards Islam, eventually Muhammad conquered Mecca and nearly all citizens converted to Islam with the consequence that Allah was then no longer just one of their gods but their one and only object of worship. Whether referring to the time before or after their conversion the Meccans always "worshipped that which Muhammad worshipped". Surah 109:3 remains in error whether interpreted as present tense or future tense. Finally, some may claim that worship here refers to religious practices, i.e. that Muhammad didn‘t engage in the religious practices of the pagans and vice-versa. This is wrong for at least two reasons. The text does not state that the disbelievers "do not worship HOW I worship", or "IN THE MANNER in which I worship", but that they "do not worship THAT WHICH I worship". It clearly is the object of worship not the method (i.e. the religious practices) that is referred to. However, even if we were to allow for this forced interpretation, it is still not correct, since the pagans were already observing four of the five Islamic pillars prior to Muhammad‘s time. See for instance the article Muhammad and Idolatry. Further discussion on the incoherence and the incompleteness of the Qur‘an is found in these articles: http://answering-islam.org/Shamoun/incomplete.htm http://answering-islam.org/Quran/Contra/incomplete.html http://answering-islam.org/Shamoun/incomplete_mecca.htm Sam Shamoun and Jochen Katz A detailed discussion on further aspects of this topic is found in our answers to a number of Muslim responses to the above article. Rebuttals to Shahid bin Waheed and Mohd Elfie Nieshaem Juferi and Nadir Ahmed. Revisiting Muhammad and the Unbelievers: Worshipping the Same or a Different God? It appears that our articles are having an impact upon Muslims, to the extent that many have taken up the task of trying to refute our claims. One such individual is Shahid bin Waheed (SW for short). The problem with most of SW's counter-responses to our material is that they are very bad in terms of content and substance. Many of the responses do not even bother refuting our points, but simply pile on quote after quote, producing at times lengthy articles presumably to give the impression to his readers that he is in fact refuting our material. At times the author actually ends up rewriting his articles after being refuted by us. We have already shown in two previous articles why his material lacks any real substance and are really not worth responding to: http://answering-islam.org/Quran/Contra/pharaohs_magicians_r1.html http://answering-islam.org/Shamoun/davids_seed.htm Yet SW thinks that our unwillingness to respond to all of his alleged responses has to do with our inability to refute them. Recently, Jochen Katz and I coauthored the article Muhammad and the Unbelievers: Worshipping the Same or a Different God? to which SW "responded" with his Refutation to Anti-Islaam Misrepresentation of Truth! In light of his consistent request to refute his responses, I seek to respond to this one particular "rebuttal" in order to provide further evidence why his material lacks content and are really not worth responding to. To begin with, SW has completely ignored what we had written regarding consulting sources outside the Quran: To say that this is referring to the idols that the pagans were wrongly worshipping doesn‘t solve the problem since: 1. How does a Muslim know that this is referring to the pagans? Where is this explicitly stated in the text? 2. Even if this were referring to the pagans, does not the Qur’an say that the pagans knew of and worshipped Allah, and therefore were worshippers of that which Muhammad worshipped? It doesn‘t surprise us that SW ignored our statement regarding the text itself failing to provide data to show that this is referring to the pagans. He seemingly realizes that the Quran is incoherent, making little sense, and that he MUST appeal to outside sources in order to make sense out of this chaos he calls God‘s revelation; sources that were written centuries after Muhammad‘s death. What is even more amazing is that the citations provided by SW end up proving our argument! Recall that we had shown from the Quran that the pagan Meccan Arabs worshipped Muhammad‘s god, Allah. Now let us compare this with the "historical background" provided by SW in response to our claim, this time with added emphasis: According to Hadrat Abdullah bin Abbas, the Quraish proposed to the Holy Prophet; "We shall give you so much of wealth that you will become the richest man of Makkah; we shall give you whichever woman you like in marriage; we are prepared to follow and obey you as our leader, only on the condition that you will not speak ill of our gods. If you do not agree to this, we present another proposal which is to your as well as to our advantage." When the Holy Prophet asked what it was, they said that if he would worship their gods, Lat and Uzza, for a year, THEY WOULD WORSHIP HIS GOD FOR THE SAME SPACE TIME. The Holy Prophet said: "Wait awhile; let me see what my Lord commands in this regard." Thereupon the revelation came down: Qul ya-ayyuhal-kafirun...and: Qul afa-ghair Allahi...(Az-Zumar: 64): "Say to them: ignorant people do you bid me to worship others than Allah?" (Ibn Jarir, Ibn Abi Hatim, Tabarani). According to another tradition from Ibn Abbas, the Quraish said to the Holy Prophet: "O Muhammad, if you kiss our gods, the idols, we shall worship your God." Thereupon, this Surah was sent down. (Abd bin Humaid). Said bin Mina (the freed slave of Abul Bakhtari) has related that Walid bin Mughirah, As bin Wail, Aswad bin al-Muttalib and Umayyah bin Khalaf met the Holy Prophet (upon whom be peace) and said to him: "O Muhammad (upon whom be Allah's peace and blessings), let us agree THAT WE WOULD WORSHIP YOUR GOD and you would worship our gods, and we would make you a partner in all our works. If what you have brought was better than what we possess, we would be partners in it with You, and have our share in it, and if what we possess is better than what you have brought, you would be partner in it with us and have your share of it." At this Allah sent down: Qul ya-ayyuhal-kafirun (Ibn Jarir, Ibn Abi Hatim, Ibn Hisham also has related this incident in the Sirah). Wahb bin Munabbih has related that the people of Quraish said to Allah's Messenger: "If you like WE WOULD ENTER YOUR FAITH FOR A YEAR and you would enter our faith for a year." (Abd bin Humaid, Ibn Abi Hatim). These sources state THAT THE PAGANS DID WORSHIP ALLAH AND WERE EVEN WILLING TO EMBRACE ISLAM, THEREBY PROVING OUR CONTENTION! It is truly astonishing to see how SW failed to see how his own sources admit that the pagans were willing to worship Allah, thus falsifying Surah 109 WHICH SAYS THAT THEY WOULDN‘T WORSHIP THAT WHICH MUHAMMAD WORSHIPPED! (This assumes of course that the surah is addressing the pagan Arabs.) Here again is the passage: (Muhammad), tell the disbelievers, "I do not worship what you worship, nor do you worship what I worship I have not been worshipping what you worshipped, NOR WILL you worship what I shall worship You follow your religion and I follow mine." S. 109:1-6 Sarwar Notice how others translate 109:5: NOR WILL ye worship that which I worship. Pickthall NOR WILL ye worship that which I worship. Y. Ali NOR ARE you GOING to serve Him Whom I serve: Shakir NOR WILL you worship that which I worship. Hilali-Khan NOR WILL you be the worshipper of what I worship. Daryabadi NOR WILL you be worshippers of what I worship. Saheeh International NOR WILL you EVER what I worship. N.J. Dawood NOR WILL ye serve what I serve;- Palmer NOR WILL you EVER worship what I worship. Khalifa And NEITHER WILL you [EVER] worship that which I worship. Asad NEITHER WILL you worship what I worship. T.B. Irving NEITHER WILL ye worship that which I worship. J.M. Rodwell We truly do appreciate SW‘s efforts of providing further proof that the Quran is in error and that our article was correct. Now SW may contest our assertion and claim that the pagans‘ offer to worship Muhammad‘s god shows that they were not worshipping Allah. In other words, their offer wouldn‘t have been really much of an offer if they were already worshipping Allah. If he does claim this then he would only be positing a contradiction with the Quran since it says THEY WERE WORSHIPPING ALLAH ALREADY. The only way for SW to reconcile both these statements is to assume that what the pagans meant was that they would worship Allah EXCLUSIVELY for that period of time, discarding the worship of their gods for that year. SW continues: My comments: Notice that we have an unbroken chain of transmission of authentic narrators. I challenge that web site "answering-islam" or any Christian in this world produce something like this about their gospels and/or Bible. Christians can‘t even produce the names of the ghostwriters of their Bible and/or anything about their lives; even proof that any and/or all of them were inspired? Nevertheless, the Surah information cited above with reasons of revelation quashes the absurd claims of anti-Islaam forces, while answering their absurd questions. RESPONSE: SW imagines that he has an unbroken chain of transmission, despite the fact that these sources were compiled during a time when the first Muslims were long dead. The following articles written by Muslims demonstrate why many Muslims have rejected the hadith collection as false: http://www.submission.org/hadith/ These links demonstrate from Muslim sources that the Quran is a text which has undergone corruption: http://answering-islam.org/PQ/index.htm http://answering-islam.org/Campbell/s3c3b.html http://answering-islam.org/Campbell/s3c3c.html http://answering-islam.org/Responses/Menj/bravo_r4bc.htm http://answering-islam.org/Responses/Menj/bravo_r4bc_add.htm http://answering-islam.org/Shamoun/quran_variants.htm http://answering-islam.org/Quran/Text/index.html These links provide the evidence to satisfy SW‘s request for evidence demonstrating the historical reliability and inspiration of the Holy Bible: http://answering-islam.org/Bible/Text/index.html http://www.answer-islam.org/BibleQuran.html http://answering-islam.org/Shamoun/documents.htm http://answering-islam.org/Campbell/s3c3a.html http://answering-islam.org/Campbell/s3c3d.html http://answering-islam.org/Campbell/s3c3ef.html www.tektonics.org/lp/nttextcrit.html www.tektonics.org/ntdocdef/gospdefhub.html www.tektonics.org/af/bauerhyp.html www.tektonics.org/qm/qmhub.html www.tektonics.org/ntdocdef/pastorals.html www.christian-thinktank.com/stil23.html www.christian-thinktank.com/ynotpeter1.html http://answering-islam.org/Responses/Shabir-Ally/nab.htm http://christian-thinktank.com/dumbdad2.html http://christian-thinktank.com/dumbdad3.html http://christian-thinktank.com/dumbdad4.html http://answering-islam.org/Responses/Saifullah/bravo1.htm http://answering-islam.org/Responses/Saifullah/bravo3.htm http://answering-islam.org/Responses/Saifullah/bravo4.htm http://answering-islam.org/Responses/Saifullah/bravo5.htm We challenge him to produce any comparable historical, archaeological, textual and MSS evidence for his book the Quran. We know he can‘t since he has none. SW digresses from the issue by bringing up irrelevant points, such as Islam being tolerant of other faiths. For the most part these are red herrings and we would simply ignore them. Yet, since he complains about us not studying the "authentic" Muslim sources in order to better understand the Quran we are therefore forced to show how he fails to do the very thing he demands of us. He quotes S. 2:256 to prove that Islam is a tolerant religion, BUT FAILS TO QUOTE HIS OWN SO-CALLED AUTHENTIC SOURCES WHICH EXPLAIN WHAT THIS VERSE REALLY MEANS. Since he failed to quote his own sources we will do him a favor and quote them for him: Narrated Abdullah ibn Abbas: When the children of a woman (in pre-Islamic days) did not survive, she took a vow on herself that if her child survives, she would convert it a Jew. When Banu an-Nadir were expelled (from Arabia), there were some children of the Ansar (Helpers) among them. They said: We shall not leave our children. So Allah the Exalted revealed; "Let there be no compulsion in religion. Truth stands out clear from error." (Sunan of Abu Dawud, Book 14, Number 2676) The following comes from Tafsir Ibn Kathir: Allah says: "There is no compulsion in religion", meaning: do not force anyone to embrace Islam because it is clear, and its proofs and evidences are manifest. Whoever Allah guides and opens his heart to Islam has indeed embraced it with clear evidence. Whoever Allah misguides, blinds his heart and has set a seal on his hearing and a covering on his eyes cannot embrace Islam by force. The reason for the revelation of this verse was that the women of Ansar used to make a vow to convert their sons to Judaism if the latter lived. And when the tribe of Bani an-Nadhir was expelled from Madinah, some children of Ansar were among them, so their parents could not abandon them; hence Allah revealed: <There is no compulsion in religion...> narrated by Ibn Jarir, on the authority of Ibn Abbas, Abu Dawud and an-Nasa‘i, on the authority of Bandar, Abu Hatim, and Ibn Hiban from the Hadith of Shu‗bah, Mujahid and others. However Muhammad Ibn Ishaq narrated that Ibn Abbas said: it was revealed with regard to a man from the tribe of Bani Salim Ibn Awf called al-Husayni whose two sons converted to Christianity but he was himself a Muslim. He told the Prophet: "Shall I force them to embrace Islam, they insist on Christianity", hence Allah revealed this verse. BUT, THIS VERSE IS ABROGATED BY THE VERSE OF "FIGHTING": "You shall be called to fight against a people given to great warfare, then you shall fight them, or they shall surrender" (sura 48:16). Allah also says: "O Prophet! Strive hard against the disbelieves and the hypocrites, and be harsh against them" (9:73), and He says, "O you who believe! Fight those of the disbelievers who are close to you, and let them find harshness in you, and know that Allah is with those who are the Pious, (9:123). Therefore, all people of the world should be called to Islam. If anyone of them refuses to do so, or refuses to pay the Jizya they should be fought till they are killed. This is the meaning of compulsion. In the Sahih (al-Bukhari), the Prophet said: "Allah wonders at those people who will enter Paradise in chains", meaning prisoners brought in chains to the Islamic state, then they embrace Islam sincerely and become righteous, and are entered among the people of Paradise. (Tafsir Ibn Kathir Part 2, Surah Al-Baqarah 2:253 to 286 Surah Al-Imran ayat 1 to 92, abridged by Sheikh Muhammad Nasib Ar-Rifa‗i [Al-Firdous Ltd, London: First Edition, 1999], pp. 37-38; bold, capital and underlined emphasis ours) Fellow colleague and author Silas notes in regards to the previous citations: Ibn Kathir presents two different stories as reasons behind 2:256. The first story has nothing to do with compelling people into Islam. The second story begins to go against compulsion, but, Ibn Kathir then says that this verse was abrogated by the verse of "fighting" i.e. 48:16. I add that the only Sahih Hadith material I‘ve been able to find on the matter (Sunan of Abu Dawud) supports the story of the expulsion of the Banu Nadir Jews. Thus, either way, compulsion of people to convert to Islam is allowed. Ibn Kathir does say at the beginning of this quote: Allah says: "There is no compulsion in religion", meaning: do not force anyone to embrace Islam because it is clear, and its proofs and evidences are manifest. Whoever Allah guides and opens his heart to Islam has indeed embraced it with clear evidence. Whoever Allah misguides, blinds his heart and has set a seal on his hearing and a covering on his eyes cannot embrace Islam by force. But he goes on to contradict himself later in the next two paragraphs. (Source: http://answeringislam.org/Silas/jihad.htm) SW claims that the passages that I cited from the Quran stating that Jews, Christians and Sabians worshipped Allah do not mean what they say. He writes: Response! First, it is incorrect that Ayaat (verses cited by Shamoun i.e. 2:62; 3:64; and 29:46) contradicts Surah Al-Kaafiroon. In fact, these verses (especially 2:62; 5:69; & 22:17) in Glorious Qur‘aan upon which merely state two or few fundamental of Islaamic creed (Imaan), such as belief in Allaah, Last Day, and/or Charity etc. These verses briefly mentions Imaan, this brief description of Imaan (creed) cannot be interpreted as the negation of the detailed definition of Imaan (creed). A sensible Believer (Muslim) will not claim on the basis of this concise mention of ‗belief in Allaah‘ that all the other beliefs, which are axiomatic to belief in Allaah, do not constitute and integral part of Imaan. Any person who ventures to deny the Eternity of Allaah, etc. and tenders as his proof these verse/s, is branded as an open Kafir. Similarly, belief in the Akhirah (the Last Day) is a fundamental of Imaan, which entails belief in all the other beliefs attendant and axiomatic to the belief in the Last Day. Belief in the Last Day necessarily implies belief in the Resurrection, Jannat (Paradise), Jahannum (Hell), Siraat, Kauthar and the numerous other teachings of Islaam pertaining to Aakhirah. One who claims that belief in the Last Day means belief in a future existence without having to believe in the Prophethood of Muhammad (SAW), Jannat, Jahannum and the rest of the Akhirah beliefs stated by the Qur‘aan and Muhammad (SAW) and then, as his bases of deduction, cites the aforementioned verse/s containing a concise reference to the Last Day, will undoubtedly be beyond the pale of Islaam and will be labeled a Kafir. All the Kuffaar –whether Hindu, Christian, Jew or Sabian – believe in God, but their belief in Allaah is not the conception of Tauhîd as believed in by the adherents of Islaam. i.e. the Islaam brought by Muhammad (SAW). Hence, if they believe in god, we cannot accept that they have fulfilled the Qur‘aanic command of belief in Allaah and cite as proof the verse/s containing a mere reference to belief in Allaah. Belief in Allaah does not mean mere belief in a divine being. Belief in Allaah is the specific and particular concept of Tauhid as taught in its minutest details by Prophet Muhammad (SAW). Rejection of the detailed definition of Tauhid is nothing but a negation of belief in Allaah. A General Principle for Salvation: The Qur'aan, in these verses, points to a general and common principle when it proclaims that that which is worthy is ` truth ' and ` reality '. With Allaah, only ` true Faith ' and ` good deeds are accepted. Second, the author of absurdity (i.e. Shamoun) is dead wrong when he falsely claimed and I quote: Passages claiming that group (a) worshiped the same God: Because none of the Ayaat (verses) quoted by Shamoun, i.e. 2:62; 3:63; & 29:46 are claming that group (?) worshipped the same God. In fact, they carry a completely different thought that a layperson can understand. RESPONSE: Several comments to SW‘s gross errors. First, Surah 109 only specifies the OBJECT of worship, but not the scope or set of precise doctrines associated with the belief of Allah. It speaks of the OBJECT of Muhammad's worship, i.e. Allah. The Quran claims that Jews, Christians, Sabians, the pagans, and Muhammad worshipped Allah, even though they differed in the manner in which they worshipped him. SW is simply reading into the text what is not explicitly stated. Secondly, even though the Quran attacks Christians for deifying the Lord Jesus it does not deny that they worshipped Allah. The Quran tells them to abandon their deification of Christ and say that Allah is one: O People of the Scripture! Do not exaggerate in your religion nor utter aught concerning Allah save the truth. The Messiah, Jesus son of Mary, was only a messenger of Allah, and His word which He conveyed unto Mary, and a spirit from Him. So believe in Allah and His messengers, and say not "Three" - Cease! (it is) better for you! - Allah is only One God. Far is it removed from His Transcendent Majesty that He should have a son. His is all that is in the heavens and all that is in the earth. And Allah is sufficient as Defender. S. 4:171 Pickthall They surely disbelieve who say: Lo! Allah is the Messiah, son of Mary. The Messiah (himself) said: O Children of Israel, worship Allah, my Lord and your Lord. Lo! whoso ascribeth partners unto Allah, for him Allah hath forbidden paradise. His abode is the Fire. For evil-doers there will be no helpers. They surely disbelieve who say: Lo! Allah is the third of three; when there is no God save the One God. If they desist not from so saying a painful doom will fall on those of them who disbelieve. Will they not rather turn unto Allah and seek forgiveness of Him? For Allah is Forgiving, Merciful. S. 5:72-74 Pickthall In these two verses we see that the Christians worship Allah but are called not to say things about him that is not true (4:171). In the other passage they are called disbelievers, not because they didn't believe in Allah, but because they deified Christ. The Quran goes further and claims that both the Jews and Christians boasted about being the sons of Allah! The Jews and Christians say: We are sons of Allah and His loved ones. Say: Why then doth He chastise you for your sins? Nay, ye are but mortals of His creating. He forgiveth whom He will, and chastiseth whom He will. Allah's is the Sovereignty of the heavens and the earth and all that is between them, and unto Him is the journeying. S. 5:18 Pickthall Again, this presumes that Jews and Christians were (allegedly) worshipping Allah, Muhammad‘s god. Third, neither the word Tauhid nor its prescriptions appear in the Quran as Muslims themselves admit: Tauhiyd comes from the verb wahhad which literally means TO UNITE. In Islamic terminology, it means to realize and maintain the unity of Allah in one's actions (inwardly and outwardly). The actual word tauhiyd does not occur in the Quran or Sunnah though the present tense of the verb (from which tauhiyd is derived) is used in Sunnah. The Prophet sent Muadh ibn Jabal as governor of Yemen in 9 A.H. He told him, "You will going to the people of the book, so first invite yuwahhidu Allah [them to the assertion of the oneness of Allah]".[1] Further, the division of tauhiyd into the components known to us today WERE NOT DONE BY THE PROPHET OR HIS COMPANIONS. It was systematically defined as such in order to convey, as concisely as possible, the simple unitarian belief of Islam. This was necessary because as Islam quickly spread to the four corners of the world, new converts began to interpret the teachings of Islam in line with their own philosophical concepts of Allah and so confusion arose. Preconceived interpretations, all of which are blameworthy, were propagated by those who wanted to destroy Islam from the inside. The first such enemy of Islam was an Iraqi convert from Christianity named Sausan who preached man's absolute free will while denying (qadr) Divine Decree[2]. His student, Ma`bad ibn Khalid alJuhani[3], spread such deviant ideas until he was tried and executed by the Umayyad Caliph. There were three other such executions over the period of 26 years. The later Umayyad Caliphs were relatively more corrupt and cared less about such religious issues. At the same time, the masses were also relatively less educated about their religion. This proved to be a deadly combination. As the number of deviants increased through the liberation of various lands, apostates were no longer executed. Instead, Muslim scholars rose to execute the tide of heretics intellectually. Tauhiyd, precisely defined, EMERGED OUT OF THIS DEFENSE STRATEGY. Tauhiyd had been divided into the three following categories: tauhiyd ar-rububiyah, tauhiyd al-asma was-sifaat, and tauhiyd al-`ibadah or tauhiyd al`uluuhiyah. Tauhiyd has been likened to a tree, the roots being tauhiyd ar-rububiyah, the trunk being tauhiyd al-asma was-sifaat, and the fruit being tauhiyd al-`ibadah. Each category of tauhiyd will now be discussed in some detail. (Source: http://bismikaallahuma.org/God/tawheed.htm) Hence, neither the term Tauhid nor its component parts were taught by Muhammad or his Companions, but arose from the need to define and defend what some Muslims thought was the correct form of Islamic monotheism from alleged heretical elements that were plaguing the Muslim communities. It is not really important whether the word Tauhid appears in the Quran, but whether the Quran provides the basis for its formulation. The fact is that this Muslim formulation is actually a violation of the plain teaching of the Quran. Simply stated, the Quran does not teach the concept of Tauhid articulated by the so-called orthodox Muslims scholars. It may surprise some readers to find that the Quran affirms a plurality of persons within the unity of Allah as the following articles demonstrate: http://answering-islam.org/Responses/Saifullah/t5_73.htm http://answering-islam.org/Shamoun/gabriel.htm For the sake of brevity we present only a few verses from the Quran which establishes this point. And mention Marium in the Book when she drew aside from her family to an eastern place; So she took a veil (to screen herself) from them; then We sent to her Our spirit, and there appeared to her a well-made man. She said: Surely I fly for refuge from you to the Beneficent God, if you are one guarding (against evil). He said: I am only an apostle of your Lord: That I WILL GIVE YOU a pure boy. S. 19:16-19 Shakir And Mary, daughter of 'Imran, whose body was chaste, therefore We breathed therein something of Our Spirit. And she put faith in the words of her Lord and His scriptures, and was of the obedient. S. 66:12 Pickthall- cf. 21:91 God‘s Spirit appears in the form of a man and grants Mary a child. He presumably did so by having God breathe him into Mary which evidently caused her to conceive Christ. In other words, the Spirit is the Creator! "Thou wilt not find any people who believe in Allah and the Last Day, loving those who resist Allah and His Messenger, even though they were their fathers or their sons, or their brothers, or their kindred. For such He has written Faith in their hearts, and strengthened them with a spirit from Himself. And He will admit them to Gardens beneath which Rivers flow, to dwell therein (forever). Allah will be well pleased with them, and they with Him. They are the Party of Allah. Truly it is the Party of Allah that will achieve Felicity." S. 58:22 The above passage demonstrates that this Spirit from God is divine, having all of God‘s omni-attributes. That the Spirit strengthens all believers demonstrates his omnipresence and omnipotence since this is the only way that the Spirit can be with all the Muslim believers at the same time. The late Abdullah Yusuf Ali agrees since he writes in relation to this passage: "Cf. ii 87 and 253, where it is said that God strengthened the Prophet Jesus with the holy spirit. Here we learn that all good and righteous men are strengthened by God with the holy spirit. If anything, the phrase used here is stronger, „a spirit from Himself'. Whenever any one offers his heart in faith and purity to God, God accepts it, engraves that faith on the seeker's heart, and further fortifies him with the Divine Spirit, which we can no more define adequately than we can define in human language the nature of God." (Ali, The Meaning of the Holy Quran, p. 1518, fn. 5365; bold emphasis ours) The next passage lends further support to Ali‘s assessment: They ask thee concerning the Spirit (of inspiration). Say: "The Spirit (cometh) by command of my Lord: of knowledge it is only a little that is communicated to you, (O men)!" S. 17:85 According to the hadith literature this verse "came down" when the Jews questioned Muhammad on the Spirit's identity: Narrated Ibn Mas'ud: While I was walking in company with the Prophet in one of the fields of Medina, the Prophet was reclining on a palm leave stalk which he carried with him. We passed by a group of Jews. Some of them said to the others, "Ask him about the spirit." The others said, "Do not ask him, lest he would say something that you hate." Some of them said, "We will ask him." So a man from among them stood up and said, 'O Abal-Qasim! What is the spirit?" The Prophet kept quiet and I knew that he was being divinely inspired. Then he said: "They ask you concerning the Spirit, Say: The Spirit; its knowledge is with my Lord. And of knowledge you (mankind) have been given only a little." (17.85) (Sahih Al-Bukhari, Volume 9, Book 93, Number 554) Here was a golden opportunity for Muhammad to explain that the Spirit was Gabriel, but instead he speaks of it as something mysterious which little is known. Muhammad‘s assessment is essentially in agreement with what Yusuf Ali said in his footnote above. Furthermore, the root from which Tauhid stems provides additional evidence that God‘s unity doesn't preclude a plurality within his eternal Being. In the article which was quoted above the Muslim author said in regards to the word Tauhid: Tauhiyd comes from the verb wahhad which LITERALLY means TO UNITE ... Muslim apologist Dr. Zakir Naik writes: TAWHEED: Definition and Categories: Islam believes in ‗Tawheed‘ which is not merely monotheism i.e. belief in one God, but much more. Tawheed LITERALLY MEANS „UNIFICATION‟ i.e. ‗asserting oneness‘ and is derived from the Arabic verb ‗Wahhada‘ which means TO UNITE, UNIFY OR CONSOLIDATE. (http://www.irf.net/irf/comparativereligion/middle/islam/conceptofgod.htm) In light of the foregoing we issue the following challenges to SW: 1. Please produce a single Quranic statement which says that Allah’s Spirit, the faithful Spirit, the Holy Spirit is angel Gabriel. 2. Please produce passages which show that Allah’s Spirit is a creature, as opposed to being part of Allah’s eternal Being. We have briefly given passages to show that Allah’s Spirit has certain divine characteristics that show that he is not on the level of a creature. 3. Please produce a statement that says that there are no distinct Persons within Allah. We are not asking for passages that deny Jesus is God, or that there are no other gods besides Allah. We want passages that say that Allah is one not just in his essence but also in his personhood. 4. If Allah having a plurality of attributes doesn’t negate his unity, then why would a plurality of persons nullify Allah’s oneness? Hence, if it is possible for Allah to have a plurality of attributes then it is also possible for him to be a plurality of Persons and yet still be one. Please provide verses from the Quran which expressly deny this possibility. SW repeats the verses of the same Surah as if this will somehow strengthen his point: Shamoun is clueless about the fact that the Surah re-emphasizes the point, saying: Surah Al-Kafirun 4 )4( ‫و َال أَوَا يَابَِ ما يبََتُم‬ َ ْ ْ َ َ ٌ "And I shall not worship that which you are worshipping. Surah Al-Kafirun 5 )5( َُ‫و َال أَوتُم يَابَُِونَ ما أَيب‬ ُ ْ َ ْ ْ َ "Nor will you worship that which I worship. Surah Al-Kafirun 6 )6( ‫نَكم ديىُكم ونِي ديه‬ ِ ِ َ َ ُْ ِ ُْ "To you be your religion, and to me my religion (Islâmic Monotheism)." RESPONSE: As we have shown, the only thing these verses do is reiterate the problem. The Surah happens to contradict other passages from the Quran AS WELL AS THE SO-CALLED AUTHENTIC SOURCES THAT SW WANTED US TO APPEAL TO. Certain passages of the Quran show that the Jews, Christians, Sabians and the Pagans did worship Allah, Muhammad's god! Again, we need to thank SW for helping us to reemphasize the fact that Surah 109 is contradicted by other Quranic statements, as well as outside Muslim sources, proving beyond any reasonable doubt that the Quran is not the word of the true God. The rest of SW‘s rhetoric is irrelevant to our main points. In his alleged rebuttal, SW has committed ad hominem slurs against us, has used off target references that have nothing to do with our paper, and has failed to correctly exegete Surah 109. Readers must note how SW seeks to evade our arguments by attacking our use of multiple translations of the Quran, despite the fact that he copiously quotes from Quranic translations such as Hilali-Khan. SW wants readers to ignore the translations done by both Muslims and non-Muslims and embrace what he claims to be the correct understanding of the said passages. In other words, he expects his readers to blindly accept his translation while calling into question all the others! SW gives us no reasons why anyone should trust his understanding of what these passages say over the opinions and understandings of the other translators. This is especially so in light of his gross errors and misunderstanding of the arguments he claims to be responding to. It is therefore all the more ironic to read SW write: The English translations of Glorious Qur‘aan, which they use as literal word of God is totally absurd, because what they are using is the understanding of man (translator), which is NOT the literal word of God. Apart from the straw man claim that we take the English translations as "the literal word of God", it is evident that SW wants us to accept his understanding (i.e. translation). In other words, SW is guilty of doing the very thing he accuses us of, namely trust his man-made translation and interpretation while ignoring the others! Besides, if a translation of the Quran is not the literal word of God then why does SW even bother translating it or appealing to translations of it? Doesn‘t he even follow his own rules that a translation is not God‘s literal word? If he doesn‘t follow his own rules, then how can he even dare complain when others (such as us) use English translations to prove or make a point? Thirdly, SW has failed to show us how the Arabic text, which is supposedly the literal word of God, falsifies our argument. In fact, he didn‘t even base his response on the Arabic text of the Quran BUT ON SOURCES OUTSIDE THE QURAN!!!! Finally, if the Quran is ONLY God‘s word in Arabic then this is an argument against it, not for it. What kind of revelation is this when its miracle can only be appreciated in a language which the great majority of the world cannot understand? How can mankind be guided on the "straight path" when they cannot know for themselves what are the literal words of God, but are at the mercy of the understanding of men and translations? Does SW expect the majority of humanity to study not just any Arabic, but a seventh century dialect of Arabic (Quraish) which even the majority of present day Arabs do not understand without first carefully studying it? In conclusion, SW has provided another example of why his rebuttals fall way short of interacting with our arguments, further demonstrating why his material is really not worth a response. Sam Shamoun Qur'an Inconsistency Can there be a son without a consort? The Qur'an is very emphatic in its rejection of the central Christian belief that Jesus is the Son of God. One of the main arguments of the Qur'an against the concept of God having a son is expressed in this passage: And they make the jinn associates with Allah, while He created them, and they falsely attribute to Him sons and daughters without knowledge; glory be to Him, and highly exalted is He above what they ascribe (to Him). Wonderful Originator of the heavens and the earth! How could He have a son when He has no consort, and He (Himself) created everything, and He is the Knower of all things. S. 6:100-101 Shakir Clearly, the author of the Qur'an expects the listener to respond to his rhetorical question, How could He have a son when He has no consort?, with the acknowledgement that this is impossible. In other words, the Qur'an claims that it is impossible for Allah to have a son without having a consort and — this is certainly implied — having sex with this consort to produce the son. The Qur'an expects this question, How could He have a son when He has no consort?, to silence those who believe in a son or sons and daughters of God because they will not be able to answer it. Interestingly, the Quran itself provides the answer to its supposedly unanswerable question. In Sura 19, Mary asks basically the same question when an angel comes to her and announces: He said: I am only a messenger of thy Lord, that I may bestow on thee a faultless son. She said: How can I have a son when no mortal hath touched me, neither have I been unchaste? He said: So (it will be). Thy Lord saith: It is easy for Me. And (it will be) that We may make of him a revelation for mankind and a mercy from Us, and it is a thing ordained. Sura 19:19-21 Pickthall In other words, Mary asks: How can I have a son when I had no consort? Her question, "How can this be?", receives Allah's answer: This is easy for me! (19:21) Disregarding modern developments (in vitro fertilization, surrogate mothers, etc.), I agree. Until the last century, and in the realm of the natural this was not possible, but for God it was and it remains possible. Actually, according to the Qur'an, it is not only possible, it is easy for God. It is rather ironic that, when discussing the identity of Jesus, the Quran says that Allah cannot have a son without a consort, but Mary can have a son without a consort, because all things are easy for Allah. The issue of Jesus being the Son of God is one of the essential points of disagreement between Christians and Muslims, between the Bible and the Qur'an. The above two passages already show that the Qur'an is not consistent with itself in its polemic against the Christian faith. Yet, this is only the tip of the iceberg. S. 6:101 stands not only in tension to S. 19:21, but conflicts with several other passages as well. This self-contradictory quranic argument is discussed in more detail in The Quran's Use of Filial Terms: A Critique of Muslim Arguments against Jesus being the Son of God. Clearly, when Christians say that Jesus is both the Son of God and the son of Mary, the word "son" is used in two different meanings (cf. the links given below). The problem of the Qur'an is that it mostly restricts the concept of sonship to the biological and sexual. Attacking something that has never been claimed by the opposing party is called a straw man argument, and is a logical fallacy. The main problem with S. 6:101 is not its clash with the formulation of S. 19:21 on a literalistic level. That is an interesting curiosity. Texts need to be taken in their intended meaning. But this is exactly where the Qur'an fails. It does not take the Biblical use of the title "Son of God" in its intended meaning. It does not oppose the Christian faith as it is, but builds up a polemical straw man argument. If the Qur'an had been from God, would he not have addressed an alleged Christian misconception directly? Would he not have been able to correct and refute actual belief of Christians, instead of attacking something that the Bible never claimed and Christians do not believe? The fact that the Qur'an is using a straw man polemic instead of refuting Christian belief on this issue is a serious problem for its credibility. Why do Christians believe that Jesus is the Son of God? What does it mean? What does the Bible actually teach? These questions are explained in detail in the section, Who is Jesus?, and this article in particular expounds on the biblical revelation regarding Jesus' eternal Sonship: The Eternal Generation of the Son. A related argument in the Qur'an is that "begetting a son" would contradict the selfsufficiency of God. This is expressed in Sura 10:68 and discussed in this article. Jochen Katz MENJ, a Muslim polemicist, has responded to the first part of the above observation. He states: ... Responding to banal missionary “logic” The missionaries in their latest alleged claim of contradictions in the Qur‘an have certainly outdid themselves in their travesty of logic and idiocy. To cite the missionary claim, ... Unfortunately for the missionary, an understanding can be reached if a little more thought can be put into their argument. The missionary has taken the understanding of these verses out of its intended context and is confusing Mary‘s nature (since she is only human, and hence procreates) as a creation of the Almighty, with God Himself who is the Uncreated. Certainly, God Almighty could have taken a ―wife‖ and have ―children‖ or have ―children‖ without any consort whatsoever (nau‟zubillahi min zaalik). However, if this were to happen, it would mean that the Uncreated nature of God would be affected, as anything that is ―procreated‖ by God (as the Qur‘an argues in 6:100) is created. In other words, to expect the Uncreated to ―procreate‖ children, whether with or without a ―consort‖ (which would also be part of Creation) is not only an affront against what God Almighty has told us about Himself, but is also a preposterous position only held by pantheists and the idolators. It is certainly not in conformity with monotheism or how Islam understands divine transcedence. (Source; emphasis original) I would never have used such strong words, but MENJ calls it banal “logic”, a travesty of logic and even idiocy to take verses or concepts out of their intended context, and to confuse the nature of human beings with the nature of God. He could hardly have been more correct. The author of the Qur'an does exactly that. He takes the Biblical concept and Messianic title "Son of God" out of its intended context. He does not ask what the Bible means by "Son of God" but instead assumes that it means exactly the same as with human beings, i.e. he confuses the nature of God with the nature of human beings, and then argues against its own confusion, thinking that by doing so, he could refute Christian belief. What verdict does such reasoning deserve according to this Muslim author? See above! ADDITIONAL PAGE This list has the purpose just to document the differences between Bible and Qur'an and that is "in itself" no indication which one is the truth. The most important question of how to discern which Book is the true word of God will have to be answered but is be discussed in other pages of this web site. But the fact that the Qur'an claims to confirm the earlier revelations although it contradicts them in many important as well as less important things, is already an indication that something in the Qur'an has gone wrong indeed. There are many instances where the Qur'an teaches about people or events recorded in the Bible, but gives inaccurate data concerning them, whether places or date or other inconsistencies. This part of the contradictions list is important though, because the Qur'an explicitely claims to confirm the earlier revelations and this list shows that the Qur'an does indeed substantially contradict them. A Muslim's Response by Randy Desmond Date: Mon, 23 Sep 1996 11:51:28 PDT The above arguement assumes that some of the revelations mentioned in the Qur'an, which were received by some of the earlier prophets, are in the Bible in untouched and unchanged form. That is not so. For example, the Qur'an mentions the Injil (Gospel) as a revelation given to Jesus (Peace be upon him) but the Bible does not contain the "Gospel of Jesus". What it does contain are Gospels according to Mathew, Mark, Luke, and John. So how can one say the Qur'an contradicts earlier revelation contained within the Bible if we do not have that revelation in tact to compare it with? What we can do, however, is search the documents, such as the Bible, which are derivative works of the original revelations and see how it compares. If then we find "contradictions", is it not possible that those "contradictions" may be from those who composed the derivative works themselves and not from the Qur'an? As for accusations of inaccurate data regarding historical events, it is interesting to note that in the Qur'an the Eqyptian tyrant which Moses (Peace be upon him) had to deliver the Israelites from was named Fir'aun. Notice the distinct 'n' at the end of the name. "Well, it turns out that Herodotus, an early greek historian (440 B.C.), comments upon the leaders of the Egyptians in his day and before his day as Fir'aun (not Pharaoh). That is one example of very accurate data, and as we go through these web pages we will see, God willing, that all proposed questionable historical data in the Qur'an is, in fact, not questionable but actually quite accurate. For reference, the information regarding the Egyptian ruler was obtained from Gary Miller's "The Basis of Muslim Belief" published by Islamic Affairs Division, Prime Minister's Department, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia. The authenticity of the Bible and the Gospels in particular is discussed elsewhere on this web site. I know about the mysterious "Gospel of Jesus" that Muslims talk about constantly. But there is just not the least shred of evidence such a gospel ever existed. In contrast, the canonical Gospels are clearly attested as first century documents. Arguing on the basis of something which has no evidence for its existence is very weak. Well, the Bible doesn't claim harmony with the Qur'an. The Qur'an claims to be in agreement with the earlier revelations and it is an embarrassement to the Qur'an that these agreeing revelations just cannot be found anywhere. And it is very clear that the Bible today is the same as the Bible at Muhammad's time. We have complete New Testament copies dating 250 years before Muhammad. How come the Qur'an disagrees with what it explicitely claims to agree with? Nowhere does it talk about unavailable Christian scriptures. It always speaks about the scriptures which are WITH the Christians. And those are clearly the same as today. Show me any evidence to the contrary. "Pharaoh" is not a name but just the Egyptian word/title for "king". But since I am not talking about "Pharaoh" versus "Fir'aun" anyway, I am not sure what the point is. Whether Muhammad's name is transliterated Muhammad, Mohammed, or Mahomet which I have all seen in various books is rather insubstantial. The question is what is reported about him. There might just have been different transliterations in different languages. Or even into the same language as with "Muhammad" in English. And Randy responds again: The original statement was to "just document the differences between the Bible and the Qur'an and that is "in itself" no indication which one is the truth. ... But the fact that the Qur'an claims to confirm the earlier revelations although it contradicts them..." So I addressed that in my response. I pointed out that the Qur'an mentions there is a revelation given to Jesus (Peace be upon him) called the Injil (Gospel). The Bible does not have this. So when you say that the Qur'an contradicts earlier revelation, I have to wonder how could the Qur'an contradict this if the Injil is not even there in the Bible as originally revealed? And for saying that the Gospel of Jesus did not exist is erroneous to what the Gospels of Mathew, Mark, Luke and John are. They are the gospels of Jesus according to Mathew, Mark, Luke and John, are they not? The point about mentioning Fir'aun and Pharoah is to illustrate that perhaps the Qur'an is more accurate in historical data even though it may not seem to fit with what we think is accurate data. Let's cite another example to illustrate the point that the Qur'an may be a much more accurate source for historical data than other sources. Where is Noah's ark resting place? Mount Ararat, according to the Bible. Mount Judi, according to the Qur'an. Where has it been found? Mount Judi. Do a net search on Noah's ark and you can find more information about this. To recap what has been proposed and what it has been responded with, The original statements of this page question the Qur'an's compliance with earlier revelations. It was then pointed out that revelations mentioned within the Qur'an may not even be in the Bible, and if it was in the Bible it may have been changed from its original form - thus the reason there would appear contradictions. Another one of the original statements is that the Qur'an gives inaccurate data regarding historical events. But the statement is unsupported (It is assumed, however, that there will be attempts to support these points in other web pages at this site). Therefore, two examples were cited which reflect the accuracy of the data of Qur'an with respect to historical findings. Hm, well, I found three references to Noah's Ark. Who is lying most? ["Muslim" hoax?], ["Christian" hoax?] and [Christian denial] ... I have the impression that so far I want to side with the third position. Response Display Policy I offer to link to any responses to the Qur'an contradiction page. If you have written an answer to any of the contradiction discussed on this site, and request a link to your pages, I will do so. For some reasons, several Muslims have written responses and never informed me of them. They seemingly have no interest to be in an interactive discussion. Therefore I mostly do not interlink these answers for each problem but have nevertheless added a link to their pages under further responses as soon as I became aware of them. If it is impossible for you to place them on a personal web site, I even will display it myself but I ask you to produce the file with HTML formating for it. This is part of my policy of integrity, even though no Muslim site has ever offered to link to any Christian answers to their own Bible contradiction lists. Attention: Be careful what you send in for display. If it is up it is there to stay. You can add to it but not retract from it. So don't give too hasty answers you haven't really made sure are solid. If you have not yet read my purpose statement, but are very annoyed that I dare attack the Qur'an, then please, read my purpose statement to understand why I am providing this collection of Difficulties in the Qur'an. I don't have the time to edit and format the Muslim responses. If you want your response to be displayed, please provide me with the file in the following standard format. Procedure:  Save this file as a source file.  Place your response in the place indicated as a fully html-edited text  Exchange your name, email address and current date in the appropriate places.  Send me via email everything that you then find between the two "SNIP HERE" indicators AND also state which page (give the page address!) you are responding to, otherwise it takes too long to search this out in the many files that are there. SNIP HERE Muslim Response by YOUR name Date: Fri, 27 Sep 1996 --- Your response goes here --- SNIP HERE The style of the above then will look for example like this discussion. Send it to me at the address given here. Translations or Arabic Qur'an? Some Muslims get upset that we discuss the Qur'an based on English translations. They claim that all the errors and contradictions are only misunderstandings based on faulty translation and do not exist in the original text of the Qur'an in the Arabic language. We are fully aware that the original text is the criterion. It is just the same with the Bible. I have yet to see one Muslim web site with their Bible contradictions list who discuss the Hebrew or Greek text. They all use the English translations. Why such a double standard? In any case, if you think that a contradiction is only deriving from the English and it is easily explained in the Arabic, then please explain it and we will put a link to your response or include your response with the article. I have done so before and have one contradiction on the site where the Arabic has solved it. But that is the only one so far. We do not insist on any English translation. The final criterion is the Arabic text. Large parts of this site have been checked by Arab Christians for accuracy. They have pointed out a few errors due to such misunderstandings from translation (which have been corrected) but mostly they agreed with the content of the contradiction. Translation is not really the issue. It is the content of the statements. Published by: Jamiatul Ulama (KZN) Vol. 3 No. 3 - August '96, Rabi-ul-Awwal 1417 The Miraculous Qur'an "Why don't they contemplate upon the Qur'an. Had it been originated from anyone besides Allah Ta'ala then it would have been beset with inconsistencies and contradictions" (S 4 V 82) This verse in fact offers a truly scientific approach, something that is not offered by any other religious scripture. This is exactly what scientists demand. Today there are many people who have various ideas and theories about how the universe works. These people are all over the place, but the scientific community does not even bother to listen to them. This is because within the last century the scientific community has demanded a test of falsification. They say, "If you have a theory, do not bother us with it unless you bring with that theory a way for us to prove whether you are wrong or not". Such a test was exactly why the scientific community listened to Einstein towards the beginning of this century. He came with a new theory and said, "I believe the universe works like this; and here are three ways to prove whether I am wrong!" So the scientific community subjected his theory to the tests, and within six years it passed all three. Of course, this does not prove he was great, but it proves that he deserved to be listened to because he said, "This is my idea; and if you want to try to prove me wrong, do this or try that." This is exactly what the Qur'an has - falsification tests. Some are old (in that they have already been proven true), and some still exist today. Basically, it states, "If this book is not what it claims to be, then all you have to do is this or this or this to prove that it is false." Of course, in 1400 years no one has been able to do "this or this or this," and thus one has to accept its authenticity. A perfect example of how the Qur'an provides man with a chance to verify its authenticity and "prove it wrong" occurs in the above mentioned verse. This is a clear challenge to the non-Muslims. Basically, it invites him to find a mistake. As a matter of fact, the seriousness and difficulty of the challenge aside, the actual presentation of such challenge in the first place is not even in human nature and is inconsistent with man's personality. One doesn't take an exam in School and after finishing the exam, write a note to the instructor at the end, saying, "This exam is perfect. There are no mistakes in it. Find one if you can!" One just doesn't do that. The teacher would not sleep until he found a mistake! And yet this is the way the Qur'an approaches mankind. Standing on a pedestal above that can never be challenged. A feature that is unique of the Qur'an which no other scripture can ever come near to. Source: Al-Jamiat We originally linked to the above article on the Al-Jamiat web site, but it has been withdrawn. Only the explanation of the challenge from first part of the article is reproduced here. Emphasis via bold face or italics is from the original article. The second part gave an example of a `difficult passage' and explained why that is not wrong but rather a very deep insight. It was, however, not a contradiction issue, but in the category of moral issues. Finding a statement to be correct (when looking at it a certain way) is, however, irrelevant to the discussion since the challenge was not: If you find something true in it, then it is from God. Against the background of this above outlined challenge let us now resume our evaluation of the Qur'an in regard to the possible existence of contradictions.
Copyright © 2024 DOKUMEN.SITE Inc.