Contradictions of the Qur’an

Classifying the Contradictions

There’s clearly many parts of the text of the Qur’an that conflict with other parts of it at surface reading, and this article documents those. It turns out those conflicts are abundant enough that we require to produce an elaborate classification of them.

1. Theological contradictions: Certain contradictions seem to arise in the manner in which Allah seems to interact with creation, and related to salvation and eschatology. These are metaphysical objections, as discussed under The Problem of the Paths to Jannah, and Pre-Determination in Islam
2. Ontological contradictions: When it is impossible for something to be, in the manner in which it is claimed to be the case. These too, are metaphysical objections. Examples are the Most important in this class is the contradictions in Divine Ontology discussed here: https://onchristianity.net/the-contradiction-of-theistic-monism/, Where is Allah?- Islam’s Absentee Deity, and The Problem of Jinni & Angels in Islam
3. Moral contradiction: These are ethical considerations, based upon the premise that “true religion” must possess objective morality. Many of the articles on the site deal with this, like the character studies on Muhammed, the teaching on women Misogyny in Islam, violent edicts directed towards more or less every poHow Muhammed & Mecca are scripturally and historically disconnected from Abraham & Ishmaelpulation group. These are covered under articles like Sex in Heaven- Why There’s None, Love and Purity in the Islamic Worldview etc.
4. Scientific contradictions: Contradiction of accepted science. This allegation is an empirical claim. I’ve discussed these in a separate article here Scientific Errors of the Qur’an
5. Contradictions in Internal Validity: Verses “collide”, stating differing views on the same issue. The text is conflicted with itself, and this might imply evidence of multiple authorship and/or editing.
6. Polemical contradictions, many of which are considered here, and also Trinitarian language in Qur’an, Tanakh- “Distinction with Common Predication”.
7. Prophetic contradictions: The Qur’an is primarily a book about the greatest and final prophet of God to mankind. So it seems strange and we do not find him prophesied about, nor prophesying about as Prophecies of or by Muhammad, the Lack thereof, and that he is not even tied in to the prophetic tradition as here:
8. Contradictions in Intertextuality: when a claim about an earlier text (eg. Christian/ Jewish literature typically) is contrary to the manuscript evidence and tradition related of that text which is earlier to the evidence for the Qur’an itself.

In the present article we discuss mainly the last two types from the list.

My estimation of the Qur’an is that it does not have any contradictions when it comes to the details. It only has contradictions in all the fundamentals. And it doesn’t give any details.

Polemical Contradictions

It can be argued that Islam’s very raison d’etre is as a denial of the theology and Scripture of Christianity and Judaism, the latter perhaps to a lesser extent. Were the latter true in their essentials, it would make Islam an irrelevant and late addition to world religion. As it turns out, it seems that many of the polemical assertions Islam makes against its predecessors struggle to take off.

Qur’an acknowledges Yahweh as God?

See this in the The “Borrowed Themes” of Islam.

“Eisa” Judges and Saves the World?

This is in the article on The “Borrowed Themes” of Islam

Jewish Ezra-Worship Strawman

The Qur’an claims that Jews regarded Ezra (‘Uzayr) as ‘son of God’:

(Q 9-30) “The Jews say, ‘Ezra is the Son of God’; the Christians say, ‘The Messiah is the Son of God.’ That is the utterance of their mouths, conforming with the unbelievers before them. God assail them! How they are perverted!”

This is also confirmed in the Quran (Bukhari 7439 part of a very large and fascinating Hadith):

“Then it will be said to the Jews, “What did you use to worship?’ They will reply, ‘We used to worship Ezra, the son of Allah.’ It will be said to them, ‘You are liars, for Allah has neither a wife nor a son. What do you want (now)?’ They will reply, ‘We want You to provide us with water.’ Then it will be said to them ‘Drink,’ and they will fall down in Hell (instead). Then it will be said to the Christians, ‘What did you use to worship?’…”

Of all the figures in Jewish literature, the only one that might seemingly bear phonetic resemblance to “Uzair” would be Ezra. However there is no Jewish Scripture exalting Ezra to divine status, and nor also do we have any evidence of Ezra being divinized by a Jewish sect (thus running contrary to Ibn Kathir’s explanation in his commentary). The closest Biblical figure that does ger exalted in some sects would be Enoch, who is called as “Son of God” in the apocryphal Book of Jubilees (canonical in the Ethiopic canon), in the precise manner that is being alleged in the Qur’an.

Is the Qur’an aware of the Trinity doctrine it “came to correct”?

When a Christian reads the Qur’an, they find that Trinitarianism is not even correctly represented in it. On top of that, they find verses that actually approve of Christianity and Christian Scripture. This is significant, because we are told that the whole point of the Qur’an was to “correct” the errors that has crept in to the previous scriptures.

I- Mary as Part of the Trinity?

First, and this is a well-known objection- it seems that the author of the Qur’an had the mistaken belief that Mary was the third member of the Christian Trinity. Muslim look to associate this verse to a shadowy sect called the “Collyridians”, which consisted only of women, existing in Arabia in the 4th and 5th centuries which seemingly went a bit too far in their adoration of Mary. All that we know about them is from two lines from Epiphanius in condemnation of them. Essentially, they had a ceremony wherein rolls of bread (from which the name derives) were offered to Mary and then consumed in a ritual meal. There is no evidence that they worshipped Mary as part of a Trinity of Persons, rather it is more likely that they were trinitarians who had inculcated a Marian ritual from their pagan roots of “Queen of Heaven” worship. Even were it true that they worshipped Mary specifically as a goddess, rather than merely have an over-exuberant ritual, the correct condemnation would have been “besides Eisa, Allah and the ruh”, rather than as incorporated in the Trinity.

Ibn Kathir states that Q 5:116-7 is a conversation between Allah and Eisa in Heaven. This does seem to fit the context, for example the fact that Eisa mentions “the day you took my soul” retrospectively. This poses a problem for the Collyridian explanation: why would Allah be dealing with some obscure and defunct fringe belief in Heaven rather than the “problem” of global Trinitarianism, the world’s largest religion. This especially given that the latter has not been dealt with in any other place and this is the only recorded such heavenly conversation.

Collyridians were condemned by Christians themselves, that is why we even know about them, as well as why they are no more, it did not require any further revelation at the time of Muhammed at which time it was likely already long extinct.

“And when Allah saith: O Jesus, son of Mary! Didst thou say unto mankind: Take me and my mother for two gods beside Allah? he saith: Be glorified! It was not mine to utter that to which I had no right…”(Q 5:116)

Further it seems that in a different place, in order to “prove” that Mary and Jesus are not Gods, the Qur’anic author goes to the extent of asserting that they both “used to eat food”! (reminiscent of when the risen Christ, wanting to show his disciples he was not a “ghost”, ate food with them in the Bible).

This would seem to support the position that the Qur’anic author really did have a concern about the deification of Mary and this was not merely based on a misreading of the text.

“…And his mother was a supporter of truth. They both used to eat food. Look how We make clear to them the signs; then look how they are deluded.” (Q 5:75)

A second common Muslim response to the conundrum is that Muhammed was implying the alleged “deification” of Mary by Roman Catholics in the manner that they seek her intercession. Again, this would be odd, given the extremely high status of Muhammed himself in Islam as superior to every other creature whose intercession the Qur’an itself speaks of. This response very easily fails, but ask me more about it if you don’t agree.

2- Christians believe in 3 gods?

Again it seems that the Qur’anic author shows no awareness of the “three Persons, one God” Nicaean position which is well-established and for many centuries at the time that the Qur’an is being written. Rather he seems to be condemning a “three-God” position that Christians hold. Not only is there is no demonstrable awareness of the concept of “person” as defined at Nicaea, nor who the Persons are.

In 5:73 he states “Allah is (not) third of three”, the straight meaning would suggest “not third God of three Gods”. This is because the subordinate clause “…when there is no (other) God save the One God”, should be explaining the main clause. The subordinate clause is clearly counting gods, not persons “when there is no God save the one God”. Muslims would like to contend that the implication is that the Father is not one of three, but the subordinate clause does not support that, which makes it a much weaker argument, which necessitates a dissociation between the principle and subordinate clauses in the sentence:

“They surely disbelieve who say: Lo! Allah is the third of three; when there is no God save the One God (wama min ilahin illa ilahun wahidun)...” (Q 5:73)

Again, we have a similar situation in 4:171 where we see: “Say not three…God is only one God…”. Again the implication here is “God is not three gods”, the subordinate clause gives the meaning of the main clause. Also note the denial of Jesus’ deity-this the Qur’an is certainly clear about:

“People of the Book, go not beyond the bounds in your religion, and say not as to God but the truth. The Messiah, Jesus son of Mary, was only the Messenger of God, and His Word that He committed to Mary, and a Spirit from Him. So believe in God and His Messengers, and say not, ‘Three.’ Refrain; better is it for you. God is only One God. Glory be to Him — That He should have a son! To Him belongs all that is in the heavens and in the earth; God suffices for a guardian.” (Q 4:173).

3- Qur’an Denies Jesus’ Divinity but not of the Holy Spirit?

There are several places that the Qur’an denies Jesus’ divinity, for example right in 5:116, in the famous surah Ikhlas that is in literally the regular prayer upon every Muslims lips, in others which say that “Allah has not taken a son” whatever that means, but we get the general idea.

It is extremely significant that there seems to be no awareness of the Holy Spirit being part of the Christian Trinity. This can even be taken as a validation of the first problem, that it is substituted for Mary instead. There are many verses about the Holy Spirit in the Qur’an, none of them showing any awareness of the Christian connotation of it, or challenging the same, which makes the point highly significant.

4- Implicit Approval of Trinitarian Christianity?

Further there are places where Trinitarian Christianity is clearly (if unknowingly) supported by the Qur’anic author. For example, the Byzantines were very much Trinitarians. Yet the author gives the believers a veritable divine mandate to “rejoice” at their victory over the Persians:

“The Romans have been defeated. In the nearest land, and they, after their defeat, will be victorious. In 3-9 years. The decision of the matter, before and after is only with Allah. And on that day, the believers will rejoice. With the help of Allah. He helps whom He wills, and He is the All-Mighty, the Most Merciful. A promise from Allah, and Allah fails not in His promise, but most men know not. They know only the outer appearance of the life of the world, and they are heedless of the Hereafter.” (Q 30:1-7)

We discuss this implicit approval of Trinitarian as the next contradiction.

Are Christianity/ Judaism OK or NOT?

Introduction: Summarising the argument

Some well-known Qur’anic verses seem to commend the Jews and Christians, perhaps most significantly the doublet in surahs 2:62 and 5:69, and the “we worship the same God” in 29:46. Orthodox Muslims would tend to claim that these were only addressed to “Christians” who held to similar beliefs as them, which includes typical Muslims denials of the Holy Trinity/ Jesus’ divinity/ Crucifixion. in this article we look at some obvious problems with this counter- claim.

Sure, there are other verses which contain explicit denials of aspects of Trinitarian Christianity, particularly the divinity of Jesus, as well as claims of the exclusivity of Islam (3:19, 3:85). However we will assert that the argument in this article is not affected or mitigated by those denials, rather the two sets of verses run contrary to each other with no possible resolution or harmonization.

The reason that the Muslim counter-claims might not work is because there seems to be a lack of any candidate groups that might be suitable replacements for orthodox Christianity as the object of these verses. Historically we do not encounter any such groups of “Jews”/ “Christians” that might have been acceptable unchanged in Islam. In fact quite the contrary, other verses in the Qur’an seem to lend to these groups being Trinitarian, for example in the manner that they are singled out as being historically dominant, and their 7th century scriptures being approved of.

Perhaps most tellingly, there seems to be no solution to the commendation of the Jews in these verses. To make this clear, in the case of Christians one might attempt to direct these verses at non-Trinitarian heresies that might have existed in the region (which again, as we explore more fully later, would also be unacceptable in Islam), but in the case of the Jews, there is no other such alternative present even conceptually. We can see an authentic religious pluralism in these verses.

We might surmise that such conciliatory verses toward other religions might have been a result of a desire of appeasement of other powerful religious factions in order to gain fresh converts at the time of the texts’ writing. Indeed recent scholars like Emran al-Badawi has written powerfully in this vein in his book The Qur’ān and the Aramaic Gospel Traditions, the theory that Islam was indeed pluralistic in its inception, and only became exclusivist in its subsequent development, after the time of Muhammed, when it began to be used as a nationalistic and political tool for military expansion.

It would seem out of place that such prominent, general and repeated approvals of other religions were in reality only directed at the personal faith of certain individuals within them. It would have made more sense just to call these individuals Muslims.

3 Verses say…Christians & Jews r OK

We have the famous doublet in which Muhammed surprisingly seems to inform his Jewish and Christian listeners that they need not be Muslims:

“Surely they that believe, and those of Jewry, and the Christians, and those Sabaeans, whoso believe in God and the Last Day, and works righteousness — their wage awaits them with their Lord, and no fear shall be on them; neither shall they sorrow.” (Q 2:62, Q 5:69)

2:62 is repeated in 5:69. Surah 2 is one of the earliest surahs while 5 is one of the last to come from Muhammed.

2:62 goes “inna aladhina amanu wa-alladhina hadu wal-nasara wal-sabina…” (I didn’t realize this is where Muslims girls get the name Sabina): “Indeed those who believed and those who became Jews and the Christians and the Sabeans”. Most English translators go with “believe”, but in any case it does not change the argument. If there’s a conditional then the condition is “belief”, there’s nothing specific about being Muslims, following Muhammed or Qur’an in that verse.

We have a third verse which says:

““O Muslims! Do not argue with the People of the Book except in the best of ways, save with such of them who are unjust; and say: “We believe in that which has been sent down to us and that which has been down to you; our God and your God is One, and to Him we surrender.” (Q 29:46).

Muslims might say that the verses of approval are meant not for the Jews/Christians at Muhammed’s time, rather for those at Moses’/ Jesus’ time.

It will be obvious from a reading of the passage that it is addressed to Muhammed and his current listeners. The passage in surah 2 is preceded by a story of the disbelief in Moses’ time with their condemnation in v.61 is being used to reassure the present listeners that those who do believe will not be punished like they were.

In the 5th surah, the current “People of the Book” listeners are being told to follow the Torah and Gospel “and what has been sent down to you by your Lord”, which interpreters might take to be the Qur’an. Then again the same approval as 2:62 is given to all groups. Yet they are not being told to become Muslims, they are addressed as Jews, Christians and Sabeans. What Christian ever followed the Qur’an? Yet there it is. This additional condition does not precede the assertion in 2:62. On top of that the fact that these “Christians” would have to deny Christ’s death on the Cross as stipulated in 4:157 makes the situation even less probable.

Thus this cannot be some obscure sect of “Jews and Christians” that also follow the Qur’an, since that would not make any sense in the 7th century CE. 2:62 does not carry any such stipulation anyway, so one can make a general interpretation from that. Rather it a non-exclusivist interpretation receives support from verses we look at next, 2:111-113 and 41:43. We can agree that there is specific denial of some of the central beliefs of Christianity in other verses, but my argument here (as we discuss in a later section) is: which “Christians” are these then?

But the main problem here I think is the Jews. How come Jews are OK? And how come Sabeans are OK, Sabeans don’t read the Qur’an or follow Muhammed, there is no record of Sabeans going to Mecca for pilgrimage…because they’re not Muslims. It is not sufficient to seek to explain solely the Christian problem here when there’s really two or three problems. As an analogy- your child comes back from school and says “teacher says I should only eat fries and watch tv after school”, you would not reply “no darling, you can’t have heard that right about the fries, but here’s the remote”.

There is no description of the “Sabean” religion in the Qur’an. They seem to be mentioned in the Bible mostly as adversaries of the Israelites (eg. Job 1:15, Isaiah 45:14, Joel 3:8). Historically, it is thought that they represent the Kingdom of the Sheba, and located in South Yemen.

CORROBORATING VERSES, PROBLEMS WITH ALTERNATIVE INTERPRETATIONS OF 2:62/5:69:

Muslims’ counter-claim is that these “Jews and Christians” that are approved of in the above verses are not Trinitarian Christians (and Jews?). We look at the problems with that counter-claim:

1. CHRISTIANS WILL PREVAIL TO THE END OF THE WORLD

The Qur’an goes a step further than mere approval, it also states that these “believers of Jesus” became the “masters” of the unbelievers (Q 61:14), and will be “above” the unbelievers until the Day of Resurrection (Q 3:55).

This sounds very much like a description of Trinitarian Christianity which has consistently dominated history from its inception. It is true that some Gnostics denied Jesus’ death on the Cross, while others, mainly the Arians were non-Trinitarians. Both of these seem to have vanished by the time of the 4th century. (note a parallel to verses 5:116 and 9:30 where appeal might be made to religious sects with tenuous historical validity).

“O believers, be you God’s helpers, as Jesus, Mary’s son, said to the Apostles. ‘Who will be my helpers unto God?’ The Apostles said, ‘We will be helpers of God.’ And a party of the Children of Israel believed, and a party disbelieved. So We confirmed those who believed against their enemy, and they became masters.” (Q 61:14)

The timing here once again seems to commence from the time of the conversation itself, which is at the time of Jesus, “I will set…”:

“When God said, ‘Jesus, I will take thee to Me and will raise thee to Me and I will purify thee of those who believe not. I will set thy followers above the unbelievers till the Resurrection Day. Then unto Me shall you return, and I will decide between you, as to what you were at variance on.” (Q 3:55)

2. Religious Exclusivism repeatedly Denied

This passage is advising Christians and Jews against religions exclusivism, there is no condemnation of them, although this would have been an obvious place to make such a condemnation, if one was intended. Instead once again, we get an implicit approval. It’s like merely advising two opposing drug cartels that they must not fight each other without condemning them. Note that v.113 also acknowledges “they both read the scripture”. This theme of non-exclusivism is also stated in the verses 2:62 and 5:69 which we have already seen. The significance of the Qur’an not claiming religious exclusivism and restating this three times cannot be underplayed and it goes against other verses that do entail such exclusivism:

“…(111)They also say, ‘No one will enter Paradise unless he is a Jew or a Christian.’ This is their own wishful thinking. [Prophet], say, ‘Produce your evidence, if you are telling the truth. (112) In fact, any who directs themselves (wajhahu- wajh is face or direction- AH) wholly to God (billahi), and do good will have their reward with their Lord: no fear for them, nor will they grieve. (113) The Jews say, ‘The Christians have no ground whatsoever to stand on,’ and the Christians say, ‘The Jews have no ground whatsoever to stand on,’ though they both read the Scripture, and those who have no knowledge say the same; God will judge between them on the Day of Resurrection concerning their differences” (Q 2:111-113, AH)

The passage takes on another confusing turn when a few verses later it seems to reinstate exclusivity, after having said “any who direct themselves…will have their reward”, now asserting that those who do disbelieve the Qur’an are “the losers”:

“And never will the Jews and the Christians approve of you until you follow their religion. Say, “Indeed, the guidance of Allāh is the [only] guidance.” If you were to follow their desires after what has come to you of knowledge, you would have against Allāh no protector or helper. Those to whom We have given the Book recite it with its true recital. They [are the ones who] believe in it. And whoever disbelieves in it – it is they who are the losers.” (Q 2:120,121 SI)

Muhammed is not teaching anything new, after all. Again, this would be the obvious place to say “but you have lost/corrupted what was taught previously”:

“Naught is said to thee but what already was said to the Messengers before thee. Surely thy Lord is a Lord of forgiveness and of painful retribution.” (Q 41:43)

The conflict is this: On the one hand there are clear assertions of religious exclusivity, and that non-Muslims will go to Hell. But on the other hand, Christians, Sabeans, Jews are not being called to conversion to Islam, this goes also for 2:111-113. You don’t really get verses calling.

And yet again here we have a passage in which the Qur’anic author admits he has ordained different for each of Jews, Christians and Muslims, it was not his intention to make them “one nation” anyway judging them all according the the same rule, rather each by the law given to them rather than to the others “that he may try you in what has come to you”.

Their Guidance to be sought, even by Muhammed, their scripture valid

Even Muhammed is told to follow the guidance of the people who believe in the previous Scriptures:

“So if you are in doubt, [O Muhammad], about that which We have revealed to you, then ask those who have been reading the Scripture before you. The truth has certainly come to you from your Lord, so never be among the doubters.” (Q 10:94)

Again here, the preceding verses are speaking of the Jewish prophets of old and then speaks with regard to the Jewish people “if these disbelieve in it…” and speaks of having entrusted the Scriptures now also to others (without specifying who they are), whom once again, Muhammed is asked to follow the guidance of. Once again, these cannot be Muslims in the conventional sense, since the Qur’an first came to Muhammed, they would have to be using the “previous scriptures”:

“Those are they to whom We gave the Book, the Judgment, the Prophethood; so if these disbelieve in it, We have already entrusted it to a people who do not disbelieve in it. Those are they whom God has guided; so follow their guidance. Say: ‘I ask of you no wage for it; it is but a reminder unto all beings.'” (Q 6:89,90)

There exist a profusion of verses that approve of the Christian and Jewish Scriptures, and for reasons similar to those given here, the most likely interpretation is that a 7th century rendering of them is being referred to. Because of the sheer number, they are dealt with in a different article.

4. NO VIABLE ALTERNATIVEs besides TRINITARIAN CHRISTIANS

The only monotheistic groups like Arianism or the Gnostics are compatible with Islam. These are pretty much like modern-day Unitarians and Jehovah’s witnesses/ Mormons belief which denying full divinity of Jesus and truth of the Trinity, yet accord him a demi-God status and serve/ worship him. That none of these modern day sects have any truck with Islam should be proof of the point. Similarly, the Gnostics are seemingly the only Christian heretical group which seem to have also denied Jesus’ death on the Cross, which is similar to Islamic belief.

I give no summary here because the summary is provided in the introduction.

What did Arians Believe?

We’ll end by just looking at some evidence of what Arians believe and why it is hard to see how Arianism (or any Christian heresy) could be acceptable in Islam.

Arian beliefs can be seen from these two important letters:

The creed of Arian Ulfilas (c. 311–383), which concludes the above-mentioned letter by Auxentius, distinguishes God the Father (“unbegotten”), who is the only true God, from the Son of God (“only-begotten”); and the Holy Spirit, the illuminating and sanctifying power, which is neither God the Father nor the Lord Jesus Christ:

I, Ulfila, bishop and confessor, have always so believed, and in this, the one true faith, I make the journey to my Lord; I believe in only one God the Father, the unbegotten and invisible, and in his only-begotten Son, our Lord/Master and God, the designer and maker of all creation, having none other like him. Therefore, there is one God of all, who is also God of our God; and in one Holy Spirit, the illuminating and sanctifying power, as Christ said after his resurrection to his apostles: “And behold, I send the promise of my Father upon you; but tarry ye in the city of Jerusalem, until ye be clothed with power from on high” and again “But ye shall receive power, when the Holy Ghost is come upon you”; Neither God nor Lord, but the faithful minister of Christ; not equal, but subject and obedient in all things to the Son. And I believe the Son to be subject and obedient in all things to God the Father.

— Heather & Matthews 1991, p. 143
A letter from Arius (c. 250–336) to the Arian Eusebius of Nicomedia (died 341) states the core beliefs of the Arians:105

Some of them say that the Son is an eructation, others that he is a production, others that he is also unbegotten. These are impieties to which we cannot listen, even though the heretics threaten us with a thousand deaths. But we say and believe and have taught, and do teach, that the Son is not unbegotten, nor in any way part of the unbegotten; and that he does not derive his subsistence from any matter; but that by his own will and counsel he has subsisted before time and before ages as perfect as God, only begotten and unchangeable, and that before he was begotten, or created, or purposed, or established, he was not. For he was not unbegotten. We are persecuted because we say that the Son has a beginning but that God is without beginning.

— Theodoret: Arius’s Letter to Eusebius of Nicomedia, translated in Peters’ Heresy and Authority in Medieval Europe, p. 41

Jesus is identified by some Gnostics as an embodiment of the supreme being who became incarnate to bring gnōsis to the earth, while others adamantly denied that the supreme being came in the flesh, claiming Jesus to be merely a human who attained enlightenment through gnosis and taught his disciples to do the same. Others believed Jesus was divine, although did not have a physical body, reflected in the later Docetist movement. Among the Mandaeans, Jesus was considered a mšiha kdaba or “false messiah” who perverted the teachings entrusted to him by John the Baptist. Still other traditions identify Mani, the founder of Manichaeism, and Seth, third son of Adam and Eve, as salvific figures.

Israelites are given the land of Israel

“”And ˹remember˺ when Moses said to his people, “O my people! Remember Allah’s favours upon you when He raised prophets from among you, made you sovereign, and gave you what He had never given anyone in the world. O my people! Enter the Holy Land which Allah has destined for you ˹to enter˺. And do not turn back or else you will become losers.” They replied, “O Moses! There is an enormously powerful people there, so we will never ˹be able to˺ enter it until they leave. If they do, then we will enter!” Two God-fearing men—who had been blessed by Allah—said, “Surprise them through the gate. If you do, you will certainly prevail. Put your trust in Allah if you are ˹truly˺ believers.”˹Yet˺ they said, “O Moses! ˹Still˺ we will never enter as long as they remain there. So go—both you and your Lord—and fight; we are staying right here!”Moses pleaded, “My Lord! I have no control over anyone except myself and my brother. So set us apart from the rebellious people.”Allah replied, “Then this land is forbidden to them for forty years, during which they will wander through the land. So do not grieve for the rebellious people.”” (?transation Q 5:20-26)

That specific generation was debarred from the land, not every generation. It’s literally identical to the Biblical story reproduced in the Quran.  It literally says “the land is forbidden to you for 40 years” in 5:26, it’s temporary, for that generation.

Also we have:

“And We settled the Children of Israel in a sure settlement, and We provided them with good things; so they differed not until the knowledge came to them. Surely thy Lord will decide between them on the Day of Resurrection touching their differences.” (Arberry Q10:93)

“And We said to the Children of Israel after him, ‘Dwell in the land; and when the promise of the world to come comes to pass, We shall bring you a rabble.'” (Arberry Q17:104)

“And We bequeathed upon the people that were abased all the east and the west of the land We had blessed; and perfectly was fulfilled the most fair word of thy Lord upon the Children of Israel, for that they endured patiently; and We destroyed utterly the works of Pharaoh and his people, and what they had been building.” (Arberry, Q 7:137)

The Contradictory verses- NO, They’re NOT OK

These stand in direct contradiction to the verses above:

“The only religion accepted by Allah is Islam “Whoso desires another religion (dinan) than Islam, it shall not be accepted of him; in the next world he shall be among the losers.” (Q 3:85)

“And they say, ‘Be Jews or Christians and you shall be guided.’ Say thou: ‘Nay, rather the creed of Abraham, a man of pure faith; he was no idolater.'” (Q 2:135)

Here it is unclear how one can be a “person of the book” and an unbeliever at the same time. I would say that it is trying to implicate Christians and Jews that do not convert to Islam “unbelievers of the people of the Book”.

“The unbelievers of the People of the Book (ahli l-kitabi) and the idolaters (wal-mush’rikina) shall be in the Fire of Gehenna, therein dwelling forever; those are the worst of creatures.” ☹ (Q 98:6)

Jews are

Every Non-Muslim goes to Hell

Non-Muslims go to Hell forever according to a profusion of writings in both the Qur’an and Sunnah. 

“Verily, those who disbelieve and did wrong; Allah will not forgive them, nor will He guide them to any way. Except the way of Hell, to dwell therein forever” [Q 4:168-169]

“Verily, Allah has cursed the disbelievers, and has prepared for them a flaming Fire wherein they will abide for ever” [Q 33:64] 

“and whosoever disobeys Allah and His Messenger, then verily, for him is the fire of Hell, he shall dwell therein forever” [Q 72:23] 

“This, because you took the Revelations of Allah in mockery, and the life of the world deceived you. So this Day, they shall not be taken out from there, nor shall they be returned to the worldly life” [Q 45:35] 

“Surely, those who disbelieved in Our Ayaat (signs), We shall burn them in Fire. As often as their skins are roasted through, We shall change them for other skins that they may taste the punishment” [Q 4:56] 

“but he whom He sends astray, for such you will find no Awliyaa’ (helpers and protectors) besides Him, and We shall gather them together on the Day of Resurrection on their faces, blind, dumb and deaf; their abode will be Hell; whenever it abates, We shall increase for them the fierceness of the Fire.That is their recompense, because they denied Our Ayaat (signs) and said: “When we are bones and fragments, shall we really be raised up as a new creation?”[Q 17:97] 

“But those who disbelieved and denied Our Ayaat (signs), they will be the dwellers of the Fire, to dwell therein forever. And worst indeed is that destination” [Q 64:10] 

“and whosoever disobeys Allaah and His Messenger, then verily, for him is the fire of Hell, he shall dwell therein forever” [Q 72:23] 

“Verily, the Mujrimoon (criminals, sinners, disbelievers) will be in the torment of Hell to abide therein forever. (The torment) will not be lightened for them, and they will be plunged into destruction with deep regrets, sorrows and in despair therein. We wronged them not, but they were the Zaalimoon (polytheists, wrongdoers). And they will cry: ‘O Malik (Keeper of Hell)! Let your Lord make an end of us.” He will say: “Verily, you shall abide forever.’ Indeed We have brought the truth to you, but most of you have a hatred for the truth” [Q 43:74] 

“And of mankind are some who take (for worship) others besides Allah as rivals. They love them as they love Allah. But those who believe, love Allah more (than anything else). If only, those who do wrong could see, when they will see the torment, that all power belongs to Allah and that Allah is Severe in punishment. When those who were followed disown those who followed (them), and they see the torment, then all their relations will be cut off from them. And those who followed will say: ‘If only we had one more chance to return (to the worldly life), we would disown them as they have disowned us.’ Thus Allah will show them their deeds as regrets for them. And they will never get out of the Fire” [Q 2:165-167] 

“Verily, those who belie Our Ayaat (signs) and treat them with arrogance, for them the gates of heaven will not be opened, and they will not enter Paradise until the camel goes through the eye of the needle . Thus do We recompense the Mujrimûn (criminals, polytheists, sinners). Theirs will be a bed of Hell (Fire), and over them coverings (of Hell-fire). Thus do We recompense the Zaalimoon (polytheists and wrongdoers)” [Q 7:40-41] 

“But those who disbelieve for them will be the fire of Hell. Neither will it have a complete killing effect on them so that they die nor shall its torment be lightened for them. Thus do We requite every disbeliever! Therein they will cry: “Our Lord! Bring us out, we shall do righteous good deeds, not (the evil deeds) that we used to do.” (Allah will reply:) “Did We not give you lives long enough, so that whosoever would receive admonition could receive it? And the warner came to you. So taste you (the evil of your deeds). For the Zaalimoon (polytheists and wrongdoers) there is no helper” [Q 35:36] 

“Truly, Hell is a place of ambush — A dwelling place for the Taaghoon (those who transgress the boundary limits set by Allaah, like polytheists, disbelievers in the Oneness of Allaah, hypocrites, sinners, criminals), They will abide therein for ages. Nothing cool shall they taste therein, nor any drink. Except boiling water, and dirty wound discharges —An exact recompense (according to their evil crimes). For verily, they used not to look for a reckoning. But they belied Our Ayaat (signs) completely. And all things We have recorded in a Book. So taste you. No increase shall We give you, except in torment” [Q 78:21-30] 

A contrary verse: “2:62 (Dawood) Believers, Jews, Christians, and Sabaeans- whoever believes in God and the last day and does what is right- shall be rewarded by their Lord; they have nothing to fear or to regret.”

Hadith say Christians go to Hell too:

Jaabir narrated: A man came to the Prophet and said: O Messenger of Allah, what are the two deeds that make entering Paradise or Hell inevitable? He said: “Whoever dies not associating anything with Allah will enter Paradise, and whoever dies associating anything with Allah will enter Hell.” (Muslim 135)

And again: “Verily, Allah forgives not that partners should be set up with him in worship, but He forgives except that (anything else) to whom He pleases, and whoever sets up partners with Allah in worship, he has indeed invented a tremendous sin” [an-Nisa’ 4:48]. The one who does not pray at all, either in his house or in the mosque, and does not attend Jumu‘ah or prayers in congregation, has also rendered his good deeds invalid and has falling into kufr by not praying at all. The Messenger of Allah (blessings and peace of Allah be upon him) said: “The covenant that stands between us and them – i.e., the characteristic that separates the Muslims from the disbelievers – is the prayer. Whoever does not pray has disbelieved.” Narrated by at-Tirmidhi, 2545; an-Nasaa’i, 459. classed as saheeh by al-Albaani.

Christians and Jews go to Hell in place of Muslims

This is odd because Muslims routinely reprove Christians saying “no one can pay for you sins”, as a refutation of the doctrine of Christ’s Sacrifice for sinful humanity.

“From Chapter 8: The Acceptance Of The Repentance Of The One Who Kills, Even If He Has Killed A Great Deal”: “Abu Musa’ reported that Allah’s Messenger said: When it will be the Day of Resurrection Allah would deliver to every Muslim a Jew or a Christian and say: That is your rescue from Hell-Fire. (b) Muslim Abu Burda reported on the authority of his father that Allah’s Apostle said: No Muslim would die but Allah would admit in his stead a Jew or a Christian in Hell-Fire. ‘Umar b. Abd al-‘Aziz took an oath: By One besides Whom there is no god but He, thrice that his father had narrated that to him from Allah’s Messenger. (c) This hadith has been transmitted on the authority of ‘Aun b. Utba. (d) Muslim Abu Burda reported Allah’s Messenger as saying: There would come people amongst the Muslims on the Day of Resurrection with as heavy sins as a mountain, and Allah would forgive them and He would place in their stead the Jews and the Christians. (As far as I think), Abu Raub said: I do not know as to who is in doubt. Abu Burda said: I narrated it to ‘Umar b. ‘Abd al-‘Aziz, whereupon he said: Was it your father who narrated it to you from Allah’s Apostle? I said: Yes.” (Muslim 2767 a to d)

One Scripture a “criterion” over another scripture?

Muslim apologists will generally hold that the Judeo-Christian scriptures are corrupt, The Qur’an though has multiple verses seemingly providing strong affirmation of those same scriptures. See my article on this: Does the Qur’an Confirm Christian Scripture?

In reponse, those apologists will typically point to a single verse (5:48) in which the Qur’an places itself as some sort of a “guardian” over the Judeo-Christian scriptures. To be sure, the verse does not state that it is a guardian over corrupted scriptures, just that it is a guardian over them.

This is typical of the ambiguous verses of the Quran where there is a genuine uncertainty over the intended meaning of the author. The word used for this “muhayminun”, occurs only once in that book. The usual translations are as “criterion over” or “guardian over”, and what justifies this usage is the presence of the preposition “over”, indicates the aspect of oversight.

A few alternatives arise from this. First, and at the very least, the possibility the original “injil” being lost should be ruled out based on this verse. How can anything be over something that does not exist, the Qur’anic author clearly believes that something representing the original is present.

Muslim apologists tend to use this “guarding” in the negative sense, which is to guard against interpretative errors, which is presumably believes the books are prone to. However this still does not have the connotation of a hard “correction” of blatantly erroneous verses. It would abe incredible if an alleged divine author genuinely believed that his own scriptures lacked the capacity to be reliably interpreted by human beings, especially since he had given them himself. Further, had it truly been so, it would also be odd that the alleged divine author had not merely stated the necessary corrections, rather than provide a completely new text with its own sunstantial load of interpretative uncertainty.

Perhaps most significantly from the point of view of apologetics, there is nothing to indicate that there is truly alien or satanic material that has found its way into these scriptures. Rather we find quite the opposite attitude in these verses, where the previous scriptures are “confirmed” even to the point that the followers of those scriptures are told that a “right way” has seemingly been appointed to all of them, not to the Muslims and it is clearly stated that they will be “tried according to what has come down to them”, rather than what is in the Qur’an. This fits in with other verses of inclusivism found in the Qur’an that we have discussed elsewhere in this article.

This is the source of the contradiction in this verse for the Islamic perspective, that there could be no more than an issue of interpretative ambiguity in the previous scriptures. It seems impossible based on this verse that the latter literally contained contrarian teaching and certainly impossible that they were lost. It would seem impossible that in speaking of scriptures that were directly contrary to his word, God would not state that these books were in error, seemingly tip-toeing around them instead and even giving strong indications of affirmation. The whole concept of subsequent scriptures replacing previous ones is foreign to the Judeo-Christian tradition, and even the Qur’anic author does not seem to intend to introduce such a concept.

“And We have sent down to thee the Book with the truth, confirming the Book that was before it, and a guardian over it. So judge between them according to what God has sent down, and do not follow their caprices, to forsake the truth that has come to thee. To every one of you We have appointed a right way and an open road. If God had willed, He would have made you one nation; but that He may try you in what has come to you. So be you forward in good works; unto God shall you return, all together; and He will tell you of that whereon you were at variance.” (Q 5:48)

Theological Contradictions involving Allah

THREE contradiction involving the divine ability to have children

It is interesting that when the main polemical function that these verses serve, is to deny the Christian and pagan claim that God has children, either divine or otherwise, the author(s) seems to make a mess of the job and is really inconsistent.

1- Can Allah have a child without a consort or NOT?

I frequently hear the polemic used against the Trinitarian doctrine that God cannot be a Father because he has no biology, and I think it comes from here, in 6:101. The Qur’an has God first offering the reasoning that he cannot have a son because he has no wife:

“To Him is due the primal origin of the heavens and the earth: How can He have a son when He hath no consort? He created all things, and He hath full knowledge of all things.” (Q 6:101)

But clearly in both accounts of the Annunciation, he is able to give Mary a son although she has no husband. Apparently in Mary’s case he merely needs to say “Be!” and the child is born, but this did not occur to the him in the previous verse:

” She said, “My Lord, how will I have a child when no man has touched me?” [The angel] said, “Such is Allah ; He creates what He wills. When He decrees a matter, He only says to it, ‘Be,’ and it is.” (Q 3:47)

and again:

” She said, “How can I have a boy while no man has touched me and I have not been unchaste?”. He said, “Thus [it will be]; your Lord says, ‘It is easy for Me, and We will make him a sign to the people and a mercy from Us. And it is a matter [already] decreed.’ “” (Q 19:20-21)

2- Allah could have inappropriate desires for children

The Qur’an first has Allah saying that it would not be appropriate for him to have a son. We are not told why, apparently this is not a good thing for whoever wrote this:

“And it is not appropriate for the Most Merciful that He should take a son” (Q 19:92)

However having his displeasure at having children, he now says that he could in fact have done it had he so desired. Clearly this is a contradiction, it means that God could have desired something he himself, for whatever reason found inappropriate:

“Had God desired to take to Him a son, He would have chosen whatever He willed of that He has created. Glory be to Him! He is God, the One, the Omnipotent.” (Q 39:4)

As if to double down on his penchant for the indesirable, he now seems to indicate that he prefers sons to daughters. This is also one of the the most misogynistic verses in the Qur’an, and even without explanation its quite evident from the text- there’s a clear divine favouritism. The verse even ends with a strong emphasis “What has come over you that you should judge so ill?“, so we’re left in no doubt as to the intent here, God would certainly NOT “choose daughters rather than sons”:

“Ask the unbelievers if it be true that God has daughters while they themselves choose sons. Did we create the angels females?…Would he choose daughters rather than sons? What has come over you that you should judge so ill?” (37:149)

“Allah” blows into a Woman’s Vagina?

Muslims make a big song and dance about the Christian God being born through the birth passage of a woman, when their own scriptures have similar contact of Allah with women’s privates. There is no other way to interpret 66:12. “Farjaha” is a women’s privates, this usage is unchanged even in modern day Arabic (eg. in Saudi and Egypt). So one cannot really go up to a woman and say “I love your farjaha”, if that makes sense. Arabic language does have a neuter gender, and “farjaha” is a masculine noun still used today in formal Arabic which also can stand for “aperture/ gap/ hole”. “Fihi” contains the masculine pronoun. The straight translation of the verse is. Even were it taken as a neuter (I can’t see why), it still could not pertain to Maryam:

“Maryam (the Qur’anic one) protected her vagina/private parts, and Allah blew into it” (Q 66:12)

Ibn Kathir states: “And Maryam, the daughter of `Imran who guarded her chastity (private part). And We breathed into it through Our Ruh, and she testified to the truth of her Lords Kalimat, and His Kutub, and she was of the Qanitin.“

This is Wikiislam’s translation of ibn Kathir:

And Mary Amran’s daughter who remained chaste (protected) her genital parts between her legs, so We blew in it from Our Soul/Spirit , and she confirmed/was truthful with her Lord’s words/expressions, and His Books , and she was from the worshipping humbly

and in Arabic: ومريم ابنت عمران التي احصنت فرجها فنفخنا فيه من روحنا وصدقت بكلمات ربها وكتبه وكانت من القانتين

Wikiislam also gives a list of lexical entries: https://wikiislam.github.io/wiki/Allah_and_Marys_Vagina.html#Lane.27s_Lexicon

Answering -islam’s article: https://answering-islam.org/Shamoun/virginalconception.htm

Tafsir Jalalayn says:
66:12 And Mary (wa-Maryama is a supplement to imra’ata Fir’awna) daughter of ‘Imran, who preserved [the chastity of] her womb, so We breathed into it of Our Spirit, namely, Gabriel — when he breathed into the opening of her shirt, by God’s creation of this action of his which reached her womb, thus conceiving Jesus — and she confirmed the words of her Lord, His prescriptions, and His, revealed, Scriptures and she was of the obedient, [one] of the obedient folk.

I post the link because these can be hard to find: https://quranunlocked.com/en.jalalayn/text/66

Allah is not Omniscient?

If a wound has afflicted you (at Ohud), a wound like it has also afflicted the (unbelieving) people; and We bring these days to men by turns, and that Allah MAY KNOW those who believe and take witnesses from among you; and Allah does not love the unjust. And that He may purge those who believe and deprive the unbelievers of blessings. Do you think that you will enter the garden while Allah has NOT YET KNOWN those who strive hard from among you, and (He has not) known the patient. S. 3:140-142 Shakir

That which befell you, on the day when the two armies met, was by permission of Allah; that He MIGHT KNOW the true believers; And that He MIGHT KNOW the hypocrites, unto whom it was said: Come, fight in the way of Allah, or defend yourselves. They answered: If we knew aught of fighting we would follow you. On that day they were nearer disbelief than faith. They utter with their mouths a thing which is not in their hearts. Allah is Best Aware of what they hide. S. 3:166-167 Pickthall

O you who believe! Allah will certainly try you in respect of some game which your hands and your lances can reach, that Allah MIGHT KNOW who fears Him in secret; but whoever exceeds the limit after this, he shall have a painful punishment. S. 5:94 Shakir

Is Allah Ahad or Wahid?

The famous verse from surah al-ikhlas has “ahad“:

“Say: ‘He is God, One” (Q 112:1)

This is not an insignificant difference, because of the contention that ahad really must mean “one of”. It is never usually used in the sense of an absolute unity. Similarly and interestingly also, in the Bible in the famous Shema prayer of Deut 6:14 echad is used which in other places in the Bible is used in relation to a compound rather than a simple unity.

In a different place we do find “wahid” used of Allah, thus cementing the point of a grammatical error here.

“Say: ‘God is witness between me and you, and this Koran has been revealed to me that I may warn you thereby, and whomsoever it may reach. Do you indeed testify that there are other gods with God?’ Say: ‘I do not testify.’ Say: ‘He is only One (innama huwa ilahun, wahidun) God, and I am quit of that you associate.'” (Q 6:19)

In order to prove this, consider that in every other place in the Qur’an where this verse is used, the meaning is “one of”. The only possible answer is that it is indeed the wrong choice of word here, and that the word should have been wahid.

Why did Muhammed use this word? The most obvious explanation is that it was because it sounded similar to the word “echad” used in the Shema verse that Jews used (Deut 6:14), in order to make an impression upon them. To put this into perspective, 12th century Jewish Rabbi and Scholar named Moses Maimonides substituted the word echad for yachid (a word which can mean unique, solitary, only one etc.) when articulating the Jewish position regarding God’s unity (Michael Brown mentions this in Answering Jewish Objections to Jesus: Theological Objections [Baker Books, Grand Rapids MI, 2000], Volume Two, p. 4).

What Scholars of Arabic say

We can see that even the Arabic lexicons have trouble with this and in a manner of special pleading, they take the position that this usage is “unique” to Allah. This is in line also with Ibn Kathir’s approach. This is from his commentary on 112:1:

“(Say: “He is Allah, One.”) meaning, He is the One, the Singular, Who has no peer, no assistant, no rival, no equal and none comparable to Him. This word (Al-Ahad) cannot be used for anyone in affirmation except Allah the Mighty and Majestic, because He is perfect in all of His attributes and actions….”

Here are some examples of the Arabic Lexicons which take a similar stance on the issue:

“(ahad Allah) He declared God to be one; he declared, or professed, the unity of God” (Taj al-Arus, Lisan al-Arab).

“It is interchangeable with ‘wahid’ in two cases: first, when it is used as an epithet applied to God: for al-ahad as an epithet, is applied to God alone, and signifies The One; the Sole; He who has ever been one and alone: or the Indivisible: or He who has no second in his Lordship, nor in His essence, nor in His attributes” (Qamus al-Muhit, Taj al-Arus).

“Without the [definite] article, [ahad] is used as an epithet specially in relation to God, and is interchangeable in this case with wahid…” (Misbah al-Munir).

In explaining Surah al-Ikhlas, Muhammad Shafi says in his commentary, Ma’ariful Qur’an: 

“The epithets ahad and wahid are both applied to Allah which are normally translated as ‘One’ but the word ahad includes an additional sense which signifies that Allah is beyond composition, plurality and resemblance, which means that He is neither composed of any elements, nor does He have any partner, nor has He any resemblance to anything.”

Al-Raghib al-Isfahani (d.502H) in his Al-Mufradat fi Alfaz al-Qur’an (2009 ed., pp.66-67, and p.858) which is a dictionary specific to Qur’anic terms and words and their usage confirms that ‘ahad’ is not to be employed for anyone or anything other than Allah.

IN SUMMARY, all we really needed is a grammatically correct word that means “one”, not something “unique”. The point of something unique is that there is only one of it, this does not require the invention of a new word. The special pleading has become necessary as a cover-up for a grammatical error, similar to the one that Maimonedes is trying to cover up in the Torah, the only difference is that in the case of the Torah, the usage is apt, and signifies the possibility of a complex unity, prefiguring the revelation of the Trinitarian God of Christianity (as Christians would argue).

Does Allah Pray?

How can a monotheistic deity pray to anyone? Read this incredible contradiction here Muhammad v/s Allah?

A Pass-time “from among Him-selves”?

“had We desired to take to Us a diversion We would have taken it to Us from Ourselves, had We done aught.” (Q21:17)

Allah asks Allah for Permission to Descend

Who is actually doing the descending here if not Allah himself?

“And mention in the Book, Idrees. Indeed, he was a man of truth and a prophet(56). And We raised him to a high station(57)…That is Paradise, which We give as inheritance to those of Our servants who were fearing of Allah(63). And we descend not except by the Command of your Lord” (Q 19:64)

Multiple speakers in Allah

Allah/ Muhammed speaking (many such verses in the Qur’an in order to scribe them to Allah will have “Say!” appended by the editors to the start:

“What, shall I seek after any judge but God? For it is He who sent down to you the Book well-distinguished;…”

Who’s speaking (Allah/Muhammed)?:

“…and those whom We have given the Book know it is sent down from thy Lord with the truth; so be not thou of the doubters.” (Q 6:114)

The speaker cannot shift mid-sentence! Either Muhammad is speaking throughout, in which case he commits the error of ascribing the royal plural to himself, that too in a in a verse that is talking about God. Else it is the error of the absurdity of a changing subject, or the third possibility that it is all Allah in which case an obvious violation of Tawhid “shall I seek any judge but God…”

“Glory be to Him, who carried His servant by night from the Holy Mosque to the Further Mosque

the precincts of which We have blessed, that We might show him some of Our signs. He is the All-hearing, the All-seeing.” (Q 17:1)

Allah is either moving from speaking in third, to first, and back to third person (to Him…we blessed…we show…he is) in the same sentence, which is bad grammar, else the third person is Muhammad “we blessed, we show” and referring to Allah in the third.

None like Allah or Not?

“And there is none like (kufuwan –كُفُوًا) unto Him.” (Q 112:7)

“ So set thy purpose (O Muhammad) for religion as a man upright – the nature (fiṭ’rata– فِطْرَتَ) of Allah, in which He hath created man. There is no altering (the laws of) Allah’s creation. That is the right religion, but most men know not –“ (Q 30:30)

Allah Swears by Created things?

This is an absolute no-no. Luckily I have a helpful chart detailing all the instances of this. Sorry, any poor grammar is not mine:

The Bible’s teachings in this matter are quite magnificent and cannot be ignored, as is summarized in Hebrews 6:13: “For when God made a promise to Abraham, since he had no one greater by whom to swear, he swore by himself.” and indeed in all of the vast Old Testament, God will keep to this, as in Isaiah 45:23, for example “I have sworn by myself”, also Jer.22:5. The people on the other hand, also do not swear by any other name other than that of God Is.65:16, Ps.63:11, Deut.6:13, Is.19:18 etc.. Eventually, all swearing is prohibited period, by Jesus himself (Matt.5:35).

Muslim responses:

I’ve heard Muslims try to retort using a single verse from Amos 8:7.

““The LORD has sworn by the Pride of Jacob: “I will never forget anything they have done.’” The “pride of Israel” is here most likely used as a title for God himself. A similar title is found in 1 Samuel 15:29, where God is referred to as “the Glory of Israel.” Also consider that Israel is being mentored directly by God in the perfection of his Glory. He addresses them: “…my chosen people, 21 the people whom I formed for myself; that they might declare my praise.” (Is.43:20,21); “6 and you shall be to me a kingdom of priests and a holy nation…’(Ex.19:6a). All this will of course be only fulfilled in the NT with the advent of Christ.

Some confusion arises due to the same phrase, “pride of Jacob,” being used in two other passages. First, in Psalm 47:4 we read, “He chose our heritage for us, the pride of Jacob whom he loves.” Here, the phrase is in reference to the land of Israel rather than to God. Second, “pride of Jacob” is used in Amos 6:8 in reference to actual, sinful pride: “I abhor the pride of Jacob and hate his strongholds.” The city of Samaria served as Israel’s capital, and “stronghold” likely refers to that city. They were trusting in their city’s defenses rather than in God.

In summary, the “Pride of Jacob” in Amos 8:7 is a reference to God Himself. The Lord makes a solemn promise, based on His own character and faithfulness, that He would bring judgment against Israel.

Contradictions in Angelology

Was there an Angel or not?

Why is Allah here denying that an angel was sent to Muhammed when the entire Muslim faith is based upon the belief that it was so?

“Then, it may be that you will give up part of what is revealed to you and your breast will become straitened by it because they say: Why has not a treasure been sent down upon him or an angel come with him? You are only a warner; and Allah is custodian over all things.” (Q 11:12)

“‘Why has an angel not been sent down on him?’ they say; yet had We sent down an angel, the matter would have been determined, and then no respite would be given them.  And had We made him an angel, yet assuredly We would have made him a man, and confused for them the thing which they themselves are confusing.” (Q 6:8,9)

How Many angels were there?

The Qur’an in one place says that only one angel appears to Mary, while in a second, multiple angels appear to her, with the same message.

An Angel gives Mary a Child?

Angels do not “bestow children” upon persons. There is a second unlikely situation of an angel enabling miracle, once again in the case of Eisa, where it is said that the “ruh qudoos” (whom in the interpretation of many Muslims is the angel Gabriel) enables Jesus to perform miracles, which I have spoken of here Ruh is Allah, the Holy Spirit is God. God does not create changes in a person through the mediation of angels. The power to perform miracles come directly from God. Even when Zechariah is struck dumb in the Bible, (also Q 3:42) the angel would not dare to state “I will strike you dumb”, anymore than the angel might state “I will bestow a baby upon you” to Abraham’s wife Sarah.

In that article I have discussed the bizarre situation of Allah “blowing from Gabriel into Maryam (and keeping the discussion polite by avoiding the issue of women’s genitals), which is associated with the “ruh” narrative (or lack of one).

Further corroboration of this being a genuine contradiction in the Qur’an is that some of the reading traditions for this verse change the words of it to something that is more readily acceptable. Bridges documents this in their footnote to 19:19 “Warsh, Abu ʻAmr, Yaʻqub and Qaloun, in one of his narrations, read it as: “. . . of your Lord so that He may grant you . . .” (p.204, Bridge’s Translation of the Ten Qira’at of the noble Qur’an, by Fadel Soliman)

If thou fearest God … He said, ‘I am but a messenger come from thy Lord, to give thee a boy most pure. (Q19:19)

l-ahabu is always used in the Qur’an for bestow/grant, and l-wahabu is used thrice as a name for Allah “the Bestower”.

The Angel was “under” Maryam?

This is another of many bizarre situations in relation to the narratives related to Maryam in the Qur’an:

“Then the birth pangs compelled her to come to the trunk of the palm tree. She said, “If only I had died before this and been a thing forgotten, completely forgotten!” So he called her from beneath herb: “Be not sad; your Lord has made a stream beneath you.” (Q)

The footnote in Bridges’ Translation again notes variants which make the situation even clearer: “Ibn Kathir, Abu ʻAmr, Ibn ʻAmer, Shuʻba and Roways read it as: “So the one beneath her called her:”” (ibid., pg.204)

Finally in v.3:42 it is not a single angel that speaks to Mary but rather “angels”. Every interaction of the angel with Mary is conflicted and to fully appreciate this, one must also read the “ruhallah” article (linked above).

Jinn- related Contradictions

See The Contradictions of Islamic Jinni

Other Theological Issues

Intercession on Judgement Day or not?

YES there is

It seems that intercession if performed by “only those whom Allah approves”, or have his “permission”. While in the hadith it becomes obvious that Muhammed is the last-chance-saloon of all humanity, and that in the end “all creation must come to him”  (for intercession):

“Who is it that can intercede with Him except by His permission?” (Q 2:255)

“The unbelievers say: ‘This man (Muhammed) is a skilled enchanter.’ Yet your Lord is God…None has the power to intercede for you, except him who has received his sanction.” (Q 10:3)

“None will have [power of] intercession except he who had taken from the Most Merciful a covenant.” (19:87)

“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 (Q 20:109)

“He knows what is [presently] before them and what will be after them, and they cannot intercede except on behalf of one whom He approves. And they, from fear of Him, are apprehensive.” (21:28)

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’.”(Q 34:23)

“And how many angels there are in the heavens whose intercession will not avail at all except [only] after Allah has permitted [it] to whom He wills and approves” (53:26)

“We sent not ever any Messenger, but that he should he obeyed, by the leave of God. If; when they wronged themselves, they had come to thee, and prayed forgiveness of God, and the Messenger had prayed forgiveness for them, they would have found God turns, All-compassionate.” (Q 4:64)

Two hadith say only Mohammed can intercede:

“…O Allah! forgive my people, forgive my people, and I have deferred the third one (speaking about the ahruf) for the day on which the entire creation will turn to me, including even Ibrahim (for intercession).” (Muslim no.820)

“…I would then intercede and a limit would be set for me. I would bring them out of the Fire (of Hell) and make them enter Paradise.” (Bukhari 7410)

Two hadith say that everyone, including Allah intercedes:

“…The Prophet said: “So the Prophets, the angels and the believers will intercede, and the Compeller (Allah) will say, ‘There remains My intercession.’ Then He will take a handful from the Fire and bring forth some people whose bodies have been burnt and throw them into a river at the entrance to Paradise that is called the Water of Life.”  (Bukhari 7440)

“The Prophet said, “You (Muslims) cannot be more pressing in claiming from me (Allah) a right that has been clearly proved to be yours (Muhammed’s) than the believers in interceding with Almighty for their (Muslim) brothers on that Day, when they see themselves safe…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.” (Bukhari 7439, the shin hadith)

This is a scene from Islamic Judgement Day, when everyone- the prophets, the angels and even Allah seem to get in on the intercession act. Allah intercedes with who?

NO, there isn’t

Muhammad cannot intercede:

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

On Judgement Day, no one can intercede for a soul:

“O Children of Israel, remember My favor that I have bestowed upon you and that I preferred you over the worlds. And fear a Day when no soul will suffice for another soul at all, nor will intercession be accepted from it, nor will compensation be taken from it, nor will they be aided.” (2:47,48, latter is identical with 2:128)

O you who have believed, spend from that which We have provided for you before there comes a Day in which there is no exchange and no friendship and no intercession. And the disbelievers – they are the wrongdoers. (2:254)

“(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 (Q 82:19)

“Only” to “Entirely” Allah belong intercession:

“You have no guardian or intercessor besides Him (Allah), will you not take heed?” Q 32:4

“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 ( نَصِيرًا– nasiran) . 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 by the Qur’an those who fear that they will be gathered before their Lord – for them besides Him will be no protector and no intercessor – that they might become righteous (Q 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

Or have they taken other than Allah as intercessors? Say, “Even though they do not possess [power over] anything, nor do they reason?” Say, “To Allah belongs intercession entirely. To Him belongs the dominion of the heavens and the earth. Then to Him you will be returned.” (Q 39:44)

The Hadith about Muhammed NOT interceding:

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).

Hadith- Muhammed influencing Divine Forgiveness, temporal intentions

“Then he started reciting verses: ‘O You best of those whose bones are buried in al-Qa’a from the sweet scents of those bones the whole area of al-Qa’a and Akamu became perfumed. My self I sacrifice to the grave that you live in it is purity and in it is incredible generosity.’ “Then the Bedouin departed and sleep overcame me. And I saw the Prophet in my sleep and he said: ‘Ya ‘Utbi, follow the Bedouin and give him the glad tidings that Allah has forgiven him.’” (Ibn Kathir, Tafsir of Qur’an al-Adheem [Dar al-Fikr, Beirut, 1992/1412], volume I, p. 643; source)

A similar report is sourced through Shafi’i Shaykh Sufyan ibn `Uyayna and through Abu Sa`id al-Sam`ani on the authority of Ali. The above narrative is further referenced by Ibn Qudamah Al-Maqdisi in his Al-Mughni, under the chapter, “Chapter on Visiting the Grave of the Prophet,” volume 3, pp. 556-557 (source).

And here is what Ibn Kathir stated concerning this narration, providing some additional information:

“Allah is instructing the sinners when they commit a sin to come to the messenger of Allah and ask forgiveness in his presence and then they ask him to request forgiveness. And certainly if they did that, Allah would relent towards them and have mercy on them, and for that reason He said “they would have found Allah Oft-Returning, Merciful.”

And Shaykh Mansur as-Sabbagh recollected in his book “The Perfections” (ash-Shama’il) the well-known (famous) transmission from ‘Utbi:

“I was sitting by the grave of the Prophet and a Bedouin came and said: ‘Peace be upon you O Prophet of Allah. I heard Allah say: “And if they had come to thee when they had wronged their souls, and asked forgiveness of Allah, and if the Messenger had also asked forgiveness for them, they would have surely found Allah Oft-Returning with compassion and Merciful.” And I came to you asking forgiveness for my sin, taking you as intercessor to my Lord.’…”

There is more to the story. According to one specific Islamic narration a Muslim actually visited Muhammad’s grave and asked him to pray for his forgiveness:

“As I was sitting by the grave of the Prophet, a Bedouin Arab came and said: ‘Peace be upon you, O Messenger of Allah! I have heard Allah saying: “If they had only, when they were unjust to themselves, come unto thee and asked Allah’s forgiveness, and the Messenger had asked forgiveness for them, they would have found Allah indeed Oft-returning, Most Merciful” (4:64), so I HAVE COME TO YOU asking forgiveness for my sin, seeking your intercession with my Lord.’ Then he began to recite poetry: “O best of those whose bones are buried in the deep earth, And from whose fragrance the depth; and the height have become sweet, May I be the ransom for a grave which thou inhabit, And in which are found purity, bounty and munificence!” Then he left, and I slept and saw the prophet in my sleep. He said to me: ‘O `Utbi, run after the Bedouin and give him glad tidings that Allah has forgiven him.’” (Imam an-Nawawi, Kitab al-Adhkar [al-Maktaba al-Tijariyya, Mecca, 1412/1992], Chapter: Regarding visiting the grave of the messenger of Allah and its remembrances, pp. 253-254; source; see also al-Idah fi manasik al-hajj (Dar ibn Khaldun, Damascus, n.d.) p. 144, and an-Nawawi’s Majmu`, volume 8, pp. 212f.)

“It was narrated from Thabit that Anas said: “The Prophet was delivering the Khutbah one Friday when the people stood up and shouted: ‘O Prophet of Allah! There has been no rain and the animals have died. Pray to Allah (SWT) to send us rain.’ He said: ‘O Allah, send us rain; O Allah, send us rain.’ By Allah (SWT), we could not see even a wisp of a cloud in the sky, then a cloud appeared and grew, and it rained. The Messenger of Allah came down and prayed, and the people departed, and it continued to rain until the following Friday. When the Messenger of Allah stood up to deliver the Khutbah, they called out to him and said: ‘O Prophet of Allah, the houses are destroyed and the routes are cut off. Pray to Allah to take it away from us.’ The Messenger of Allah smiled and said: ‘O Allah, around us and not on us!’ Then is dispersed from Al-Madinah and rain fell around Al-Madinah but not a single drop fell on Al-Madinah. I looked, and it was in something like a ring.” (Sunan an Nasa’1 1517 graded Sahih [Darussalam])

What do the Commentators say?

We can readily see how the Islamic commentators have struggled with these verses. Ibn Kathir states that 2:48 only applies to disbelievers interceding for each other. Tabari says something similar in a hadith. Again, in the actual verse we do not see any sense in which it only refers to disbelievers. These commentators seek to interpret the verse as a warning to disbelievers as: “unless you believe no intercession will be taken from you”. Although it is possible this can be applied as an alternative interpretation to 2:48 (not the straight reading) if taken in exclusion, the other verses listed all negate this possibility. Here’s al-Tabari, for example:

Qatada used to say about (Q2:48) : Bishr narrated it to us, he said: Yazid told us, he said: Said told us, on the authority of Qatada in his saying: “O you who believe, spend from what We have provided you with, before there comes a day in which there will be no bargaining, friendship, or intercession.” Allah knows that people love each other in world, and they intercede for each other, but on the Day of Resurrection, there is no friendship but the friendship of the righteous (and hence no intercession for the disbeliever from his believer friend) . (Q 39:67) Tafsir at-Tabari 5761

Can One Man Carry the Sins of Another?

“No soul laden bears the load of another; and if one heavy-burdened calls for its load to be carried, not a thing of it will be carried, though he be a near kinsman. Thou warnest only those who fear their Lord in the Unseen and perform the prayer; and whosoever purifies himself, purifies himself only for his own soul’s good. To God is the homecoming.” (Q 35:18)

” Say, “Is it other than Allah I should desire as a lord while He is the Lord of all things? And every soul earns not [blame] except against itself, and no bearer of burdens will bear the burden of another. Then to your Lord is your return, and He will inform you concerning that over which you used to differ.” (Q 6:164)

However here it seems as though a ram is bearing a burden, literally “ransoming” Isaac. Muslims might argue that this is a misunderstanding of the verse, but at the most basic level this is what it means to “ransom”: that is, to substitute one thing for another, in this case the ram life for Isaac’s (or as most Muslims seem to prefer, Ishmael). They are free to deny this interpretation, but in that case not only does this act of Allah lose its meaning, even the words of the Qur’an lose their meaning, since the sentence is clearly drawing a direct relation between the sacrificial death of the ram and “ransom” as its purpose. Of course, any Christian reading this will have the immediate impression of how out of context this verse is in the Quran, because the Torahic concept of the firstborn being “ransomed” or “redeemed” through the sacrifice of an animal in the Temple is completely erased in the Qur’an, and yet this one verse seems to leak into it, going completely against the grain of denial of any substitutionary sacrifice. Rather it continues to become the central theme of Christianity and the Sacrifice of Christ:

“And We ransomed his son with a great sacrifice” (Q 37:107)

Abel, in a rather bizarre narration of the Biblical story, refuses to defend himself against the stated murderous intent of his brother Kane, which is clearly not an Islamic teaching, nor is it even a Christian teaching. Rather he offers his reasons for apparently remaining passive during his killing, in a kind of bizarre twist (I apologize for using “bizarre” twice) of Abraham’s sacrifice of his son. The reason offered is his theology that he expects that his permissive acceptance of this act would result in the transfer of the burden of his sins over to his brother. Again, this contradicts the “no-transfer” doctrine. From this we can readily derive a model in which the burden sins of all those that eventually make it into heaven and have been transferred to those that go to Hell. And yet Muslims object to the Christian notion of one man, Jesus, bearing that burden collectively. It is hard to see the premise for such an objection, given the Islamic version of Abel’s theology:

“I desire that thou shouldest be laden with my sin and thy sin, and so become an inhabitant of the Fire; that is the recompense of the evildoers.'” (Q 5:29)

These verses seem to go along with Abel’s version of theology, and being repeat this any times, it becomes a central understanding of how Allah deals with the “burden of sin” in Islam- by a transference.

” They shall certainly carry their loads, and other loads along with their loads, and upon the Day of Resurrection they shall surely be questioned concerning that they were forging.” (Q 29:13)

“That they may bear their loads complete on the Day of Resurrection, and some of the loads of those that they lead astray without any knowledge. O evil the load they bear!” (Q 16:25)

The hadith take up the theme, and this time it names those that the burden is transferred onto specifically as the Jews and the Christians:

Hadith No: 8 (of the 110 Hadith Qudsi collection, which are taken as holy hadith, being the sayings of Allah) Narrated/Authority of Abu Musa. Allah’s Messenger (PBUH) said: “On the Day of Resurrection, my Ummah (nation) will be gathered into three groups. one sort will enter Paradise without rendering an account(of their deeds). Another sort will be reckoned an easy account and admitted into Paradise. Yet another sort will come bearing on their backs heaps of sins like great mountains. Allah will ask the angels though He knows best about them: Who are these people? They will reply: They are humble slaves of yours. He will say: Unload the sins from them and put the same over the Jews and Christians; then let the humble slaves get into Paradise by virtue of My Mercy.” (This Hadith is sound and mentioned in Mustadrak of Hakim).

IN CONCLUSION, verses 35:18, 6:164 are contradicted by 37:107, 5:29, 29:13, 16:25 and the hadith quoted. It is clear from the latter verses that persons going into Heaven are granted the convenience of the burden of their sins being borne by those that go to hell. They also go against one of Islamic apologists’ favorite polemic, based purely on a reding of the former two verses, that God does not keep any account of the “price of sin”, rather that he “just forgives”. Clearly that is a tenuous position for Muslims based on what we have just seen.

This is also a good example of the manner in which the system of only quoting “hadith that agree with the Qur’anic teachings” does not work, because the Qur’anic teaching themselves are often in conflict.

As a footnote, we should also really add for completion, though only very briefly here that the Christian model is not one of a simple book-keeping exercise for “sin burdens/prices”

On the Issue of Forgiveness for Sins

Qur’anic Contradictions on the Issue of Forgiveness?

INTRODUCTION

One of Allah’s 99 names in Islam is “Most Forgiving” or “Oft-Forgiving”. However when we read how that forgiveness is described in the Qur’an, it seems that this is a “glass-half-full/glass-half-empty” scenario, and one might equally also say Allah were “Oft-Not-Forgiving”. This is because while we find verses that claim “all” sins are forgiven, we also find other verses which undermine this.

The Overarching Thesis of forgiveness in Islam: “ALL is Forgiven for Non-Mushriks EXCEPT major sins”

We first look at the verses which describe the overarching mainstream Islamic thesis, which is that all sins are forgiven for non-mushriks (mushriks is probably best translated as “polytheists”), with the supposed exception of “major sins and immoralities”.

A logical explanation of this exception would seem to be that if major sins are not repented for, then the person is possibly not even worthy of being called a Muslim, rather they are a hypocrite, the kind of people that indeed do receive strong condemnation in the Qur’an. It makes sense a “major sin/immorality” for a particular religion would be whatever goes against something vitally important in that religion. If that is not followed, then what is the point of the religion in the first place.

However not all Muslims agree with this type of reasoning, and there is seemingly a range of view on the topic of Hell with regards to its permanence or the lack of it. This leads to a range of beliefs even on the issue of what it means to be “unforgiven” in Islam. Apparently there is a prevailing belief that even the supposed Muslim unforgiven eventually find their way into Heaven, either through the period of their incarceration running its course, or through Hell itself being eventually dissolved, being impermanent. This raises all kinds of issues as to the nature of morality, divine forgiveness and the very purpose of religion which we will discuss here.

Firstly, can the precense of such an exception for “major sins and immoralities” really be harmonised with theme of Q 4:40 iterated in the hadithic tradition, that even those with “a single atom of faith” are eventually saved from Hell (Bukhari 7439, and shorter traditions in Bukhari 44, Muslim 91 & 193, Tirmidhi 1999, Dawud 4091, Ibn Majah 59). Verse 4:40 suggests that even some those performing no more than an “atomic”- sized good deed their whole lives will still go to Heaven. That literally is implying that if you are a Muslim and “lifted a single finger” to help anyone as the metaphor goes, that is sufficient.

Equally we must note that this very issue of whether major sins does lead to one’s exiting the fold of Islam has been a contentious issue among the earliest Islamic authorities.

But if we’re not being hyper-critical, it would still be possible to say that the intent of the author is to say the more minor sins can in fact be overlooked by God even if the believer omits to properly repent/atone for them.  

These are the six verses that deal with these broad overarching themes of forgiveness in Islam:

“Say, “O My servants who have transgressed against themselves [by sinning], do not despair of the mercy of Allah. Indeed, Allah forgives all sins. Indeed, it is He who is the Forgiving, the Merciful.” (39:53)

“him who repents, and believes, and does righteous work — those, God will change their evil deeds into good deeds, for God is ever All-forgiving, All-compassionate” (Q 25:68-71)

“Indeed, Allah does not do injustice, [even] as much as an atom’s weight; while if there is a good deed, He multiplies it and gives from Himself a great reward.” (Q4:40)

“[As for] those who avoid the major sins and immoralities, only [committing] slight ones, your Lord is vast in forgiveness.” [Q 53:32]

“Indeed, Allah does not forgive associating others with Him, but forgives anything else of whoever He wills.” [Q 4:48]

“God forgives not that aught should be with Him associated; less than that He forgives to whomsoever He will. Whoso associates with God anything, has gone astray into far error” (Q 4:116)

What Contradictions do we find in the Teaching?

1- So will some Disbelievers also eventually go to Heaven?

Consider these verses:

“On the day when He shall muster them all together: ‘Company of jinn, you have made much of mankind. Then their friends among mankind will say, ‘Our Lord, we have profited each of the other, and we have reached the term determined by Thee for us. He will say: ‘The Fire is your lodging, therein to dwell forever’ – except as God will; surely thy Lord is All-wise, All-knowing” (Q 6:128, Arberry)

“the day it comes, no soul shall speak save by His leave; some of them shall be wretched and some happy.  As for those who were [destined to be] wretched, they will be in the Fire. For them therein is [violent] exhaling and inhaling. [They will be] abiding therein as long as the heavens and the earth endure, except what your Lord should will. Indeed, your Lord is an effecter of what He intends.” (Q 11:105-7, SI)

In these verses which are describing the Judgement Day scenario “the day”, Allah makes it clear that humans will suffer a hellish fate only if he “is willing”. What could this “willing” possibly mean, when we have already seen a host of “forever” verses about hell for disbelievers, as well as the 6 verses at the top, including 4:48 itself. It would be an outright contradiction were Allah still to be saying that there is still a possibility of them being saved.

There is every indication here that all humankind is being referred to here, which is only what one would expect for Judgement Day anyway. Thus the potential of salvation is present to all humans, and not just Muslims- “if Allah is willing”.

Muslims might want to say here that this would only apply, on a case-to-case basis to those non- Muslims that were ignorant of Islam through no fault of their own. However the verses themselves do not really allow for that. Rather, in them we have an actual conversation between humans and Allah, and the humans rather than pleading ignorance saying “we never knew who you were”, rather address God as “our Lord”. Their vice is related to “friendship with jinn” in 6:128 and they are said to be “wretched” in 11:107.

These verses granting universal forgiveness are once addressed to “my servants”, and in the the others to any “non-mushrik”. “Non-mushrik” would certainly include Jews, quite possibly Christians, and also some group called “Sabeans”.  The Qur’an never states that Christians or Jews are mushriks (ones committing shirk). Even if in the case of Christians this might be seen as contentious from other verses that to prohibit trinitarian belief, there is certainly no such condemnation for Jews. We see this being corroborated in other Qur’anic verses like 2:62 which assure Christians, Sabeans and Jews that they will go to Heaven. So one should not need to convert to Islam according to this, if one belongs to any of those religious. This contradicts the entire purpose of Islam being introduced in the 7^th century as a claimed new revelation from God. The possible Muslim response to this might be to say that there are other verses demand obedience to Muhammed, but then it is easy to infer that this only applies to the Muslims.

2– Muslims may not go to Heaven?- Uncertainty over Eternal Outcomes

Q 4:48 (quoted above) states Allah only forgives “whosoever he wills” even of those fulfilling the required stipulation of not being a polytheist, which in Islam is really the only stipulation for being accepted by God . But this then means that all sins are not necessarily forgiven, else the “if…” clause is redundant.This means that even a Muslim who is faithful to the end might not be forgiven, since it is possible Allah might not be willing.

This might even pass unnoticed were it to be found in exclusion, however we find this notion of uncertainty reflected in other places in the Qur’an as well as in other closely related Islamic texts. For example, Muhammed states in a lament in the Qur’an: “…I know not what will happen to me or you…” (Q 46:9), a sign of a genuine and inherent insecurity in Islam with regards to eternal outcomes.

This is the kind of problem which denigrates the trust that a Muslim can have in God and contradicts other verses and hadith which state that Allah will not be unjust even to an atom, because it seems that criteria seems to have been dispensed of here. Again, verse 4:17 which we discuss below seem to lend corroboration by outlining extremely exacting conditions for forgiveness.

Finally, this theme of uncertainty of expectations lines up with the theme of determinism trend in Islam, enshrined in the “divine decree” doctrine, one of it’s 6 pillars of faith (iman). This is because the reason for not being forgiven might be the pre-determined outcome. All these build up a multi-faceted case for inherent insecurity with regards to eternal outcomes in Islam. This is seen for example, in a hadith which states that babies who die might go to Hell simply as a result of it being pre-determined for them, while in the Qur’an we have a youth who is killed by a man of God because he would apostasy in his future.

The reason Q 4:48 truly reflects this uncertainty is because this is supposedly Allah himself explaining how he acts. So when Allah uses the term “non-mushrik”, one would expect it to refer to true non-mushriks rather than to include pretenders. This is completely different, for example, from human beings speaking about the hidden intentions of the heart. For example, if Abdul said to Hassan “your sins will be forgiven, inshallah (god willing)”, he is acknowledging that he does not actually know whether or not Hassan’s sins will indeed be forgiven, rather he merely hopes that they will, since only Allah knows Hassan’s heart and the authenticity of his faith. But Allah on the other hand does not need to say “I will forgive you if I am willing”. This is like Allah saying inshallah. When Allah is speaking of a person’s faith in him, we should be able to presume that he knows that it is a genuine faith, else he would not call it “faith” in the first place. God knows whether he is willing or not, he doesn’t have to guess. This is the likeliest reason that we find the inshallah clause (if God is willing) only in one verse, because it is a slip-up on the part of the author attempting to speak as God.

3-  NO sins/ Few sins are forgiven

Here we are told, “only for those who do wrong in ignorance and then repent soon after” are forgiven. This is really not very comforting at all, and quite incredible coming from the “Oft-Forgiving”. Even the author seemingly aware of the problem, does not end the verse with the proclamation of that particular title for himself. The verse talks of unintentional sins being forgiven, but an act performed in ignorance is not a sin in the first place, that’s the whole point of the concept of right and wrong. God looks at the heart, but apparently the Qur’anic author is judging according to external practise of sharia instead. This is an Old Testament concept where the laws regarding life and temple ritual were also complex and also possibly not readily accessible to the people.

But the incredible thing about this verse is that in stipulating actions committed “in ignorance” it implies that actions performed intentionally are not forgiven, which basically excludes all sin. I do often hear of Muslims make this intentional/ unintentional distinction when it comes to sin, something which does not even exist in Christianity, and with good reason.

Finally, this is not speaking about sins that are not repented of, because clearly the verse itself specifies that minor sins that are “repented of soon after” are forgiven. In corollary, it would mean that major sins and even many other sins of types unspecified even if repented of, will fail to find forgiveness:

“The repentance accepted by Allah is only for those who do wrong in ignorance and then repent soon after. It is those to whom Allah will turn in forgiveness, and Allah is ever Knowing and Wise.” (Q 4:17)

4- It depends on how your scales tip

Yet another verse states that whether you go to Heaven or not depends on which way your scales tip when your deeds are weighed up. This is now different from saying that you get disqualified for “major” sins. Its not hard to see why: even if all one’s sins are minor, then one could also go to Hell purely because those sins piled up sufficiently. It also provides an objective criterion for entry into Heaven, albeit known only to Allah, which contradicts the whole “if Allah is willing” model. Unless of course we say that Allah loads his own “scales”, which would defeat the point of him having scales in the first place”:

“Then as for him whose balance (of good deeds) will be heavy, 7. He will live a pleasant life (in Paradise). 8. But as for him whose balance (of good deeds) will be light, 9. He will have his home in Hawiyah (pit, i.e. Hell). 10. And what will make you know what it is? 11. (It is) a hot blazing Fire!” (Q 101:6-11)

5- Pagans will always remain pagans?

This verse prohibits praying for polytheists, even in the family that a Muslim may have left behind in converting to Islam himself/herself, because Allah does not plan on forgiving them. The exception of Abraham praying for his father in the exceptional circumstance of allegedly doing it to fulfil a promise only serves to prove the rule.

This is a literary contradiction- Islam is a new religion, so all Muslims are going to be new converts, all of whose families will have had non-Muslims in it. If all disbelievers are bound to Hell, then how come some of the are converting to Islam?- they are converting to this day, in fact. The Qur’an is prohibiting praying for disbelievers, apparently without taking into account that some of those will one day indeed be believers, and thus wrongly asserting that they will all die in disbelief.

This also feeds into verses that speak about Allah misguiding disbelievers so that they never end up believing, for eg “As for those who disbelieve, it makes no difference whether you warn them or not: they will not believe. God has sealed their hearts and their ears, and their eyes are covered” (2:6). Muslims might argue that this only applies to stubborn disbelief, however, it agrees with the theme here of a blanket condemnation being pronounced.

To summarise, it would be absurd that God would prohibit praying for conversions, yet that seems to be what is being said here, and also corroborated in other places adds up to a consistent thread in the Islamic writings.

“It is not for the Prophet and those who have believed to ask forgiveness for the polytheists, even if they were relatives, after it has become clear to them that they are companions of Hellfire. And the request of forgiveness of Abraham for his father was only because of a promise he had made to him. But when it became apparent to Abraham that his father was an enemy to Allah , he disassociated himself from him. Indeed was Abraham compassionate and patient.” (9:113)

Muslim responses to the problem fo Forgiveness

1. “Allah judges according to the heart”

The Muslim response to these contradictions which I tend to hear most commonly is in short, that it is because Allah is able to judge according to the heart, that is, the hidden intentions. This is why he does not always forgive, and they might say “well some might believe/act well for the wrong reasons”. First of all it is really difficult to know just what intention a Muslim is supposed to have when they pray, because the promises of reward are all material anyway. So is it wrong to pray out of a desire for them, when Allah himself is dangling them as a temptation “which of your Lord’s favours would you deny?”, as he says himself. Materialistic reasons could not possible be wrong if the rewards are material anyway. And what could be a wrong intention in belief anyway, the intention itself if belief, the intent to believe, which is the foundation of all faith and therefore the highest intention in any faith. You can’t have the noblest intention with the wrong intention. There’s no caveat to belief, that’s a false argument in any religion, either one believes or one does not.

2. “Hell is not permanent”

Another response to the problem of Qur’anic verses asserting that all sins are not forgiven is to claim that in a seemingly Roman Catholic Purgatorial scenario, Hell is only temporary. It might find a tenuus basis in a single Qur’anic verse 11:107, which has the expression “as long as the earth and heavens endure”. The problem here is that the concept of a temporary Hell goes against a great deal of Qur’anic evidence, as we can see in verses like, to the point that the argument for this “temporary heaven and hell” simply cannot hold in the Qur’an:

“Verily, those who disbelieve and did wrong [by concealing the truth about Prophet Muhammad and his message of true Islamic Monotheism written in the Tawraatt (Torah) and the Injeel (Gospel) with them]; Allah will not forgive them, nor will He guide them to any way. Except the way of Hell, to dwell therein forever” [al-Nisa’ 4:168-169]

“Verily, Allah has cursed the disbelievers, and has prepared for them a flaming Fire (Hell) Wherein they will abide for ever” [al-Ahzaab 33:64]

“and whosoever disobeys Allah and His Messenger, then verily, for him is the fire of Hell, he shall dwell therein forever” [al-Jinn 72:23]

“This, because you took the Revelations of Allah (this Quran) in mockery, and the life of the world deceived you. So this Day, they shall not be taken out from there (Hell), nor shall they be returned to the worldly life (so that they repent to Allah, and beg His Pardon for their sins)” [al-Jaathiyah 45:35]

“But those who disbelieved (in the Oneness of Allah – Islamic Monotheism) and denied Our Ayaat (proofs, evidences, verses, lessons, signs, revelations, etc.), they will be the dwellers of the Fire, to dwell therein forever. And worst indeed is that destination” [al-Taghaabun 64:10]

“and whosoever disobeys Allah and His Messenger, then verily, for him is the fire of Hell, he shall dwell therein forever” [al-Jinn 72:23]

“Verily, the Mujrimoon (criminals, sinners, disbelievers) will be in the torment of Hell to abide therein forever. (The torment) will not be lightened for them, and they will be plunged into destruction with deep regrets, sorrows and in despair therein. We wronged them not, but they were the Zaalimoon (polytheists, wrongdoers). And they will cry: ‘O Malik (Keeper of Hell)! Let your Lord make an end of us.” He will say: “Verily, you shall abide forever.’ Indeed We have brought the truth (Muhammad with the Quran) to you, but most of you have a hatred for the truth” [al-Zukhruf 43:74-78]

“And of mankind are some who take (for worship) others besides Allah as rivals (to Allah). They love them as they love Allah. But those who believe, love Allah more (than anything else). If only, those who do wrong could see, when they will see the torment, that all power belongs to Allah and that Allah is Severe in punishment. When those who were followed disown (declare themselves innocent of) those who followed (them), and they see the torment, then all their relations will be cut off from them. And those who followed will say: ‘If only we had one more chance to return (to the worldly life), we would disown (declare ourselves as innocent from) them as they have disowned (declared themselves as innocent from) us.’ Thus Allah will show them their deeds as regrets for them. And they will never get out of the Fire” [al-Baqarah 2:165-167]

“But those who disbelieve (in the Oneness of Allah — Islamic Monotheism), for them will be the fire of Hell. Neither will it have a complete killing effect on them so that they die nor shall its torment be lightened for them. Thus do We requite every disbeliever! Therein they will cry: “Our Lord! Bring us out, we shall do righteous good deeds, not (the evil deeds) that we used to do.” (Allah will reply:) “Did We not give you lives long enough, so that whosoever would receive admonition could receive it? And the warner came to you. So taste you (the evil of your deeds). For the Zaalimoon (polytheists and wrongdoers) there is no helper” [Faatir 35:36]

https://islamqa.info/en/answers/45804/the-people-of-hell-will-abide-therein-forever.

“Hell is permanent, but the Punishments are not”

This is a somewhat stronger argument especially in view of verse 6:128 stating of Hell “there to dwell forever, except if Allah permits”, the multitude of verses that assert the permanence of Hell for disbelievers we have just listed, and the hadith that state every Muslim will be pulled out of it.

Secondly, if Hell itself is not permanent then the puishment of unbelievers is not permanent either, so this too will lead to an unresolvabe contradiction at the heart of Islam.

But even this is not getting at the problem. The contradiction arises because there are some verses stating that all sins are forgiven while others that they are not. If the temporary punishment is required for unforgiven sins, then why state that all sins are forgiven? All sins cannot both be and not be forgiven, and there are no two senses of forgiveness.

Thus it also makes no sense to state that they are unforgiven and go to the fire only temporarily. That would mean require that following the fire they were “all” forgiven, and contradicts the assertion that some are not forgiven. Thus it is a contradiction for Allah to state that even those destined for Heaven are not forgiven, and Christianity never makes such a statement.

Or perhaps the response is that the only the unforgiven Muslims are eventually pulled out of the Blaze. Again, this does not deal with the contradiction we have just described, and further it is not based not on the Qur’an, but rather on the hadith. Hence the contradiction remains in the Qur’an, which can be state clearly as “all sins are forgiven, but some unforgiven sins require temporary punishment in Hell”.

Why temporary Hell does not make sense in the Islamic model in any case

When we look further at this suppostition of temporary Hell for Muslims, even though it does nt resolve the contradictions, we see that even taken in and of itself, it does not stand up either to Qur’anic teaching or to logical reasoning anyway. It is worth looking at in any case, because Muslims have a hope of such temporary Hellish stays based upon the hadithic traditions which they hold in high esteem.

To be clear, in the analogous Catholic doctrine no one who is ultimately bound for Heaven is given literally up to the horrors of Hell, the notion of Hell is not what God would want for anyone of his children, it is purely intentioned a permanent separation from him and those from whom all relations are to be severed. So the explanation is ad hoc, and we see certain descriptions related to it in the hadith and an oblique and obscure reference to it in the Qur’an itself: “So by your Lord, We will surely gather them and the devils; then We will bring them to be present around Hell upon their knees…Not one of you there is, but he shall go down (waridhuha) to it; that for thy Lord is a thing decreed, determined” (Q 19:68,71). This verse has the effect of all the Muslims gathering around the opening of the fiery abyss for Judgement. If not, then it would mean that every single Muslim is sent to Hell at least for a time and not one is forgiven, which would be equally absurd.

If it is to be argued that those that are forgiven still require punishment in a Catholic Purgatory type purification process, something never mentioned in Islamic teaching, there is nothing in the Qur’an and entire Qur’anic literature about temporary unforgiveness, nor in Christianity and Catholicism, because God either forgives or does not. He doesn’t hold temporary grudges and if this is really the intent of the verses, which I don’t think it is, it would again betray a human hand.

If the temporary vacation in Hell and the package entertainments like deep-frying in hot oil is supposed to turn a bad person into a good one? In that case it should also make believers of the non-believers, should it not? I mean, if Hell is not permanent in toto, then there must be a solution for non- believers too, must there not? Thus in a non permanent scenario, where hell onl endures as long as the heavens and earth do, the Hell, more than a place of torment, is promarily a place of preparation for Heaven, since all creatures must eventually enter Heaven and eternal reward.

I have never heard of Sunnis state that Hell is a place of purification, and really if they did it would sound exactly like Roman Catholic Purgatory and nothing like Christian Hell. But how does torture make a person good? That is an absurd concept. How does torture make a “believer” a good person if they were truly depraved? That is nothing like Christian Purgatory. Christian Purgatory is not the suffering of Hellish and blasphemous abandonment from God, rather it is exactly what it says in the name, it is Purgatorial suffering.

For those with major sin, even Muslims, to be saved from sin would be a contradiction, a hypocritical response to hypocrisy:

Lastly the teaching that such a person dying in the state of love for sin would be acceptable in Heaven would be literally allowing Muslims to commit major sins. That is, if Muslims are permitted entry into Heaven following major sins, then they are permitted major sins. Such persons, as we stated, are hypocrites.  a major sin in any religion is obviously to reject some foundational teaching in that religion, or all the foundational teachings in that religion. What else is a hypocrite but one that merely pays lip service to his belief only then to pursue his own will. But to permit this means that the state of heart that desires major sin against the religion of Islam is acceptable to the God of Islam.  a Muslim may be assured that if they engage in nothing other than rp and k*lling sprees they are assured of Janna. This means a Muslim can live his life in a state of utter disrespect and abuse for life, sex and children and be assured of mercy.  A crazed murderer can hardly (as I’ve heard a Muslim do it) be desribed as “a person of true faith who is weak in the face of temptation”, as least that’s not what a Christian person of “true faith” looks like. That’s the definition of a hypocrite.

4. “Not praying for idol worshippers only applies in specific cases”

With regards to the verses about not praying for idol worshippers, it might be argued that this only applies to specific polytheists whose individual cases have “become clear” to the Muslims (although I haven’t heard anyone make that argument, it’s the only one I could come up with myself)? We are not given examples or even a teaching anywhere in Islam that individual believers will be given personal visions and revelations on any topic. The condemnation of mushriks to Hell is a prominent theme in the Qur’an, as is that of Allah “misguiding” disbelievers in an arguably a deterministic manner. Finally, Muslims do not typically pray for the conversion of people of other faiths, and the prohibition provided in this verse is quite likely the reason.

CONCLUSION AND DISCUSSION

From examining the Qur’anic verses on forgiveness, we get no less than 4 contradictory positions:

1. The following themes can be harmonised as I’ve explained in the first section: “All sins are forgiven” (39:52, 25:68-71); “All sins are forgiven except shirk” (4:48, 4:116); “All sins except major ones are forgiven” (53:32).

2. “Non-mushriks” include Jews and possibly even Christians according the Qur’anic author, so one should not need to convert to Islam according to this. This contradicts the entire purpose of Islam being introduced as a religion.

3. Even Muslims that remain Muslims to the end might not go to Heaven dependent upon Allah’s willingness, or lack of it.

4. There is no hope for those who have chosen polytheism (9:113)

5. Hardly any sins are forgiven. What’s forgiven is probably not even a sin in the first place (Q 4:17)

The claim of Islam with regards to going to Janna is that all that is required to believe the words of the shahada. This is the allegedly the relevance of Islam vis a vis Christianity where God has a rather elaborate-seeming plan that Christians allegedly concocted and ended up being pagan-ish.

This should have been a simple enough claim to make, especially with simplicity being the whole point of the claim in the first place. All that needed saying was “Be a Muslim and all your sins will be forgiven, except major ones, for which you will have to at least show some sorrow/repentance”.

Perhaps even more telling than the contradictions is the problem of a Muslim now knowing whether or not they are going to Heaven, because one verse states only unintentional sins can be forgiven and further all these promises of universal forgiveness are conditioned upon Allah’s willingness or lack of it. Muslims might not go to Heaven even if they remain Muslim, because Allah might not be willing. We have explained all the reasons in the relevant sections.

Can you marry Christians and Jews or not?

2:221 says not to marry idolators (kuffar or mushrikeen which mean the same thing, those who have partners for Allah etc etc)

5:5 says you can marry Christians and Jews

5:72, 9:31  and others say Christians are mushrik/kuffar for associating with Allah.

Textual Issues

Muslims corrupted Christian Gospels?

It is those persons who follow Muhammed, therefore Muslims themselves who “find him in the Torah and Gospels”. Thus the Muslims had the original Bible with them. What did they do to it, since they claim it is now corrupted?

“those who follow the Messenger, ‘the Prophet of the common folk, whom they find written down with them in the Torah and the Gospel, bidding them to honour, and forbidding them dishonour, making lawful for them the good things and making unlawful for them the corrupt things, and relieving them of their loads, and the fetters that were upon them. Those who believe in him and succour him and help him, and follow the light that has been sent down with him — they are the prosperers.’ (Q 7:157)

In fact Allah states that he guards the reminder (al-dhikr) and then states that it is previous peoples who are the people of the reminder, eg in 21:7, 16:43. I need to research this a bit more.

“And We sent none before thee, but men to whom We made revelation — question the People of the Remembrance, if you do not know –” (Q 21:7)

“We sent not any before thee, except men to whom We revealed: ‘Question the people of the Remembrance, if it should be that you do not know — “(Q 16:43)

Qur’ an has identified the Torah too as Dhikr: وَلَقَدْ كَتَبْنَا فِي الزَّبُورِ‌ مِن بَعْدِ الذِّكْرِ‌ ‘And verily We have written in the Zabur (Scripture, Psalms), after the Dhikr (the Message, Torah) ‘ – (Q 21:105)

Similar to this, أَنزَلْنَا إِلَيْكَ الذِّكْرَ‌ We sent down the Message (The Qur’an) to you – 16:44]. Here, the word: الذِّكْرِ‌ (Adh-Dhikr) means the Qur’an

God’s words can change or not?

YES, God erases his words/ Causes to be forgotten- “abrogation”

There has never been a consensus among Muslim scholars about which qur’anic passages the theory of abrogation (from the Latin abrogatus, past participle of abrogare “to annul, repeal (a law),” from ab “off, away from” (see ab) + rogare “propose (a law), ask, request,” (…) ” from root reg “move in a straight line”) affects.

We could argue that many of the contradictions covered in this article are in some way abrogating each other, but simply naming the issue is hardly going to solve it. Further, Muslims typically will polemically assert that Laws like those of circumcision, eating pork etc. can never change. Yet clearly these verses are saying that they do.

The verses which assert the presence of this “abrogation” in God’s teachings are listed below, and we can only assume that these verses that are “caused to be forgotten” are referring to verses in the Qur’an itself. It implies hat there are verses in Allah’s “eternal tablet” which are better than other verses in it, and that the latter presumably become erased. All this is quite absurd.

In contrast, Biblically abrogated teachings remain in the Bible and are a means for us to reflect upon the manner in which God incrementally teaches us morality. Biblical teaching developed over  period of 2000 years and the change was validated through the manifestation of God himself in Person as the Sign of this “New Covenant” signifying the change, a change that was obviously and manifestly for the better. This was the “abrogation” of the Bible if it is felt necessary to call it that at all. Ritual, animal sacrifice and the legalism of the Law is done away completely en masse to be substituted by the spiritual signification of them alone. Thus there is nothing arbitrary here, rather all the change has a common purpose in the spiritual fulfilment in Christ.

In Islam verses are radically abrogated within the lifetime and even within the career of a single “prophet”. This is what makes the notion of abrogation a matter of internal contradiction. The changes are seemingly arbitrary, since there is no traceable pattern of moral progression in the Qur’an. Further, the arrangement of chapters being arbitrary makes it impossible to state with assurance in which direction the changes are meant to be.

“Such of our verses (āya) as we abrogate (nansakh) or cause to be forgotten (nunsihā) we bring one better or the like thereof” (Q 2:106);

“And when we substituted (baddalnā) a verse in place of a verse…” (Q 16:101);

“Allah erases (yamḥū) what he wants…” (Q 13:39); and

“We shall make you read so that you will not forget, except that which Allah wants” (Q 87:6-7)

Al-Shāfiʿī (767-820 CE), the head of one of the four major schools of Islamic jurisprudence accepted the “withdrawal” of a verse related to the age of suckling and the question of restricted degrees of marriage, which verse is found only in the traditions today. On the other hand the rulings against alcohol we have seen in the relevant section already, and here both versions are present in today’s Quran. The missing ruling of stoning to death for adultery I have discussed here , which ruling is still considered by many Muslims to be valid based on those very traditions.

In my view, the most telling abrogation is the manner in which the chronologically earlier verses of the Qur’an more peacable and conciliatory toward non-Muslims while in the later verses, like Surah 9 we do not see this tolerance, and it seems like violent spread is the way. Terrorists will typically see this as a valid abrogation to justify their methods.

The Qu’ran’s authors in Sura 2:106, 10:64, 6:115, 16:101, 18:27 say that the Quran is the eternal word of God whose words can never be changed, nor can their meanings. And they then proceed to change them within the same document! There are, according to some scholars some 204 abrogations. WikiIslam has a useful list here: http://www.wikiislam.net/wiki/List_of_Abrogations_in_the_Qur’an.

“In some cases, a different choice of diacritics and vowels transforms the sense of a verse in a fairly major manner. Consider Q 2: 106, in which the divine speaker avers that ‘whatever verses We annul or cause to be forgotten (nunsihā), We bring better or the like’ – thus reassuring recipients that even if God has revoked a Qur’anic passage or consigned it to oblivion, this has not compromised the integrity of His revelation. Here, a large number of readers are credited with the reading nansaʾhā (‘We defer’) instead of nunsihā, which yields the meaning ‘whatever verses We annul or defer’ and does not entail the potentially unsettling prospect that God may have caused existing revelations to vanish without a trace. The stray variant tansahā (‘you forget’), on the other hand, goes so far as to imply that the Prophet may fail to remember some of the divine communications conveyed to him…

 (Footnote: On Q 2: 106, see Goldziher, Richtungen, p. 24, and ʿUmar and Makram, Muʿjam,  ) (Nicolai Sinai p.33 Introduction to the Qur’an)

Are Good and Evil from God or not?

This is rather humorous, unfortunately. Allah mocks people for lacking comprehension. Then he makes the same error himself. He first states that good and evil and both from God and then that they are not in the very next verse:

“Wherever you may be, death will overtake you, though you should be in raised-up towers. And if a good thing visits them, they say, ‘This is from God’; but if an evil thing visits them, they say, ‘This is from thee.’ Say: ‘Everything is from God.’ How is it with this people? They scarcely understand any tiding (78) Whatever good visits thee, it is of God; whatever evil visits thee is of thyself. And We have sent thee to men a Messenger; God suffices for a witness.” (Q 4:78,79)

NO, Words of God cannot be changed

What’s more, there is good reason to hold to the incorruptibility of the Bible, for the Qur’an itself states that God’s words cannot be changed per se:

18:27. And recite [and teach] that which has been revealed unto you of the Book of your Lord. No one can change His words. You shall find no refuge beside Him.

10:64. Theirs is the good news in this world and in the Hereafter. No change can there be in the words of Allah. This is the tremendous triumph.

6:114–115. “…There is nothing that can change His words. He is the Hearing, the Knowing.

“Naught is said to thee but what already was said to the Messengers before thee. Surely thy Lord is a Lord of forgiveness and of painful retribution.” (Q 41:43)

Muhammed is found in the Bible, or NOT?

The Qur’an states that Muhammed (or “Ahmad”) is in the Bible. This is clear and verifiable contradiction. I’ve covered this here: Prophecies of or by Muhammad, the Lack thereof.

How Many Months can Muslims fight?

When Muhammed is telling th Muslims to attack the non-Muslims as soon as the treaty runs out (which is strange in itself, why not just attack then?)t’s unclear why this thing about sacred months is also thrown into the mix. But going further, it’s also unclear just what these four sacred months even are. The Qur’an only describes one of them, which is of course the one everyone knows, Ramadan.

Muslims have come to list these to the months of Dhu-al Qaddah, Dhu’l Hijjah, Muharram and Rajjab. The first and the last are merely the 11th and the 7th months of the Islamic calendar respectively, and the other two I make out to be mnths 9 and 10. Dh’ul Hijjah is the month of Ramadan. Finallly, Muharram is also a festival, though celebrated by Sunnis and Shias for different reasons. The Sunnis celebrate certain Biblical events on this day, like the parting of the Red Sea and the reasons are pretty much obscure, we won’t even bother with them. Incredibly, Shi’as mourn the massacre of the very grandson of Muhammed himself by none other than the Sunnis, along with most of his male relatives and his retinue on this very day when Muslims are supposedly not allowed to fight. The massacre was carried out for not pledging allegiance to caliph Yazid Ibn Mu’awiya, the 6th Islamic caliph (son of Mu’awiya, the 5th) in the battle of Karbala.

It’s hard to see how this tradition of not fighting in Muharram could have been present at a time when a battle is proceeding in full swing that very month with full-on family massacres and everything. We never hear there was any reluctance to go out to battle or any special mercy, or any sense of “only self-defense”, which is hardly how you would describe what happened.

But all this confusion climaxes is stark contradiction, indicating that even the author (or authors) of these separate chapters don’t have a concept of what these “months” refer to, when while in two places, both in chapter 9, there seems to be an indication of 4 months, in two other places, both in surah 2, there is said to be only a single month wherein fighting is disallowed. Both the 4 month verses and in Surah Tawbah (9) while both the one month verses are in Bakarah (2). It’s like the author of surah 2 did not meet the author of surah 9 to discuss this matter. He seems to have no awareness of the 4 month thing.

Why does 2:117 say “they will question thee regarding the holy month, and fighting in it. And you will say, fighting in it…”. If there’s four months, how come both the question and the answer is only concerned with fighting in one month? How is it possible they are not asking the same question about the other months?

The simplest explanation would be that just as in the case of many of the Mecca-related practices, including the very presence of Mecca, it is something imported from the pre-Islamic pagans, who had a certain monthly festival cycle where squabbling was to be discouraged, so that the Temple economy, on which the area depended and thrived, would not be affected. Pilgrims came from far and wide and needed to be given the freedom and security with which to do so.

But even over and above the issue of any contradictions, I think there is an even bigger issue here, that on these months fighting in self-defense is allowed and no other manner of fighting. This is obviously teaching Muslims that they can make offensive war during the other 8 (or 11) months. It is hard to see how the claim that jihad fighting is only meant to be defensive can be held in the face of this.

Here’re “one-month” verses:

“They will question thee concerning the holy month, and fighting in it. Say: ‘Fighting in it is a heinous thing, but to bar from God’s way, and disbelief in Him, and the Holy Mosque, and to expel its people from it — that is more heinous in God’s sight; and persecution is more heinous than slaying.’…” (Q 2:217)

and again:

“The holy month for the holy month; holy things demand retaliation. Whoso commits aggression against you, do you commit aggression against him like as he has committed against you, and fear you God, and know that God is with the godfearing” (Q 2:194)

And here’re the “four months” verses:

“ ‘Journey freely in the land for four months; and know that you cannot frustrate the will of God, and that God degrades the unbelievers.’ (…)Then, when the sacred months are drawn away, slay the idolaters wherever you find them, and take them, and confine them, and lie in wait for them at every place of ambush. But if they repent, and perform the prayer, and pay the alms, then let them go their way; God is All-forgiving, All-compassionate.” (Q 9:2,5)

“The number of the months, with God, is twelve in the Book of God, the day that He created the heavens and the earth; four of them are sacred. That is the right religion. So wrong not each other during them. And fight the unbelievers totally even as they fight you totally and know that God is with the godfearing.” (Q 9:36)

This is the hadith that tells Muslims just what these “four months” refer to. As you will see, there is no particular explanation given, just certain months being named. This should be clear indication that it is simply adopting a pre-existing practise. Its a long hadith, I’ve edited out the last third or so:

“Abu Bakrah reported: The Prophet said, “Time has completed its cycle and has come to the state of the day when Allah created the heavens and the earth. The year consists of twelve months of which four are inviolable; three of them consecutive – Dhul-Qa’dah, Dhul-Hijjah and Muharram and Rajab, the month of Mudar (tribe), which comes between Jumada and Sha’ban. What month is this?” We said, “Allah and His Messenger know better”. The Prophet remained silent for some time until we thought that he would give it a name other than its real name. Then asked, “Is it not (the month of) Dhul-Hijjah?”. We replied in the affirmative. He asked, “Which city is this?”. We replied: “Allah and His Messenger know better”. He remained silent until we thought that he would give it another name. He asked, “Is it not Al-Baldah (Makkah)?” We said: “Yes”. He asked, “What day is this?”. We said: “Allah and His Messenger know better.” He remained silent until we thought that he would give it another name. He asked, “Is it not the day of An-Nahr (the sacrifice)?”. We replied in the affirmative. Thereupon he said, “Your blood, your property and your honour are inviolable to you all like the inviolablity of this day of yours, in this city of yours and in this month of yours (…)”. (Riyad as-Salihin 213, excerpt)

Will the hypocrites be guided or not?

I think there should be at least two versions of the Qur’an, in all honesty. One of verses and another of verses that contradict those verses.

Here Allah first chides Muhammed for trying to guide the hypocrites since they are beyond redemption, and in the very next verse they are redeemed.

To break it down further, why reject those who are about to become Muslims, how does that make sense? God has rejected “them”, “they will NEVER return”…then the same “they” emigrate to the cause of God and become Muslims too?

Some Muslims when confronted with this replied that the rejection is “not permanent”. In reply let us examine some of the terms used- “Allah has rejected them …Allah left to stray…(therefore) Muhammed Will never find a way for them….do you want to guide them?” All this sounds pretty permanent to me:

“Believers, why are you divided in two about the hypocrites when God himself has rejected them because of what they have done? Do you want to guide those who God has left to stray? If God leaves anyone to stray, you (Prophet) will never find the way for him. (89)They would dearly like you to reject faith, as they themselves have done, to be like them; so do not take them as allies until they emigrate in the way of God; then, if they turn their backs, take them, and slay them wherever you find them; take not to yourselves any one of them as friend or helper.” (Q 4:88,89)”

Only a few verses later, Allah reiterates this:
“If God leaves someone to stray (misguides him) you will NEVER find a way for him” (Q 4:143)

A SERIES OF PROBLEMS WITH THE QUR’AN’S’ DIRECTION OF PRAYER PASSAGE

INTRODUCTION: THE PASSAGE – Q 2:142-144

This is another example of multiple problems arising in just a few Qur’anic lines. In this case it is 2:142-144, the only Qur’anic passage that deals with the direction of prayer and its supposed “change” by God:

“The fools among the people will say, ‘What has turned them from the direction they were facing in their prayers aforetime?’ Say: “To God belong the East and the West; He guides whomsoever He will to a straight path.

Thus We appointed you a midmost nation that you might be witnesses to the people, and that the Messenger might be a witness to you; and We did not appoint the direction thou wast facing, except that We might know who followed the Messenger from him who turned on his heels — though it were a grave thing save for those whom God has guided;

but God would never leave your faith to waste – truly, God is All-gentle with the people, All-compassionate.

We have seen thee turning thy face about in the heaven; now We will surely turn thee to a direction that shall satisfy thee. Turn thy face towards the Holy Mosque; and wherever you are, turn your faces towards it. Those who have been given the Book know it is the truth from their Lord; God is not heedless of the things they do.”

ANALYSIS: THREE PROBLEMS WITH THIS PASSAGE

1. THE DIRECTION OF PRAYER WAS TOWARD JERUSALEM TEMPLE EVEN THOUGH THE KAABA WAS PRIOR TO IT

This passage confirms that the initial direction of prayer was toward Solomon’s Temple at Jerusalem.

This would imply that Allah intended for people to pray past the Ka’aba towards Jerusalem even at the time of Muhammad, right up to the point that he “received” the order to change direction.

Isn’t it much more likely that Abraham just never built a Kaaba in Mecca, which fits perfectly with the Biblical narrative?

How could it be possible that God would not ordain the direction of prayer towards the Kaaba upon its being built (eg. Q 22:26)? Yet even the Qur’an never mentions that Abraham ordained a direction of prayer toward Mecca. How come?

A simple look at Google maps will show you that if you are praying on the northern aspect of Mecca, even right in the Kaaba compound, your back would be toward the Ka’aba, if you were facing Jerusalem. Why would “God” ordain such a thing were Mecca truly the primary focal point of true religion?

Why was the direction of prayer was towards Jerusalem in the first place if the Kaaba in Mecca supposedly preceded it. The Jews should have been praying toward Mecca anyway, if the Kaaba truly had any significance or even any existence.

I think the stock response from Muslims is to say that Islam is not Judaism, and so the new qiblah signifies this change. This is begging the question and goes against much of what the Qur’an itself indicates. The whole point of the Qur’an is to “correct” any errors that the people have fallen into, not to correct errors that Allah made, by which there should be no reason for a new religion, and the qibla should stay where it was. There is no Qur’anic reason even for why different laws and religions are required in different geographic locations, in fact the Qur’an would state quite the opposite.

2. WHAT’S WRONG WITH LOOKING TOWARD HEAVEN?

In this verse, “God” mentions Muhammad’s habit of praying whilst facing the heavens. We are never told what is wrong with this, the changed direction toward the Ka’aba is mentioned right after. There are hadith in which Muhammed does explicitly prohibit looking up to heaven while praying. For example:

“Abu Huraira reported: People should avoid lifting their eyes towards the sky while supplicating in prayer, otherwise their eyes would be snatched away.” (Muslim 429, also 428, and from Bukhari in Riyadh As-Salihin 1754)

How could it be wrong to pray to heaven anyway, the earth is globular, so it doesn’t matter which way you look, there’s always going to be a Muslim on the other side of the word looking in the opposite direction.

The implication from the verse seemingly is that Muhammed instead of looking at the sky is to look toward the Ka’aba. How can it be that “Allah” is present in one direction (up), but not in the other direction (forward?), or even vice versa?

To complete the confusing picture, this verse makes it clear that the “face” of Allah is before you no matter which direction one turns. But if that is so, what can be the possible necessity of praying in a certain direction, or avoiding certain directions?

” To God belong the East and the West; whithersoever you turn, there is the Face of God; God is All-embracing, All-knowing.” (Q 2:115)

3. GOD TELLS PEOPLE TO DISOBEY THE QIBLA WITHOUT ANY CONSEQUENCE?

In verse 143 we see that those who disobey the direction of prayer ordained through his own messenger may go unpunished since it was also God who encouraged them to disobedience:

“We did not appoint the direction thou wast facing, except that We might know who followed the Messenger from him who turned on his heels — though it were a grave thing save for those whom God has guided…”

As can be seen, the passage asserts this is not a “grave thing”, for them. How come?

SUMMARY, AND HOW CHRISTIANITY PRESERVES TRUE DIRECTIONALITY IN PRAYER

Examining the entire issue of the direction of prayer in the Qur’an one is left with the impression that the rulings and theology in these verses are arbitrary, in sharp contrast with the direction of prayer toward the Jerusalem Temple in Judaism, based upon the supreme significance of it being seen to represent the literal dwelling place of God’s Presence on Earth.

In Christianity, the “qiblah” is Christ. He is present in every Church upon every Altar. Did Matthew not comment on Jesus’ saying “destroy this Temple and I will build it up in three days” that he was “speaking about his Body”? Jesus is the new Temple. Again, John writes: “I did not see a temple in the city, because the Lord God Almighty and the Lamb are its temple.” (Rev.21:22,23)

The Qur’an and its accompanying hadith paint a confusing picture when it comes to prayer directions, whether it be the direction in which the body is turned or whether it be the direction in which the eyes are directed. One would have expected that in monotheism neither of these should have been a bone of contention in the first place.

Saul/Gideon/Goliath “Mash-up”

“And when Saul went forth with the soldiers, he said, “Indeed, Allah will be testing you with a river. So whoever drinks from it is not of me, and whoever does not taste it is indeed of me, excepting one who takes [from it] in the hollow of his hand.” But they drank from it, except a [very] few of them. Then when he had crossed it along with those who believed with him, they said, “There is no power for us today against Goliath and his soldiers.” But those who were certain that they would meet Allah said, “How many a small company has overcome a large company by permission of Allah. And Allah is with the patient.” (Q 2:249)

The Name for Saul is “Talut”. That is clearly not the right name. Saul is the first King of Israel and a well known name to the Jews used to this day, like Solomon. This is not an “Arabicization”, it is an aberration. Next, the “water test” is taken from a completely different part of the Bible, that of Gideon. Third, its the wrong test. The test of the Qur’an makes no sense, those who refuse the water and those who drink it with the hollow of their hand are accepted (I have seen documentaries of African tribal peoples drinking water with their face to the water surface).

Essentially what is trying to be said is that everyone that laps up the water like a dog is refused. But there is no “test” here, how can it be wrong to drink water? In the Biblical narrative the only intention of God is to reduce the number of fighting men in order to show his power. He actually uses the 300 who do lap the water. The Qur’an mistakes this for a test of faith and states that these soldiers were “those who believed”. Following this they head off to face “Jalut and his soldiers”. We know that “Jalut” is Goliath based on the fact that David slays him next. In this case one could perhaps grant an “Arabicization” with the Hebrew “Golyath”. However this does also provide the third element of the mash-up, because the Arabic name of Saul is seemingly plucked out of the air in order to rhyme with it, like they were blood brothers separated at birth “Talut and Jalut”.

IN SUMMARY, we have the wrong king, the water drinking event in the wrong place, and the wrong interpretation of that event as a test of faith. Finally they cross the river to face seemingly the Philistines, while in truth it is the Philistines that besiege the Israelites.

Muhammad passes by Sodom daily and nightly?

Allah speaking to Muhammed (or his Arab listeners):

“Lot was also one of the messengers, we saved him (…) and we destroyed the others. You pass by their ruins in daylight and darkness. Will you not take heed?” What? Muhammed passes by the ruins of Sodom Gomorrah night and day? (Q 137:133-137)

Muslims would probably answer that some portion of humanity does pass these ruins, so you could be flexible. Although a few verses down v149 its clear that “Allah” is asking Muhammed to address his disbelieving listeners. Which is how the chapter begins in v.11 “SO, (Muhammed), ask the disbelievers…”.

Further, the ruins have only recently been excavated (or we think they have). So what were they “passing by” in the 7th century? Here’s an article of the claimed discovery: https://www.christiantoday.com/article/archaeologists.uncover.ruins.of.sodom.the.ancient.biblical.city.destroyed.by.god/66471.htm#:~:text=A%20team%20of%20archaeologists%20led%20by%20Prof.%20Steve,Bible%20suffered%20a%20catastrophic%20destruction%20caused%20by%20God.

To Fight or NOT to Fight

QUR’AN’S PEACE/VIOLENCE CONTRADICTION?

The Qur’an’s confusing verses seem to fight first of all against each other, leave alone against anything else.

BE PEACEFUL!:

4:90 says if someone offers peaceful terms, Muslims have “no way” (repeat: NO WAY) against them:

“If they withdraw and do not fight you, and offer you peace, then God give you no way against them…if they neither withdraw nor offer you peace… If they withdraw not from you, and offer you peace, and restrain their hands, take them, and slay them wherever you come on them; against them We have given you a clear authority.” (Q 4:90)

2:265 “there should be no compulsion in religion”

CONTRADICTION- BE VIOLENT!

When one takes prisoners in war, it is unversally accepted as a merciful option to killing those who have surrendered. This is forbidden in 8:67:

“It is not for any Prophet to have prisoners until he make wide slaughter (yuth’khina- يُثْخِنَ tha-kha-na root only 1 other occ.- 47:4, also a slaughter verse- “smite their heads….”) in the land.” (Q 8:67)

again, we see the FORBIDDING OF PEACE, even when the option is available:

“do not falter and sue for peace when you have gained the upper hand.” (Q 47:35)

AND AGAIN, Muslims are clearly meant to fight until their terms are accepted, NOT until peace is offered:

“Fight against such of those to whom the Scriptures were given as believe in neither God nor the last day, who do not forbid what God and his apostle have forbidden, and do not embrace the true Faith among the people of the Book, until they pay tribute out of hand and are utterly subdued.” (Q 9:29)

This is repeated from the main section:

In 9:1-7, Muslims are commanded unprovoked aggression upon completion of a treaty, even though clearly the “idolators” have clearly not violated it. This verse has some mitigation for those that convert “take to prayer” and “pay the levy”, as well as those who “seek your protection”, “so they can hear the words of Allah”. Clearly these mitigations are in the scenario of ongoing Islamic aggression, and contain elements of religious coercion/ restrictions “levy”. The unbelievers would not require to seek the Muslims’s protection had they not provoked the aggression in the first place.

In fact the verse is clearly contradictory and it seems that an editor may have tried to soften the effect. Clearly in the first half of the verse non-Muslims are being killed “slay them wherever you find them”, so how are the terms of peace supposed to apply to the dead? Is the Muslim invader supposed to ask at the point of “slaying”: “do you accept Islam?”, in which case it is religious coercion anyway, and the verse does not stipulate that the question be asked anyway. For example, in obedience to this verse, the Muslim goes to war when the treaty is run. Why would the other side sue for peace unless they felt threatened or if casualties had already been inflicted?:

“… those unbelievers who have honoured their treaties with you in every detail and have aided none against you. With these keep faith, until their treaties have run their term.. God loves the righteous. When the sacred months are over slay the idolators wherever you find them.

Arrest them, besiege them, and lay in ambush everywhere for them. If they repent and take to prayer (“salah”) and render the alms levy¸ allow them to go their way. God is forgiving and merciful. And if any one of the polytheists seeks your protection, then grant him protection so that he may hear the words of Allah. Then deliver him to his place of safety…” (Q 9:1-7 relevant section)

Misc. Contradictions

Compulsion in religion or not?

“there is no compulsion in religion” (Q 2:256)

However, this does sound like compulsion:

“Fight those who do not believe in Allah or in the Last Day and who do not consider unlawful what Allah and His Messenger have made unlawful and who do not adopt the religion of truth from those who were given the Scripture – [fight] until they give the jizyah willingly while they are humbled.” (Q 9:29)

Who is the Qur’an for?

This is actually an important contradiction because it is a seeming refutation of the global significance of Islam.

“And We have sent no Messenger save with the tongue of his people, that he might make all clear to them; then God leads astray whomsoever He will, and He guides whomsoever He will; and He is the All-mighty, the All-wise.” (Q 14:4)

another verse states that the revelation is meant for the mother of the cities only and those dwelling around it:
“And this is a Book which We have sent down, blessed and confirming what was before it, that you may warn the Mother of Cities and those around it. Those who believe in the Hereafter believe in it, and they are maintaining their prayers.” (Q 6:92)

This would seem to imply that the English speaking world need not heed the Qur’anic teachings today, since we have not had an English-speaking prophet come to us, nor any of the other non-Arabic-speaking nations and civilizations.

Possible Muslims response: This is only for the nations that came before Muhammed. After all the Qur’an does state that it is a message for all mankind. This is true, but if that is the case the above two verses seem strangely out of place anyway.

When did Islam really begin?

6:14 says that Mohammed was the first Muslim. “…I am commanded to be the first to devote himself”

7:143 says that Moses was the first Muslim. “…I am the first to believe”

And yet the Qur’an also declares that Adam and Abraham were Muslims. The Muslim’s standard narrative is that Islam as always present in the world, based upon the Qur’an, of course, in verses that state “we have never sent a prophet to any nation except in their language”, and also on the stories of previous Israelite prophets who are supposedly also Muslim according to it. However we have no archeological evidence of Islam in any country of the world whatsoever.

“And verily, We have sent among every Ummah (community, nation) a Messenger (proclaiming): Worship Allah (Alone), and avoid (or keep away from) Taghoot (all false deities, etc. i.e. do not worship Taghoot besides Allah)” [an-Nahl 16:36]. 

“And We never punish until We have sent a Messenger (to give warning)” [al-Isra’ 17:15]

“This is because your Lord would not destroy the (populations of) towns for their wrongdoing (i.e. associating others in worship along with Allah) while their people were unaware (so the Messengers were sent)” [al-An ‘am 6:131]. 

The hadith add helpfully:

“Narrated Abu Huraira: Allah’s Messenger said, “We (Muslims) are the last (people to come in the world) but (will be) the foremost (on the Day of Resurrection).” (Bukhari 238)

Muslims’ response to this? Well that this should only be taken to mean that Moses was the first among his people and Muhammed the first among his. Did Islam get eradicated in every other part of the world? This seems to be a necessary conclusion, since Muhammed required to take it upon himself and the Arabian Muslims to “re-introduce” it to the world. There are no records even in Muslim histories that there were already populations of Muslims elsewhere, among all of their conquests, had there been any, they would not require conquest rather be welcomed. Again, this seems to be a problem for the narrative that 100s of thousands of Muslim prophets had spread everywhere from the time of “prophet Adam”.

Who was the first prophet to the Arabs?

10:47- Allah has sent a messenger to every nation

2:125-129- Abraham and Ishmael came to Arabia where they build the Kaaba

28:46 – Mohammed was the first messenger to come to the Arabs

Is Ishmael a Prophet or not?

29:27 particularly places prophethood in the line of Isaac and does not mention the same for Ishmael, even though the latter was born first. 37:112 and 3:113 support this view, whilst at the same time there are a host of verses that do call Ishmael a prophet which are 2:1225,127 describe Abraham and Ishmael building the Ka’aba “for those who walk around it… and those who bow and prostrate themselves in worship”. In verses 2:133, 136,140 he is listed among the prophets of God and of Israel. Similarly the other references 3::84, 4:163, 6:86, 19:54, 21:85, 38:48. Read the full article in Prophecies of or by Muhammad, the Lack thereof

Alcohol Drinking

In Noldeke’s chronology, this verse is revealed first, in Mecca. Clearly this is Allah who is praising his creations, one of which provides men with wine:

“And indeed, for you in grazing livestock is a lesson. We give you drink from what is in their bellies – between excretion and blood – pure milk, palatable to drinkers (16:66). And from the fruits of the palm trees and grapevines you take intoxicant (sakaran-  7 occurrences, all with same meaning) and good provision. Indeed in that is a sign for a people who reason” (Q 16:67)

In Medina, there is a prohibition against being under the influence at prayer-time only. Clearly it is OK to drink in general:

“O you who have believed, do not approach prayer while you are intoxicated (sukara) until you know what you are saying or in a state of janabah, except those passing through, until you have washed…” (Q 4:43)

…and this is the last to be “revealed”, a complete ban, and also a complete contradiction. What was “a sign and a good from Allah, is now the handiwork of the Devil”:

“O ye who believe! Intoxicants (l-khaamru) and gambling, (dedication of) stones, and (divination by) arrows, are an abomination,- of Satan’s handwork: eschew such (abomination), that ye may prosper.” (Q 5:90)

Was Noah’s Family saved or not?

“(And [mention] Noah, when he called [to Allah] before [that time], so We responded to him and saved him and his family from the great flood.” (Q 21:76)

but his Son drowned:

“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.”(Q 11:42-43)

Did Allah make Ships for you?

55:24 does not have a particular context:

“His (wa la hu: and- for/to- phim) are the ships that sail like mountains upon the ocean. Which of your Lord’s blessings would you deny?” (Q 55:24,25)

43:12 is obviously talking about some form of transportation since people ride on them. However here it is a different root (f-l-k ف ل ك), 23 occ., as ship and twice for “orbit”. Even though it’s a different word, we still have the situation of God claiming to have made something which is actually man-made.

“and who created the pairs, all of them, and made (wa-jaʿala-  “make”, 340 occ., only once “appointed”) for you ships and cattle such as you ride.” (Q 43:12)

In 42:32-34, its very obvious that it’s speaking of ships, since it also speaks of their passengers who could get wrecked:

“Among His signs are the ships, sailing like floating mountains: if He willed, He could bring the wind to a standstill and they would lie motionless on the surface of the sea- there truly are signs in this for anyone who is steadfast and thankful-or He could cause them to be wrecked on account of what their passengers have done- God pardons much-to let those who argue about Our messages know that there is no escape for them. What you have been given is only the fleeting enjoyment of this world. Far better and more lasting is what God will give to those who believe and trust in their Lord” (42:32-24, AH)

A Muslim replied to me saying that the word used for “ships” (root ج ر ي j-r-y) means “flow, run” in its verb form. I think its true that Arabic uses the same word for the running of water and of animals (I may be wrong) But the corpus.quran usage translates the verb “flow” in all 57 occ. except 4 as “run”, while in prtcpl. (6 occ.) as we have here, it is ships/sailing except one as “run”, as stars that “run their courses”. The lexical entry gives the primary meaning as related to flow http://lexicon.quranic-research.net/data/05_j/081_jre.html. I’ve heard Muslim say from this that “the runners” might hurricanes. Someone else even offered “icebergs”. I do not see either as fitting the context of the verses.

It seems that either Mohammed actually believes that ships are sea-creatures (comparing them as he does to camels) or it is a defective textual preservation. Allah did not “make ships”. That is like God saying “I made for you the cars and the horses…” .

Anachronisms

There’s at least three seeming anachronisms in the Qur’an. While taken individually one might be tempted to put this down to two similar persons or events living at two different times, taken together they do make one raise an eyebrow. The reader can judge:

Jesus’ Mother is the Sister of Aaron and Daughter of his Father?

Mary, the mother of Jesus, is referred to as the “sister of Aaron” in the Qur’an in this verse. Aaron however, was born about 2000 years before Jesus and did have a sister called Miriam. Mohammed seemingly is confusing Mary with the Biblical prophetess.

“At length she brought the (babe) to her people, carrying him (in her arms). They said: “O Mary! Truly an amazing thing hast thou brought! “O sister of Aaron! Thy father was not a man of evil, nor thy mother a woman unchaste!” (Q 19:27-28)

And we have a second corroborating error- Mary is also given the same father as Aaron, while the name of her own father, absent also from the primary source book of the Qur’an, is not also mentioned in it:  

Maryam is born to Imran and his wife:

“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.  So her Lord accepted her with good acceptance and caused her to grow in a good manner and put her in the care of Zechariah. Every time Zechariah entered upon her in the prayer chamber, he found with her provision. He said, “O Mary, from where is this [coming] to you?” She said, “It is from Allah. Indeed, Allah provides for whom He wills without account.” (Q3:35-37)

“And Mary, the daughter of `Imran,…”(Q 66:12).

This is the Biblical “Amram”:

“Amram married Jochebed his father’s sister and she bore him Aaron and Moses, and the length of Amram’s life was one hundred thirty-seven years” (Exodus 6:20)

It is natural to assign to an ancestor the title of a paternal/ maternal relation in the manner that Abraham is called “father” or Jesus is called “Son of David” in the Bible. But to call them by an ancestral namesake? One could say that is not inconceivable. But while the brother is ancestrally metaphorical, for the ancestral father to actual be literally present is rather odd, to say the least. On the other hand, Aaron has already been introduced as a prophet and the brother of Moses. All I can say is that there is no precedent of this in either book, and so it must be taken at least as a potential contradiction.

Abraham, the son of his own servant?

This verse seems to be stating Mary’s paternity simply, as a matter of fact. This is not the only anachronism in the Qur’an. For example, the father of Abraham is called Āzar (Q. 6:74). However, the name of Abraham’s father in the Torah is Terāḥ (Genesis 11:24-32). Was “Azar” taken from Abraham’s servant Eliʿezer? (Genesis 15:2). Haman who is in the Biblical story of Esther is placed by the Qur’an in the court of the Pharaoh of Moses.

Conclusion: It is well known that the Qur’an is extremely fact-lite to start with and so the few historical details and family relationships it does detail would seem to be significant. It would seem to be mixing those up, however. The reader can draw their own conclusions.

Pharaoh Builds the Tower of Babel using Esther’s Builder?

“And the family of Pharaoh picked him up [out of the river] (referring to Moses) so that he would become to them an enemy and a [cause of] grief. Indeed, Pharaoh and Haman and their soldiers were deliberate sinners (…) And Pharaoh said, “O eminent ones, I have not known you to have a god other than me. Then ignite for me, O Haman, [a fire] upon the clay and make for me a tower that I may look at the God of Moses. And indeed, I do think he is among the liars. And he was arrogant, he and his soldiers, in the land, without right, and they thought that they would not be returned to Us. Therefore We seized him and his hosts, and cast them into the sea; so behold how was the end of the evildoers!”[Sura 28:8,38]

This is seemingly a double anachronism from a Biblical standpoint. Pharaoh of the Bible is not known to have had any desire to “build a tower to the Gods”, and neither is there a Biblical character called Haman in his court, rather there is one in Esther’s story. Furthermore, the Haman in the Qur’anic Pharaoh’s court sounds very much like the one in the Biblical Queen Esther’s since both are conniving villains. The rather thrilling account of this “tower to the gods” ends abruptly with no resolution, which for me is the other smoking gun here. (In 10:88-92 we get the full Biblical Exodus narrative with Pharaoh dying while chasing after the departing Israelites).

Counter-arguments: Muslims apologists have recently been pointing to some hieroglyphic that place a name that is related to Haman in the Pharaonic age. On closer inspection its looks like a title of the priest of the Egyptian God Aman in abbreviation could sound like “Ha-Aman” (I need to go find the exact details again). Second, serious questions have been asked with regards to the historicity of the book of Esther itself, which if true could further weaken the objection.

A Samaritan in the time of Moses?

There were no Samaritans at the time of Moses. The Qur’an again seems to smoosh history together when it states that a Samaritan built the Golden Calf for the Israelite at the time of Moses. Just as in the case of Maryam, the Samaritans arrived eons later, after the Israelites stay in the desert and the age of the partriachs, only when the Kingdom was divided after the time of Kings David and Solomon.

“[Allah] said, “But indeed, We have tried your people after you [departed], and the Samiri has led them astray.” (Q 20:85)

Appendix- some weak contradictions

I add these here only because they come up in discussions;

Number of days of Creation

Surah 7:54- Creation took 6 days:
“Indeed, your Lord (rabbakumu) is God (l-lahu), who created the heavens and earth in six days and then established Himself above the Throne. He covers the night with the day, [another night] chasing it rapidly; and [He created] the sun, the moon, and the stars, subjected by His command. Unquestionably, His is the creation and the command; blessed is God (l-lahu), the Lord of the worlds.”

Surah 41:9-12- took eight days. Here I have heard it argued that the initial period of 2 days is included in the subsequent period of 4. However this is an unlikely reading, and it does not seem to be the intent of the author. Why would God first say that it took him two days to create the Earth and then say that it actually took him four for the finished product, its not as though there were a cut-off when one stage ended and the other began (if we assume the first stage is referring to the “gas/liquid ball” stage of the earth. Rather he “ordained diverse sustenance in four days”?:

 Say: ‘What, do you disbelieve in Him who created the earth in two days (yawmayni), and do you set up compeers to Him? That is the Lord of all Being. ‘And He set therein firm mountains over it, and He blessed it, and He ordained therein its diverse sustenance in four days (ayyamin, same root as prev.), equal to those who ask.’  Then He lifted Himself to heaven when it was smoke, and said to it and to the earth, “Come willingly, or unwillingly!” They said, “We come willingly.” So He determined them as seven heavens in two days (yawmayni), and revealed its commandment in every heaven.’

The Contradiction of Guidance

Allah misguides evil-doers and the disobedient

Verses 2:26, 7:30, 22:4, 33:36, 14:27, 25:44, 33:67, 17:72, 6:116, 6:56 (in verse order) those who are transgressors, who take the shayateen as friends and protectors, who disobey Allah an his messenger, who are oppressors and are unjust, who do not use their reasoning, who follow the opinions of their leaders, who are blind to the message and finally those who follow their own desires.

Human choice does not play a role in good and evil

“…None will take heed except if God wills. He is the source of righteousness and the source of forgiveness.” (Q 74:55-56) “…You cannot will, except if God wills. God is Knowledgeable, Wise. He admits whoever/whomever He wills to His mercy. As for the wicked, He has prepared for them a painful retribution.” (Q.76:29-31) “…If We had sent down to them the angels, and the dead spoke to them, and We had gathered before them everything, they still would not acknowledge except if God wills. But most of them are ignorant.” (Q.6:111).

This is supported by hadith:

(Sahih al-Bukhari 3208, 6614,). unborn babies who had the wrong programme input go to Hell (Bukhari 6595, Ibn Majah Arabic: Bk.1,Vol.86)), and finally babies who are buried by their mother go to Hell irrespective of what was written for them! (Mishkat al-Masabih 112(graded sahih), Abu Dawud 4717 (sahih))

(Allah Misguides whom he wills: The Muslim scripture is also clear that a person whom Allah has chosen to mislead can never be guided: 14:4 4:883:26 39:36-37 16:37, 42:44-46 17:97. 74:31 40:33-34, 16:93)

This sets up two possible contradictions:

There is a moral contradiction- why punish those, the actions of whom are not controlled by themselves? This is malice, to harm those who are not at fault. It is also a logical contradiction- the first set of verses imply that people choose to do evil whereas the second set clearly states that people can not freely choose anything, good nor evil

Is the Qur’an clear or not?

NO, it isn’t

“It is He who has sent down to you, [O Muhammad], the Book; in it are verses [that are] precise – they are the foundation of the Book – and others unspecific (mutashabihatun). As for those in whose hearts is deviation [from truth], they will follow that of it which is unspecific, seeking discord and seeking an interpretation [suitable to them]. And no one knows its [true] interpretation except Allah. But those firm in knowledge say, “We believe in it. All [of it] is from our Lord.” And no one will be reminded except those of understanding.” (q 3:7)

The Qur’an does not read like a book of clear teaching, I don’t think this is even controversial for the unbiased reader of it. The fact that the Qur’an cannot seem to decide whether it is a clear teaching or not seems only to reinforce this feeling. Qur’anic scholar Nicolai Sinai describes the problem in verse 3:7:

“A much stronger argument for a post-prophetic insertion can be put forward regarding Q 3: 7. The verse famously posits that the scripture (kitāb) sent down upon the Qur’anic Messenger contains verses that are ‘firm’ or ‘clear’ (āyāt muh.kamāt) and others that are mutashābih – literally ‘resembling one another’, but here obviously used to mean ‘ambiguous’. The verse then condemns those who ‘pursue what is ambiguous’ in scripture, ‘seeking temptation and seeking its interpretation’.

This admission that certain parts of the Qur’anic corpus are inherently ambiguous and that their interpretation is bound to remain inaccessible stands in stark contrast to an impressive roster of other verses: the Qur’an’s frequent insistence on its own intrinsic clarity, the assurance in Q 75: 16–19 that God Himself will see to the clarification of existing Qur’anic revelations (presumably in subsequent ones), and a statement implying that all of the Qur’an, not just certain parts of it, have been ‘made firm’ (Q 11: 1).60 As opposed to these passages, Q 3: 7 confines the property of clarity or ‘firmness’ to a textual core designated as ‘the mother of the Scripture’ (umm al-kitāb).

Q 3: 7 stands apart from the rest of the Qur’an not only on account of its substantially different take on clarity, but also on terminological grounds. While key diction of Q 3: 7 recurs elsewhere in the Islamic scripture, these parallels display noticeable semantic discrepancies. The term mutashābih, for instance, is also employed at Q 2: 25, 6: 99.141, and 39:23, but there it is amenable to being understood in its literal sense of ‘self-similar’ or ‘mutually similar’, whereas the context of Q 3: 7 clearly suggests the meaning ‘ambiguous’. The verb ah.kama, of which muh.kam is the passive participle, also occurs in other Qur’anic verses but is never paired with the word mutashābih, as in Q 3: 7. The term ‘the mother of the Scripture’ (umm al-kitāb) is found at Q 13: 39 and 43: 4, but in these verses it designates an archetype of the Qur’anic revelations that is located ‘with’ God, whereas at Q 3: 7 the phrase is used to refer to an unambiguous core, either of the Qur’anic revelations or of their celestial archetype…” -Nicolai Sinai, Introduction to the Qur’an p.53,54

YES, it is

This verse seems to be stating that the Book’s perfect verses are explained, and do not contain the reference to ambiguity. The word fusillat is usually translated as “detailed explanation” or “set out clearly (Abdel Haleem):

“Alif, Lam, Ra. [This is] a Book whose verses are perfected (uh’kimat ayatuhu) and then presented in detail (fussilat- explanation, 17occ. v. II form and verbal n.50cc.) from [one who is] Wise and Acquainted.” (Q 11:1)

we see a similar theme here:

“There was certainly in their stories a lesson for those of understanding. Never was the Qur’an a narration invented, but a confirmation of what was before it and a detailed explanation (tafsila, root f-s-l) of all things and guidance and mercy for a people who believe.” (Q 12:111)

Conclusion: Whether this is a clear contradiction or not depends on the manner in which f-s-l word is translated, whether as “detailed explanation” or only as “explanation”. Whichever it is, the fact is that 11:1 claims that the verses are explained rather than ambiguous. I do not believe this is a strong contradiction, since it can be countered that 11:1 does not make a strong assertion that “all” the verses are explained.

Does God share his Kingdom with anyone or not?

YES?:

“Say: ‘O God, Master (mālika) of the Kingdom (l-mul’ki: الْمُلْكِ), Thou givest the Kingdom to whom Thou wilt, and seizest the Kingdom from whom Thou wilt, Thou exaltest whom Thou wilt, and Thou abasest whom Thou wilt; in Thy hand is the good; Thou art powerful over everything.” (Q 3:26)

NO?:

And say: ‘Praise belongs to God, who has not taken to Him a son, and who has not any associate in the Kingdom (l-mul’ki- الْمُلْكِ), nor any protector out of humbleness.’ And glorify him with great glorification. (Q 17:111)

The Jewish Tanakh does not speak of “Kingdom of God”, rather only of the Kingdom of David. That term only makes its appearance in the New Testament when that Davidic Kingdom is fulfilled in what it really represents: the Kingdom of God with Jesus, who is God himself on the throne of his human ancestor. In Islam there is no concept of Kingdoms, David and Solomon are all lumped together with all the prophets (although it is true that Solomon building his palace in mentioned). This is another example of a Biblical term being “borrowed” and leading to an unwitting contradiction through seemingly clumsy usage.