The evils of child marriage should not be something that we have to debate in the first place. I hope that most Muslims agree with me here. But for those who do not, these are the reasons in short in my own words and an approach to how the Bible deals with the issue.
Pre-pubertal sexual acts can not be consensual because a child cannot consent to that which they do not desire nor comprehend. Thus every such act is rape and assault. In the initial years after the commencement, the child still does not have libido, and this is especially true of the girl child, whose interests are still childish pursuits. Thus again at this age sexual acts cannot be consensual because she still does not desire not even at this stage comprehend its implications.
For example, a child at this age does not desire her own family, the propagation of her dynasty, nor does it comprehend what healthy parenting and nurturing of offspring entails. At the very least, this violates the Golden Rule, “do unto others what you would have them do to you”. To spell it out, if you were a child you would not want that. Assault can lead to severe post-traumatic psychological problems in mature adults, so how much more in the developing brain of the child. Finally, there is the possibility of severe injury with significant immediate as well as long-term consequences to the health in under-age sex.
It is sometimes said that the Bible does not itself specify a particular age of marriage. However in all its teachings on morality, and age of marriage being no exception, the Bible gives principles, not particulars. In contrast, the Qur’an, and Islam in general is a religion of particular prescriptive practise. Thus the same principles do not apply to their interpretation when it comes to practice. If there is an age at which marriage would be abusive and exploitative, then a Christian charity would forbid its practise among believers. The fact that there is no explicit prohibition against slavery is another example. The important thing is not to allow ourselves to be measured by their standards. The general and universal command to self-effacing love is the greatest Biblical teaching and everything is subsumed under it. Islam has nothing like it, they have ad hoc morality.
What does the Qur’an itself say?
“O Prophet, when you (and the believers) divorce women, divorce them for their prescribed waiting-period and count the waiting-period accurately (…) And if you are in doubt about those of your women who have despaired of menstruation, (you should know that) their waiting period is three months, and the same applies to those who have not menstruated as yet.” (Q 65:1-4)
The reason for the waiting period is to make sure that the woman isn’t pregnant. If there was any doubt, surah 33:49 makes it clear that the waiting period is only related to women who have been “touched”.
In the following verse is not certain from the language as to whether the advice is to marry the females from among the orphan children themselves or to marry women so that the orphan children can be better looked after. Likely these, as in the next verse, are orphaned relatives, hence the responsibility for their care:
“If ye fear that ye shall not be able to deal justly with the orphans girls (l-yatama), then marry what seems suitable to you of the women (l-nisai), two or three or four; but if ye fear that ye shall not be able to deal justly (with them), then only one, or (a captive) that your right hands possess, that will be more suitable, to prevent you from doing injustice.” (Q 4:3)
We can see here that orphan girls might be considered of marriageable age even prior to gaining right judgement, which indicates immaturity. As far as I’m aware the word for sex and marriage n-k-h is the same in Arabic, as in the “marital act”. This is similar to what we see in other ancient languages, where sex and marriage are synonymous, there is no word for sex apart from marriage. There is a word that refers purely to marriage which is zawaj.
“Test well the orphans (l-yatama), until they reach (balaghu) the age of marrying (l-nikaha); then, if you perceive in them right judgment, deliver to them their property; consume it not wastefully and hastily ere they are grown. If any man is rich, let him be abstinent; if poor, let him consume in reason. And when you deliver to them their property, take witnesses over them; God suffices for a reckoner.” (Q 4:6)
We can see by comparing with 4:127 that there is a theme of giving them “what is prescribed for them”, which is presumably their property of which the person is the caretaker.
They will ask thee for a pronouncement concerning women. Say: ‘God pronounces to you concerning them, and what is recited to you in the Book concerning the orphan women (yatama l-nasai) to whom you give not what is prescribed for them, and yet desire to marry them, and the oppressed children, and that you secure justice for orphans. Whatever good you do, God knows of it.’ (Q 4:127)
What do the Hadith say?
“It was narrated from ‘Abdullah bin Buraidah that his father said: “Abu Bakr and ‘Umar, may Allah be pleased with them, proposed marriage to Fatimah but the Messenger of Allah said: ‘She is young.’ Then ‘Ali proposed marriage to her and he married her to him.”
أَخْبَرَنَا الْحُسَيْنُ بْنُ حُرَيْثٍ، قَالَ حَدَّثَنَا الْفَضْلُ بْنُ مُوسَى، عَنِ الْحُسَيْنِ بْنِ وَاقِدٍ، عَنْ عَبْدِ اللَّهِ بْنِ بُرَيْدَةَ، عَنْ أَبِيهِ، قَالَ خَطَبَ أَبُو بَكْرٍ وَعُمَرُ رضى الله عنهما فَاطِمَةَ فَقَالَ رَسُولُ اللَّهِ صلى الله عليه وسلم “ إِنَّهَا صَغِيرَةٌ ” . فَخَطَبَهَا عَلِيٌّ فَزَوَّجَهَا مِنْهُ .
Sunan an-Nasa’i 3221. Grade: Sahih (Darussalam)
And the age of Fatimah was 15 years old, while that of Abu Bakr was more than fifty ,and Omar was in the late 40s, as for Ali he was in his early 20s.
The following is from Bukhari’s chapter introduction for chapter 39, Book an-Nikkah. It appears immediately before the first and only hadith of Chapter 39, Sahih Bukhari 7:62:64 and can be seen in the Dar-us-Salam print edition, volume 7.
Giving one’s young children in marriage (is permissible) by virtue of the Statement of Allah: ‘And for those who have courses’ (i.e. they are still immature) (Sura 65:4) And the ‘Iddat [waiting period for a woman before lawful sexual intercourse] for the girl before puberty is three months (in the above Verse). Bukhari (Chapter 39)
The following is from Fath al-Bari, the most authoritative commentary on Sahih Al-Bukhari.
واللائي لم يحضن , فجعل عدتها ثلاثة أشهر قبل البلوغ ) أي فدل على أن نكاحها قبل البلوغ جائز
“and those who never had menses, their prescribed period is three months before puberty, which indicates that giving her into marriage before puberty is permissible.” Fath Al-Bari by Ibn Hajar
Yahya related to me from Malik that he had heard that the Messenger of Allah, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, visited Umm Salama while she was in mourning for Abu Salama and she had put aloes on her eyes. He said, “What is this, Umm Salama?” She said, “It is only aloes, Messenger of Allah.” He said, “Put it on at night and wipe it off in the daytime.”
Malik said, “The mourning of a young girl who has not yet had a menstrual period takes the same form as the mourning of one who has had a period. She avoids what a mature woman avoids if her husband dies.”
Malik said, “A slave-girl mourns her husband when he dies for two months and five nights like her idda.
Malik said, “An umm walad does not have to mourn when her master dies, and a slave-girl does not have to mourn when her master dies. Mourning is for those with husbands.” Al-Muwatta 29:108
Examples of fatwas
Fatwas are decisions given by local mullahs on issues pertaining to the populace
A fatwa collection issued by the Ministry of Religious Endowments and Islamic Affairs in Kuwait, included the following fatwa:
هل يصح عقد الزواج على الرضيعة ويجوز التمتع بها بالتقبيل وغيره -سوى الجماع- بما لا يضرها؟
الجواب: إذا كان العقد مستوفيًا لشروطه الشرعية، فإنها تصبح به زوجته من كل الوجوه، ويحل له منها النظر إليها ولمسها وتقبيلها، ولا يحل له جماعها حتى تطيقه من غير ضرر، فإذا أطاقته حل له منها ذلك أيضًا.
مجموعة الفتاوى الشرعية، فتوى رقم 6058
Question: Is it allowed to marry a suckling baby and is it allowed to pleasure myself with her by kissing her and doing other unharmful acts excluding sex?
Answer: If the marriage contract fulfills the Islamic legal requirements then she’s considered to be his wife in all respects and he’s allowed to look at her, touch her and kiss her. He’s not allowed to have sex with her until she can endure sex without causing her any harm.
مغني المحتاج للشربيني (ت 977هـ)، دار الكتب العلمية، ج4 ص373
It’s forbidden to have sex with someone who can’t endure sex due to young age, illness or thinness because she would be harmed. She should wait until she can endure it. If a wife was handed over to her husband while she’s a minor who can’t endure sex then the husband isn’t obliged to take her because he married her for pleasure and not for custody. If he takes her then he’s not obliged to give her the dowry.
Mughni Al-Muhtaj by Al-Sharbini (d.1570 AD), published by Dar Al-Kutub Al-‘ilmiyyah, vol.4 p.373
Mukhtasar Khalil is a major book in the Maliki legal school which is one of the four major legal schools. Al-Kharashi (d.1690) said in his commentary on this book:
وقوله وأمكن وطؤها أي بلا حد سن بل يختلف باختلاف الأشخاص ولا يشترط الاحتلام فيها كالرجل؛ لأن من أطاقت الوطء يحصل بها للرجل كمال اللذة
شرح الخرشي على مختصر خليل، المطبعة الكبرى الأميرية، المكتبة الشاملة، ج3 ص258
“It’s possible to have sex with her” meaning there’s no specific age. Every person is different. And it’s not required for her to reach puberty because a man can receive full pleasure if the female can endure sex.
Al-Kharashi, Sharh Al-Kharashi, published by Al-Matba’ah Al-Kubra, Al-Maktabah Al-Shamilah, vol.3 p.258
Demonic intelligence and knowledge is far greater than our own and older…much older. Daemons are very easily able to give the appearance of the miraculous. All this is predicted in the Bible and warned against explicitly in verses like: “For false messiahs and false prophets will appear and perform great signs and wonders to deceive, if possible, even the elect.” (Matthew 24:24, Mark 13:12).
I constantly see things in Islam that are touted as “miraculous” and I’m thinking “well, that’s a piece of cake for a daemon!”. Daemons can see in dimensions that we cannot and in modes that we cannot because they are spiritual creatures. We see “predictions” from mystics all the time, even today. These are not miraculous, rather merely the daemons making “educated guesses”.
It is useful in appreciating the knowledge of angels to know what is the difference between “discursive” knowledge and “intuitive” knowledge. We gain knowledge in a deductive manner by going from premises to conclusions, or from data to theories and so forth. This is in accordance with our temporal natures and because we gain knowledge through our sense perception. Thus in humans knowledge increases in an exponential manner throughout life. This means that at any given period of life his knowledge is always deficient, because a person’s knowledge is always less than he will know at a later stage.
Angels do not have sense perception, because they do not possess physical bodies at all, they are spiritual creatures. God infuses them with all the knowledge that they will ever have at the very moment of their creation (this is also the reason why Satan is irreversibly condemned to Hell with no concept of repentance at his first rejection of God).
This knowledge unlike that of humans is not discursive, rather it is able to grasp at once both the premises and the conclusion. In other words, there is no “learning curve” in the spiritual realm.
I’m not an exorcist by any means, but I will give a couple of examples how even Christians have been fooled by demoniacs and I have been able to help in discernment:
1. A lady I know once said to me that a long time ago, a diviner was able to tell that she would contract a “chronic disease”, and that this was before they had any signs or symptoms. Years later she found out she had contracted the HIV virus. This made the person believe that demons knew the future. This lady is a practicing and devout Christian herself.
I was able to explain to this lady that it is nothing for a demon to know that she has slept with a person who has HIV. Even if that person she slept with was himself not aware of his illness, it is nothing for a demon to be able to detect the virus in the person.
The demons can do with their spiritual vision, what man requires laboratories and microscopes to do. It can detect the cells and chemicals in your body. It can detect the disease before your body gets the disease by detecting even the presence of one virus in your blood.
These creatures are not bound by physical barriers, Their only limits are those that God sets for them. Think of the scariest thing that you have ever seen in a movie, and you would not even begin to address the malice of these creatures.
Lucifer was one of God’s highest angels. Think about that, Lucifer is the highest intelligence that God bestowed upon a creature. How great is that intelligence likely to be?
2. Just one more example, people might receive predictions of weather from mystics, knowledge of upcoming earthquakes, tsunamis and so on. Again this is possible for a daemon to predict is exactly the same manner in which a weather report predicts weather, but considerably more efficient, for the same reason of enhanced spiritual sight and demonic intelligence obviates the need for instruments and measuring and monitoring equipment like satellites. A demon could go to the centre of the earth should it wish and see the developing faults and pressure build ups in the crust.
There are many more such examples it is possible to give, but many more that it is not possible for us even to understand, the myriad ways in which the devil might trick us. If the point of religion is to Go to Heaven and avoid being deceived and go to Hell, then it is the function of religion to discern between the divine and the satanic. This discernment is not straightforward, and the arrogant and proud will certainly stumble right into it. As G K Chesterton once said, “humility is the only thing that is not susceptible to plagiarism” (slight paraphrase). It is only love that has no counterfeit, and the love that is to death that carries with it the certainty of not having been counterfeited. True prophecies are not the prediction of physical events the divinity of which is always questionable and neither is this the nature of the truly miraculous. In the immortal words of Al Pacino in the Devil’s Advocate, “the Devil’s greatest trick was to make people believe that he didn’t exist”. In the Qur’an the trick is to make people believe that he is unintelligent, even backward. That makes his job easy, because it means people are easily impressed. God bless you all. True Love is the only genuine and impenetrable defence against the Dark Arts.
A Literary miracle?
The importance of the supposed “literary miracle” of the Qur’an is this- it’s the only objective intellectual challege the Qur’anic author seems to offer for skeptics. But while it’s clearly offered as a challenge in more than one place, it is exceptionally hard to discern just what the challenge really is. Clearly, the author is quite pleased at their literary prowess, but it might not immediately be evident to modern audiences why this. For example, we can discount, on the authhority of the Qur’anic author themselves, that the challenge is not related to beauty in the poetry:
“We have not taught him poetry; it is not seemly for him. It is only a Remembrance and a Clear Koran…” (Q 36:69)
This is a diagram of how the ancients conceptualized the cosmos, and there are similar beliefs across several cultures, the classical “flat earth” cosmos, which forms the context in which the Bible Creation account is given 2 millennia past:
H1, H2, H3… are three Heavens. From this diagram, it is one possible to see what is meant by: “the vault of the sky separated the waters from the waters”, and the sky was “stretched out like a canopy” over the Earth. Thus the Biblical verses:
Psalm 104:2 “The LORD wraps himself in light as with a garment; he stretches out the heavens like a tent”
Job 9:8 He alone stretches out the heavens and treads on the waves of the sea.
The Qur’anic verse 51:47 gets referred to by Islamic apologists as representing the expanding universe model. However on analysis, I am drawn to see it merely as the manner of speaking that was prevalent in ancient cosmology. The translations that use “expanding it” only seem to crop up after the scientific proposal is put forward.
Word study:
Here is the verse:
“And heaven — We built it with might, and We extend it wide.”(Q 51:47)
The Arabic is lamūsiʿūna (لَمُوسِعُونَ) is the nominative masculine plural (form IV) active participle (the “m” usually indcates participial usage). The lam is an intensifier, the m is a participial prefix, then you have the root, and the una ending is the person which is first person plural, so extending refers back to the subject of the sentence we which is first person plural (participle agrees with the subject).
So the literal translation using an active participle would be “we constructed the heavens with strength, indeed extending it”. “Extending” conveys magnitude “we made it so big”, in line with the Biblical usage, and would be the obvious candidate for the translation, just as a king extends his kingdom, or a tall building “extends to the skies”. “Expanding” on the other hand assumes a specific cosmological connotation, with expanding space. A building extending to the skies or a king extending his kingdom, does not denote an expanding building or kingdom. Those are two different things.
If we study the use of the word in the Qur’an itself (triliteral root و س ع), this is the only time that the word is used in this form or even with this implication. The root actually indicates vastness, or spaciousness, from which the verb form is derived. 9 times the same root is used for Allah himself, where the translation is “All-Encompassing” (wasi’un- وَاسِعٌ: Allah can hardly be called “Expanding”!), and other occurences as Wasi’a- or wasi’atan- spacious/ vast (10 occ.), sa’atan – abundance (6 occ.), wus’aha0 capacity (5 occ.), l-musi’i- the wealthy (1 occ.,- 2:236).
The obvious implication from the word study is that the triliteral root has the signification of vastness, and therefore the only participial usage found in the Qur’an would have the implication of making something vast.
in fact the very next verse (48) is “and the Earth we spread (farshnaha) it, how excellent its spreaders (l-muhiduna)!”. Here we have a word “spread” with two different Arabic words and once more, a difficult translation in the Quran, because once again the usage in this sense is only once in the former and twice in the latter. We’ll leave this discussion here for the reader to consider.
English translations and their evolution:
English Translations of Verse 51:47 prior or around the time of Edwin Hubble’s discovery in the 1930’s of an expanding universe:
“…With power and skill did we construct the Firmament: for it is We Who create the vastness of space…. “ (Yusufali)
“…And the heaven, we raised it high with power, and most surely we are the makers of things ample.… “(Shakir)
(Pickthall): we have built the heaven with might, and we it is who make the vast extent (thereof).
(Dawood): “we built the Heaven with our might, giving it a vast expanse, and stretched the Earth beneath it”
Late twentieth century translations of the same verse, after Hubble’s discovery: Shabbir Ahmed: “And it is We Who have built the Universe, and behold, we are steadily expanding it.”
Khalifah: “We constructed the sky with our hands, and we will continue to expand it.”
Finally these two versions remain reasonably neutral, and are respected Qur’an translations:
Hilali/Khan: “With power did we construct the heaven. Verily, we are Able to extend the vastness of space thereof.”
Asberry: “And heaven — We built it with might, and we extend it wide.”
Summary: The claim of knowledge of the expanding universe is no more than an allusion to the vastness of the creation. In any case this “stretching” is also seen in Psalm 104:2 and Job 9:8 many centuries before the Qur’an.
Muslims will make a loose allusion of the following verse to the Big Bang cosmological model:
“Have not those who disbelieved known that the heavens and the earth were one connected entity, then we separated them? And We have made from water every living thing. Will they not then believe?” (Quran 21:30)
This is quite similar to the Bible cosmology. We can see here that all is initially water, and then the dome, by appearing “in the midst of the waters” effects the separation:
“In the beginning (…) the earth was a formless void and darkness covered the face of the deep, And God said, “Let there be a dome in the midst of the waters, and let it separate the waters from the waters.” So God made the dome and separated the waters that were under the dome from the waters that were above the dome. And it was so. God called the dome Heaven” (“sky” and “heaven” are the same Hebrew word)..”.
An initial unity which is the “formless void” (seemingly a watery void), is “separated” into heaven and earth. All this sounds very Biblical especially when the very next line has the Biblical theme of water in it too.
Summary: All this sounds very Biblical. I can concede that although it is quite vague “heavens and earth were one thing and we separated them” does not contradict the Big Bang at face value.
“Blessed be He who has set in heaven constellations, and has set among them a lamp, and an illuminating moon” (Q 25:61)
“waqamaran muniran”. Muniran is “shining” or “illunimating”, it is from “nur” which is “light”. SO there is nothing about reflected light. Sun looks like a ball of fire anyway, so he called it “lamp”. The verse does not display any understanding about a reflected light.
The verses purported to describe this protective action do nothing of the sort. It says that it is in fact the sky that is guarded, ostensibly from falling down, as it sometimes does to disastrous effect, as given elsewhere. Remember the ancient cosmology did view the sky as a sort of covering as we already saw and in the diagram.
Surah 21:32 “And we have made the sky a roof withheld (from them). Yet they turn away from its portents.”
“And we also sent down iron in which there lies great force and which has many uses for mankind…” (Quran 57:25)
Muslim apologists claim the verse shows that Muhammed had “divine” knowledge that surface iron arrived on earth in meteorites. This is a modern theory, not fully confirmed, but considered likely, the theory that most of our surface metals came to earth in meteor showers 200 million years ago. This is because at the formation of the Earth, all the iron sunk to the centre and formed the core, along with most other precious metals like gold, platinum, tungsten, where it is completely inaccessible to humans. This is not just about iron but all the metals related to modern industry. Here is an article: https://www.wired.co.uk/article/the-earths-precious-metals
However it is completely unnecessary to assume that Mohammed is speaking of this pre-historic meteorite bombardment of the planer. Rather, prior to the discovery of the smelting process which is required to harness iron from ore, the only iron available for tools/ weapons was not from ancient meteorites, but from found meteorites. Large scale production of iron through smelting is found from 1200BC onwards, at the end of the Bronze Age (This is because iron smelting requires higher temperature furnaces than bronze)
The stone in the Temple of Apollo at Delphi is a meteorite and was said to have been thrown down by the God Zeus to Earth. Reportedly many other Greek and Roman temples enshrined rocks that had “fallen from the heavens”.
“Meteor Beliefs Project: meteorite worship in the Ancient Greek and Roman Worlds” McBeath, A. & Gheorghe, A. D. Journal of the International Meteor Organization, vol. 33, no. 5, p. 135-144. http://adsabs.harvard.edu/full/2005JIMO…33..135M
This details various meteorites that were worshipped in Greek and Roman temples and there certainly seems to be stories of these stones falling out of the sky, in fact surely it is the fact of these meteorites falling out the sky and lying regally in huge craters itself that gave these stones their venerated status.
The cult in the Temple of Artemis at Ephesus, one of the Seven Wonders of the Ancient World, possibly originated with the observation and recovery of a meteorite that was understood by contemporaries to have fallen to the earth from Jupiter, the principal Roman deity. There are reports that a sacred stone was enshrined at the temple that may have been a meteorite.
“…several Native American tribes venerated pieces and fragments of the Canyon Diablo meteorite, a giant iron meteorite that excavated Arizona’s famous Meteor Crater upon its impact about 50,000 years ago. Archaeological finds throughout the United States and Mexico, proved that Canyon Diablo fragments had been traded briskly centuries before Columbus reached the shores of the New World. The Winona meteorite was found in a stone cist in the prehistoric Elden pueblo, Arizona, in 1928. The circumstances of the find suggest that the builders of the pueblo had kept the meteorite as a sacred object after actually witnessing its fall. The tribes of the Clackamas in Oregon claim that they once worshiped the Willamette meteorite, one of the largest irons known, weighing about 15 tons. Prior to their hunting trips, the Clackamas dipped the heads of their arrows and lances into the water that had gathered in the large cavities of the iron – they were convinced that this ritual would harden their weapons and grant them success in their hunt.
Native tribes throughout the world venerated meteorites, and similar stories have been told from Greenland, Tibet, India, Mongolia, and Australia. Pure iron has always been rare and so there is little wonder that iron meteorites were especially coveted by ancient civilizations as raw material for cultic knives and weapons in times prior to the Iron Age. Such knives and daggers have been recovered from the tombs of Egyptian Pharaohs, from Mesopotamian sanctuaries, and from the graves of the leaders of the Aztecs, Maya, and Inca, in both Americas.”
Conclusion: Iron meteorites are present in abundance, Mohammed merely required to deduce that these falling meteorites was the source of all iron, which in fact is likely to be true, but from meteorites that fell in prehistory. It would have been impressive if Mohammed had said “this iron you use for your weapons, we had sent down even before Adam was created”, but he did not, he merely said “this iron you use, we sent it down…”. One must be careful about prophecies like these in any case, none of this information is beyond the reach of demons who are older than the Earth, and witness to all these cosmic and geological events.
In Sura 10:92, Allah speaks to Pharaoh who ferociously chased the Children of Israel, “But this day We save you in your body, that you may be a portent(sign)for those after you.” Although this verse makes it clear that Allah saved Pharaoh from drowning, Suras 10:90 (just two verses prior), 28:40, 17:103, and 43:55 state that Pharaoh was drowned: “Therefore We seized him and his hosts and abandoned them unto the sea … But We drowned him and those with him, all together … And [We] drowned them, everyone.”
Muslims today seem to take this to be a prophetic miracle that Pharaoh’s body would be mummified. This seems strange because embalming was a common practise, and perfectly non-miraculous. Tomb raiding is an ancient criminal occupation, ever since the time of the Egyptians. There have been embalming practices in several other ancient cultures and preserved bodies, some through natural mummification have been found on every single continent. So for Mohammed to say “we save thee in thy body” even were he referring to mummification, would not be prescient For example if I composed a poem about ancient Egypt and said “and God will save this Pharaoh in his body”, no one is going to credit me with prescience two hundred years later. interest in the study of mummies dates as far back as Ptolemaic Greece, most structured scientific study began at the beginning of the 20th century. Prior to this, many rediscovered mummies were sold as curiosities or for use in pseudoscientific novelties such as mummia. The first modern scientific examinations of mummies began in 1901, conducted by professors at the English-language Government School of Medicine in Cairo, Egypt.
Supposedly Pharaoh has a intra-oceanic conversion, his conversion occurs simultaneously with the process of suffocation. This itself sounds unlikely. But on top of that Allah chooses not to reward him by saving him, rather through mummifying him, something that Egyptians and many others did to their dead anyway. It is hard to see this as a reward or miracle. I have seen somewhere it was mentioned that there was traces of sea salt in the mummy. This again seems hardly surprising even if true, because salt is used as a preservative anyway.
Finally we cannot discount the presence of the demonic in many miracles of apparent prescience. These are not “predictions” because they are past events. It is entirely possible for the information to be circulated, and also in the spiritual realm, demons have access to knowledge that men cannot have access to. True miracles are those in the order of Jesus’, the command of the elements, healing and the gift of life, and true prophecy, of the order that it is in the Bible. The mummy of Ramesses II was 90 years old and suffering from several diseases of old age which could have killed him individually at the age of 90 which is when he died.
Surah 96:15,16 “Nay, but if he cease not We will seize him by the forelock. The lying, sinful forelock”
I bring this up because I have seen it come up as a miracle. A “scientist” is pictured live as stating that the cingulate gyrus in experiment it has been shown that when it is damaged in human subjects, they are not able to lie very well and therefore it is the centre of lying ability. That scientist then states that this gyrus is situated “on your forehead, just above the hairline. It can be seen that this is not the case all. Enough said.
The Internal Waves?
Internal waves (waves at the density boundary layer) are often produced by the Strait. Like traffic merging on a highway, the water flow is constricted in both directions because it must pass over the Camarinal Sill. When large tidal flows enter the Strait and the high tide relaxes, internal waves are generated at the Camarinal Sill and proceed eastwards. Even though the waves may occur down to great depths, occasionally the waves are almost imperceptible at the surface, at other times they can be seen clearly in satellite imagery. These internal waves continue to flow eastward and to refract around coastal features. They can sometimes be traced for as much as 100 km (62 mi; 54 nmi), and sometimes create interference patterns with refracted waves.
“But those who disbelieved – (…) [they are] like darknesses within an unfathomable sea which is covered by waves, upon which are waves, over which are clouds – darknesses, some of them upon others. When one puts out his hand [therein], he can hardly see it. And he to whom Allah has not granted light – for him there is no light”(Sahih International 24:39, 40)
It is true that “deep waves” caused by high salinity bands in the sea water have been discovered in the sea. It is also true that beyond a certain depth, no light can reach. Mohammed is using a metaphor for the blindness of those who don’t believe him.
give the impression that there are layers of darkness whose purpose is to show that the unbeliever is completely covered over many times. Waves upon waves really could better be taken to mean many layers indeed and I do not think that oceanography proposes more than two. Dawood merely states “darkness upon darkness”
Yusuf Ali: Or (the Unbelievers’ state) is like the depths of darkness in a vast deep ocean, overwhelmed with billow topped by billow, topped by (dark) clouds: depths of darkness, one above another: if a man stretches out his hands, he can hardly see it! For any to whom Allah giveth not light, there is no light!
Pick hall: Or as darkness on a vast, abysmal sea. There covered him a wave, above which is a wave, above which is a cloud. Layer upon layer of darkness. When he holed out his hand he scarce can see it. And he for whom Allah hath not appointed light, for him there is no light.
Linguistic analysis similarly seems to show that it is the sea which is covered by the waves of darkness, rather than anything internal to the sea that is being referred to in this verse, or even waves covering over the unbeliever.
Honey Belly of the “Female Bee”?
The contention of some apologists is that the Qur’an miraculously addresses the honey bees in the female, and further that it refers to the “honey belly” of those female workers. As regards the gender I would say that in many languages, genders are assigned by convention. A bee is a bee. For example l’abeille is a feminine noun by convention. No one cares in conversation as to whether a bee is really female or not. Its an insect.
The honey-belly is a nice one, though. Perhaps the demons truly had a hand in that. Or perhaps Muhammad is ignorant that honey actually comes from flowers, flowers being in scarcity in the desert, and he thinks that it is produced de novo in bees, that too is possible. All this is just taken from this Muslims website: https://www.thelastdialogue.org/article/quran-miracle-female-honey-bee-her-abdomen/:
Then eat from all the fruits and follow the ways of your Lord laid down [for you].” There emerges from their bellies a drink, varying in colors, in which there is healing for people. Indeed in that is a sign for a people who give thought.
Further, from the facts presented above, we come to know that the Male bees do not make honey. This was only known recently. However, 1400 years ago, the Quran refers to bees that generate the honey as females. Previously people thought that the worker bees are male bees and reports to a king. The words used (Take) اتَّخِذِي, (Eat) كُلِي and (Follow) فَاسْلُكِي all are for a female subject. Otherwise, God would have used كُلُ, اسْلُكْ, and تَّخِذُ .
Further, there is also another miracle which shows the divine origin of Quran as in verse 69 Quran stresses that in the individual female bee there are abdomens (i.e more than one stomach), which in Arabic is “بُطُونِهَا /butuniha,” the “هَا / ha” points to a single female bee. If the plural of the word “abdomen” was meant to refer to the female bees (i.e multiple bees), then the plural feminine pronoun “ ھنا /hunna” would be connected to the verb “بُطُونِهَا.”. That clearly shows that the noun (Stomach) is plural and the pronoun used is for 3rd person famine singular. This thing that a female worker Bee has multiple stomach portions not known until very recently. Only this one fact is enough for any person to believe in the divine origin of the Quran.”
Conclusion: my refutations are in the first paragraph.
Alcohol Prohibition to Protect the Unborn?
alcohol, is first praised in the Qur’an, only to then become mysteriously forbidden in that same book. There are narratives that state that this prohibition was made because believers were turning up drunk to prayers. This does not stop some Muslim polemicists from claiming that God through this divinely protected children from fetal alcohol syndrome. Can this be true?
The prohibition is blanket, neither men nor women are to drink it. Alcohol is initially praised before the prohibition by the same Allah. Many other Quranic practices are harmful to children, like pedophilia, sexual slavery, mut’ah marriage, there is no prohibition with regards to these. There are other general practices that are harmful to the unborn like smoking cigarettes, opium, and these receive no prohibition in the Qur’an.
Further, consanguinous marriages are well-known to be causes of the transmission of genetic disorder, yet the Qur’an seemingly encourages these. This is straight from the respected islamqa website https://islamqa.info/en/answers/105/ruling-on-marrying-cousins:
“There is no objection whatsoever in the Islamic religion for a man to marry any of his relatives except al-maharim (those forbidden for marriage ) whom Allah mentioned in Surat Al-Nisa, 4:23 (interpretation of the meaning):
“Prohibited to you (for marriage) are: your mothers, daughters, sisters; father’s sisters, mother’s sisters; brother’s daughters, sister’s daughters; foster-mothers (who breast-fed you), foster-sisters (who breast-fed from the same woman as you); your wives’ mothers; your step-daughters under your guardianship, born of your wives with whom you have consummated marriage, no prohibition if ye have not consummated; (those who have been) wives of your sons proceeding from your loins; and two sisters in wedlock at one and the same time, except for what is past; for Allah is Oft-Forgiving, Most Merciful.”
Thus, when Allah mentioned for us the relatives to whom marriage is forbidden, we then come to know that there is no objection for the remainder of the family relations.
Furthermore, there is no condition that it be the last resort as indicated in the question. Among the most prominent evidence of this fact is that the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) married his daughter Fatimah to ‘Ali (may Allah be pleased with them) and he is the son of her father’s uncle, as well as the marriage of the Prophet himself to Zainab bint Jahsh (may Allah be pleased with her) and she is his aunt’s daughter (i.e. his cousin); and there are many other such examples…”
Conclusion: Given the foregoing, it is difficult to entertain the assertion that the Qur’anic author has the health of the unborn foremost in their mind in making the blanket ban on alcohol for men and women. It is more likely precisely what the hadith states: the men were turning up drunk for prayer time and it was directed primarily at them.
Conclusion: It is difficult, given the foregoing, to seriously consider the assertion that the Qur’an has the unborn in mind in making the blanket prohibition on alcohol.
Milk Production from the gut and the blood?
Surah 16:66 “And verily in cattle (too) will ye find an instructive sign. From what is within their bodies between excretions and blood, we produce, for your drink, milk, pure and agreeable to those who drink it.”
Milk is not pure, it has to be pasteurized.
If by this Muhammad truly means to imply that milk is produced through the animal digesting its food and assimilating the nutrients therefore into its blood, which then goes to supply the mammary glands, that that is quite a good description. Perhaps a demon told him, or perhaps that’s not what he meant at all, I’m biased, and I’ll leave that decision to the reader.
Is Joseph’s King a Hyksos and not a Pharaoh!
We’ve had a great deal of hoo-hah in recent times about the Quran calling the Egyptian monarch at the time of Joesph “king” instead of Pharaoh, and this being accurate with respect to history because the Pharoahs only cam later. I don’t think this historical question is settled one way or another. No one can really say anything with a great deal of accuracy from that time in Egyptology, and further it is also difficult to date Joseph with any great certainty. This is a great article from a Bible site with is nothing to do with Islam: https://www.biblewise.com/bible_study/characters/egyptian-pharaohs.php?fbclid=IwAR2lAVupAqxdxgvjkoDqZMxrnbXQu5YfzhL1g7_vAaPObKYkqnbI06mpAGI
The Qur’an’s cosmology is on par with beliefs of the type that originated the creation myths, the origins of which are lost in the mists of pre-history and seemingly even fed into the Genesis narrative. This ancient cosmology is superseded in the Western world, especially with the advent of the Greeks, but of course, preserved in the backward societies of the Middle East, still untouched by that progress being made in the West.
The usual counter-argument is that all this is meant to be metaphor. But there is a deeper problem: Why would God use metaphorical language that is scientifically regressive for the time? It is one thing for God to use metaphorical language at a time when no on knew any better and in fact specifics would be jarring to the listeners, but for a document written in the 7th century AD delivered by God to be stuck in pre-historical metaphors seems odd, given that this document would be used in the spread of that religion to those advanced societies.
If God were to reveal himself in the 21st century for example, he would hardly be likely to say (and this is a summary of the pinnacle of knowledge of cosmology in the Qur’an):
“I created Seven heavens and seven earths. The stars decorate the lowest heaven (which is a ceiling for you). we throw stars at demons that try to spy on us in the highest heaven where I sit (see picture). The mountains keep the earth from shifting as you walk along. The moon follows the Sun swimming across the sky, the Sun rests in its abode worshipping Allah from its muddy pool. …”
There is a place for creation myths and ancient cosmology, and the seventh century AD is not it. There is seemingly no good reason why a “prophet” in the 7th century CE should have knowledge of the same level of ancient Sumerians or Akkadians etc. and not even up to his contemporaries.
We have not a single accurate cosmological fact in the Qur’an. His cosmological framework that does not conceive of outer space, rather of Earth, very likely a flat one, as distinguished from a supernatural realm when one looks at the sky above, as a principle in all Quranic cosmological allusions, as we shall see. We also look at comparative study of the contemporaneous knowledge of the Greeks.
Seven Earths and Heavenly Domes
With regards to counting things in the night sky, this is all he numbers that we get to work with in the Qur’an:
(Q 65:12) “it is God who created seven heavens, and earths as many.“
Ptolemy in 100 AD described the orbits of 7 planets. Modern astronomy has identified eight planets, which all the kids know the names of, not including Pluto which has recently been declassified. Wikipedia states of the knowledge of the Greeks: “Five extraterrestrial planets” can be seen with the naked eye: Mercury, Venus, Mars, Jupiter, and Saturn, the Greek names being Hermes, Aphrodite, Ares, Zeus and Cronus. Sometimes the luminaries, the Sun and Moon, are added to the list of naked eye planets to make a total of seven.”
What are these “seven Heavens”? These multiples “heavens” and “earths” and so on is common in ancient cosmology. There are in fact billions of planets, even in the known Universe. Muhammed’s knowledge of the number of “earths” might be contemporaneous with that of the Greeks, but his cosmology is far from it.
It very much feels like Muhammed is describing a glassy dome when we read passages like this:
“He created the heavens without pillars you (can) see” (31:10, also 13:2)
“Even if they saw lumps falling from heaven, they would say, ‘A massed cloud!’” (52:44)
“we could let fall upon them pieces of sky” (34:9)
This “piece of sky” is precisely what lends to the glassy dome model. Further an atmospheric sky does not require pillars to hold it up, rather gravity prevents it from drifting off into outer space and causing it to be a dead planet like all our planetary neighbors. The “heavens” if by that he means outer space, then that is travelling away from the Earth at faster than the speed of light, in the expanding Universe model. There is no possibility of “seven” anywhere, except in the dome model with multiple levels of magical mysterious heavens. Muslims apologists have argued that this might be referring to the layers of the atmosphere. The Earth’s atmosphere has 5 primary layers, but can he subdivided into also several secondary layers. There is no necessary notion of “seven” in it.
Muhammed’s cosmology simply cannot be reconciled with any aspect of the modern version, we get neither an atmosphere, nor outer space. Except for perhaps two places: he calls the sky “smoke” prior to its formation, and he states that man cannot cross the “limits” of the heavens, as we shall see later.
The Greeks on Sky, Clouds, Thunder, Lightning, Wind and Rain, Climate etc.
Anaximander (6th century BC) Greek philosopher, is often called the first scientist because he was the first to explain that order in the world was due to natural forces, not supernatural ones. He is the first person known to understand that the Earth floats in space; to believe that the sun, the moon, and the stars rotate around it seven centuries before Ptolemy; to argue that all animals came from the sea and evolved; and to posit that universal laws control all change in the world. Anaximander taught Pythagoras, who would build on Anaximander s scientific theories by applying mathematical laws to natural phenomena. In the award-winning Anaximander and the Birth of Scientific Thought, Rovelli restores Anaximander to his place in the history of science.
An explanation for other atmospheric phenomena was given more than two centuries earlier by Xenophanes (570-478 AD) of Colophon who stated:
“…the clouds are formed by the sun’s vapor [i.e. vapor caused by the heat from the sun’s rays] raising and lifting them to the surrounding air” Diogenes Laertius (A1.24-5).
“…(says that) things in the heavens occur through the heat of the sun as the initial cause; for when the moisture is drawn up from the sea, the sweet portion, separating because of its fineness and turning into mists, combines into clouds, trickled down in drops of rain due to compression, and vaporizes the winds.” Aëtius (A46)
“The sea is the source of water and of wind, For without the great sea, there would be no wind Nor streams of rivers, nor rainwater from on high But the great sea is the begetter of clouds, winds, and rivers.” Xenophanes B30
“Flashes of lightning come about through the shining of the clouds because of the movement” (A45).
His comments about the “Iris” or rainbow:
And she whom they call Iris, this too is by nature a cloud. Purple, red, and greenish-yellow to behold.” Xenophanes B32
In the sixth century BC, the Greek philosopher Pythagoras (570-495 BC) recognized the sphericity of the Earth and the dominance of latitude in explaining climate variation (Sanderson 1999). Two centuries later Aristotle expanded on Pythagoras’s foundation and introduced five climate zones, ranging from tropical to northern frigid. It is not coincidental that in the early 20th century German scientist Koeppen also used 5 climate zones in his classification, identified with the letters A-E.
From Epicurus (Epicurus of Samos 341-270 BC) we have the following comments in one of his letters:
“Clouds may form and gather either because the air is condensed under the pressure of winds, or because atoms which hold together and are suitable to produce this result become mutually entangled, or because currents collect from tile earth and the waters ; and there are several other ways in which it is not impossible for the aggregations of such bodies into clouds to be brought about. And that being so, rain may be produced from them sometimes by their compression, sometimes by their transformation; or again may be caused by exhalations of moisture rising from suitable places through the air, while a more violent inundation is due to certain accumulations suitable for such discharge.
Thunder may be due to the rolling of wind in the hollow parts of the clouds, as it is sometimes imprisoned in vessels which we use; or to the roaring of fire in them when blown by a wind, or to the rending and disruption of clouds, or to the friction and splitting up of clouds when they have become as firm as ice.
As in the whole survey, so in this particular point, the facts invite us to give a plurality of explanations. Lightning too happens in a variety of ways. For when the clouds rub against each other and collide, that collocation of atoms which is the cause of fire generates lightning; or it may be due to the flashing forth from the clouds, by reason of winds, of particles capable of producing this brightness; or else it is squeezed out of the clouds when they have been condensed either by their own action or by that of the winds; or again, the light diffused from the stars may be enclosed in the clouds, then driven about by their motion and by that of the winds, and finally make its escape from the clouds; or light of the finest texture may be filtered through the clouds (whereby the clouds may be set on fire and thunder produced), and the motion of this light may make lightning; or it may arise from the combustion of wind brought about by the violence of its motion and the intensity of its compression; or, when the clouds are rent asunder by winds, and the atoms which generate fire are expelled, these likewise cause lightning to appear.
And it may easily be seen that its occurrence is possible in many other ways, so long as we hold fast to facts and take a general view of what is analogous to them. Lightning precedes thunder, when the clouds are constituted as mentioned above and the configuration which produces lightning is expelled at the moment when the wind falls upon the cloud, and the wind being rolled up afterwards produces the roar of thunder; or, if both are simultaneous, the lightning moves with a greater velocity towards its and the thunder lags behind, exactly as when persons who are striking blows are observed from a distance. A thunderbolt is caused when winds are repeatedly collected, imprisoned, and violently ignited; or when a part is torn asunder and is more violently expelled downwards, the rending being due to the fact that the compression of the clouds has made the neighboring parts more dense; or again it may be due like thunder merely to the expulsion of the imprisoned fire, when this has accumulated and been more violently inflated with wind and has torn the cloud, being unable to withdraw to the adjacent parts because it is continually more and more closely compressed [generally by some high mountain where thunderbolts mostly fall]. And there are several other ways in which thunderbolts may possibly be produced. Exclusion of myth is the sole condition necessary; and it will be excluded, if one properly attends to the facts and hence draws inferences to interpret what is obscure.
Fiery whirlwinds are due to the descent of a cloud forced downwards like a pillar by the wind in full force and carried by a gale round and round, while at the same time the outside wind gives the cloud a lateral thrust; or it may be due to a change of the wind which veers to all points of the compass as a current of air from above helps to force it to move; or it may be that a strong eddy of winds has been started and is unable to burst through laterally because the air around is closely condensed. And when they descend upon land, they cause what are called tornadoes, in accordance with the various ways in which they are produced through the force of the wind; and when let down upon the sea, they cause waterspouts.
Winds arise from time to time when foreign matter continually and gradually finds its way into the air; also through the gathering of great store of water. The rest of the winds arise when a few of them fall into the many hollows and they are thus divided and multiplied.
Hail is caused by the firmer congelation and complete transformation, and subsequent distribution into drops, of certain particles resembling wind : also by the slighter congelation of certain particles of moisture and the vicinity of certain particles of wind which at one and the same time forces them together and makes them burst, so that they become frozen in parts and in the whole mass. The round shape of hailstones is not impossibly due to the extremities on all sides being melted and to the fact that, as explained, particles either of moisture or of wind surround them evenly on all sides and in every quarter, when they freeze.
Snow may be formed when a fine rain issues from the clouds because the pores are symmetrical and because of the continuous and violent pressure of the winds upon clouds which are suitable; and then this rain has been frozen on its way because of some violent change to coldness in the regions below the clouds. Or again, by congelation in clouds which have uniform density a fall of snow might occur through the clouds which contain moisture being densely packed in close proximity to each other; and these clouds produce a sort of compression and cause hail, and this happens mostly in spring. And when frozen clouds rub against each other., this accumulation of snow might be thrown off. And there are other ways in which snow might be formed.
Dew is formed when such particles as are capable of producing this sort of moisture meet each other from the air: again by their rising from moist and damp places, the sort of place where dew is chiefly formed, and their subsequent coalescence, so as to create moisture and fall downwards, just as in several cases something similar is observed to take place under our eyes. And the formation of hoar-frost is not different from that of dew, certain particles of such a nature becoming in some such way congealed owing to a certain condition of cold air.
Ice is formed by the expulsion from the water of the circular, and the compression of the scalene and acute-angled atoms contained in it; further by the accretion of such atoms from without, which being driven together cause the water to solidify after the expulsion of a certain number of round atoms.
The rainbow arises when the sun shines upon humid air; or again by a certain peculiar blending of light with air, which will cause either all the distinctive qualities of these colors or else some of them belonging to a single kind, and from the reflection of this light the air all around will be colored as we see it to be, as the sun shines upon its parts. The circular shape which it assumes is due to the fact that the distance of every point is perceived by our sight to be equal; or it may be because, the atoms in the air or in the clouds and deriving from the sun having been thus united, the aggregate of them presents a sort of roundness.” Epicurus of Samos, Letter to Pythocles...”
Demetris Koutsoyiannis, in his lectures of “Water resources technologies in the ancient Greece”, School of Civil Engineering National Technical University of Athens provides the following information:
The Pythagorean philosopher Hippon (5th century BC) recognizes that all waters originate from the sea.
Anaxagoras of Athens (500-428 BC)and together with Empedocles, is recognized as the father of experimental research, clarified the concept of hydrological cycle: the sun raises water from the sea into the atmosphere, from where it falls as rain; then it is collected underground and feeds the flow of rivers. He also studied several meteorological phenomena, generally supporting and completing Anaximenes’s theories; his theory about thunders, which fought the belief that they are thrown by Zeus, probably cost him imprisonment (430 BC). In particular, he correctly assumed that winds are caused from differences in the air density: the air, heated by the sun, moves towards the north pole and leaves gaps that cause air currents. He also studied Nile’s floods attributing them to the snow melt in Ethiopia. The “enigma” of Nile’s floods (which, contrary to the regime of Mediterranean rivers, occur in summer) was also thoroughly studied by Herodotus (480-430 BC), who seems to have clear knowledge of hydrological cycle and its mechanisms.
Aristotle (384-323 BC) in his treatise Mereorologica clearly states the principles of hydrological cycle, clarifying that water evaporates by the action of sun and forms vapor, whose condensation forms clouds; also, he recognizes indirectly the principle of mass conservation within hydrological cycle.
Theophrastus (372-287 BC) adopts and completes the theories of Anaximenes and Aristotle for the forming of precipitation from vapor condensation and freezing; his contribution to the understanding of the relation between wind and evaporation was significant.
Epicurus (341-270 BC) contributed to physical explanations of meteorological phenomena, contravening the superstitions of his era.
Archimedes (287-212 BC), among other significant contributions, founded hydrostatics introducing the principle named after him.
Hero of Alexandria (after 150 BC) is recognized (U.S. Committee on Opportunities in the Hydrological Sciences, 1992) as the first who formulated the discharge concept and made flow measurements.
References:
U.S. Committee on Opportunities in the Hydrological Sciences (1991) Opportunities in the Hydrologic Sciences. National Academy Press, Washington, DC.
Sanderson, M., 1999. The classification of climates from Pythagoras to Koeppen. Bull. Amer. Meteor. Soc., 80, 669-673
The first space ships and travel beyond the atmosphere of earth occurred over 60 years ago. With current technology, humankind has already explored the end of the solar system, dropped probes on asteroids, and set spacecraft in orbit around Mars, Saturn, Jupiter and Pluto. The Qur’an clearly implies that the “zones…of the earth” cannot be passed. This turns out to be a bad guess, the earth’s atmosphere which is the last reach of the Planet which can be called as part of the planet, has been breached.
Do American, Chinese, and Russian astronauts fly to the Heavens “with Allah’s authority, while Muslims barely managed to put a person in space using their technology?
“O ye assembly of Jinns and men! If it be ye can pass beyond the zones of the heavens and the earth, pass ye! Not without authority shall ye be able to pass!” (Q 55:33)
The Moon as a Light Source, same as Allah
“and set the moon therein for a light (“الْقَمَرَ فِيهِنَّ نُورًا- al=qamara fihinna nuran) and the sun for a lamp (sirajan)?” (Q 71:16)
“desiring to extinguish with their mouths God’s light (يُطْفِئُوا نُورَ اللَّهِ – yut’fiu nura l-lahi); and God refuses but to perfect His light, though the unbelievers be averse.” (Q 9:32)
The same root word “nur” is used in association with none other than the light of Allah in multiple other verses:
Allah is the Light of the heavens and the earth. [Quran, 24:35]
“ And the earth will shine with the Light of its Rabb. [Quran, 39:69]”
“There has come to you from Allah a light and a clear Book.” [Quran, 5:15]
This is a contradiction because the moon is here being treated as a light source, a superior term is attributed to it than is to the Sun itself, and that term is used in relation to the light of Allah himself.
If there is any doubt about about the usage then consider that an-Nur (ٱلْنُّورُ) is one of the 99 names of Allah himself.
Check out some of the hadith too, which corroborate this usage of “nur” with relation to Allah:
“The Prophet salallahu ‘alayhi wa sallam stated about Allah’s attribute of nur: You are the Light of the heavens and the earth.[Al-Bukhaaree]
He salallahu ‘alayhi wa sallam also said the very weighty words: Light is His hijaab (veil), if He uncovers it then the subuhaat (brightness and splendour) of His Face would burn His creation so far as His Sight reaches. [Muslim]”
Muslim responses: the responses from Muslims seem to mostly allude to the fact that “nur” can indicate a “guiding” light and in this sense the Moon too is a guiding light by night. Also that nur is used for other lights (perhaps referring to “fire” in 2:17). My issue here is that in the order of “sourceness”, there is nothing higher than nur, since it is accorded to Allah himself. Hence the fact that it is attributed to the Moon rather than the Sun seems to be a strong indication that there is not the awareness of which is the primary light source for the planet.
Further they point to this verse, and the fact there there is a difference between “lamp” in the case of the Sun and “nur” in the case of the Moon: “It is He who made the sun a radiance (diyaan), and the moon a light (nuran), and determined it by stations, that you might know the number of the years and the reckoning. God created that not save with the truth, distinguishing the signs to a people who know.” (Q 10:5)
the other response is that in Q 25:61 the Moon is described as muniran which is “shining”. The Arabic reads sirajan (lamp) wa waqamaran (moon) muniran. It is not even clear if the muniran which is a participle should not refer to both nouns rather than only to the Moon. Further, there is an obvious difference between the Sun and the Moon in that the Sun is obviously literally a ball of fire while the Moon is not. That’s the reason the Sun is described as “lamp”. But I’m not seeing any sense of “reflection”, shining is a different thing, it can be both reflected or not: “Blessed is He Who made the constellations in the heavens and made therein a lamp and a shining moon.”
The Orbits of the Sun and Moon
“…By the sun and his morning brightness, and by the moon when she follows him…” (Q 91:2)
“It is He who created night and day, the Sun and the Moon, each floating (yasbaḥūna only used with this meaning here and 36:40, all other 90 occ. form “glorify”) in its orbit (f-l-k root, generally denotes something round or circular eg. “in their own circle”)” (Q 21:33)
” It is not allowable for the sun to reach the moon, nor does the night overtake the day, but each, in an orbit, is swimming.” (Q 36:40, SI)
The moon does not in anyway “follow the Sun”, it is subject to the gravitational pull of the Earth, and the Earth is what it follows. From Newton’s laws, the force of gravity felt by an object is proportional to its weight, and inversely to its distance. An apple on a tree feels very little gravity from the Earth and even less from the Sun, that’s why it stays exactly where it is, in the same way, we are not pulled towards the Sun ourselves. In the same way the Moon is primarily attracted to the Earth, which it follows.
The classic modern Muslim counter is to state that “the orbit of the Sun” refers to its orbit around the Black Hole in the Milky Way galaxy (The Solar System as a unit orbits the Black Hole at the center of the galaxy, at 230km/sec., 1/1300th the speed of light, taking around 250 million years to complete the Orbit, having thus completed it only 50 times since the beginning of time). While all of this might be true in isolation, when you put all of Muhammed’s views together, the sky-dome model is the only coherent one that one is getting. Whatever else one might say, the key to heliocentrism is missing- the Earth’s orbit.
The Rising and Setting Place of the Sun
The Sun is said to have a place on Earth from where it sets as well as from where it rises, as well as a resting place. Mohammed is seemingly stuck copying from obscure legends of Alexander the Great Muslim. People who live close to the place where the Sun rises need a veil to protect them. This is absurd, if there is any place that such protection is required, it is in a tree-less desert where Muhammed lives himself:
“until, when he reached the rising of the sun, he found it rising upon a people for whom We had not appointed any veil to shade them from it.” (Q 18:90)
“Till, when he reached the setting-place of the sun, he found it setting in a muddy spring, and found a people thereabout. We said: O Dhu’l-Qarnain! Either punish or show them kindness.” (Q 18:86)
“Abu Dharr said: I was sitting behind the Apostle of Allah who was riding a donkey while the sun was setting. He asked: Do you know where this sets? I replied: Allah and his Apostle know best. He said: It sets in a spring of warm water.” (Sunan Abu Dawud 4002)
“And the sun runneth on unto a resting-place(limus’taqarrin (n) – multiple occ.: dwelling place, abode, place of rest) for determined him. That is the measuring of the Mighty, the All-Knowing.” (Q 36:38)
The above hadith has a second version: Narrated Abu Dhar: The Prophet asked me at sunset, “Do you know where the sun goes (at the time of sunset)?” I replied, “Allah and His Apostle know better.” He said, “It goes till it prostrates Itself underneath the Throne and takes the permission to rise again, and it is permitted (…) that is The Decree of (Allah) The Exalted in Might, The All- Knowing.” (ref Q 36.38)” (Bukhari 3199)
Mohammed conceives comets as shooting stars which is a laypersons’ impression of the night-sky. He places them as adornments on the lowest of the “seven Heavens”, and states that they are for God to throw at pesky demons that attempt to spy on him who is himself seated in the higher levels of the heavens. This model locates God and his High Council inside the Universe, perhaps in a galaxies, far, far away…
“And we have, (from of old), adorned the lowest heaven with Lamps, and We have made such (Lamps) (as) missiles to drive away the Evil Ones, and have prepared for them the Penalty of the Blazing Fire.” (Q 67:5)
“We have indeed decked the lower heaven with beauty (in) the stars and for guard against all obstinate rebellious evil spirits (satan/shaytan ). (So) they should not strain their ears in the direction of the Exalted Assembly (الْمَلَإِ الْأَعْلَىٰ- l-aʿlā l-mala-i, or “High Council”) but be cast away from every side. Repulsed, for they are under a perpetual penalty. Save him who snatcheth a fragment, and there pursueth him a piercing flame.” (Q 37:6-8)
This is again referred to in Chapter “Al-Jinn” (these are actually jinni speaking):
“And we stretched towards heaven, but we found it filled with terrible guards and meteors. And when we heard the guidance, we believed in it. And whoever believes in his Lord will not fear deprivation or burden.” (Q 72:8,9)
Bukhari, gives the narration of by Abu Qatada himself, one of the companions of Muhammed and the “enlightened ones”:
“Qutaadah said: “Allaah created these stars for three purposes: to adorn the heavens, to stone the devils and as signs by which to navigate. Whoever seeks anything else in them is mistaken and does not benefit from them, and he is wasting his time and effort in seeking something of which he has no knowledge.”(Saheeh al-Bukhaari, Baab fi’l-Nujoom, 2/240)
It was narrated from Abu Hurairah that: The Prophet said: “When Allah decrees a matter in heaven, the angels beat their wings in submission to his decree (with a sound) like a chain beating a rock. Then “When fear is banished from their hearts, they say: ‘What is it that your Lord has said?’ They say: ‘The truth. And He is The Most High, The Most Great.” He said: ‘Then the eavesdroppers (from among the jinn) listen out for that, one above the other, so (one of them) hears the words and passes it on to the one beneath him. The Shihab (shooting star) may strike him before he can pass it on to the one beneath him and the latter can pass it on to the soothsayer or sorcerer, or it may not strike him until he has passed it on. And he ads one hundred lies to it, and only that word which was overheard from the heavens is true.” Sunan Ibn Majah 194, graded sahih (Darussalam)
What the Greeks already knew about the Solar System
Aristarchus of Samos (c. 270 BC) is the first person known to have proposed a heliocentric system, was . He used the phenomenon of parallax to make some of these measurements. Aristarchus calculated the size of the Earth, and measured the size and distance of the Moon and Sun. From his estimates, he concluded that the Sun was six to seven times wider than the Earth and thus hundreds of times more voluminous. Aristarchus believed the stars to be very far away, and saw this as the reason why there was no visible parallax, that is, an observed movement of the stars relative to each other as the Earth moved around the Sun. The stars are in fact much farther away than the distance that was generally assumed in ancient times, which is why stellar parallax is only detectable with telescopes. Though the original text has been lost, a reference in Archimedes’ book The Sand Reckoner describes another work by Aristarchus in which he advanced an alternative hypothesis of the heliocentric model. Archimedes wrote: “…Aristarchus has brought out a book consisting of certain hypotheses…that the fixed stars and the Sun remain unmoved, that the Earth revolves about the Sun on the circumference of a circle, the Sun lying in the middle of the orbit…” (Arenarius, I., 4–7).
In Europe too, there were occasional speculations about heliocentrism before Copernicus. In Roman Carthage, the pagan Martianus Capella (5th century A.D.) expressed the opinion that the planets Venus and Mercury did not go about the Earth but instead circled the Sun. Capella’s model was discussed in the Early Middle Ages by various anonymous 9th-century commentators and Copernicus mentions him as an influence on his own work.
This seems to be again a weak contradiction. There seems to be no way in which 2:29 might be interpreted other than a chronological sequence, unless it can be taken to mean that the heavens antedated the earth primordially, not yet being fashioned into seven. Then one can work this interpretation into surah 79 to claim that the “spreading out” is in some manner applying the finishing touches to creation, the solidification of the crust, and overall in both verses there is room for simultaneity, which means that there is no direct contradiction with the scientific model.
2:29- the earth was created first, then the heavens. There is a pre-existent heaven, however it is not yet fashioned into seven heavens yet, so it cannot be stated that the lowest heaven which is adorned with the stars, sun and moon exists yet:
“It is He who created for you all of that which is on the earth. Then (thumma) He directed Himself to the heaven, and made (fawawwahuna- always fashioned/proportioned, eg. Adam from clay) them seven heavens, and He is Knowing of all things.”
The lowest heaven is adorned with lamps. this would mean that is the seven Heavens are seven “universes” or “realms” in that the other realms than ours are available only to celestial beings than ours (since only the lowest is adorned with stars).
79:27-30- the heavens were created first, then the earth. This is obviously talking about the lowest heaven, since it has the day and night. Thus this really is a contradiction.
“…Are you a more difficult creation or is the heaven? Allah constructed it. He raised its ceiling and proportioned (fasawwaha) it. And He darkened its night and extracted its brightness. and the earth-after that (ba’da dhalika) He spread it out (dahaha)…”
Again at this stage we are seeing that the earth is fully formed and mature with vegetation.
“Say: ‘What, do you disbelieve in Him who created the earth in two days, 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, equal to those who ask. Then He lifted (thumma is’tawa) Himself to heaven (l-samai) when it was smoke, and said to it and to the earth, “Come willingly, or unwillingly!” They said, “We come willingly. And He completed them (faqadahuna) as seven heavens within two days and inspired in each heaven its command. And We adorned the nearest heaven with lamps and as protection. That is the determination of the Exalted in Might, the Knowing.” (Q 49:9-12)
Note: the “highest heaven” is sometimes taken as jannah itself, as also the place to which Allah throws comets.
This is an important contradiction, and this is the reason: It is one thing for animals to be used in a metaphorical or allegorical manner in religious books, where the intent is to convey a certain teaching by means of the story such as one might come across in the Bible. However in the case of the Qur’anic story of Solomon, all that occurs is that he eavesdrops on what is seemingly a normative ant-conversation. The point of the verse is to display Solomon’s ability to listen in on these conversations. This is where the contradiction lies- an ant brain does not have the ability to hold the cognitive content of the quote in the verse ““O ants, enter your dwellings that you not be crushed by Solomon and his soldiers while they perceive not.” It cannot comprehend human names, understand human hierarchies, and perhaps most of all human intentionality “they perceive not” which requires the ability to construct a mental model of self.
Let us first look at the verse. In it, Solomon appears to hears an ant mention him by name while cautioning his fellows to shelter from his army lest it unwittingly trample them underfoot:
“And gathered for Solomon were his soldiers of the jinn and men and birds, and they were [marching] in rows. Until, when they came upon the valley of the ants, an ant said, “O ants, enter your dwellings that you not be crushed by Solomon and his soldiers while they perceive not.” So [Solomon] smiled, amused at her speech…” (Q 27:17-19)
Ants don’t even have lungs or vocal chords that higher animals do. Rather they breathe oxygen in through spiracles, a series of holes located on the sides of their bodies. These in turn are connected through a network of tubes which help distribute the oxygen to the cells in their body.
Rather than communicate with vocal sounds therefore, ants communicate using other methods like the secretion of pheromones in response to certain stimuli like stress which are sensed through their antennae, touch through their antennae again, and possibly through body language and posturing, like raising their abdomen into the air (like humans giving a thumbs up), and even some sounds, which many insects can produce through rubbing of the legs or wings, for example.
Ants’ brains are complex enough to allow them to collect food and survive, but not complex enough for them to feel emotions or form complex thoughts. They contain around 200,000 to 250,000 neurons in contrast to the human brain which has 83 billion.
Ant colonies function more as a collective intelligence where each and every member is responsible for contributing to the existence and survival of the colony as a whole.
Collective intelligence is nothing but the intelligence or information obtained from each and every member of the group as a whole and then taking actions based on that information. It is something which cannot be obtained on an individual basis. Ant brains function more like singular neurons of the human brain and the collective intelligence of the whole colony acts as one big highly functioning brain. There is no one particular lead ant which is in charge of the whole colony but still all the major day to day decisions within the ant colony are taken in unison and each and every ant knows their role. The queen is just there to lay eggs, it doesn’t pass on any orders regarding anything within the ant colony. This is why as per Stanford scientists, the ant colonies are analogous to the human brain where each neuron only performs simplistic tasks but it is the action of these small neurons that allows the whole brain to function properly. So it’s like none of the neurons can think on their own but the brain can think on its own.
So when an ant colony is threatened, for example, they can use whatever combination of these techniques to signal about the presence of approaching danger and triggering the response to retreat. If we were to translate that into human language it would be something like“danger! warning! take evasive/defensive action”. They are ants, after all, it’s not like they’re apes.
It does not also make sense to consign this to metaphor because the whole point of the verse is seemingly that something is being understood by the human listening in as it were, on the ants.
Ant’s brains are nowhere near the complexity or size required to conceive thought or self-consciousness.
The idea is taken from the Bible where is states that Solomon had learnt the speech of the birds and the animals, but birds and the animals do have higher levels of communication, not ants, this is a step too far, and in any case does not relate literal conversations. This means that in the case of the Bible, the “understanding” would certainly imply that Solomon had genuine knowledge of animal communication along the lines of today’s naturalists like Franz Van der Waal, famous for his work with primates, particularly chimps and bonobos. The Qur’an, on the other hand, takes this to the level of a Jungle Book or Chronicles of Narnia or any multitude of children’s stories. In fact that is the most likely cause of the existence of this story in the Qur’an, the fact that a children’s story involving the same species of non-human communicator is seen in the Jewish Midrashic writings. These writings are difficult to date which makes it difficult to make the association with any certainty, but see it here: https://www.sefaria.org/Legends_of_the_Jews.4.5.115?lang=bi&with=all&lang2=bi
The content of “the soldiers perceive us not” implies that the ants understand the soldier’s lack of understanding of the danger to them. This would in turn would require that they have a mental model of mind and self-awareness as conscious agents whereby they can perceive the in turn the presence of other minds mental processes based upon their own mental model. That they might understand the motive behind the soldier’s acts display an understanding of intentionality, and thereby responsibility and moral agency. a creature capable of this is really fully rational and should be able to comprehend the Qur’an, were it read to them in the “ant-tongue”. As it stands, that “tongue” is no more than a combination of hormonal secretions, as we have already said.
There is one place in the Bible where an animal speaks, Balaam’s donkey (Num.22:28-30). Here the animal is very clearly given temporary speech by God for the specific purpose of conveying a message to Balaam, who is beating it, through a misunderstanding. Through this message, Balaam is made to spare the poor beast, and also his “eyes were opened” (v.31) to the presence of the Angel of the Lord whose invisible presence was the real reason that the donkey would not proceed, and who in turn has shown up in order to prevent Balaam from pursuing a reckless course contrary to God’s wishes. The other animal one could see as talking is the serpent in the garden, however once again, that incident is being used in order to teach a moral lesson of obedience to God. It is obvious that there is a great deal of allegorization in the incident because there is no indication in the Bible, unlike in the Qur’an that earthly animals are capable of the highly complex conversation that the serpent produces, which even most humans today would first of all be incapable of, and on top of that they would fall for it “you can be like gods, knowing good and evil”. It is a special case in the Garden which does not transfer onto the real world. But the clincher really is that this entire conversation in the Qur’an is then placed on the lips of Iblis, exactly in the manner that assigned in the Bible to Satan. The whatabout argument can be made, but that does make Qur’ans the ant rationality correct.
that It is very clear that this is not Animals do speak meaningfully in C.S. Lewis’ excellent Chronicles of Narnia series, though. But then that’s just fiction.
IN SUMMARY, as in many of these examples, it is possible to allegorize to a degree, but if we are trying to get into the mind of the author, then one must also try to pick up on certain indicators if present, that allegory was not implied after all. After all to imply allegory where it was not intentioned would be unfair to the author. In this example, it seems that Solomon perceives the literal content of the conversation. If that was the case, then it is also unfortunately an impossible conversation for an ant to have at their level of “consciousness”. Most pertinent in this is the ability to know Solomon’s name, and an understanding of intentionality. In the end, a Muslims requires to ask themselves whether an ant “brain” is capable of the cognitive content of ““O ants, enter your dwellings that you not be crushed by Solomon and his soldiers while they perceive not”. On the other hand if this is meant to be no more than a case of Solomon watching a bunch of ants scurrying around in response to the human presence and deducing in words what the actions of the ants denote, which is obviously a fear response, then it is not clear what the point is of this verse is, since most persons would have been able to deduce that without adding the colorful details.
That is to say, if it is a metaphor, it is not clear what this is a metaphor for. This tends to be a good rule to apply for many of the odd occurrences in the Qur’an- metaphors require to have some import, spiritual fruit and teaching value, other than the blanket refrain “Allah can do whatever he wants”. If that is so, then he can certainly also make sense and teach.
Fruits have mates?
“and from all the fruits he made two mates” (Q 13:3)
We’ve all learnt in school that plants are androgynous, the anther and stamen are classically the same flower which forms the fruit when fertilized, so there’s no question of a “mate”. Many plants like dandelions also reproduce asexually. There’s no way of reconciling this verse with reality that I can think of, especially since its a universal claim “all the fruits”.
“Semen is formed between the spine (l-sulbi) and the ribs (wal-taraibi).” (Q 86:7)
The production of semen is quite intricate. It is a mixture of fluid from the testicles (2-5%), seminal vesicles (65-76%), prostate (25-30%), and the bulbourethral glands (<1%). This would be a really difficult fact to ascertain for a nomadic herdsmen, and Muhammed is predictably nowhere near the mark, he gets none out of 4 right. One does wonder what Muhammed thought testicles are for, I guess we’ll never find out.
But saying that the sperm is “between the spine and the ribs” is somewhere between the back and front of the body, i.e. inside a human being. It is like saying “Ahmed is somewhere between the front door and the backdoor of the house”. Not only the back, but even the ribcage predominantly lies posteriorly, as it slope backward from the bottom of the breastbone. The lower ribs do not even reach the anterior (front-facing) aspect, as can easily be seen in any diagram of the skeleton. The point is this, that even if it “l-sulbi” is held to be the lower part of the back that is in the region of the pelvis, saying “between the pelvic backbone (or sacro-coccyx) and the ribs” locates the origin wholly posteriorly. The testis and even the seminal vesicles lie forward in and the lowest point of the pelvis. Lane’s Lexicon states that it was an Arabic phrase to use l-sulbi poetically for loins. Personally I would presume that this usage arises from the Qur’an itself. But even were we to allow for such poetic usage, it does not explain why the ribs are being drawn in. This is the Lane’s lexical entry. The first paragraph describes the first sense of the meaning which refers to something hard, while the second paragraph refers the backbone, which is a primary meaning:http://lexicon.quranic-research.net/data/14_S/078_Slb.html
We see one of the greatest Islamic scholars interpret this to mean the back-bone. The link also contains other traditional commentaries: https://quranx.com/Tafsirs/86.7
I don’t think we can buy that. Muhammed may have got the “spine” bit from Hippocrates, which is erroneous, anyway:
“Hippocrates taught that semen comes from all the fluid in the body, diffusing from the brain into the spinal marrow, before passing through the kidneys and via the testicles into the penis.” (Hippocratic Writings (Penguin Classics, 1983) pp. 317-318)
All the following verses represent the Qur’ans attempt at embryology:
(Q 22:5) “You people!…we created you first from dust, then from a living germ, then from a clot of blood, and then from a half formed lump of flesh…and We cause whom We will to rest in the wombs for an appointed term, then do We bring you out as babes.”
(Q 23:13) “we placed him as (a drop of) sperm (nutfah) in a place of rest, firmly fixed;…”
(Q 23:14) continues… “then We made the sperm into a clot of congealed blood (alaqa); then out of that clot We made a (foetus) lump (mudghah), then We made out of that lump bones and clothed the bones with flesh; then We developed out of it another creature.”
75:37 Was he not a drop of ejaculated semen? He became a clot of blood; then God formed him and moulded him, and gave him male and female parts…
75:38 also says man becomes an alaqa (congealed blood) and 96:2 says we came from alaq. 96:2 – from a blood clot
The First Stage “Nuqfah”- Semen:
The first stage completely neglects the contribution of the mother to the growing foetus. The function of the female egg in fact was not known or understood until the 18 and 19th centuries.
Second Stage “Alaqah”- Clot:
Every woman knows about passing bold clots, and an early miscarriage looks just like one anyway. Some translators use “leech-like”. The leech oc course, is an animal which gorges itself with blood of its victims. Muslim apologists might argue that the developing somites of the human embryo give it a segmented structure similar to the internal structure of the leech (this is true for all worms, the class of animals known as echinaceae). In fact, the segmented somites are ubiquitous in most of animal embryonic development. Further Muslims apologists will also draw the comparison to the leech sucking its victim’s blood and the foetus drawing nutrition from the blood of its mother, which is unkind to the baby really. A baby is not a blood sucker, it does NOT suck blood of its mother, rather ONLY nutrients from the placental bed, into its blood-stream.
I was no bloody leech at any point of my life, my mother loved me and nourished me in my first home, her womb. I listened to Dr. William Campbell talk about this in a debate. From his research of the word: “alaqah”, he states that there are ten possible meanings, though they are all taken to mean “blood/congealed blood/ blood clot” in some for or other. Further, in the “gerund” form (verb that is used as a noun eg “I love swimming”), it can be taken as a thing that clings, or a “leech-like thing that clings” (Sahih International accordingly translates this into “clinging clot”). He speaks of his own medical practice in the Middle East where women come to him for an early term termination of pregnancy and when he told them he could not do it they would reply “but its only an alaqah (clot)!” The translation of alaqah as “leech like thing” gets exploited by Muslim apologists, even though the translations only ever use “clot”.
The embryo is not formed “from blood/clot” nor is the embryo itself ever a blood clot. The blood of a foetus develops the same as all its other organs, as part of a developing body, within its developing blood vessels, where it belongs. the foetus is not dripping in blood like an open wound, that’s a miscarriage, as we have already said.
Third Stage:mugadah“chewed up thing/chewed up piece of meat”
presumably a stage when the humanoid form has not quite differentiated yet, and everyone knows that when you spit or vomit out food that it looks like an undifferentiated mess. That’s the extent of the information the Qur’an contains with respect to this stage.
Fourth Stage– “bones are clothed with flesh”.
There is no such stage, the bones and flesh of a foetus develop simultaneously, along with all the other body systems, and this is an error.
Conclusions: The description of the developing embryo in the Qur’an range from being completely unhelpful uninformative to completely wrong. The entire embryology of the Qur’an can be summarized as “something grows from a blob to a human”, we really didn’t need anyone to tell us that the products of conceptus are bloody or that human beings have bones inside their flesh. Let us now compare this to the manner in which the Greeks describe their Embryology.
Greek Embryology
Contribution of the Female to the foetus was known to Greeks
The great step forward shown in some of the Hippocratic (460-370 BC) writings, in one of which the surprising idea is expressed that all plants and animals have to some extent the same ground plan, and that one should therefore be able to apply the story of the development of the chick to that of other animals.
Galen (129-210 AD) wisely argued, as had Aristotle, that if the male and female did not, in some measure, both share equally in procreation, inheritance could not occur from both parents. He went on to say that if there were only male sperm there could only be inheritance through the male, and if only female sperm then only through the female.
Although Aristotle had regarded the ovary and testis as unimportant organs, Galen regarded them as important and as equivalent, and emphasized their role in the body as indicated by their loss in castration. He concluded that female semen formed the allantois and that coagulation of male and female semen in the uterus resulted in the formation of the chorion. This was because Galen found material which looked like semen in the uterine tubes of animals killed while in heat, and it is much to his credit that he carefully described this fluid. It should not surprise us that Galen confused the tubal, uterine and cervical secretions with semen
Greek Gross Embryology far more detailed than that of Quran
He spoke of four stages in prenatal development supplies impressive anatomical detail including details of the formation of the liver, brain, heart and vascularization. He even recognized and carefully described the foramen oval and the ductus arteriosus and venous, in the heart, the existence of which was forgotten for a long time until they were rediscovered and described by Botalli and Aranzi about the middle of the sixteenth century. However he seems to have also described the “flesh growing around the bones” in the later stages of development, which is the same as the description in the Qur’an, in other words, Galen’s error is parroted.
Wikiislam does the best possible job of presenting the Greek understanding of embryology with additional excerpts from Aristotle and Hippocrates, which while rudimentary, are more detailed than the Qur’an. I’ve reproduced the passage from Galen which is the most detailed and most recent below
Claudius Galenus (129-210 AD) “let us divide the creation of the foetus overall into four periods of time. The first is that in which. as is seen both in abortions and in dissection, the form of the semen prevails [Arabic nutfah]. At this time, Hippocrates too, the all-marvelous, does not yet call the conformation of the animal a foetus; as we heard just now in the case of semen voided in the sixth day, he still calls it semen. But when it has been filled with blood [Arabic alaqa], and heart, brain and liver are still unarticulated and unshaped yet have by now a certain solidarity and considerable size, this is the second period; the substance of the foetus has the form of flesh and no longer the form of semen. Accordingly you would find that Hippocrates too no longer calls such a form semen but, as was said, foetus. The third period follows on this, when, as was said, it is possible to see the three ruling parts clearly and a kind of outline, a silhouette, as it were, of all the other parts [Arabic mudghah]. You will see the conformation of the three ruling parts more clearly, that of the parts of the stomach more dimly, and much more still, that of the limbs. Later on they form “twigs”, as Hippocrates expressed it, indicating by the term their similarity to branches. The fourth and final period is at the stage when all the parts in the limbs have been differentiated; and at this part Hippocrates the marvelous no longer calls the foetus an embryo only, but already a child, too when he says that it jerks and moves as an animal now fully formed.”
“… The time has come for nature to articulate the organs precisely and to bring all the parts to completion. Thus it caused flesh to grow on and around all the bones, and at the same time … it made at the ends of the bones ligaments that bind them to each other, and along their entire length it placed around them on all sides thin membranes, called periosteal, on which it caused flesh to grow” Corpus Medicorum Graecorum: Galeni de Semine (Galen: On Semen) (Greek text with English trans. Phillip de Lacy, Akademic Verlag, 1992) section I:9:1-10 pp. 92-95, 101
Diocles of Carystus 240-180 BC “on the ninth day a few points of blood, on the eighteenth beating of the heart, on the twenty-seventh traces of the spinal cord and head”
If that wasn’t enough, there are also several variation on the theme of what exactly is the stuff man is created from:
19:67- man is created from nothing 21:30 – from water 16:4 – from a small seed
15:26 – from clay and mud, 3:59 – from dust, 11:61 – from earth
Sex Determination hadith
“…He then said: I have come to ask you about the child. He (the Holy Prophet) said: The reproductive substance of man is white and that of woman (i. e. ovum central portion) yellow, and when they have sexual intercourse and the male’s substance prevails upon the female’s substance, it is the male child that is created by Allah’s Decree, and when the substance of the female prevails upon the substance contributed by the male, a female child is formed by the Decree of Allah. The Jew said: What you have said is true; verily you are an Apostle. He then returned and went away. The Messenger of Allah said: He asked me about such and such things of which I have had no knowledge till Allah gave me that. (Muslim 315a)
There are two other hadith which state that the offspring “resemble” the parent which orgasms first (Muslim 311 and Sunan an Nasa’i 201)
Trans-speciation
In surah 7:166 “Allah” turns a group of Israelites into apes because they are disobedient.
Two hadith corroborate Muhammed’s belief in trans-speciation as a form of divine punishment. Not only that, some of them are the animals around us. We can contemplate this while we eat them, just out of interest:
“It was narrated that Thabit bin Yazid Al-Ansari said: “We were with the Prophet on a journey. We stopped to camp and the people caught some mastigures. I took a mastigure and grilled it, and brought it to the Prophet. He took a palm stalk, and started counting his fingers with it, and said: ‘A nation from among the children of Israel was turned into beasts of the Earth, and I do not know what kind of animals they were, I said: ‘O Messenger of Allah, the people have eaten some of them.’ He did not tell them to eat it, and he did not forbid them from eating it.” (Sunan an Nasa’i 4320)
“Narrated Abu Huraira: The Prophet said, “A group of Israelites were lost. Nobody knows what they did. But I do not see them except that they were cursed and changed into rats, for if you put the milk of a she-camel in front of a rat, it will not drink it, but if the milk of a sheep is put in front of it, it will drink it.” I told this to Ka`b who asked me, “Did you hear it from the Prophet ?” I said, “Yes.” Ka`b asked me the same question several times.; I said to Ka`b. “Do I read the Torah? (i.e. I tell you this from the Prophet.)”” (Bukhari 3305)
“It is He Who has let free the two seas (l-baḥrayni- 42 occ. always “sea”) : One palatable and sweet, and the other salt and bitter; yet has He made a barrier (barzakhan – a land barrier, confirmed in Ibn Kathir and various hadith)between them, a partition (waḥij’ran- “partition”, same root h-j-r as “forbidden”) that is forbidden (maḥjūran) to be passed...” (Q 25:53)
“He released the two seas, meeting side by side; between them is a barrier neither of them transgress (la= “not” labghiyani- usually translated as “seek”, but “cross/encroach” in this context)…” (Q 55:19-20)
The Qur’anic author is making a clear statement about two seas forbidden from mixing. This is what makes it scientific error, because there is no such natural occurrence. Even if there is a boundary visible at the surface and a difference of colors, this is not a static boundary.
The Science
When a fresh water river flows into the sea or ocean, there is a transition region in between. This transition region is called an estuary. This is called brackish water with a gradation in salinity levels until the two eventually homogenize. This process is called “mixing”. This is purely a natural result of fresh water coming down from the mountains and glaciers to the low-lying areas and into the sea. Its like pouring water into your kitchen sink, the water in the vessel you are pouring it out from obviously does not get dirty. This does not mean that there is an incredible barrier, present, it is as natural as gravity and the reason we do not float upwards!
Is there a special case at the Strait of Gibraltar?
Around 5.9 million years ago, the connection between the Mediterranean Sea and the Atlantic Ocean along the Betic and Rifan Corridor was progressively restricted until its total closure, effectively causing the salinity of the Mediterranean to rise periodically within the gypsum and salt deposition range, during what is known as the Messinian salinity crisis. In this water chemistry environment, dissolved mineral concentrations, temperature and stilled water currents combined and occurred regularly to precipitate many mineral salts in layers on the seabed.
Through the Strait, water generally flows more or less continually in both an eastward and a westward direction. A smaller amount of deeper saltier and therefore denser waters continually work their way westwards the Mediterranean outflow, while a larger amount of surface waters with lower salinity and density continually work their way eastwards the Mediterranean inflow. These general flow tendencies may be occasionally interrupted for brief periods by temporary tidal flows, depending on various lunar and solar alignments. Still, on the whole and over time, the balance of the water flow is eastwards, due to an evaporation rate within the Mediterranean basin higher than the combined inflow of all the rivers that empty into it. At the Strait’s far western end is the Camarinal Sill, the Strait’s shallowest point which limits mixing between the cold, less saline Atlantic water and the warm Mediterranean waters.
The Mediterranean waters are so much saltier than the Atlantic waters that they sink below the constantly incoming water and form a highly saline (thermohaline, both warm and salty) layer of bottom water. This layer of bottom-water constantly works its way out into the Atlantic as the Mediterranean outflow. On the Atlantic side of the Strait, a density boundary separates the Mediterranean outflow waters from the rest at about 100 m (330 ft; 55 fathoms) depth. These waters flow out and down the continental slope, losing salinity, until they begin to mix and equilibrate more rapidly, much farther out at a depth of about 1,000 m (3,300 ft; 550 fathoms). The Mediterranean outflow water layer can be traced for thousands of km. west of the Strait, before completely losing its identity.
There’s a high-salinity layer in this one place in the world, but that too eventually mixes.
Thermohaline Currents
But apart from that all the oceans are connected by thermohaline currents (THC). The network literally cobwebs the oceans. There is a global continuum of flow in the oceans. Thus the waters from Arctic Ocean is coming to Atlantic, then to Antarctic and then to Indian and Pacific and so on so forth to complete the cycle. If they didn’t, our climate and the marine ecosystem would have been very different, and not even suitable for life.
All the oceans and seas are density stratified (light water at top and heavy salty cold water at bottom) as shown in Figure 3. The light water at the top (surface layer or mixed later, of depth on average around100m from the sea surface) is affected by sun and wind (ambient conditions) and that’s what creates surface currents. Surface currents affect 10% of the ocean circulation. Sunlight cannot penetrate to deep waters (the average depth of oceans are around 4-5 km), neither wind has the ability to move the deep waters. So the deep waters are unaffected by local conditions. The movement of deep water is caused only because of Thermohaline Circulation (THC). These deep ocean currents constitute 90% of the circulation of water in the oceans.
What is the cause of the line of separation?
Surface water (which constitutes only around 2-5% of the ocean at mid-depth) properties of two seas are not same, and hence the two seas scatter blue light in different amounts and we see different shades of blue. Different shades of blue can even be seen in the same sea. As one moves from the coast towards open sea, the depth of the sea increases and the shade of blue slowly gets deeper. These things have nothing to do with the deep water (which constitutes 95-98% of the ocean at mid-depth) movements, governed by THC, which constitute 90% of the oceanic circulation. But this does not mean that surface water doesn’t get about! Surface waters on the long term follow the THC, but in short term or instantaneously they have all kinds of motion patterns which are affected by various factors in the environment. The Gulf Stream, for example, which shifts more than 4500 times the water in the Mississippi river, is a surface current.
“And He has set firm mountains in the earth so that it would not shake with you…” (Quran 16:15)
Mohammed in other verses has already stated that the “earth is spread our like a carpet”. This is confusing until one realizes that perhaps he is speaking of the manner that a carpet in an Bedouin Arab’s tent would shift unless it had some furniture etc placed upon it. We all hate shifty carpets!
(Surah 78:7) Dawood: “Did we not…raise the mountains as supporting poles?”
Other translations: Yusuf Ali: “…….as pegs?” Pickthall “……bulwarks?”
Mountains are formed because of the collision of continental plates. This every school boy knows, I hope. The main function of the mountains is the redistribution of water in the water cycle (Rivers flow to the sea, clouds give rain etc) and the formation of dry land as a result of the elevation. If the Earth was flat, then its entire surface would have been covered by a kilometre of water and life would have been impossible.
Here are three verses from the Bible:
Job 28:9: People assault the flinty rock with their hands and lay bare the roots of the mountains.
Psalm 18:7: The earth trembled and quaked, and the foundations of the mountains shook; they trembled because he was angry.
Jonah 2:6: To the roots of the mountains I sank down; the earth beneath barred me in forever. But you, LORD my God, brought my life up from the pit.
This is taken from a good discussion from the Answering-Islam site:
The most obvious problem, with the idea that mountains prevent the earth from shaking, is that there are earthquakes each and every day on planet earth. Anyone can go on the United States Geological Survey site Latest Earthquakes in the World – Past 7 days to see where Magnitude 4.5, and above, earthquakes have occurred. Please go to this site and notice where the past week’s earthquakes have taken place: western North and South America, the Aleutian Islands, the Pacific “Ring of Fire”, and the Himalayas – all are regions with large mountains! Also, take a look at the Latest Earthquakes in the USA – Last 7 days and notice where these take place – in the Rocky and Cascade Mountains in the west and in the Appalachian Mountains of the east!
Mountains are created and formed by the movement and collision of tectonic plates and by volcanic forces – not by Allah placing them on the surface of the planet. Tectonic plates collide, creating mountains such as the Himalayas and the heat generated from one plate sub-ducting (or sliding) under another plate creates volcanoes such as the Cascade Mountains. These areas, as can be plainly seen in the USGS map, are where earthquakes occur.
Conclusion:
It is not the function of mountains to counteract the plate tectonics that lead to earthquakes as it is claimed in the Qur’an “so that it (the Earth) will not shake with you”, rather quite the opposite, mountains are the product of those very plate tectonics and the activity in the earths magma layer. The mountain ranges were formed when continents separated crashed into each other from the original two continent earth over millions of years, and volcanic activity continues to occur at the fault lines between these plates. There is no reason such activity will ever abate, just as it never abates on planets like Mars.
Conclusion- “Miraculous Science”?
There are claims that some of the scientific observations in the Qur’an are indeed ahead of their time, and I have tried to have a fair look at these here: Miraculous Claims of the Qur’an Examined.
The accusation of disingenuity is not new, it is present in the Qur’an itself, as Mohammed himself recounts his people protesting in the following verses:
“…the disbelievers say. ‘these are nothing but ancient fables” (Q6:25)
“And When Our signs were being recited to them, they said, ‘We have already heard; if we wished, we could say the like of this; this is naught but the fairy-tales of the ancients.’ (Q 8:31)
“And among them are those who abuse the Prophet and say, “He is an ear. (he will listen to anything- AH” Say, “[It is] an ear of goodness for you that believes in Allah and believes the believers and [is] a mercy to those who believe among you.” And those who abuse the Messenger of Allah – for them is a painful punishment.”(Q 9:61)
“And when it is said to them, ‘What has your Lord sent down?’ they say, ‘Fairy-tales of the ancients.'” (Q 16:24)
And Q 38:77 “…We have not heard of this in the Christian faith. It is nothing but a false invention. Was the word revealed to him alone among us?’”
“Nothing is said to you that has not been said to other apostles before you.” Q 40:42
The stories of prophetic figures in the Qur’an leave out many details ordinarily considered essential for a clear understanding of the text. Academic scholars have described the Qur’an as being “referential,” “allusive,” and “elliptical.” Some scholars have called the Qur’an a text without a context, meaning that it refers to many stories without giving the background or setting, as if the audience already knows the story and does not require the basic details. Consider that the only sūra in the Qur’an that is entirely devoted to a single narrative is Sūra 12, “Yūsuf”. The Qur’an calls this sūra “the most beautiful of tales (qaṣaṣ) in what we have revealed to you that qurʾān” (Q 12:3). And yet even Sūra 12 is missing many details from the Torah account.
Some of the sources are obscure and difficult to date, but there are others which clearly pre-date Islam.
Out of any number of possibilities lost in the sands of time, one likely source is Waraqah ibn Nawfal. I’ve taken this from The Life of Fatimah Az-Zahra’, The Principal of all Women: Study and Analysis Baqir Sharif al-Qurashi on AI-Islam website, which is linked to the Ahlul Bayt Digital Islamic Library Project: The page states:
“A very small number of Christians and Jews lived in Mecca at the time and a fairly large number of Jews lived in Medina in fortified communities, small and large, the largest being Khaybar, one of Khadijah’s cousins (some say he was her uncle), had embraced Christianity and was a pious monk”.
The site goes on to state that this Waraqah was one of the first to approve of Mohammed as a prophet. Uncle Waraq dies a few days into Mohammed’s first revelations, as the story goes, and this event according to traditions plunges Muhammed into a suicidal despair, leading one to think that his sorrow was at losing his “source” of revelations.
But even apart from this, Mecca fell on an important trade route with Lebanon and Syria and thereby exchange of ideas and literature would have been possible and ongoing. Mohammed after all was a camel caravan trader and hence would have interacted with traders from the North. Bear in mind also that Christianity by this point is a mature and well-established religion, even though the Bible had not at that time yet been translated into Arabic. It would be several centuries before Islam acquired the same self-assurance.
What is the Muslim Response to this?
Muslims would say “well, we have those passage in common because they really happened”. When you look at the actual “Gospels” in quetion, they are really very not Islamic, nor even Christian. Not a single one of them would be or is suitable or recommended Muslim reading. But Muslims are going to say “well the Qur’an preserved the crumbs of truth from all of these gospels”. How do you know they’re true? Well because they’re in the Quran, and the Qur’an has numerical “miracles” and “prophecy” about the Romans and Persians.
My follow-up objection would be “well…but many of these stories don’t really belong in Islam. They don’t even make much sense. Sometimes there are conflicting accounts of the same story, like Adam and Iblis and Moses and the Bush”. If everything true ended up in the Qur’an why is it still confusing and still seemingly not Islamic. Its like having a really complex and elaborate recipe that tastes the same as a really simple recipe that wasn’t so tasty anyway (granted that most simple recipes are really tasty :))
Perhaps more importantly, why are Jesus and Mary such superstars in them :)?
Anyway, this is an anaylsis of the relevant passages and their sources.
Angels Ordered to Prostrate to Adam
There are in no less than seven instances of this same story of Adam and Iblis repeated in the Quran with different lengths and slight thematic variations.
“Behold, thy Lord said to the angels: “I will create a vicegerent on earth.” They said: “Wilt Thou place therein one who will make mischief therein and shed blood?- whilst we do celebrate Thy praises and glorify Thy holy (name)?” He said: “I know what ye know not.” (YA 2:30)
(Pickthall) “He said: What hindered thee that thou didst not fall prostrate when I bade thee? (Iblis) said: I am better than him. Thou createdst me of fire while him Thou didst create of mud.” (Surah 7:12)
The verses mentioning the incident are 2:34; 7:11-18; 15:29-43; 17:61-64; 18:50; 20:116-117 and 38:71-83.
These are the common themes between the Qur’an and the pseudoepigraphic writings:
-Command to bow down to Adam
-The angels bow down to/worship Adan
-Satan criticizes man as inferior
-Satan claims he is from fire
-Satan refuses to worship
-Satan is expelled
Only the last of these is from the Bible, the rest is backstory supplied in the Jewish pseudoepigrapha, of which there are no less than three sources, which I enumerate here, and possibly more.
The Life of Adam and Eve: A group of pseudo-epigraphic writings that relates tales of Adam and Eve following their expulsion from the Garden. These differ greatly in length and wording, but for the most part are derived from a single source that has not survived. While the versions were composed from the early 3rd to the 5th century, the literary units in the work are considered to be older and predominantly of Jewish origin, from the 1st century AD. Hedley Sparks in The Apocryphal Old Testament (p142, Oxford University Press inc. NY 1984, quoting LSA Wells, one of the translators of the Latin manuscript), states that the author was probably a Jew of the Dispersion (following the fall of Jerusalem in AD 60), who wrote perhaps at Alexandria ‘between AD 60 and 300 and probably in the earliest years of this period’.
The Book of the Cave of Treasures (6th century AD, Some Parts 4th., Syriac):
“And when the prince of the lower order of angels saw what great majesty had been given unto Adam, he was jealous of him from that day, and he did not wish to worship him. And he said unto his hosts, “Ye shall not worship him, and ye shall not praise him with the angels. It is meet that ye should worship me, because I am fire and spirit; and not that I should worship a thing of dust, which hath been fashioned of fine dust.” And the Rebel mediating these things would not render obedience to God, and of his own free will he asserted his independence and separated himself from God. But he was swept away out of heaven and fell, and the fall of himself and of all his company…”
Babylonian Talmud(Tractate Sanhedrin: Folio 38b)
“When the Holy One, blessed be He, wished to create man, He [first] created a company of ministering angels and said to them: Is it your desire that we make a man in our image? They answered: Sovereign of the Universe, what will be his deeds? Such and such will be his deeds, He replied. Thereupon they exclaimed: Sovereign of the Universe, What is man that thou art mindful of him, and the son of man that thou thinkest of him? Thereupon He stretched out His little finger among them and consumed them with fire…”
The Gospel of Bartholomew (3rd century AD, Greek/Latin/Slavonic): “And when I came from the ends of the earth Michael said: Worship thou the image of God, which he hath made according to his likeness. But I said: I am fire of fire, I was the first angel formed, and shall worship clay and matter?…”
“Because of this, we decreed for the Children of Israel that anyone who murders any person who had not committed murder or horrendous crimes, it shall be as if he murdered all the people. And anyone who spares a life, it shall be as if he spared the lives of all the people.” (Qur’an 5:32)
The Qur’an itself seemingly admits that this is a past edict ‘We decreed for the Children of Israel…” . The problem is that the original itself is not Scripture, rather a commentary and hardly the “decree of God” that it purports to be. (the rabbi who penned it would have been mortified!) The Sanhedrin parallel is merely a rabbinical commentary on the murder of Abel in Gen.4:10, a Mishnayot – teaching of a Jewish sage. This is the Babylonian Talmud page from which the verse is taken, which unlike the Qur’an actually gives the context for the verse. Only the single line highlighted in red is Scripture, and we see the phrase “kills a single soul of Israel”, taken in the Qur’an as “decreed for the Children of Israel”:
“For thus we find in the case of Cain, who killed his brother, that it is written: the bloods of thy brother cry unto me: not the blood of thy brother, but the bloods of thy brother, is said — i.e., his blood and the blood of his [potential] descendants. (alternatively, the bloods of thy brother, teaches that his blood was splashed over trees and stones.) For this reason was man created alone, to teach thee that whosoever destroys a single soul of Israel, scripture imputes [guilt] to him as though he had destroyed a complete world; and whosoever preserves a single soul of Israel, scripture ascribes [merit] to him as though he had preserved a complete world...” Talmud: Sanhedrin 37a (Tractate Sanhedrin: 4:5)
Pirke Rabbi Eliezer. according to the Encyclopaedia Judaica, is a pseudepigrahic work, attributed to Rabbi Eliezer b. Hyrcanus [first century], but written most probably in the 8th century. Late Talmudic authorities (Jewish Rabbis) belonging to the 3rd century C.E., like Shemaiah (ch. xxiii.), Ze’era (ch. xxi., xxix.), and Shila (ch. xlii., xliv.), are also quoted, indicating that the work was edited or additions were made to it after the time of R. Eliezar. There are at least two ancient manuscripts of the Pirke De-Rabbi Eli’ezer. The ancient Vienna manuscript, which has only in recent years been translated into English, shows every evidence of being pre-Islamic. I cannot say with certainty whether the remnant of that manuscript contains the Raven story, it probably is lost.
In the Qu’ran, the the sight of a raven burying it’s dead relative brings repentance to the murderous Kane. The Midrashic fable actually speaks of Adam and Eve learning to bury their dead from the sight of the raven burying it’s dead, having never been faced with the situation of a dead relative before and therefore not knowing what to do with the corpse. The Qur’an account ends with the raven being given a “reward” by Allah (most birds would be happy with a biscuit).
Birds don’t bury their dead at all so this is a strange way for the first man to learn how to honor the dead. Ravens and crows do have certain funereal rituals though; when one of them dies or is killed, they surround the corpse and caw for a while. But bury their dead they do not, in fact I do not think that birds dig holes period. The very last thing you want is a chipped beak, it would mean starvation for the bird.
Talmudic writings are a collection of the vast rabbinic teaching material that includes commentaries on legal issues as well as commentaries on Scriptural issues. There are two, the other being the Babylonian Talmud. The Encyclopedea Judaica 1996 edition, Vol 15, p 772, states: “Jerusalem Talmud was compiled about a century before the Babylonian in 500CE. Its close was entirely due to the situation which prevailed in (Erez) Israel. The activities of the main school, that of Tiberius, came to an end in 421 CE.
The Midrash Bereshit, also called the Genesis Rabbah (Meaning a Rabbinic exegesis on Genesis) It is difficult to ascertain the exact date of the actual editing of the Bereshit Rabbah; it was probably undertaken not much later than that of the Jerusalem Talmud.
“Rabbi Hiyya… said that Terah was a maker of idols. One time, he went out, and he left Abraham to sell [the idols] in his place. A person came and asked to buy one, and [Abraham] asked him, ‘How old are you?’ And the man said to him, ’50 or 60 [years].’ And [Abraham] said, ‘Oy to the man who is 60 years old and needs to worship [an idol] that is a day old!’ [The man] was embarrassed, and he went [on his way]” (Genesis Rabbah 38:13).
Also called by the more descriptive- “The Penitence of Jannes and Jambre”. Also called Pseudo-Ambrosius, this was name generally employed to denote the unknown author of the Commentaria in xiii Epistolas beati Pauli, formerly ascribed to St. Ambrose. It is best dated to AD366–384. This book was thoroughly denounced as apocryphal by no less than three early Christian authors: it is mentioned in the Gelasian decree (6th century) as an apocryphal book and Origen denounces it as a ‘secret apocryphal book’, ‘not found in the public scriptures’ (James, 1920).
In Surah 7:120, the Quran says that seeing Moses’ powerful signs, two of Pharaoh’s magicians are converted to Judaism. Stories of Pharaoh’s chief magicians, Jannes and Jambres who opposed Moses belong to pre-Christian Judaic antiquity and various differing accounts of them are to be found as well detailed by Charlesworth. They even get a passing mention in the New Testament letter of St Paul 2Timothy 3:8. “As Jannes and Jambres opposed Moses, so these men also oppose the truth, men of corrupt mind and counterfeit faith…”. Thus these two characters appear to have been widely known in the ancient world, although the Torah makes no mention of them at all. The only story that talks of their conversion, however, is 4th century Ambrosiaster . The writer, writing on 2nd Timothy says:
“For James and Jambres were brothers, magicians or poisoners, of the Egyptians, who thought they could they could resist by the art of their magic the mighty works of God which were being accomplished through them. But when the might of Moses in his works proved greater, they were humbled and confessed, with the pain of their wounds, that it was God that wrought in Moses(James, 1920).
God floats a mountain above the Israelites to scare them into submission. This is from the Talmud which is a stated reflection on Exodus 19:17 “Then Moses brought the people out of the camp to meet God; and they took their stand at the foot of the mountain.”
The Babylonian Talmud: (Avodah Zarah 2b)R. Dimi b. Hama said: ”This teaches us that the Holy One, blessed be He, suspended the mountain over Israel like a vault, and said unto them: ‘If ye accept the Torah, it will be well with you, but if not, there will ye find your grave.”
Talmud, Tractate Shabbat: Folio 88a “And they stood under the mount: R. Abdimi b. Hama b. Hasa said: This teaches that the Holy One, blessed be He, overturned the mountain upon them like an [inverted] cask.”
The Qur’an grants literality to this “mountain menace”:
“We raised the mountain over them as if it had been a canopy, and they thought that it was going to fall on them. (We said): “Hold firmly to what We have given you.”(Surah 7:171)
“And remember We took your covenant and We raised above you (The towering height) of Mount (Sinai) : (Saying): “Hold firmly to what We have given you and bring (ever) to remembrance what is therein: Perchance ye may fear Allah.” (Surah 2:63)
Numbers Midrash: it is mentioned in Babylonian Talmud. The story is found in both Sanhedrin 110a and Pesachim 119a, with only minor differences: Thus the story one made Rabbi Levi; a third century Haggadist who lived in Palestine. As we know, the compilation of the two great Talmuds was completed by AD 400-500.
In the Biblical book of Genesis, Korah is the great grand-son of Levi who resists Moses’ leadership, and as a result is swallowed up along with his entire household into the Earth, and that is all the Bible says about him. As the Numbers Midrash exciting Aladdin-like story goes, Korah is actually a wise man who also gets very rich when he finds treasure that is buried by Jacob. “And Rabbi Levi said: “The keys to Korah’s treasure house was a load for 300 white mules and the keys and locks were leather.”
The Qur’an smooshes the two stories together as:
Surah 28:76 says “We had given him such treasures that their very keys would have weighed down a band of sturdy men.” However Korah is proud and says “The riches are given to me on account of the knowledge I possess.” (***SMOOSH POINT***) …because he fails to give thanks to God, he is, indeed swallowed up in to the Earth along with his dwelling” in 28:81.
“And [there are] angels who are appointed over seasons and years, the angels who are over rivers and sea, and who are over the fruits of the earth, and the angels who are over every grass, giving food to all, to every living thing; and the angels who write all the souls of men, and all their deeds, and their lives before the Lord’s face. (2 Enoch 19:4-5 Late 1st Century AD ~ Greek (Semitic Original)
“But verily over you (are appointed angels) to protect you,- Kind and honourable,- Writing down (your deeds): They know (and understand) all that ye do.(Quran Surah 8:10-12)
“Ask them concerning the town standing close by the sea. Behold! they transgressed in the matter of the Sabbath. For on the day of their Sabbath their fish did come to them, openly holding up their heads, but on the day they had no Sabbath, they came not: thus did We make a trial of them, for they were given to transgression.” (Quran 7:163)
When Rabbi was dying he said: ‘There is [a town] Humania in Babylon, which consists entirely of Ammonites; there is Misgaria in Babylon, consisting entirely of mamzerim; there is Birka Babylon, which contains two brothers who interchange their wives; there is a Birtha di Satya Babylon: to-day they have turned away from the Almighty: a fishpond overflowed on the Sabbath, and they went and caught the fish on the Sabbath, whereat R. Ahi son of R. Josiah declared the ban against them, and they renounced Judaism” Tractate Kiddushin: 72a Babylonian Talmud 5th/6th Century AD ~ Hebrew
Allah apparently performed reverse evolution of some humans.
R. Jeremiah b. Eleazar said: They split up into three parties. One said, “Let us ascend and dwell there;” the second, “Let us ascend and serve idols;” and the third said, “Let us ascend and wage war [with God].” The party which proposed, “Let us ascend, and dwell there” — the Lord scattered them; the one that said, “Let us ascend and wage war” were turned to apes, spirits, devils, and night-demons; whilst as for the party which said, “Let us ascend and serve idols” — ‘for there the Lord did confound the language of all the earth.’ Tractate Sanhedrin: 109a Babylonian Talmud 5th/6th Century AD ~ Hebrew
When in their insolence they transgressed (all) prohibitions, We said to them: “Be ye apes, despised and rejected.” (Qur’an 7:166)
“We subjected the wind to him, so that it blew gently at his bidding, wherever he directed it, and We also subjected the devils to him all kinds of builders and divers; and others that were bound with chains.” -Surah 38:36-38
On the dating of ToS:
The date of authorship of the Testament of Solomon (ToS) is debated. However, the traditions are most likely very early. Generally, in texts like these, the traditions far antedate the authorship of the document.
“In 1898, F. C. Conybeare, in the preface to his English translation of the testament (MS P), noted that it was quoted as one of Solomon’s authentic writings in the Greek Dialogue of Timothy and Aquila. The Dialogue, a Christian document from about A.D. 400, was thought by Conybeare to go back to an earlier dialogue from the middle of the second century.” -D. C. Duling, “A New Translation and Introduction,” in The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha, vol. 1 (New York; London: Yale University Press, 1983), 940.
Verses from the ToS
“Then the little boy went and spoke to Solomon, “King Solomon, I brought the demon to you just as you commanded me; observe how he is standing bound in front of the gates outside, crying out with a great voice to give me all the silver and gold of the earth so that I would not deliver him to you.” –Testament of Solomon 1:13 -Charlesworth, J. H. (1983). The Old Testament pseudepigrapha (Vol. 1, pp. 962–963). New York; London: Yale University Press. Online see verse 8:
“Islamic folklore developed the Solomonic tale in tremendously fertile and imaginative ways. Solomon is the greatest of the world rulers, a true apostle of Allah, his messenger, and a prototype of Muhammad.” (Duling, D. C. (1983). A New Translation and Introduction.” In The Old Testament pseudepigrapha (Vol. 1, p. 951). New York; London: Yale University Press.)
“Solomon is the subject of a large number of traditions and legends in Arabic literature, in which he completely overshadows in importance his father, David. Solomon is spoken of as the messenger of God (“rasul Allah”), and is in a way a prototype of Mohammed. Hence the importance assigned to his relations with the Queen of Sheba, the submission of whose country is taken to mean the submission of Arabia. The letter addressed to her, summoning her to accept Islam, begins with the same formula (“Bi-ism Allah al-Raḥman al-Raḥim”) as that used in the documents issued by Mohammed.” -Jewish Encyclopedia http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/articles/13842-solomon
“In the medieval period, probably about the twelfth century, and probably under Arabian influence, Solomon became known especially as a writer of scientific and magical books. M. Seligsohn mentions forty-nine of these books…this list is by no means exhaustive…By the fifteenth century, books of magical secrets were attributed to many major characters of the Jewish Scriptures, including Adam and Moses, and especially Solomon. To this company, Zoroaster, Hermes Trismegistus, Aristotle, Alexander the Great, Virgil, and Muḥammad were joined.” (Duling, D. C. (1983). A New Translation and Introduction. In The Old Testament pseudepigrapha (Vol. 1, p. 956). New York; London: Yale University Press.)
“…he [wind demon] broke through a large contingent of soldiers, raised up a blustering cloud of dust from the earth, transported it upward, and hurled it against me many times (while I watched) in amazement…When I stood up, I spat on the ground at that spot and I sealed (him)…As a result, the moving air stopped.” -Testament of Solomon 7:2-3 (Charlesworth, J. H. (1983). The Old Testament pseudepigrapha (Vol. 1, p. 969). New York; London: Yale University Press.) http://www.earlyjewishwritings.com/testsolomon.html
Then the boy obeyed the orders and went to Arabia. Now the men from the region doubted whether it was possible to bring the evil spirit under control. Nonetheless, before dawn the house servant got up and confronted the spirit of the wind…[the demon enters the flask] the boy stood firm. He bound up the mouth of the flask in the name of the Lord Sabaoth and the [wind] demon stayed inside the flask.” -Testament of Solomon 22:12; 14 (Charlesworth, J. H. (1983). The Old Testament pseudepigrapha (Vol. 1, p. 984). New York; London: Yale University Press.)
“..Then I [Solomon]…commanded him to pick up stones and hurl them up to the heights of the Temple for the workmen.” -Testament of Solomon 7:2; 8 (Charlesworth, J. H. (1983). The Old Testament pseudepigrapha (Vol. 1, p. 969). New York; London: Yale University Press.)
“Now when I, Solomon, heard these things, I commanded him [Beelzeboul, prince of the demons] to cut blocks of Theban marble.” -Testament of Solomon 6:9 (Charlesworth, J. H. (1983). The Old Testament pseudepigrapha (Vol. 1, p. 968). New York; London: Yale University Press.)
“Now there was a gigantic cornerstone which I wished to place at the head of the comer to complete the Temple of God. All the artisans and all the demons who were helping came to the same (location) to bring the stone and mount it at the end of the Temple, but they were not strong enough to budge it.” -Testament of Solomon 22:7-8 (Charlesworth, J. H. (1983). The Old Testament pseudepigrapha (Vol. 1, p. 984). New York; London: Yale University Press.)
When he had said these things, he [Arabian wind demon] went in underneath the stone, lifted it up, went up the flight of steps carrying the stone, and inserted it into the end of the entrance of the Temple.” -Testament of Solomon 23:3 (Charlesworth, J. H. (1983). The Old Testament pseudepigrapha (Vol. 1, p. 985). New York; London: Yale University Press.)
Then I [Solomon] said to him, “What can you do for me?” He [the Arabian wind demon] responded, “I am able to move mountains, to carry houses from one place to another, and to overthrow kings.” I said to him, “If you have the power, lift this stone into the beginning of the corner of the Temple.” But he responded, “I will raise not only this stone, King; but, with (the aid of) the demon who lives in the Red Sea, (I will) also (lift up) the pillar of air (which is) in the Red Sea and you shall set it up where you wish. -Testament of Solomon 23:1-2 (Charlesworth, J. H. (1983). The Old Testament pseudepigrapha (Vol. 1, p. 985). New York; London: Yale University Press.)
Commentary from the Tafsir:
“(And also the Shayatin, from every kind of builder and diver,) [Surah 38:37] means, among them were some whom he used to build high rooms, images, basins as large as reservoirs, and cauldrons fixed (in their places), and other difficult tasks which humans were unable to do. And there was another group, who dived into the sea recovering pearls, jewels and other precious things which cannot be found anywhere else.” -Tafsir Kathir,
In addition to all this, Solomon’s army consisted of birds, ants(!) and jinn…A passage in which king Solomon also comprehends ant-language is recorded, where at the approach of Solomon’s army, the ant shouts out a warning to it’s brothers. Solomon then “hears her words and smiles”. While ants have many rudimentary organs that are analogical to human beings, the one organ they do not have is lungs. Like most insects, they take in oxygen through openings in their abdomens called ‘spiracles’ which allows sufficient oxygen to maintain their activity. No lungs, no vocal cords, and this means that they cannot make a sound. There is also a profound conversation between an ant and a bird.
The Midrashic accounts are copious and wonderfully elaborate and they contain all the elements of the Qur’anic accounts.For example the Qur’an relates that King Sulaiman’s (Solomon’s) mastery of the languages of all creatures allowed him to regiment the hosts of humans, birds and jinns under his command. This echoes the talmudic legends of how the wise monarch exercised dominion over the beasts of the field, the birds of the air, and assorted demons and supernatural spirits.
A lot of this section is excerpts from the Islam Critiqued YouTube channel, provided download.
One day, when he [Solomon] was alone with him [Ashmedai], he [Solomon] said, “It is written, ‘He has toafot and reem [תועפת ראם; Num 24:8]’, which we translate as ministering angels and demons. How come you’re better than we are?” He [Ashmedai] said to him [Solomon], “Take the chain off me and give me your ring, and I’ll show you.” He [Solomon] took off the chain and gave him the ring. He [Ashmedai] swallowed him, and he put one wing on the earth and one in the sky and he threw [spat] him four hundred parasangs. That is what Solomon meant when he said, “So what profit is there to a man in all his labor wherein he labors under the sun” (Qoh 1:3)…” -Jacob Neusner, The Babylonian Talmud: A Translation and Commentary, vol. 11b (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson Publishers, 2011), 302.
Then Solomon spent some years as a beggar before he presented himself to Jewish officials (that we’ll talk about later), was then recognized, given his magical ring and regained the throne, as the demon fled:
He would make the rounds begging, and wherever he went he would say, “I Qohelet was king over Israel in Jerusalem” (Qoh. 1:12)…They sent them word, “Examine his leg” [to see whether it is a demon in Solomon’s form, since the demon’s legs are like those of a cock (Simon)]…So they sent for Solomon and gave him back the chain and the ring on which the Name was engraved. When he came in, [the demon Ashomedai] saw him. He flew away, and even so, he was afraid of him. That is in line with the verse of Scripture, “Behold it is the litter of Solomon, threescore mighty men are about it of the mighty men of Israel. They all handle the sword and are expert in war, every man has his sword upon his thigh because of fear in the night” (Song. 3:7–8). Rab and Samuel: One said, “He was king, then commoner.” The other said, “He was king, commoner, then king again.” -Jacob Neusner, The Babylonian Talmud: A Translation and Commentary, vol. 11b (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson Publishers, 2011), 302–303.
One more important detail is in Solomon’s sins:
“For three long yearsSolomonjourneyed about, begging his way from city to city, and from country to country, atoning for the three sins of his life by which he had set aside the commandment laid upon kings in Deuteronomy—not to multiply horses, and wives, and silver and gold.” -Louis Ginzberg, Henrietta Szold, and Paul Radin, Legends of the Jews, 2nd ed. (Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society, 2003), 975–976.
Now we turn to the Quran:
“And We certainly tried Solomon and placed on his throne a body; then he returned (in repentance). He said, ‘My Lord, forgive me and grant me a kingdom such as will not belong to anyone after me. Indeed, You are the Bestower.’” -Surah 38:34-35
Here are some noteworthy parallels between the Quran and the Jewish legends we’ve just read:
Surah 38:34-35
b.Gittin 68a (Babylonian Talmud)
Solomon is tested
Solomon is challenged (by Ashmedai)
Solomon binds and unleashes Ashmedai
A body is placed on the throne
Ashmedai assumes the throne
Solomon humbly returns in repentance
Solomon wanders as a beggar
Solomon asks for forgiveness for his sins
Three years of wandering for three sins
Solomon regains the kingdom
Solomon regains the kingdom
Regarding the missing parallel, remember as we saw earlier, the binding of demons, though not specifically mentioned in these two verses is attested a couple verses later in the same Surah:
“And [also] the devils [of jinn] – every builder and diver and others bound together in shackles.” -Surah 38:37-38
According to the traditions themselves that the Quran borrows from, we are NOT dealing with a historical account. One such example is this detail in the Talmud:
He [Solomon] would make the rounds begging, and wherever he went he would say, “I Qohelet was king over Israel in Jerusalem” (Qoh. 1:12). When he came to the Sanhedrin, rabbis said, “But does a deranged person stick with only one piece of nonsense? What’s going on here [since he might not be deranged, holding as he does to a single coherent thing]?” -Jacob Neusner, The Babylonian Talmud: A Translation and Commentary, vol. 11b (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson Publishers, 2011), 302.
There were, demonstrably, no Sanhedrin in Solomon’s time. But this anachronistic reference isn’t a problem for the rabbis. It’s simply midrashic. It’s telling a story in terms people can understand in their time, back in the late second temple period. And, since the rabbis aren’t concerned with history per se, the reference to the Sanhedrin isn’t a problem for them or their audience. Another disconnect from the original context evident in the Quran is that Jewish tradition frequently refers to various Biblical texts to illustrate their meaning. where the books of Numbers or Qoheleth that are being quoted and not from the time of Solomon at all, yet their words are being intentionally placed upon his lips.
In his work Professor Crossfeld states in his introduction in regard to the origin of the Targum of Esther (Targum Sheni) in its earliest identifiable form:
“…final redaction is not composition. It is merely the date of final compilation and editing of earlier works. The Targum of Esther is mentioned in the Jerusalem Talmud and cited in the Tractrate Sopherim (Xlll:6). Thus its existence is in at least Amoraic times. (i.e. 4th Century)In another place in his introduction Professor Grossfeld states in connection with the origin of the Targum that it: Must have begun before the Christian era. On the same subject the Jewish Encyclopedia 1925 edition by Funk & Wagnalls Company, Vol 12, p 63 states: In the Masseket Soferim (lc) a quotation from the Targum Sheni to Esther lll is introduced by the words “Tirgem Tab Yosef” (Rabbi Joseph translation) So the Targum, having been quoted in the Jerusalem Talmud, must have had existence at least before the time the Jerusalem Talmud was finally concluded…”
Similarly, the Jerusalem Talmud the Encyclopedea Judaica 1996 edition, Vol 15, p 772, states:
“Jerusalem Talmud was compiled about a century before the Babylonian in 500CE. Its close was entirely due to the situation which prevailed in (Erez) Israel. The activities of the main school, that of Tiberius, came to an end in 421 (CE)
Let’s move farther down our timeline and read an account in the Babylonian Talmud that links this tradition with the story of the 4 who entered paradise. Then we’ll discuss the interpretation:
IV.30 A. Our rabbis have taught on Tannaite authority:
B. Four entered Paradise, and these are they: Ben Azzai, Ben Zoma, the Outsider, and R. Aqiba.
C. Said to them R. Aqiba, “When you get to stones of pure marble [that look like water], don’t say ‘Water, water,’ for it is said, “He who speaks falsehood shall not be established before my eyes” (Ps. 101:7).’ ”
D. Ben Azzai peeked and died. In his regard Scripture says, “Precious in the sight of the Lords the death of his saints” (Ps. 116:15).
E. Ben Zoma peeked and was smitten, and of him Scripture says, “You have found honey? eat so much as is enough for you, lest you be filled up with it and vomit it out” (Prov. 25:16).
F. The Outsider cut down the shoots.
G. R. Aqiba got out in one piece. [T. Hag. 2:3–4]
(Jacob Neusner, The Babylonian Talmud: A Translation and Commentary, vol. 7d (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson Publishers, 2011), 60–61.)
So what’s going on? The Bavli seems to be drawing on Merkebah (“chariot”) mysticism of the time, as taken from Hekhalot literature. In that legend, when Merkabah mystics ascend to the throne room they’re administered a series of tests. For example, at the 6th palace, they should not follow the first order given by an angel. If an angel says, “enter,” do not until the order is repeated a second time. Only then does the worthy mystic enter. What we’ve just read is a test that comes after that. The hopeful mystic is shown polished, pure stone that look like water. If the mystic is fooled into thinking it’s actual water, they are exposed as a fraud. Then, some sort of horrible death ensues. Now let’s move farther down our timeline (see diagram above) into the second targum of Esther. You will notice some striking similarities. The setting, is the Queen of Sheba coming to visit Solomon:
“When the king (Solomon) heard that she (Queen of Sheba) was coming to him, he arose and went and sat in a glass house. And when the Queen of Sheba saw that the king was sitting in a glass house, she considered in her heart and said to herself…that the king was sitting in water, so she lifted up her robe to wade across…”
–Targum Sheni, §4, ed. Cassel, Zweites Targum, 21. Cited from: C. R. A. Morray-Jones. A Transparent Illusion: The Dangerous Vision of Water in Hekhalot Mysticism: A Source-Critical and Tradition-Historical Inquiry. JSJ Sup 59. Leiden: Brill, 2002, 233.
The Qur’anic verse reads:
“It was said to her [Queen of Sheba], “Enter the Palace.” When she saw it [the palace], she thought it was a pool (of water), and she uncovered her legs. He [Solomon] said, “Surely it is a polished palace of crystal.” She said, “My Lord, surely I have done myself evil…” -Qur’an 27:44
Just as we saw in the mystical literature, this same quite conspicuous test was applied to the queen by Solomon. When the queen thought the stone of the palace was water and pulled up her robe to keep her legs from getting wet, she was exposed as a fraud. And remember, we started at the left side of our diagram with historical material and ended with material the Quran thinks is historical.
Jacob Lassner states:
“Shorn of all exegesis, verses 15-44 [of Surah 27] represent a seemingly disjointed account more reminiscent of an opaque folktale than historicalnarrative or a didactic midrash based on an ancient and oft-read chronicle. Moreover, the Qur’ānic version remains elusiveand ahistorical even after considering the scattered references to Solomon that are found elsewhere in Islamic literature.” -Lassner, Jacob. Demonizing the Queen of Sheba: Boundaries of Gender and Culture in Postbiblical Judaism and Medieval Islam. University of Chicago Press, 1993, 42.
The Arabic Infancy Gospel is widely regarded as apocryphal. It is believed to be a seventh century invention and was quite popular among the Syrian Nestorians. the Injilu ‘t Tufuliyyah or the Gospel of the Infancy of Jesus Christ contains an Arabic translation of the Infancy Gospel of Thomas which contains a story of the infant Jesus talking: Jesus spoke when he was in the cradle, and called out to his mother Mary:—
“Verily I am Jesus, the Son of God, the Word, whom thou hast given birth to according to the good tidings given thee by the Angel Gabriel, and my Father hath sent me for the Salvation of the World.”
The Syriac Infancy Gospel (Injilu ‘t Tufuliyyah), translated from a Coptic original. The original manuscript is not generally believed by scholars to be in Arabic, but in Syriac. However that version has been lost and therefore the translations made are from the Arabic translation of it (Davies, 2009).
The story of the baby Jesus speaking found in Suras 19:29-31 and 3:46 parallels that in the apocryphal works:
“But she pointed to him. They said: How should we speak to onewho is a child in the cradle? He said: I am indeed a servant of Allah. He has given me the Book and made me a prophet. And He has made me blessed wherever I may be, and He has enjoined on me prayer and poor-rate so long as I live” (Qur’an 19:29-31)
“And he will speak to the people when in the cradle and when of old age, and (he will be) one of the good ones” (Qur’an 3:46)
“We find what follows in the book of Joseph the high priest, who lived in the time of Christ. Some say that he is Caiaphas. He has said that Jesus spoke, and, indeed, when He was lying in His cradle said to Mary His mother: I am Jesus, the Son of God, the Logos, whom thou hast brought forth, as the Angel Gabriel announced to thee; and my Father has sent me for the salvation of the world.”- The Arabic Gospel of The Infancy of The Saviour.
Protevangelium of James (PoJ):“Most scholars now date PoJ, or at least the bulk of it’s first draft to the second half of the second century. On stylistic and theological grounds, the Protevangelium has long been considered apocryphal. Tischendorf travelled to St Catherine’s monastery and obtained the manuscripts that were gathering dust in it’s vaults (about to be used in a basket to stoke a fire!). Being non-scriptural, these Gospels were subject to much amendment and alteration. It seems to have been a popular book, and over one hundred extant Greek manuscripts, some of them dating from the third century contain all or part of PoJ. The author of PoJ claims to be James the step-brother of Jesus…(in fact)…He is not likely to have been (even) as Jew. PoJ shows a great ignorance not only of Palestinian geography, but also of Jewish customs (eg. Joachim is forbidden to offer his gifts first because of childlessness, Mary is taken to be a Ward of the Temple, Joseph plans to go from Bethlehem to Judea)…There is however no doubt that a terminus ad quem (a final limiting point in time) may be found in the patristic testimony of Origen (died 254) and Clement of Alexandria (died 215). The Ascension of Isaiah 11 written early in the second century has a similar account of the birth to that found in PoJ, but the dependence of one on the other is difficult to prove.” – J K Elliot
Gospel of Pseudo-Mathew (GPM): Probably written between 600 and 625 AD, although J K Elliot raises the possibility that it was composed before the 6th century as there is possible allusion to it in the Gelasian decree. The story of using the rods to choose a husband for Mary is also present here (verse 8). The manuscript evidence for this in not as good as PJ, though it has much in common with PJ, to the extent that the reason that early PJ manuscripts in Latin are not extant are probably because this superceded it in the Latin world, containing no account of Joseph’s first marriage which has been categorically condemned in those parts by Jerome. The earliest extant manuscript then is from the 11the century.
the Protevangelium of James was heavily used in eastern Christian liturgical collections (in western Christianity, although the text was banned, the Protevangelium of James was reworked in the form of the Gospel of Pseudo-Matthew. The story in the Gospel of Pseudo-Matthew 20, which was composed sometime between the middle of the sixth century and the end of the eighth century, is reported as follows (as below)
Thereupon she conceived him, and retired to a far-off place. And when she felt the throes of childbirth she lay down by the trunk of a palm-tree, crying: “Oh, would that I had died before this and passed into oblivion!” [And he (Jesus), from below her],19 cried out to her: “Do not despair.
Your lord has provided a brook that runs at your feet, and if you shake the trunk of the palm-tree it will drop fresh ripe dates in your lap. Therefore eat and drink and rejoice.” (Qur’an 19:22-26)
“And it came to pass on the third day of their journey, while they were walking, that Mary was fatigued by the excessive heat of the sun in the desert; and, seeing a palm-tree she said to Joseph, “I should like to rest a little in the shade of this tree.” Joseph therefore led her quickly to the palm and made her dismount from her beast. And as Mary was sitting there, she looked up to the foliage of the palm and saw it full of fruit and said to Joseph, “I wish it were possible to get some of the fruit of this palm.” And Joseph said to her, “I am surprised that you say so, for you
see how high the palm-tree is, and that you think of eating its fruit. I am thinking more of the want of water because the skins are now empty, and we have nothing with which to refresh ourselves and our cattle.” Then the child Jesus, reposing with a joyful countenance in the lap of his mother, said to the palm, “O tree, bend your branches and refresh my mother with your fruit.” And immediately at these words the palm bent its top down to the very feet of Mary; and they gathered from it fruit with which they all refreshed themselves.”
The annunciation story in sura Al‘Imran 3:42–9 derives from the extracanonical text the Protevangelium of James 11, whereas the version in sura Maryam 19:17–21 derives from the Gospel of Luke 1–2.
Protevangelium of James
Quran Surah Imran
Gospel of Luke
Quran Surah Maryam
Anunciation of Mary and her upbringing in the Temple
Yes
Yes
–
–
Anunciation of John
–
–
Yes
Yes
Anunciation of Jesus
Yes
yes
Yes
Yes
Will conceive the Word of god
Yes
yes
–
–
Will conceive a boy
–
–
Yes
yes
Table showing how the infancy narrative in Surah Maryam is taken from the PoJ while that in Maryam is taken from Gospel of Luke and is also present in Diatesseron.
The Cross Illusion
“But the father without birth and without name, perceiving that they would be destroyed, sent his own first-begotten Nous (he it is who is called Christ) to bestow deliverance on those who believe in him, from the power of those who made the world. He appeared, then, on earth as a man, to the nations of these powers, and wrought miracles. Wherefore he did not himself suffer death, but Simon, a certain man of Cyrene, being compelled, bore the cross in his stead; so that this latter being transfigured by him, that he might be thought to be Jesus, was crucified, through ignorance and error, while Jesus himself received the form of Simon, and, standing by, laughed at them.
For since he was an incorporeal power, and the Nous (mind) of the unborn father, he transfigured himself as he pleased, and thus ascended to him who had sent him, deriding them, inasmuch as he could not be laid hold of, and was invisible to all.
Those, then, who know these things have been freed from the principalities who formed the world; so that it is not incumbent on us to confess him who was crucified, but him who came in the form of a man, and was thought to be crucified, and was called Jesus, and was sent by the father, that by this dispensation he might destroy the works of the makers of the world. If any one, therefore, he declares, confesses the crucified, that man is still a slave, and under the power of those who formed our bodies; but he who denies him has been freed from these beings, and is acquainted with the dispensation of the unborn father….”
(Against Heresies, Bishop Irenaeus of Smyrna Book1, Ch.24, Section 40, Google it on NewAdvent.com)
And again “Simon Magnus said: And so (it was that Jesus) appeared as a man… he suffered although not actually undergoing suffering, appeared to the Jews to do so.” (the Refutation of all Heresies by Hippolytus Ch. XIV)
The Seven Sleepers, commonly called the “Seven Sleepers of Ephesus”, refers to a group of Christian youths who hid inside a cave outside the city of Ephesus around 250 AD, to escape a persecution of Christians being conducted during the reign of the Roman emperor Decius. Another version is that Decius ordered them imprisoned in a closed cave to die there as punishment for being Christians. Having fallen asleep inside the cave, they purportedly awoke approximately 180 years later during the reign of Theodosius II, following which they were reportedly seen by the people of the now-Christian city before dying. The earliest version of this story comes from the Syrian bishop Jacob of Sarug (c. 450-521), which is itself derived from an earlier Greek source, now lost. An outline of this tale appears in Gregory of Tours (b. 538, d. 594), and in Paul the Deacon’s (b. 720, d. 799) History of the Lombards. The best-known Western version of the story appears in Jacobus de Voragine’s Golden Legend. The Roman Martyrology mentions the Seven Sleepers of Ephesus under the date of 27 July, as follows: “Commemoration of the seven Holy Sleepers of Ephesus, who, it is recounted, after undergoing martyrdom, rest in peace, awaiting the day of resurrection.” The Byzantine Calendar commemorates them with feasts on 4 August and 22 October. In the Qur’an (Surah 18, verse 9-26). The Quranic gives the number of years that they slept as 300 solar years, gives the option of adding 9 more, and also vacillates upon the actual number of sleepers plus dog. Although in that version the dog accompanies the youths into the cave, passersby miraculously see a dog keeping watch at the entrance, deterring them form investigating.
Critique:
The Romans were persecuting specifically followers of the cult of Jesus, were they not? That’s historical. Plus there was a miraculous dog. Islam has an aversion to dogs overall, which stems from traditions quoting Muhammed stating that black dogs were demons in disguise. You will never ordinarily see a Muslim family with a dog. The “sleepers plus dog” is simply not a Muslims set-up, and there are simply no other parallels to Islamic figures associating with dogs.
I’d like to ask how it be possible that the Seven Sleepers, and even the God of the Seven Sleepers could be Islamic.
We see this story in surah 18 (al-Khaf: the Cave):9-12, 18-25
Keeping a dog in the house is haram in Islam, so the sleepers could not be Muslims. Islamic angels do not enter the room if there is even a puppy there.
On top of that we are to believe that the Islamic Allah performs a miracle upon a dog, preserving its life for maybe 300 years and protecting it from the enemy kuffar Romans.
Mind you this is the only place in the entire Quran that a dog is mentioned and five times. there is only one other passing reference to a dog in the entire Quran, and nothing bad is ever said about dogs. It is only in the hadith that they are vilified and literally demonized by Muhammed.
We see a clear contradiction here between the attitude of the Quran towards dogs and that of the hadith, and its all because of this copied story.
Muslims will reply that v.18 states that the dog is “stretching its paws across the threshold” and that this is allowed, for a dog to guard the house on the outside. However it does not change the fact that God saves the dog thereby demonstrating his concern for it contrary to Muhammed (and contrary to the Bible where there are no veterinarian miracles).
Lastly, the dog could not have been saved by freeze-drying it outside the cave, rather it would have been in the cave with the Sleepers as depicted in the Christian literature, further indication of plagiarization as this again would be haram in Islam.
Finally, the author of the Qur’an is displaying uncertainty about the number of sleepers going from 4 to 8 including the dog rather than actually providing the answer, which is again a demonstration of plagiarization.
Pharaoh is Preserved?
The Mekhilta de-Rabbi Ishmael Late 4th Century AD ~ Hebrew
Beshallah 7 (Exodus 14:28) “And the waters returned and covered the chariot, etc.”: even that of Pharaoh. These are the words of R. Yehudah, it being written (Ibid. 15:4) “the chariots of Pharaoh and his host, etc.” R. Nechemiah says: except for that of Pharaoh, it being written (Exodus 9:16) “But, because of this I have preserved you.” Others say: Pharaoh descended last and he drowned, viz. (Exodus 15:19) “For the horse of Pharaoh came with its chariot and its riders into the sea, and the Lord turned back upon them the waters of the sea.
There is a strange passage in the Qur’an in which pharaoh is both drowned and saved. Muslims claim this as a miracle of prescience which is unlikely because mummification was hardly a modern innovation which would take prescient knowledge at the time of Mohamed. It is more likely he got this confusing account from the Jewish apocryphal text
The Syriac apocalyptic text known as the “Alexander Legend” was composed probably 629-630AD in which the story of the walls of Alexander is given. Muhammed dies 632AD. Kevin Van Bladel states “Thus, quite strikingly, almost every element of this short Qur’anic tale finds a more explicit and detailed counterpart in the Syriac Alexander Legend. In both texts the specific events are given in precisely the same order. Already earlier several cases of specific words that are exact matches between the Syriac and the Arabic were indicated. The water at the place where the sun sets is “fetid” in both texts, a perfect coincidence of two uncommon synonyms (Syraic Saryâ and Arabic hami’a)” (pg. 177) the Dhu l-Qarnayn episode in the Qur’an is derived from or retells the story found in the Syriac Alexander Legend. The account in Q 18:83–102 does not precisely match a story found anywhere other than in this one text…G.J. Reinink has devoted many articles to the problems posed by this Alexander Legend and related texts which have succeeded in determining definitively where, why, and when the Alexander Legend was written. It’s too much to go into, but the best study of these texts puts the dates accurately in the period mentioned. The reader is advised to refer to the reference book available online. It seems that the date for the writing of this legend dates just before the time of the death of Mohammed. However all the historical context for its writing is present in the Roman empire and that context is political rather than anything religious. At least that is how it seems to an analysis. This legend has not spiritual value and neither is it written, in the manuscript where the legend is written indeed as a legend, and not merely as a part of a greater narrative to which it clings, for a spiritual value.
Weighing deeds in scales
The OT Apocrypha speaks of God weighing on balancing pans the good and bad deeds of people to determine their eternal destinies (Testament of Abraham 13:1-2, 9-14; 1 Enoch 41:1-2; 61:8). The condition of eternal salvation is specified as obedience to the Law of God (2 Baruch 51:3,7; 4 Ezra 7:19-22, 33-39; 9:3~37).
The Tanakh The Hebrew Bible (same as the Christian New Testament). The first four books are the Torah (or the Christian Pentateuch).
The MishnahIt’s purpose was to elaborate on matters of law laid in the Torah by rabbis down the years which grew into an ever more complex body of material. By 220 AD, much of the Oral Law was edited together into the “Mishnah”, and is now published by Rabbi Judah haNasi.
The Talmud Over the next four centuries this material underwent analysis and debate, known as Gemara (“completion”), in what were at that time the world’s two major Jewish communities, in the land of Israel and in the Babylonian Empire. These debates eventually came to be edited together into compilations known as the Talmud.
1.The Talmud Yerushalmi (Jerusalem Talmud) for the compilation in Israel, and
2. Talmud Bavli (Babylonian Talmud) for the compilation undertaken in Babylon.
These were mainly compiled in the academies of Tiberias and Caesaria and reached it’s final form in 350-400 AD. The Babylonian Talmud is often seen as more authoritative compiled by the scholars of the Land of Israel and the other by those of Babylonia complied primarily in the academies of Sura and Pumbedita, completed c. 500 CE). and is studied much more than the Jerusalem Talmud. In general, the terms “Gemara” or “Talmud,” without further qualification, refer to the Babylonian recension. The Encyclopedea Judaica 1996 edition, Vol 15, p 772, states: “Jerusalem Talmud was compiled about a century before the Babylonian in 500CE. Its close was entirely due to the situation which prevailed in (Erez) Israel. The activities of the main school, that of Tiberius, came to an end in 421 (CE).
The Midrash An on-going vault of fables constructed around the characters of the Torah, of multiple versions of a single Torah-ical event, designed to make the teachings more accessible to the audience. A massive collation consisting of several volumes of the Haggada –the traditions which have grown up surrounding the Biblical narrative, which are stories and bits of layered detail scattered throughout the Talmud and the Midrash, and other sources, including oral tradition: “The Legends of the Jews” was completed in 1909 by Louis Ginzberg, who undertook the task of arranging the Haggada into chronological order. It is a major work running into seven volumes.
The Targumim (Singular Targum):
The targumim were spoken paraphrases, explanations, and expansions of the Jewish scriptures that a Rabbi would give in the common language of the listeners, which during the time of this practice was commonly, but not exclusively, Aramaic. This had become necessary near the end of the last century before the Christian era, as the common language was in transition and Hebrew was used for little more than schooling and worship. Eventually it became necessary to give explanations and paraphrases in the common language after the Hebrew scripture was read. The noun Targum is derived from early semitic quadrilateral root ‘trgm’, and the term ‘Targummanu’ refers to “translator”.
Para- Christian Literature:
The Old TestamentPseudoepigrapha:The word meaning ‘of doubtful authorship’. Well documented by Charlesworth Volumes 1 and 2, beautifully researched by a team of scholars with full index of source material indicated as ‘text’.
New Testament Apocrypha: There is a bewildering array of these spurious ‘gospels’, which can go under the name of “apocrypha”. There are spurious counterparts for each of the four types of New Testament writing. In addition there is a multiplicity of Gospels that focus on parts of Jesus’ life on which the Gospels are silent, and also so-called secret-teachings that are alluded to in the canonical Gospels, as later revealed to specific persons. (This is to be distinguished from the Old Testament Apocrypha, which are 12? Books that are regarded as canonical by the Roman Catholic Church):
The early Church fathers (patristic writings) like St Augustine, and writings of the
Doctors of the Church like St Thomas Aquinas and St Alphonsus Liguori.
Other saints like St Ignatius of Loyola, Sister Faustina Kowalska, etc.
An analysis of the Qur’anic concept of Jesus yields numerous conundrums and even possibly literal contradictions, raising questions related to the author’s understanding of the subject material, or even the possibility of multiple authorship or redactions. Just one of these is related to the question of just what is being conveyed with regards to a central Christian belief- Jesus’ Death on the Cross. For some reason the author does not seem to want to admit that Jesus died, which would be the easier path to have taken, rather preferring to adopt an obscure version of a Gnostic retelling of that incident, as we shall see, along with various other problems this gives rise to.
It’s these kinds of occurences like these that make it unlikely Islam has a divine origin- it’s easy to deny Christianity, atheists do it all the time. But they don’t sound part-Christian or Gnostic in doing so, as the Qur’an does, and repeatedly.
Outlining the Problem and Contradiction
Let us first look at the four Qur’anic verses that relate to the issue. The passage in 4:157-9 is central, since it is the most specific and directly related to the Crucifixion of Christ and the only one of its kind in the Qur’an:
“and for their saying, ‘We slew the Messiah, Jesus son of Mary, the Messenger of God’ — yet they did not slay him, neither crucified him, only a likeness of that was shown to them. Those who are at variance concerning him surely are in doubt regarding him; they have no knowledge of him, except the following of surmise; and they slew him not of a certainty — no indeed; God raised him up to Him; God is All-mighty, All-wise.” (Q 4:157,8)
“Peace be upon me, the day I was born, and the day I die, and the day I am raised up alive!'” (19:33)
“When God said, ‘Jesus, I will cause you to die 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.” (3:55)
“I did not say to them aught save what Thou didst enjoin me with: That serve Allah, my Lord and your Lord, and I was a witness of them so long as I was among them, but when Thou didst cause me to die, Thou wert the watcher over them, and Thou art witness of all things.” (5:117 Shakir).
4:157 is a clear statement of crucifixion as a sort of divine illusion, and the reality that Jesus was in fact “spirited away” by Allah to Heaven. However other verses seem to tell a different story. First when we consider 3:55 we find it seems to refer to the same event and yet here Jesus does die. Once again Jesus is being “raised to Allah”, but this time he has died first. Further, this “raise you to myself” phraseology is unique to these two places- wa-rafiuka ilayya (3:55), rafa’ahu l-lahu ilayhi (4:157). Together, they represent the only instance of a man being “raised to God” in the Qur’an.
If we study the words used, we find the word for “raise” (ra-fa-ayn, 29 occ.) every other time refers to raising up in status/exalt, or for example the foundations of Ka’aba/mosques (2:127/24:36), the heavens (55:7; 79:28, 88:11), and once for Allah himself raising himself over the throne (13:2)! 17:33 actually uses a different root for Jesus being raised (ba-ayn-tha, ~67occ.) which usually refers to the resurrection that all people undergo on the last day, or also in the case of the sleepers being awakened from death.
SECOND, when Jesus speaks of his life in the Qur’an, he shows no awareness of his second stint on Earth- neither in prediction in 19:33, nor restrospectively in 5:117. The latter verse has Jesus supposedly speaking to Allah retrospectively after his death where Jesus says Allah was a “watcher” over the peoeple after his death, but he does not make a separate remark about who watched over persons following his undead ascension. Why would this be missing unless it were the same event after all? Was it not pertinent to state that people were being watched over in the nearly 2000 years since 33AD? Further the author has just referred to events immediately preceding that event in 33AD claiming he had not told Christians to worship him then (5:116) “while I was among them”, and Mary his mother is also mentioned in the same breath as him. Mary is hardly going to be his mother a second time!
Summarizing the Contradiction
Thus as we have seen, Jesus both does not die in the Quran because he has been placed in Heaven from 4:157 and also dies in the Quran as seen in 19:33, 5:117 and 3:55.
There is no sense given anywhere in the Qur’an of Jesus, or any other man coming back from God literally for a second stint at life. Many Muslims do employ this approach, of adjoining the Gnostic Crucifixion to the Christian Second Coming, so that this time Jesus does not elude the clutches of death after all and everything’s back to normal for Islam. But without appealing to these external sources, the contradiction in the text remains. We will see how some verses, particularly 4:159 does not quite provide the get out of jail card which some might purport to use it for.
Why not simply leave Jesus where he is “with Allah”? Well, that would be unacceptable too because it would make Jesus God, because there is another verse in the Qur’an that states that every creature dies.
Examining some Muslim Responses
In considering Muslim responses to this we must first consider the text which immediately follows 4:158:
“There is not one of the People of the Book but will assuredly believe in him before his death, and on the Resurrection Day he will be a witness against them.” (Q 4:159)
Who does the pronoun in “his death” refer to? Mohsin Khan gives his customary explanatory paranthesis in his translation “…before his [‘Iesa (Jesus) or a Jew’s or a Christian’s] death (at the time of the appearance of the angel of death)…”.
This, along with 3:55 which we shall also look at, are one of the more obcure verses of the Qur’an which even Muslim commentators struggle to interpret. The difficultly lies in ust whom the pronoun in “his death” is referring to. If Jesus, it would imply Jesus will bring about the unification of the three “Abrahamic faiths” at some point (and finally a solution to the Palestine issue!).
However this is an unsatisfactory because were this the case, he would not require to “be a witness against them“, they would all be Muslims!
Further it also does not make sense for every individual in the three Abrahamic faiths to come to the same belief in Jesus during the ordinary course of their lives. There are inter-conversions between religions, but every single member of a religion can never convert to the same belief, and we are talking of billions of people here. Free will does not work that way, there is always room for disbelief. Why would only Jews and Christians be chosen for this blanket conversion, why not also atheists? For all these reasons, 4:159 cannot be referring to cannot be about Jesus’ Death.
On the other hand for the verse to refer to the death of the “people of the book” makes some sense. In this case it would imply that people are given to realize the truth before they die, like Pharoah. However also as in the case of Pharaoh, this realisation brings no merit or escape from punishment: “he will be a witness against them”and it is more akin to James 2:19- “believe and they tremble”.
Finally, interpreting the death of Jesus having occurred at a later date also does not fit into the narrative because Jesus is in Heaven, he is not really available on earth to die and all that.
Incredibly Christian-centric verses
In either case this is an incredible sequence because while asserting that every one of Christians and Jews will believe in Jesus, it makes no mention of universal belief in Muhammed, neither here nor anywhere else in the Qur’an. It truly sounds like the messiahship of Jesus is universal. Further if indeed he is to come again, then he, and not Muhammed is the final prophet and there is none other in between, and finally we have 3:55 state that Jesus’ followers will be supreme to the end, once again leaving out Muhammed’s followers from any mention in terms of superiority. Who are these people at the culmination of the ages that the Islamic Allah holds superior to all others? Is that what Muslims will call themselves? Why?
This entire pericope of all of those of Abrahamic faiths coming to belief in Christ, following him, and being superior, which spans these two verses and which can also be taken along with Jesus’ unique messiahship represents a sort of Christian ending to Islam, irrespective of the other issues we discussed.
The curiosities do not end here. In 19:33 we have Jesus say “peace be upon me”. That is never said by anyone, when John utters a parallel phrase in 19:15 rather, it is on the lips of Allah, not John! I cannot find “allaya” (on me) anywhere else in the Qur’an, and a word search does not yield any other instances of the phrases “peace be /is/was upon me”. There’s so much to say on the Christianity in the Qur’an and I have fully discussed all the verses elsewhere.
Q 5:117 The use of “tawaffa” for death
G S Reynolds does an excellent article on this, researching the use of the Arabic terms-( The Muslim Jesus: Dead or alive? Bulletin of SOAS, 72, 2 (2009), 237–258. School of Oriental and African Studies. Printed in the United Kingdom)
“In one passage the Quran has Jesus himself declare, “Peace upon me on the day I was born, on the day I die, and on the day I will be sent forth alive” (Q 19.33) (…) in 5:116–8 Jesus remarks “I was a witness to them as long as I remained among them. You became the watcher of them when you made me die (tawaffaytanī)”.
The verb tawaffā (verbal noun: tawaffī) that appears here causes significant confusion among Muslim exegetes. Yet the Quran itself offers no cause for confusion. Tawaffā appears in twenty-five passages in the Quran, and twice in relation to Jesus (here and Q 3.55). For twenty-three of those passages the Muslim commentators generally follow the standard definition of this term, namely God’s act of separating the soul from the body, or making someone die. In fact, Muslims often pray the concluding words of sūrat al-aʿrāf (7) 126: rabbanā afrigh ʿalaynā s ˙ abran wa-tawaffanā muslimīn, “O our Lord, fill us with patience and make us die Muslims” (…)
In this regard it is noteworthy that the second occurrence of tawaffā in relation to Jesus, sūrat āl ʿImrān (3:55), precedes a reference to God causing Jesus to ascend to Him:
“God said, ‘O Jesus, I will make you die (mutawaff īka), raise you up to me (rāfi’uka ilayya), purify you from those who disbelieved, and lift those who have followed you above the disbelievers until the Day of Resurrection, then you will all return to me” (Q 3:55a).
By itself, “tawaffa” can simply mean “take back”. However in relation to God taking us back, it necessarily becomes an idiom for dying. The only other normative condition under which Allah takes Muslims back is in their sleep, because it was Muhammed’s belief that in sleep the soul returns to God and then re-enters the body on waking. This usage is seen in the exception from verse 39:42. The exception proves the rule, every other instance of God “taking us back” implies death. That’s the reason that this verse is not used in 4:157, precisely to avoid the implication of dying.
More evidence that tawaffa means “to die”
Reynolds also points out: “In one passage the Quran has Jesus himself declare, “Peace upon me on the day I was born, on the day I die, and on the day I will be sent forth alive” (Q 19.33). Here Jesus – speaking miraculously as an infant – implies that his death will be like that of any other human. In fact, the words of Jesus in this verse are a formula found also 18 verses earlier (Q 19.15). There it is Zechariah calling down peace on his son John on the day of his birth, death and resurrection.”
So when Zecheriah mentions his death using the same formula just a few verses prior it is taken to mean death. yamūtu (in 19:33 it is amūtu) the only difference is first person “”I will” and third person “he will”
“Ibn Manzūr (d. 711/1312) defines tawffāhu Allāh as “qabad Allahu nafsahu”, literally, “God seized his soul”. The body is left behind as the soul is taken by God. Ibn Manzūr, Lisān al-’arab, ed. Muhammad al-Sādiq al-ʿUbaydī (Beirut: Dār Ihyā’ al-Turāth al-ʿArabī, 1418/1997), 15:359 (…)
Tafsīr Muqātil (my note- Muqātil ibn Sulaymān was an 8th-century story teller of the Quran. He wrote one of the earliest, if not first, commentaries of the Qur’an still available today.) accepts that tawaffā refers to God causing a human to die, but he insists that the Quran uses it for Jesus only in reference to his death in the end times, after his return to earth (…)
Alternative interpretation of “tawaffa”- (to die)
Some interpreters, Tabarī notes, are of the opinion that when the Quran applies tawaffā to Jesus it refers not to death but to sleep.30 It is this interpretation which explains the curious detail in the narratives on sūrat al-nisā’ (4) 157–8 cited above, that Jesus fell asleep before God took him into heaven. According to a second opinion, however, tawaffā – when it applies to Jesus – is synonymous instead with qabada, “to seize”; that is, with this term the Quran is not referring to Jesus falling asleep before God took him into heaven, but rather to the act of God taking Jesus into heaven, or to the moment when God took hold of Jesus before raising him to heaven. Still Tabarī also cites a third view, that tawaffā – even in the case of Jesus –can only mean “to make die”. Most traditions that reflect this view reconcile it, as Tafsīr Muqātil does, with the doctrine of Jesus’ eschatological return. Note that “sleep” in the Qur’an is nawam as in Q 2:255 where Allah “does not slumber)
Scholars that agree Jesus died
Al-Tabarī in his history notes that some scholars concede Jesus did indeed die.
“According to Ibn Humayd- Salamah- Ibn Ishaq- ‘Umar b. ‘Abdullah b. Urwah b. al-Zubayr- Ibn Sulaym al-Ansari al-Zuraqi: One of our women was under a vow to appear on al-Jamma’, a mountain in ‘Aqiq near Madinah, and I went with her. We stood on the mountain and, lo and behold, there was a huge grave with two huge stone slabs over it- one at the head, one at the feet. On them was an inscription in the ancient script (musnad) which I could not decipher. I carried the slabs with me halfway down the mountain, they proved too heavy, however, so I threw one (down) and descended with the other. I showed it to readers of Syriac (to determine) whether they knew its script; but they did not. I showed it to psalm (zabur) copyists from the Yaman and those versed in reading the musnad script; but they did not recognize it, either.
As I found nobody who recognized it, I threw it under a coffer we had, and there it lay for years. Then people from Mah in Persia came to us looking for pearls, and I said to them, ‘ Do you have a script?’ ‘Yes,’ they said. I brought out the stone for them and lo and behold, they read it. It was in their script, ‘This is the tomb of Jesus, son of Mary, God’s messenger to the people of this land.’ They were its people at that time. among them he died, so they buried him on the mountaintop.
According to Ibn Humyad- Salamah- Ibn Ishaq: The rest of the apostles were assaulted, viciously exposed to the sun, tortured, and dishonorably paraded. The Roman king, who ruled over them and who was an idol-worshiper, heard this. He was told that a man among the Israelites, subject to his rule, was assaulted and slain. The man had announced to them that he was God’s messenger. He performed miracles, revived the dead and healed the sick. He created a bird of clay, breathed into it, and it flew, by God’s permission. He told them of hidden things. The king exclaimed, ‘But why did you not mention this to me, about him and them? By God, had I known, I would not have let them have a free hand against him!’ Then he sent for the apostles and snatched them from the hands of the Israelites. He asked the apostles about the faith of Jesus and about his fate. They told him, whereupon he embraced their faith. The king released Sergius, and concealed him. He took the wooden cross which jesus had been crucified, and he honored and preserved it because jesus had touched it. The king thus became an enemy of the Israelites, and killed many of them. From this arose Christianity in Rome.” (History of Tabari, Ta’rfkh al-rusul wa’l-muluk, Vol. IV “The Ancient Kingdoms”, translated and annotated by Moshe Perlmann University of California, Los Angeles State University of New York Press, Albany1987, pp. 123-124; paragraphs 739-740)
Zamakshari follows instead those who accept that tawaffā means death, but insists that it refers to the death of Jesus in the end times.
The Arabic expression tawaffaitani (translated: take me up) is explained by Dr. Mahmud Shaltut, one of the previous presidents of Al-Azhar University: “(It) is entitled in this verse to bear the meaning of ordinary death … there is no way to interpret ‘death’ as occurring after his [Jesus] return from heaven…because the verse very clearly limits the connection of Jesus … to his own people of his own day and the connection is not with the people living at the time when he returns.” (Muslim World, xxxiv, pp. 214 ff; as quoted by Parrinder. Geoffery, Jesus in the Qur’an, pp.115-116; Sheldon Press, London, 1965.)
Commenting on Surah Al-Imran 3:55, Imam Al-Razy said, “Narrated ibn Abbas and Mohammed ibn Ishak: the meaning of ‘tawaffaitani – take you to me’ is to let you die.” (Al-Razy exegesis [Tafsir] part 2 page 457) Al-Razy also said, “Narrated Wahb: the Christ died for three hours.” (Al-Razy exegesis [Tafsir] part 2 page 457) And he continued, “Narrated ibn Ishak: he [Jesus] died for seven hours.” (Al-Razy exegesis [Tafsir] part 2 page 457)
Al-Syouty Al-Syouty explained that, when Surah 3:55 refers to Jesus’s death. it means a real one. He said in his book Al-Itqan (The Perfection) part 1, page 116: “Take you to me [mutawaffeeka] means put you to death”
Ibn Kathir wrote in his exegesis of the Qur’an (tafsir al Qur’an) that there are two different views of Surah Al-Imran 3:55 amongst Muslim scholars. One of the two interpretations is that Jesus died a physical death. He said, “Narrated Ali ibn Abi Talha, narrated Ibn Abbas: the meaning oftake you to me [mutawaffeeka] is to let you die.” He also said, “Narrated Mohammad ibn Ishak, Narrated Wahb: Allah let him die for three hours and then raised him.” Again he said, “Narrated ibn Ishak: Christians claim that Allah let him die for seven hours then he brought him to life again.” And again, “Narrated Ishak ibn Bashr, narrated Idriss, narrated Wahb: Allah let him die for three days and then he raised him up.” (Ibn Kathir, Tafsir Al Qur’an (Arabic text), Volume I, Part II, page 27-28.
Mufti Abu Layth, a popular Muslim YouTuber and hadith scholar openly discounts the belief in Jesus’ return and states that this is no more than a mimicry of Christian belief which occured as Islam spread into Christian lands. He asserts it is completely “unscientific”, men do not shuttle between heavenly and earthly lives, and certainly do not “judge the world”.
But the father without birth and without name, perceiving that they would be destroyed, sent his own first-begotten Nous (he it is who is called Christ) to bestow deliverance on those who believe in him, from the power of those who made the world. He appeared, then, on earth as a man, to the nations of these powers, and wrought miracles. Wherefore he did not himself suffer death, but Simon, a certain man of Cyrene, being compelled, bore the cross in his stead; so that this latter being transfigured by him, that he might be thought to be Jesus, was crucified, through ignorance and error, while Jesus himself received the form of Simon, and, standing by, laughed at them.
For since he was an incorporeal power, and the Nous (mind) of the unborn father, he transfigured himself as he pleased, and thus ascended to him who had sent him, deriding them, inasmuch as he could not be laid hold of, and was invisible to all.
Those, then, who know these things have been freed from the principalities who formed the world; so that it is not incumbent on us to confess him who was crucified, but him who came in the form of a man, and was thought to be crucified, and was called Jesus, and was sent by the father, that by this dispensation he might destroy the works of the makers of the world. If any one, therefore, he declares, confesses the crucified, that man is still a slave, and under the power of those who formed our bodies; but he who denies him has been freed from these beings, and is acquainted with the dispensation of the unborn father.
Against Heresies, Bishop Irenaeus of Smyrna Book1, Ch.24. Google it! its on NewAdvent.com
At least the Gnostics have their own theology which is supported by such a story…Mohammed makes his Allah the cause of Christianity! He copies a story from a religion with beliefs completely different to both Christianity and Islam!
Reasons for the “Second Coming” narratives
None of the events which Jesus is said by the exegetes to accomplish in the schaton – killing al-Dajjāl, leading believers in prayer, breaking Crosses, killing swine (and Christians), etc. – are mentioned in the Quran. All of this leads one to suspect that the classical mufassirūn had other reasons to emphasize the role of Jesus in the eschaton and, consequently, to deny his death. the name of the Islamic
anti-Christ, al-Dajjāl (or al-masīh al-dajjāl, “the deceiving Christ”) never
appears in the Quran. It comes instead from Syriac daggālā, an adjective used
for the anti-Christ by Ephraem and Pseudo-Methodius Second, by having Jesus so prominent in these traditions an anti-Shii effect is also achieved. At the heart of developing Shii doctrine was the role of the Twelfth Imām, al-qā’im bi-l-sayf, as the Mahdī in the end times. This does not mean that Jesus finds no role at all in Shii eschatology. As seen above the Shii exegete Qummī acknowledges his role. Yet it is telling that when Qummī comes to the reportof the universal prayer of Jesus in Jerusalem, he adds: “He will pray behind the Mahdī”. Other Shii eschatological traditions describe how he Imām/Mahdī will exact vengeance on the Sunnīs for their crimes against the Prophet’s family. In response Sunnī eschatological traditions increasingly emphasized the role of Jesus in the eschaton. Indeed, some Sunnī traditions insist that there would be no other Mahdī but Jesus himself. Thus Jesus became the Sunnī answer to the Shii Qā’im, and his preservation from death was accordingly emphasized. In other words, the doctrine that Jesus was saved from death (at the hands of the evil Jews) developed in the same way as the Shii doctrine that the Twelfth Imām was saved from death (at the hands of the evil Sunnīs). In both cases the point is eschatology. Jesus and the Imām are saved from death for the sake of their role in the end times.
Verses on the Second Coming
“He (the son of Mary) shall be a known sign of the Hour; so have no doubt concerning it and follow me.” (Quran 43:61) Kitab-ul-`Ilm (Book of Knowledge), Hâdith Number 656: The Hour will not be established until the son of Mary (i.e. Jesus) descends amongst you as a just ruler, he will break the cross, kill the pigs, and abolish the Jizya tax. Money will be in abundance so that nobody will accept it (as charitable gifts). (Sahih al-Bukhari, Volume 3, Book 43)
Hudhayfah ibn Usayd al-Ghifari said, “The Messenger of Allah (saas) came to us all of a sudden as we were (busy in a discussion). He said: ‘What are you discussing?’ We said: ‘We are discussing the Last Hour.’ Thereupon he said: ‘It will not come until you see ten signs before it’ – and (in this connection) he made mention of the smoke, the Dajjal, the beast, the rising of the sun from the west, the descent of ‘Isa the son of Maryam, Yajuj and Majuj, and landslides in three places, one in the east, one in the west and one in Arabia at the end of which fire will burn forth from the Yemen, and drive people to the place of their assembly.” (Sahih Muslim)
Allah Causing Christianity?
In other words, the secretive act of Allah “making Jesus die” and then taking him up to himself, provides the possibility of the apostles seeing the Resurrected Christ. (had Allah left Jesus in the grave like Mohammed, this possibility would not have arisen). This then of course also corroborates the historical narrative of Christianity spreading because of the sightings and the witness of the Risen Jesus. This could be explained either by Jesus living on Earth after the Crucifixion, which is what Christians believe anyway, which are the post- Resurrection sightings, or that they witnessed the “ascension” that the Qur’an is referring to in 4:157, 3:55 in Matthew . Thus we have the kernel of the Crucifixion that is supposedly an unexplained illusion created by Allah. Not only that, for almost exactly 600 years, Christians believe this delusion before Allah “corrects” it through Muhammed, this is one of the most incredible mishaps in the history of allegedly divine revelation. I mean, Muslims have had the following 1400 years to ponder the question as to why God did not resolve the delusion before that time so that having discounted the Death of Christ, Christians, Arians, Gnostics, Pelagians, Montanists, what-have-you could have all found something closer to Islamic truth to believe in. Its an explanatory gap that beggars belief.
Syed Hosein observes in the Study Quran: “(IK, Ṭ, Z). Because most accounts indicate that it appeared not only to the Jews, but also to all or most Christians, that Jesus had been killed, al-Ṭabarī argues that no blame or accusations of dishonesty can be leveled at Christians who believe in Jesus’ death and crucifixion.”
Basically all it took was for Christians to be “deluded” into believing in Jesus’ death on the Cross, and then witnessing his Ascension, at which for some reason Jesus never informed them that he had not died. Its all a bit unlikely, but how does one explain the Christian story otherwise, did Christians would have to witness the delusion and the ascension and surmise that there was also a resurrection involved. This would not be made up, really in a malicious, rather just a false inference born out of ignorance. The Quran maintains the delusion and does not indicate that it was dispelled by Jesus, so it cannot accuse the Christians of lying. Therefore the Christians cannot be blamed for their belief in Jesus’ death and Resurrection and Ascension into Heaven, only for their belief in Jesus deity from these verses.
References
Main article reference: G S Reynolds, The Muslim Jesus: Dead or alive? Bulletin of SOAS, 72, 2 (2009), 237–258. School of Oriental and African Studies. Printed in the United Kingdom)
The Study Qur’an- Seyyed Hossein Nasr ed., Harper Collins, 2015
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.
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
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
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.
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:
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.
Following a bit of initial banter, Ridwan, also known as Apostate Prophet, an atheist Youtuber and vocal critique of Islam does a really good job of outlining the problem of the theophoric names in the the Qur’an of which, to all appearances, the Qur’anic author themselves is ignorant of the significance (text for full details).
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 Helltoo:
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
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.
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)
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)
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.
“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.
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).
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 7th 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 responsesto the problem fo Forgiveness
“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]
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.
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)
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…”.
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)
“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)
“(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)
“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;
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.’
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
“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 GodHimself 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.
“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.
On the one hand Muslims say that there are hadith that speak favorably of the prophet and on the other hand they use the criteria of embarrassment and say that the adverse hadith would not have been included were it true that all were fabrications. That’s the point, there are adverse hadith.
The problem in Islam I find is this- I don’t find your beliefs to be falsifiable. What would Muslims need to find in their sources in order to convince them that their religion were not from God?
A favorite assertion is that of the goodness and the supposed spartan personal lifestyle of Muhammed himself. There are hadith that state that Muhammed had very little money for himself, fasted etc.. I haven’t evaluated them all myself. Even if this is true (and I would argue that there are many such persons who prefer simple tastes, you can take some examples of Indian Hindu CEOs of multinationals), I do not think that this supposed self-control extended to the sex-life. I do not know of any authentic ascetic that had an abundant sex life as well. Women don’t understand this, but sex is the most powerful desire for men. That should be the first to be subdued, not as a last optional priority. That should be a clue for you, it’s a massive red flag for me. And there’s definitely a violent streak too. None of this is “self-control”. He ordered deaths of persons mocking him.
“They ask thee concerning women’s courses. Say: They are a hurt (adhan- translated as hurt, illness, trouble in other verses) and a pollution: So keep away (fa-iʿ’tazilū- 7 occ.,also leave, withdraw)) from women in their courses, and do not approach (wala taqrabūhunna= and not approach; root q-r-b is closeness) them until they are clean. But when they have purified themselves, ye may approach them in any manner, time, or place ordained for you by Allah. For Allah loves those who turn to Him constantly and He loves those who keep themselves pure and clean.” (Q 2:222)
So this is a double prohibition, not a prohibition of penetrative intercourse. Mohammed however in a hadith fondles Aisha during her period:
“Narrated `Aisha: The Prophet and I used to take a bath from a single pot while we were Junub. During the menses, he used to order me to put on an Izar (dress worn below the waist) and used to fondle me. While in I`tikaf, he used to bring his head near me and I would wash it while I used to be in my periods (menses).” (Bukhari 299, 300, 301)
A religion is the aspiration toward a goal, not to missing the goal. It therefore only makes sense that a religion is the aspiration toward some ideal, it cannot be to aspire below an ideal. Mohammed is a sinner even by the definition of his own purported teaching, so it would be absurd to base a religion upon following him as an ideal, yet this seems to be what is recommended in Islam. Can a religion be the stated pursuit of imperfection?
Women in Islam are even forbidden from saying their prayers while they are menstruating. However see what Muhammed does here:
“It was narrated that ‘Aishah said: “The head of the Messenger of Allah (ﷺ) would rest in the lap of one of us when she was menstruating, and he would recite Qur’an.” (Sunan an-Nasa’i 274, graded Sahih [Darussalam])
The prevalent view among Muslims is that all prophets are sinless, since God would not possibly choose sinners to spread his word (they find this absurd). That’s the only reason I raise this as a point, since such a belief would surely disqualify Muhammad himself based on the following.
“So be patient, [O Muhammad]. Indeed, the promise of Allah is truth. And ask forgiveness (wa-is’taghfir and asked forgiveness- غ ف ر) for your sin and exalt [ Allah ] with praise of your Lord in the evening and the morning” (Q 40:55) ”O Mohammed” is included in brackets in many mainline translations like Sahih International, Pickthall, Mohammed Sarwar, Mohsin Khan, Hilali Khan, because the entire chapter is directed to him. So in 40:18 Allah says to him “Warn them (O Mohammed)…” and the verses in between are a single continued address. The context in Surah 47 below is similar, the chapter being called “Mohammed”.
“So know, [O Muhammad], that there is no deity except Allah and ask forgiveness for your sin and for the believing men and believing women. And Allah knows of your movement and your resting place” (Q 47:19)
“Verily We have granted thee (O, Mohammed) a manifest Victory: That Allah may forgive thee thy faults of the past and those to follow; fulfil His favour to thee; and guide thee on the Straight Way” (Q 48:1,2)
Also note that all go to Hell for an unspecified time without exception, and lastly that Mohammed did not know what would be his fate, this would seemingly confirm the proposition that he is a sinner like the rest.
The Hadith:
In these Hadith we see that every human being is subject to Satan except Jesus and Mary. The obvious inference is that this is related to sinning, else it would not be stated at all (the other possibility that might be considered that all humans were subject to being harmed by evil. But it is hard to see how the exemption would apply to Jesus and Mary would apply were the this the case):
“Narrated Abu Huraira: I heard Allah’s Apostle saying.” By Allah! I ask for forgiveness from Allah and turn to Him in repentance more than seventy times a day.” (Sahih Al-Bukhari – Book 75 Hadith 319)
“Thauban reported: When the Messenger of Allah finished his prayer, he begged forgiveness three times and said: O Allah! Thou art Peace, and peace comes from Thee; Blessed art Thou, O Possessor of Glory and Honour. Walid reported: I said to Auza’i: How is the seeking of forgiveness? He replied: You should say:, I beg forgiveness from Allah, I beg forgiveness from Allah.” (Sahih Muslim – Book 4 Hadith 1226)
“Narrated ‘Aisha: The Prophet used to say, “O Allah! I seek refuge with You from laziness and geriatric old age, from all kinds of sins and from being in debt; from the affliction of the Fire and from the punishment of the Fire and from the evil of the affliction of wealth; and I seek refuge with You from the affliction of poverty, and I seek refuge with You from the affliction of Al-Masih Ad-Dajjal. O Allah! Wash away my sins with the water of snow and hail, and cleanse my heart from all the sins as a white garment is cleansed from the filth, and let there be a long distance between me and my sins, as You made East and West far from each other.”” (Bukhari 6375, 8.379)
(Bukhari 7499, 8.407) “Narrated Abu Musa: The Prophet used to invoke Allah with the following invocation: The Arabic is translated as: “O my Lord! Forgive my sins and my ignorance and my exceeding the limits of righteousness in all my deeds and what you know better than I. O Allah. Forgive my mistakes, those done intentionally or out of my ignorance or without or with seriousness, and I confess that all such mistakes are done by me. O Allah! Forgive my sins of the past and of the future with I did openly or secretly. You are the One Who makes the things go before and You are the One Who delays them, and You are the Omnipotent.””
8.408: Narrated Abu Musa Al-Ash’ari: The Prophet used to invoke Allah, saying, “O Allah! Forgive my mistakes and my ignorance and my exceeding the limit (boundaries) of righteousness in my deeds; and forgive whatever You know better than I. O Allah! Forgive the wrong I have done jokingly or seriously, and forgive my accidental and intentional errors, all that is present in me.”
Muhammed is not included among those who are pure
Abu Huraira said, “I heard Allah’s Apostle saying, ‘there is none born among the off-spring of Adam, but Satan touches it. A child therefore, cries loudly at the time of birth because of the touch of Satan, except Mary and her child.” (Sahih Bukhari 3431; 4:641)
The Prophet said, “When any human being is born, Satan touches him at both sides of the body with his two fingers, except Jesus, the son of Mary, whom Satan tried to touch but failed, for he touched the placenta-cover instead.” (Sahih Bukhari 3286; 4:506)
Allah is quite clear that anyone sinless would be “wiped out of existence”, hence Muhammed would have been wiped out apparently, had he truly been perfect:
“Abu Huraira reported Allah’s Messenger having said: By Him in Whose Hand is my life, if you were not to commit sin, Allah would sweep you out of existence and He would replace (you by) those people who would commit sin and seek forgiveness from Allah, and He would have pardoned them.” (Bukhari 2749)
Muslim Counter- Arguments
God does not expect us to ask forgiveness for something that is not a sin. If we’ve tried out best then there’s nothing to be sorry about, just because we’ve not achieved perfection. Seeking forgiveness means and includes experiencing sorrow for a wrong. God does not expect us to experience sorrow for what is not wrong.
This is why there is no such thing as an unintentional sin. The concept of unintentional sin in the Old Testament is related only to ritual, for the reason that the OT is ritualistic. Performing a ritual incorrectly from human error would count as unintended sin. If you say sorry there needs to be a sense that you did something wrong. If so then you committed sin. If not then it’s not a sin.
We cannot ask forgiveness without possessing the notion that we’ve done something wrong. Were we to do so our forgiveness would be a lie. If we’ve done nothing wrong God does not expect us to ask forgiveness for it. This makes the asking of forgiveness a frivolous exercise. Thus if it is attempted to state that forgiveness is to be sought for not having achieved perfection in prayer in spite of having tried one’s best to do so.
Then this makes that act of asking forgiveness a frivolous exercise. It is the act of being over-scrupulous or in medical terms, obsessive-compulsive. For eg there’s nothing wrong in checking your locks 15 times before you get into your car, but it is frivolous.
This is why is is not a valid move to stretch the semantic range of a word like “forgiveness” in order to fit the framework of proving Muhammed’s perfection. Forgiveness is not an independent term or even the primary term here. It is a term whose meaning is dependent upon its opposite, the notion of sin. It is only because we can positively affirm the existence of sin, that the possibility of forgiveness arises. For example were there no Creation and God alone existed there would be neither. So the two terms exist as antonyms and absence of one means the absence of the other too, just like there is no wrong without the right, or that nothing is dark unless there is the notion of light.
Thus the Muslims who argue against the fact that Muhammed sinned would attempt to assert that when Muhammed said “astagfirallah” three times after every prayer it did not mean that he was seeking forgiveness for his sins rather that in the knowledge of his own sinlessness he was “merely” seeking forgiveness that his prayer could not have been even more focused than they had been. However an involuntary distraction during prayer is not a sin, while a distraction which the will gives its consent to and which is pursued is a sin. There is no notion from the text of the Qur’an that that this indeed was Muhammed’s state of mind in seeking forgiveness rather the straight reading of the text would support the notion that he was indeed seeking forgiveness for that which it is appropriate to seek forgiveness for- his sins.
Sin, the notion of right and wrong and forgiveness are all inter-related. There cannot be sin if there is not right and wrong and there is no forgiveness where there is no sin. These terms are inter-dependent and we cannot change the meaning of one without affecting the meaning of others.
In the Late Meccan Surah 11 ‘Hud’, he waxes eloquent (almost achieving poetry here) about how he desires no returns or payment for his efforts. Indeed, all prophets lived off what they were given off the goodwill of the people, there is not a single prophet who demands a sum for his services, nor even accepts one. Elijah refusing payment from Naman whom he heals, he had to ask a starving widow for food, so he obviously made no provisions for himself, neither did the apostles or the 72, as per Jesus’ instruction. And john the Baptist lived on wild honey and locusts. The priest Melchizedech, and the Levites received a comparatively modest tenth (tithe). Possibly this was Mohammed’s initial inspiration when in
11:28 he said: ‘Consider, my people! If my Lord has revealed to me his will and bestowed on me a favor of his own, though it be hidden form you, can we compel you to accept it against your will? I seek of you no recompense for this, my people; for none but God can reward me.
34:47 Say. ‘I demand no recompense of you: keep it for yourselves. None but God can reward me. He is the reward of all things.
38:87 Say: ‘For this I demand of you no recompense’
52:36 Are you (Mohammed) demanding recompense of them, that they should fear to be weighed down by debts?
All this changes in Medinah: 8:41 “Know that one fifth of your spoils shall belong to God, the Apostle, the Apostle’s kinsfolk, the orphans, the destitute, and the traveler in need.”
59:7 The spoils taken from the town dwellers and assigned by God to his apostle shall belong to God, to the Apostle and his kinfolk, to orphans, to the destitute and to the traveler in need; they shall not become the property of the rich among you. Whatever the Apostle gives you, accept it, and whatever he forbids you, abstain from it.”
This “belongs to God” obviously goes into Mohammed’s pocket too, God not having monetary needs. Mohammed had conquered in his time the whole of the Arabian peninsula. Imagine what a fifth of that revenue would be!
Pagan Practices?
“Narrated Abu Hurayrah: The Messenger of Allah said: Gabriel came to me and said: I came to you last night and was prevented from entering simply because there were images at the door, for there was a decorated curtain with images on it in the house, and there was a dog in the house. So order the head of the image which is in the house to be cut off so that it resembles the form of a tree; order the curtain to be cut up and made into two cushions spread out on which people may tread; and order the dog to be turned out. The Messenger of Allah then did so. The dog belonged to al-Hasan or al-Husayn and was under their couch. So he ordered it to be turned out. Abu Dawud said: Al-Nadd means a thing on which clothes are placed like a couch.”” (Abi Dawud 4158)
“Prophet, why do you prohibit that which God has made lawful for you, in seeking to please your wives? God is forgiving and merciful. God has given you absolution form such oaths. God is your master, He is the omniscient one, the wise one…
…When the prophet confided a secret to one of his wives, and when she disclosed it and God informed him of this, he made known one part of it and said nothing about the other. And when he had acquainted her of it she said: “Who told you this?” He replied “The wise one, the all-knowing told me.” If you two turn to God in penitence (For your hearts have sinned) you shall be pardoned; but if you conspire against him, know that God is his protector, and Gabriel, and the righteous among the faithful. The angels too are his helpers…
…It may be well that, if he divorce you, his Lord will give him in your place better wives than yourselves, submissive to God and full of faith, obedient, penitent, devout, and given to fasting, both formerly-wedded and virgins.” (66:1-5)
In this incredible passage, Mohammed is trying to solve a domestic crisis resulting from his own sexual incontinence. The Hadith give us some of the much required background: Aisha and Hafsa had been complaining about his sexual relationship with a slave girl (said to be the beautiful Maria the Copt). Mohammed first vows to stop, then rescinds. Think about it- Jesus in the Qur’an is called Word of God, Mohammed does not even keep his own word, leave alone God’s.
(Tafsir Al-Jalalayn on 66:1) “O Prophet! Why do you prohibit what Allah has made lawful for you, in terms of your Coptic handmaiden Maria- when he lay with her in the house of Hafsa, who had been away, but who upon returning (and finding out) became upset by the fact that this had taken place in her own house and on her own bed- by saying “She is unlawful for me!”, seeking, by making her unlawful (for you) to please your wives? And Allah is Forgiving, Merciful, having forgiven you this prohibition”
“The messenger of Allah had a female slave with whom he had intercourse, but Aisha and Hafsah would not leave him alone until he said that she was forbidden for him. Then Allah, the Mighty and sublime revealed, “) Prophet! “Why do you forbid (for yourself) that which Allah has allowed you?”(Sunan an-Nasa’i 3959, Bk.6,#21, Eng.Vol.4,Bk.36,#3411, Graded Sahih – Darussalam)
The hadith right before it, #2958 gives the alternative explanation of Muhammed having eaten honey instead of having had sex, in the context of the revelation of the same verse: “
‘Aishah said that the Messenger of Allah used to stay with Zainab bint Jahsh and drink honey at her house. Hafsah and I agreed that if the Prophet entered upon either of us, she would say:
“I perceive the smell of Maghafir (a nasty-smelling gum) on you; have you eaten Maghafir?” He came in to one of them, and she said that to him. He said: “No, rather I drank honey at the house of Zainab bint Jahsh, but I will never do it again.” Then the following was revealed: ‘O Prophet! Why do you forbid (for yourself) that which Allah has allowed to you.’ ‘If you two turn in repentance to Allah, (it will be better for you)’ about ‘Aishah and Hafsah, ‘And (remember) when the Prophet disclosed a matter in confidence to one of his wives’ refers to him saying: “No, rather I drank honey.” (3958 an-Nasa’i)
This verse is referring to some prophetic privilege when in comes to the matter of his wives “this is only for you”. It maintains some degree of ambiguity, but we can see that the verse is a list of all teh women that are “lawful” for Muhammed, which essentially means a sexual relationship. The verse is not saying “these are the women you can marry”, rather it is saying these are the women that are lawful for you, and they include both women that he is married to and that he is not, like his slaves, in the latter case “those that your right hand possesses from what Allah has returned to you”. We know from other verses and hadith that it was not necessary to marry slaves in order to be able to have sex with them (we’ll deal with this elsewhere). So the first subset of women in this list is his wives that he has paid the dowry for, which is how you get married in Islam anyway. The second subset in the list is slaves, and thei third lists all the cousins, maternal and paternal. The fourth is translated “women who offer themselves to you and you wish to marry”. This is is odd, that there is a separate subset when the normal route for marriage is already mentioned in the first subset at the beginning. What’s special about this secon group? Well we can see two differences already at a glance- first that the dowry is not mentioned here, and second, there seems to be some privilege attached to this group. The privileged mentioned is not related to the whole list, because the rest of the list is lawful for any Muslim, not just Muhammed, hence it is does not make sense to say “this is only for you and not for the rest of the believers” as applicable to the whole list, unless it is a relaxation of the overall number of wives limited to four in their case. So in this case it would mean that the vere implies that anyone on this list would be “lawful” for Muhammed, without a restriction in number, since ni such restriction is present in the verse, unlike in the case of the rest of the Muslims. But even so, that second explanation does not explain the difference between the first and the fourth subset nd the need for the repetition, hence commentators and even translators have, as we pointed out inferred that the difference is related to the dowry not being necessray in the case of the second. Thus a marriage “ceremony” involving the prophet can be dowry-free in his case should the wife presumably consent to this. The other possible explanation of this difference is that this is merely a statement of whether it is lawful for Muhammed to sleep with these women or not, since the verse is not about marriage rather about who is “lawful” for him, as we pointed out. Thus some interpretations of the significance of this latter group would hold that when it is said of them “and you wish to marry them”, the word translated as “marry” really only implies “have sex with”. We elaborate on this second meaning in the discussion after presenting the verse:
“O Prophet, indeed We have made lawful to you your wives to whom you have given their due compensation and those your right hand possesses from what Allah has returned to you [of captives] and the daughters of your paternal uncles and the daughters of your paternal aunts and the daughters of your maternal uncles and the daughters of your maternal aunts who emigrated with you and a believing woman if she gives herself to the Prophet [and] if the Prophet wishes to marry her, this is only for you, excluding the other believers. We certainly know what We have made obligatory upon them concerning their wives and those their right hands possess, in order that there will be upon you no discomfort. And ever is Allah Forgiving and Merciful.” (Q33:50)
Here we see how the rest of the believers are told how many wives they can have, and it’s seemingly a maximum of four, or only one if they can’t manage that:
“If you fear that you will not act justly towards the orphans, marry such women as seem good to you, two, three, four; but if you fear you will not be equitable, then only one, or what your right hands own; so it is likelier you will not be partial.” (Q 4:3)
A few verses earlier in the chapter in v.37, the word of marriage is used which is zawwajnākahā. It is based on the same root word n-k-h, as is used here joined to zawaj z-w-j root, which is from the root for “marriage” or “spouse”. We can see this word used exclusively for marriage in two instances 44:54 and 52:20 wazawwajnāhum. The n-k-h root is used several times for marriage, but the form yastankiḥahā which we see here never appears, rather we get for eg. yankiha (4:25) or yankihuha (24:3). The problem here is that Islamic languages do not have a separate word for marriage and sex, sex is the “marital act”. Further in Islam marriage in a sense is the sexual act. Muslims define marriage simply as “the contract by which sex becomes halal”.
This tradition of a quote by his youngest wife Aisha supports the interpretation that Muhammed could marry as many as he wanted:
“Narrated ‘Aishah: It was narrated that ‘Aishah said: “The Messenger of Allah did not die until Allah permitted him to marry whatever women he wanted.” (Sunan an Nasa’i 3205)
Finally we see an explicit case of a woman simply “offering herself” to Muhammed. For a woman to take such an initiative is more reminiscent of American sitcoms like Seinfeld than the traditional context they are set in. It is truly remarkable that there is no notion of familial or parental involvement here:
“Narrated Hisham’s father: Khaula bint Hakim was one of those ladies who presented themselves to the Prophet (ﷺ) for marriage. `Aisha said, “Doesn’t a lady feel ashamed for presenting herself to a man?” But when the Verse: “(O Muhammad) You may postpone (the turn of) any of them (your wives) that you please,’ (33.51) was revealed, ” `Aisha said, ‘O Allah’s Messenger (ﷺ)! I do not see, but, that your Lord hurries in pleasing you.’ ” (Bukhari 5113)
He can Prioritize his Wives according to Preference
“Thou canst defer whom thou wilt of them and receive unto thee whom thou wilt, and whomsoever thou desirest of those whom thou hast set aside (temporarily), it is no sin for thee (to receive her again); that is better; that they may be comforted and not grieve, and may all be pleased with what thou givest them. Allah knoweth what is in your hearts (O men), and Allah is ever Forgiving, Clement.” (Q33:51, continued from 33:50 in previous section)
Ibn Kathir: (You can postpone (the turn of) whom you will of them,) means, `your wives: there is no sin on you if you stop dividing your time equally between them, and delay the turn of one of them and bring forward the turn of another as you wish, and you have intercourse with one and not another as you wish.’ This was narrated from Ibn `Abbas, Mujahid, Al-Hasan, Qatadah, Abu Razin, `Abdur-Rahman bin Zayd bin Aslam and others. Nevertheless, the Prophet used to divide his time between them equally, hence a group of the scholars of Fiqh among the Shafi`is and others said that equal division of time was not obligatory for him and they used this Ayah as their evidence. Al-Bukhari recorded that `A’ishah said: “The Messenger of Allah used to ask permission of us (for changing days) after this Ayah was revealed: (You can postpone whom you will of them, and you may receive whom you will. And whomsoever you desire of those whom you have set aside, it is no sin on you.)” I (the narrator) said to her: “What did you say” She said, “I said, `If it were up to me, I would not give preference to anyone with regard to you, O Messenger of Allah!”’ This Hadith indicates that what is meant in this Hadith from `A’ishah is that it was not obligatory on him to divide his time equally between his wives.
The first Hadith quoted from her implies that the Ayah was revealed concerning the women who offered themselves to him. Ibn Jarir prefered the view that the Ayah was general and applies both to the women who offered themselves to him and to the wives that he already had, and that he was given the choice whether to divide him time among them or not. This is a good opinion which reconciles between the Hadiths. Allah says: (that is better that they may be comforted and not grieved, and may all be pleased with what you give them.) meaning, `if they know that Allah has stated that there is no sin on you with regard to dividing your time. If you wish, you may divide your time and if you do not wish, you need not divide your time, there is no sin on you no matter which you do. Therefore if you divide your time between them, this will be your choice, and not a duty that is enjoined upon you, so they will feel happy because of that and will recognize your favour towards them in sharing your time equally among them and being fair to all of them.’ (Allah knows what is in your hearts.) means, `He knows that you are more inclined towards some of them than others, which you cannot avoid.’
And all 11 Eleven in one Night, if needs be
“Narrated Qatada: Anas bin Malik said, “The Prophet used to visit all his wives in a round, during the day and night and they were eleven in number.” I asked Anas, “Had the Prophet the strength for it?” Anas replied, “We used to say that the Prophet was given the strength of thirty (men).” And Sa`id said on the authority of Qatada that Anas had told him about nine wives only (not eleven).”(Bukhari 268)
Mohammed seemingly developed an attraction to his own daughter-in-law the wife of his adopted son Zaid, and seemingly begins to have an affair with her for he wants Aisha and Hafsa, to keep it secret, in return he initially vows to end it:
“Narrated Aisha: Allah’s Apostle used to drink honey in the house of Zainab, the daughter of Jahsh, and would stay there with her. So Hafsa and I agreed secretly that, if he come to either of us, she would say to him: It seems you have eaten Maghafir (a kind of bad-smelling resin), for I smell in you the smell of Maghafir. We did so and he replied No, but I was drinking honey in the house of Zainab, the daughter of Jahsh, and I shall never take it again. I have taken an oath as to that, and you should not tell anybody about it. (Sahih al-Bukhari, Vol. 6, p. 404)
And (remember) when you said to him (Zaid bin Hârithah; the freed-slave of the Prophet ) on whom God has bestowed Grace (by guiding him to Islâm) and you (O Muhammad too) have done favour (by manumitting him) “Keep your wife to yourself, and fear God.” But you did hide in yourself (i.e. what God has already made known to you that He will give her to you in marriage) that which God will make manifest, you did fear the people (i.e., Muhammad married the divorced wife of his manumitted slave) whereas God had a better right that you should fear Him. So when Zaid had accomplished his desire from her (i.e. divorced her), We gave her to you in marriage, so that (in future) there may be no difficulty to the believers in respect of (the marriage of) the wives of their adopted sons when the latter have no desire to keep them (i.e. they have divorced them). And God’s Command must be fulfilled (Q 33:37)
This is only a temporary reprieve for the wives, for Allah himself was about to set his almighty endorsement upon the relationship in the verse. Mohammed claims that that rationale for his being allowed to marry Zaynab, is so that Muslims know they can marry an adopted son’s former wife. Zaid even divorces his wife following the incident, clearing the “path” for the prophet. There is no indication of marital disharmony (or any that poor Zaid is privy to!) up to this point. Following this, the Quran prohibits Muslim men from adopting sons altogether, so the matter us put beyond doubt.
“God has not assigned to any man two hearts within his breast; nor has He made your wives, when you divorce, saying, ‘Be as my mother’s back,’ truly your mothers, neither has He made your adopted sons your sons in fact. That is your own saying, the words of your mouths; but God speaks the truth, and guides on the way. Call them after their true fathers; that is more equitable in the sight of God. If you know not who their fathers were, then they are your brothers in religion, and your clients. There is no fault in you if you make mistakes, but only in what your hearts premeditate. God is All-forgiving, All-compassionate.” (Q.33:4-5)
Regarding this passage, Ibn Kathir says: “nor has He made your adopted sons your real sons (…) This was revealed concerning Zayd bin Harithah, servant of the Prophet. The Prophet had adopted him before prophethood, and he was known as Zayd bin Muhammad. Allah wanted to put an end to this naming and attribution …Zayd bin Muhammad, may Allah be pleased with him, the freed servant of the Messenger of Allah was always called Zayd bin Muhammad, until (the words of the) Qur’an were revealed (…) Call them (adopted sons) by (the names of) their fathers, that is more just with Allah.” This was also narrated by Muslim, At-Tirmidhi and An-Nasa’i.
Juvenile Sexualized talk
Muhammed recommends marrying younger women rather than older because this is good “sport”. This sounds like locker-room talk. There are two sahih narrations of this hadith. A third version has an addition which might be an attempt to ameliorate the impact. It does not do much better and it seems that that man is more sensible than Muhammed:
“Jabir bin ‘Abd Allah said “The Apostle of Allaah(ﷺ) said to me “Did you marry?” I said “Yes”. He again said “Virgin or Non Virgin (woman previously married)?” I said “Non Virgin”. He said “Why (did you) not (marry) a virgin with whom you could sport and she could sport with you.” (Dawud 2048, Muslim 715e, 715j)
This is added in the same sequence in Muslims 715f:
“…I said to him: ‘Abdullah died (he fell as martyr in Uhud) and left nine or seven daughters behind him; I, therefore, did not approve of the idea that I should bring a (girl) like them, but I preferred to bring a woman who should look after them and teach them good manners, whereupon he (Allah’s Messenger) said: May Allah bless you, or he supplicated (for the) good (to be) conferred on me (by Allah).”
Musnad Ahmed along with the six canonical hadith is also a considered a reliable source: “[Mua’wiya said]: I saw the prophet sucking on the tongue or the lips of Al-Hassan son of Ali, may the prayers of Allah be upon him. For no tongue or lips that the prophet sucked on will be tormented (by hell fire)” Musnad Ahmad 16245
This is part of a large narrative in Bukhari in which Muhammed’s wives are upset that the people only send him gifts when he is at the house of his favourite (and youngest) wife Aisha. “He then said to her, “Do not hurt me regarding Aisha, as the Divine Inspirations do not come to me on any of the women’s garments except that of Aisha.”” (Bukhari 2581)
It seems rather ridiculous that Muhamed openly admits to cross-dressing in not one but all of his wives’ garments as a method as the source of Islam. But that is what the word used “thawb” ثَوْبِ امْرَأَةٍ means. It is the same word for the Arabic garment or clothing in used today, this can be easily checked on Wikipedia, for example there is an entry for it. The second word is “women’s”, ie it is the womens’ Arabic dress. it is the other versions of the hadith that use the word lihāf (Arabic: لحاف), which means bed cover or bed sheet or blanket or duvet: يَا أُمَّ سَلَمَةَ لاَ تُؤْذِينِي فِي عَائِشَةَ، فَإِنَّهُ وَاللَّهِ مَا نَزَلَ عَلَىَّ الْوَحْىُ وَأَنَا فِي لِحَافِ امْرَأَةٍ مِنْكُنَّ غَيْرِهَا O Um Salama! Don’t trouble me by harming `Aisha, for, by Allah, the Divine Inspiration never came to me while I was under the blanket of any woman amongst you except her. — Sahih al-Bukhari, Book 62, Hadith 122 It was also documented through different narration chains in other books of hadith, e.g., Jami’ at-Tirmidhi 1/46/3879, Sunan an-Nasa’i 36/11/3949, and Sunan an-Nasa’i 36/12/3950, all of them using blanket or bed cover explicitly.
We all know the facts about Muhammad’s marriage to the child-bride Aisha, and I have not presented a full description here, although David Wood presents a comprehensive analysis in his opening statement in his debate with Kenny Bomer. Here’s a different hadith:
Musnad Ahmad, number 25636. Muhammad saw Um Habiba the daughter of Abbas while she was FATIM. (Age Of nursing) and he said “If she grows up, while I am still alive, I will marry her.” NOTE: This is not a normal conversation for a grown man to have with the father of a baby child, regardless.
The Prophet of Islam Married a Minor
“Then he [Muhammad] wrote the marriage (wedding) contract with Aishah when she was a girl of six years of age, and he consumed [sic, consummated] that marriage when she was nine years old.” (Bukhari)
“A’isha (Allah be pleased with her) reported: Allah’s Apostle (may peace be upon him) married me when I was six years old, and I was admitted to his house when I was nine years old.” (Sahih Muslim 8:3310)
I used to play with the dolls in the presence of the Prophet, and my girl friends also used to play with me. When Allah’s Messenger used to enter (my dwelling place) they used to hide themselves, but the Prophet would call them to join and play with me. (The playing with the dolls and similar images is forbidden, but it was allowed for `Aisha at that time, as she was a little girl, not yet reached the age of puberty.) (Fath-ul-Bari page 143, Vol.13) Bukhari 6130
‘A’isha (Allah be pleased with her) reported that Allah’s Apostle married her when she was seven years old, and he was taken to his house as a bride when she was nine, and her dolls were with her; and when he (the Holy Prophet) died she was eighteen years old. Muslim 16/83
When we came to Medina, the women came to me when I was playing on the swing, and my hair were up to my ears. They brought me, prepared me, and decorated me. Then they brought me to the Messenger of Allah and he took up cohabitation with me, when I was nine. (Dawud 4935 43/163)
Here Muhammed seems to show a double standard when it comes to giving his own daughter away under-age:
“Narrated ‘Abdullah bin Buraidah: It was narrated from ‘Abdullah bin Buraidah that his father said: “Abu Bakr and ‘Umar, may Allah be pleased with them, proposed marriage to Fatimah but the Messenger of Allah said: ‘She is young.’ Then ‘Ali proposed marriage to her and he married her to him.” (Sunan-an-Nasa’i 3225)
In summary, the ministry of Muhammed displays most of the typical sign of cult:
use of fear as a tactic, sex used as a “carrot and stick” is routine in cultic activity as a retention method.
usually a male cultic leader
social exclusion and threat for leavers,
a standard retention method, “cult of personality” around the founder is typical toward maintaining the myth and smoothing over irregularities by claim of divine mandate,
appropriation of teachings of major religion as accreditation,
lack of culture of documentation,
flexibility of teaching, to suit agenda
increasingly radical nature of the teachings themselves, as whatever it is that drives the leader gains a destructive hold of him with the growth of their popularity.
Here we examine the problems with the claims for Islam as a replacement religion, and Muhammed, its purported “replacement prophet”.
I refer in this article to a rather short video of Dr. Louai Fatooie being interviewed by Paul Williams on the Blogging Theology channel, just 15 minutes long but one in which he manages to describe several arguments for just this Islamic position. This article is in response to those arguments and others.
Why Islam Must assert that Judaism is Defunct
It is not hard to see why Islam must assert that Juaism is defunct- were it not, then Islam should not have been introduced into the world at all. That is to say, were Judaism still relevant, then Muhammed should have become a Jew himself.
The “one message” is more or less the clarion call of Islam, the appeal the alleged sameness of the message of every prophet. There is some logic to this argument, which is the reason for its appeal- why should prophets who serve the same God have different messages? This gets used as a polemic against Christianity who are accused of changing that message, and also to align Muhammed with the Jewish prophetic tradition, granting him legitimacy in the process. However as we have pointed out, this is a confusing argument to make, because were this truly the case that the message required no modification, them there is also no requirement to switch from one religion to another.
So the question that will remain is why does Muhammed antagonise the Jews in the Hijaz instead of allying himself with them. Why was it incumbent upon the Jews to accept Muhammed. Why fight over Jerusalem, rather why not be united in Jerusalem, perhaps even if it means being united against Christianity, the religion that truly does contain palpables difference from Judaism. Finally other questions crop up in relation to the Qur’an’s verses on this issue, because it is also not obvious that other monotheistic religions are being advised against anyway, like Sabeanism and even in some verses, Christianity itself.
How do Muslims go about this?
The Islamist Critique of the Jewish People
Muhammed arrives on the scene almost a whole millennium after the last of the Jewish prophets and in complete geographical disconnect from them. Muslims will typically make the asserttion that the reason for the need for “just one more prophet” as it were, is that the Jews allegedly showed themselves unworthy of God’s promises. This is allegedly due to them as a people displaying a sort of heredetary and obdurate opposition to God’s teaching. Islam appears to doubles down on this stance with proscriptions against the Jewish people both in the Qur’an (Q 98:6 refers to them as the “worst of creatures”) as well as in the later hadithic writings (eg. Muslim 1767a, Muslim 2921a-d). This undercurrent of anti- Semitism provides the pretext for replacement.
But take the example of Dr. Fatooie, who in the video is asserting that Islam, in rejecting the Christian belief in Jesus’s historical death on the Cross, and seeking to replace it with a counter-claim that God merely deceived the Jews into believing that they had successfully killed Jesus on the Cross, avoids anti-semitism. This is an absurd claim because it still admits of exaclty the same homicidal intent in teh killing of Jesus, while merely changing the outcome.
Did the Jews really reject the “one message” of monotheism and their prophets?
But is it warranted? Every religion will have dissenters, but is it right to colour all its followers with the same brush? Of course not. Further, can the claim that the Jews rejected God and the “one message” of monotheism really stand? If the Jews wanted to reject Judaism they would have just stopped being Jews and rejected their own rabbis in the first place, why just Jesus? If the Jews wanted to reject monotheism, then how come they’re monotheists today? If they were not rejecting Jesus’ monotheism then what were they rejecting? So also the Jews in the Hijaz rejected Muhammed because they wanted to adhere to their prophets, not because they rejected their prophets. if Jews rejected their prophets we would not have any Bible today. Who do you think wrote and preserved the Bible. They are literally Jews practising Judaism of their prophets.
However Muslims must say that Jesus was merely preaching what every other prophet had ever come to preach. They will quote the Bible itself to support this, where Jesus says that he did not come to change the Law. Next, Muslims will give instances in the Quran (eg. Q 5:70 and a total of 9 other places acc. to Dr. Fatooie) and Bible (1Kings19:10), where Jews persecute their prophets. But this is an absurd argument to make- the Arab persecution of Muhammed is one of the central themes in the standard Islamic narrative! The Israelite prophets were persecuted due to whatever socio-political forces were prevalent, and there will always be a proportion of those who reject faith in any religion.
Since after the time of Samuel, the Israeli prophets did not double up as rulers anymore, rather kings and prophets had to co-exist. Thus prophets could either be in the king’s favour or not. If not, then they were at the mercy of the king and on the run, as it were. Thus it was not primarily the lay-people that resisted the prophets, lay people were not primary payers in such aristocracies anyway. Think of places like Iran and Saudi Arabia- lay people do not really have a voice or a political role in such societies, their main concern is subsistence and their ability to pay taxes.
There were settled Jewish tribes in the Hijaz already present at the time of Muhammed. The reason they rejected him was understandable: why would they need a new book that was expecting them to give up the teachings of the very prophets Islam was upholding, that does not make sense. Muslims might not like the New Testament, but there is no Muslim theological objection to the Jewish Bible. They might pick out some teachings about particular laws or scientific facts, but we can all do that to each other. But if the bottom line is the “one message” issue, then where’s the problem.
Did the Jews really reject Jesus for his “Mere Islam”?
In making the case for the obsolescence of Judaism, Muslims also quote narrations of the Jews’ rejection of Jesus and their plot to kill him. The Bible does recount the Jewish opposition to Jesus, but that opposition was very obviously caused by his teachings that seemed opposed to traditional Judaism. This of course, in the first place is contrary to the Biblical narrative, in which Jesus is always being opposed for doing and saying things and claiming authority that seems un-Jewish. In fact we could not that Jesus makes the particular attempt not to publicize the fact that he thinks of himself as the Jewish Messiah/Son of God until the very end, so we are left in even less doubt that this was not merely a case of the Jews rejecting “one more Jewish prophet/messiah figure”. Rather what we are presented with is not more than the most natural cause for religious opposition, that is, going against the religious orthodoxy, so in the Bible this opposition is hardly surprising, rather it would have been surprising with the kind of things that Jesus was going around saying if he had not faced such opposition.
I have heard Muslims try to find other reasons for the Jews’ rejection of Jesus, so as to avoid the premise that Jesus was indeed not teaching them “mere Islam”/ “one message”. Some say that they reject him for political reasons and manoeuvring with Rome? I’ve even heard some Muslims say that it was because they rejected his peaceful message and wanted more violent teachings. This is not even historically plausible, why would someone preaching a peaceful message get into trouble with the Roman authorities, for eg. from everything we know, the pharisees wanted to continue their political alliances with Rome, perhaps for greed, perhaps for self-preservation.
Chosen to Un-chosen, Holy Land to So-so Land, no Biblical solution?
In the interview, Dr. Fatooie is attempting to make the point, based upon these faulty premises we have described that the Jews have “become un-chosen”, and what’s more their holy land is now no more than insignificant land, and lastly that the Bible is left in somre sort of confusional state as to is own narrative with no resolution of this issue.
In fact, the entire hope of resolution in the Old Testament is based upon the arrival of a Messiah, and in the NT, Jesus is presented as that very Messiah to the Israeli people. In fact the Jews did not reject Jesus, rather the largest percentage of them accepted his teachings and joined the Christian faith.
When God chooses a people, it is quite a presumption on the part fo religious scholars to assert that they have become un-chosen even though there is no direct redaction from God himself! That’s the whole point of choosing. Just because some of them “mess up” doesn’t mean they all lose the promises. That’s why it’s called a promise. God is not fickle like human beings, that’s the whole point of being God. As a further point, were the Israelites were truly un-chosen then why would it be important for Muhammad to trace descent from Abraham anyway? Yet Muslims are quite anxious to trace out genealogies of Muhammed allegedly going back to Abraham (again this is topic for a different article), as though they are conscious that the Israelite connection retains significance.
Neither does Jesus ever says to the Jews that they are “un-chosen”, rather Jesus as the Jewish Messiah is the fulfilment of the promises that god makes to them. What Jesus adds is that the promise is now for the whole world, not just for the Jews. That’s the whole point for the promise. It was never meant to be for single people, rather the Jews were chosen to be a “light to all the nations” (eg.Is42:6, 49:6). What did Mecca bring that was not at Jerusalem already?
Finally, should the Destruction of the Temple proof of God’s rejection of the Jews? Paul Williams, the host in the video finally makes the claim that the destruction of the Temple in Jerusalem should be taken as proof that the covenant promises have now been taken away from the Israelites. First of all to make this argument is to admit the relevance of Temple worship and sacrifice in the first place. Well, if that is relevant, then Islam does not have anything like it, so how is Islam the solution to the loss of the Temple. In contrast Jesus explicitly presents himself as the solution (John 2:19), by stating that he simself is the New Temple. God allows the destruction of the Old Temple, because with the arrival of his Son, who makes the ultimate sacrifice, there is no more need for the Temple sacrifice and therefore for the Temple itself. This makes complete sense, in a fulfilled monotheistic religion, would God really require every family of the world to be making constant sacrifies of large animals and that too in a single global location.
Yes, the solution to the conundrum in the Bible is very much in the Bible. One might not agree with it but to say that its not there is hardly accurate, the largest religion in the world in the past 2 millenia is literally based on that solution.
Does the Bible/Jesus predict that the Israelites will lose out?
Muslims might quote Biblical passages attempting to show that the convenant promises will indeed be taken away from the Jews and given to another people. First of all the passages being referred to are not in the Torah or the Zaboor, the only two books that the Quran approves of.
But even when we look at the passages cited, we never see it said that the “New Covenant” will be made with a different people to the Israelites.
Jeremiah 31:31–32 “The days are coming,” declares the Lord, “when I will make a new covenant with the people of Israel and with the people of Judah. It will not be like the covenant I made with their ancestors when I took them by the hand to lead them out of Egypt, because they broke my covenant, though I was a Master to them,” declares the Lord.”
In fact in the later prophets, God is teaching that God’s mercies, far from being taken from the Jews, will now be extended to the whole world, who will come to the mountain of the Lord (eg. Is.56:8)
Sometimes Jesus himself is quoted in Matthew 21:43: “Therefore I tell you that the kingdom of God will be taken away from you and given to a people who will produce its fruit”. Clearly he is indicating that the people who reject him will lose out on the Kingdom, but this is not a deiscription of ethnic boundaries, he is indicating, as we see in the previous verse quoting the Old Testament “the stone the builders rejected has become the cornerstone” that his followers will find the path of truth. In fact even the Qur’an attests that Jesus’ followers will be “victotious” so there’s no question that Jesus is transplanting his promises ethno-geographically, they’re right there with him.
Is it because the Jews distorted God’s teachings?
Another favourite argument against the Jews is that they distorted the the Scripture that God gave them. This claim is a really tenuous one to make from the Qur’an in the first place which contains several affirmation of the Jewish and Christian scriptures which I have discussed in another article Does the Qur’an Confirm Christian Scripture?. But again, is this warrant for a new religion? Shouldn’t God then merely restore to the Jews the required corrections? After all the Qur’an itself makes claims like the word of God being unchageable, so shouldn’t God be fixing problem that arise rather than abandoning ship, as it were or beating a retreat out of Jerusalem?
Clearly even the alleged distortions had not led to the Jews becoming polytheists, neither in Muhammed’s time nor today. In fact in the absence of the Temple rituals following its distruction, they can if anything be said to have moved closer to the Islamic practise if anything, in teh post-Christian era. Nor does the Qur’an, nor do Muslims for that matter specify what are the teachings in Judaic Law that are specifically objectionable.
What new teaching is in the Qur’an to make all the trouble worthwhile?
The second explanation is to say that there were some new teaching that were essential to be given, and two in particular are offered: the prohibition of alcohol and of usury. Both these are unconvincing and these can be discussed further. For example, the Qur’an itself contains a commendation of alcohol. Why exactly does not advice against it until 632AD? The Jews literally were instructed to pour it over the Altar of God in the Temple! It would seem absurd if God has suddenly decided to give healthcare advice after all the prophets had come and gone (). Rather the advice had been given in the context of worshippers turning up drunk for their prayers. And if the prayers were to be five times in a day, one can understand why this might be a problem. It would be like drinking on a day at work (). With the usury, there are multiple problems, for example, how does one run a global economy without interest rates. Islamic cultural and financial models do not work outside Islamic societies, rather in those societies Islam as to adapt to western cultural norms. Can you do business with China without an interest-model?
These are petty issues, and if there are cases in which it might even seem to some that the changes wrought by the Qur’an are indeed advisable or beneficial (this is doubtful) one can easily point others out that are arbitrary and backward, like the provision for 4 wives for every man, consanguinous marriages, prohibition of adoption, acceptance of slavery, misogynic statements, violent ones towards those os other religions, changing the direction of prayers and so on, to name a few.
Conceptual difference between a Muslim and Biblical Prophet
The bar for Islamic prophethood is set quite low to start with. In the Bible the Hebrew for prophet is “navi” (נָבִיא). It is imported into the Qur’an as “nabi” for a handful of usages only. The much more prominent Arabic “rasool” is actually a generic term for messenger, for example can also be used for the king’s messenger or emissary, as can be seen in secular Arabic literature.
Mark Drury states in Biblical reflexes of the Qur’an: “the separation between heaven earth… pervades the Qur’an’s descriptions of revelation, which is by a process of “sending down” (v. anzala, n. tanzil). In the Biblical understanding, the prophet enters the divine council, coming into the presence of YHWH, where a meeting of human and divine takes place, and then YHWH speaks through the mouth of the prophet, as mediated divine speech. However in the Qur’an a portion of pre-existing “scripture” (Q:32:2) is “sent down” to the messenger, after which it can be recited by him repeatedly. Allah does not speak it through the mouth of a human being in an act of prophecy. In the Qur’anic understanding there is an inviolable separation, to a physical mediation…”
There is no such prophet spoken of in the Bible, so were the Jews and Christians of the 7th century to scour their texts, they would not find anything of this sort.
“Those who follow the messenger, the Prophet who can neither read nor write, whom they will find described in the Torah and the Gospel (which are) with them” (Q 7:157).
And this strange “Ahmed” Prophecy:
“And remember, Jesus, the son of Mary, said: “O Children of Israel! I am the messenger of Allah (sent) to you, confirming the Law (which came) before me, and giving Glad Tidings of a Messenger to come after me, whose name shall be Ahmad.” But when he came to them with Clear Signs, they said, “this is evident sorcery!” (Q 61:6)
And again:
“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.’” (7:157)
This doesn’t work for Mohammed because the prophecy in it is about a peaceful person, who actually establishes justice, and not sharia, and even if anyone wants to argue that there is actually justice in sharia, the kicker is that the passage is actually God, not a human being who comes as a warrior.
Muslims focus on what is said about the “villages that Kedar inhabits rejoicing”, which is quite easily seen as Arab Christians rejoicing, (for example, almost 50% of Egyptians are Christians, and in the time of Mohammed there would have been the majority of the Middle east like Lebanon, Syria, Jordan all Christians and right enough, rejoicing in Christ. Further Sela is a place in Jordan near Petra and not Medina, in Medina it is a rocky mountain on which no one seems to live, and as seen below there is no evidence that “Kedar” has anything to do with Mohammed.
It is clear from the context that Isaiah was calling all the peoples to praise God for what he has done and will do. After the general introductory statement mentioning “the ends of the earth” Isaiah uses examples of contrast to illustrate this: Those living in the flat coastland near the sea, those living on islands (surrounded by water), and those living in the desert (lacking water), and finally those living on the mountains. All people in all different geographic locations are called to praise the LORD. Kedar is mentioned by way of illustration as one example in a list of several but is in no way singled out. Particularly, Isaiah says nothing regarding the servant mentioned in 42:1-7 comes from Kedar.
Lastly, there is also no evidence that Kedar is in Mecca in the first place.
This is the Wikipedia entry for Sela: (Hebrew: סֶּלַע, transliteration Sela‛, meaning rock; Arabic: السلع, es-Sela‛; Greek: πέτρα, ‘Petra’; Latin: petra) is a geographical name encountered several times in the Hebrew Bible. Since, when used with article, it simply translates to “the rock”, it is unreasonable to connect it to just one location. A site by this name is placed by the Second Book of Kings in Edom.
Bruised reed he will not break: this means a peaceful person, “He will not cry out on the street” and so on…
the person will perform miracles. Mohammed himself admitted he was useless at this.
it does not say that the messenger establishes justice and is a warrior. It says that the Lord is a warrior.
Muhammed did not establish justice, rather he established Sharia, which is opposed to basic human rights. But of course this is always going to be argued by Muslims, that sharia is “perfect” and so on.
we’re really struggling to see how Muhammad brought us “joy”. It just isn’t something you associate with Islam.
Sela is a place near Petra. There is also a mountain of the name near Medina. The verse does not say “Mount Sela”.
Kedar is a person not a place, so he could be anywhere. Because the verse says “the inhabitants of Kedar rejoice” the entire prophecy hinges upon Mohamed’s descent from Kedar, if there is even to be the beginning of a discussion. That means Islam itself hinges upon this. So obviously someone came along and concocted the genealogy. I don’t see how this can be proven one way for another. We look at Muhammed’s genealogy in another section.
Essentially the sum-total of the worth of this claim is that of a person raising an army, instituting a rule of law and then claiming that he fulfils a prophecy that deals with armies and a rule of law. The claim is only ever made in Muslim apologetic circles, not in any serious scholarship. These then are the reasons that Muhammed does NOT fulfil this prediction.
In the History of Divine Revelation, there is NOT A SINGLE Prophet from outside of the Nation of Israel, not even Jesus.
This is the prophecy itself:
“The Lord your God will raise up for you a prophet like me from among your own people; you shall heed such a prophet.16 This is what you requested of the Lord your God at Horeb on the day of the assembly when you said, ‘Let me not hear again the voice of the Lord my God or see this great fire any more, lest I die.’17 Then the Lord replied to me, ‘They are right in what they have said. 18 I will raise up for them a prophet like you from among their own people; I will put my words in the mouth of the prophet, who shall speak to them everything that I command. 19 Anyone who does not heed the words that the prophet shall speak in my name, I myself will hold accountable. 20 But any prophet who presumes to speak in my name a word that I have not commanded the prophet to speak or who speaks in the name of other gods, that prophet shall die.’ (Deut.18:15-20)
Now, fortunately enough, there is a verse in Deuteronomy itself which also tells us just what it takes to be “a prophet like Moses”:
“Since that time, no prophet has risen in Israel like Moses, whom the LORD knew face to face— no prophet who did all the signs and wonders that the LORD sent Moses to do in the land of Egypt to Pharaoh and to all his officials and all his land, and no prophet who performed all the mighty acts of power and awesome deeds that Moses did in the sight of all Israel” (Deut. 34:11,12)
Muslim claims of similarity:
That Muhammed did lead an Exodus like Moses: That is a misunderstanding of either the Exodus or Islam. Muhammed led military global expansionism. He went to Medina in order to raise an army to come back and conquer Mecca. Moses “went military” for the purpose of the Exodus into Canaan. Egypt was not his concern.
“they both brought laws”. Moses’ Law was dictated verbatim by God. Mohammed’s “Law” is scattered edicts given in various domestic and social contexts in the Qur’anic narrative and pieced together hundreds of years after his death from remembered “sayings”. He “brought a law” only in the sense that any religious teacher would be required to issue guidelines for daily living.
Muhammed did miracles? Obviously any serious religion is going to have miracle claims. In the Qur’an Muhammed himself repeatedly asserts that he simply does not have the gift of miracles. This is sharply contrasted against Jesus whose miracles are detailed in the Qur’an itself! See ()
Brought a “covenant”? The Mosaic Covenant on Mt. Sinai is quite specific in terms of how the Israelites are to worship the Lord, and so also what God will do for them “I will live with you and dwell with you…you shall live and prosper in the Land that I am about to give you” etc. “Covenant” is vaguely mentioned in the Quran along with a slew of other out of cntext Biblical terms see (); The Muslims are given the ways and habits of Muhammed to follow, and in return it is not clear what Allah is meant to be doing, since there’s a lot of “mights” in Islam: Allah “might” forgive your sins, you “might” be one of those to go to Heaven etc. ()
“From among your brethren”- the Promise to Moses
What’s more wherever in Scripture is says “among your brethren” it always implies the 12 tribes as Dr. Brown points out, it does not relate to the separated brethren, meaning the offspring of Ishmael (separated from Isaac the father of Israel) or Esau (separated from Israel himself). Even though it is mentioned that the land is given to Esau yet there is no verse about land being given to Ishmael.
These are the eleven verses which state “from your midst” מִקִּרְבְּךָ֤ mikirbekha “among your brethren” מֵאַחֶ֙יךָ֙ meakheha and each is related the 12 tribes themselves, not anyone externally: Deuteronomy 4:3, 13:6, 13:14, 17:7, 19:19, 21:9, 21:21, 22:21, 22:24 and 24:7.
“From among your own people, your God יהוה will raise up for you a prophet like myself; that is whom you shall heed.” (JPS translation).
How does Jesus fulfil Deuteronomy 18
We can see even at first take how appropriately Jesus fulfils this prophecy, since the reason given is the people’s inability to bear the direct vision of God (v.16). Moses himself veils his face because of the manner in which it shines with the reflected Glory, and Jesus veiled in human Flesh bears the Presence of God and his Words to them directly.
Peter alludes to the fact that Jesus fulfils this prophecy in Acts 3:22-23. Where are these similarities?
Commands: “and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you…“ (Matt 28:20a)
“A new commandment I give you: Love one another. As I have loved you, so you also must love one another.” John 13:34
“A certain ruler asked him, “Good Teacher, what must I do to inherit eternal life?” Jesus said to him, “Why do you call me good? No one is good but God alone. You know the commandments: ‘You shall not commit adultery; You shall not murder; You shall not steal; You shall not bear false witness; Honor your father and mother.’” He replied, “I have kept all these since my youth.” When Jesus heard this, he said to him, “There is still one thing lacking. Sell all that you own and distribute the money to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven; then come, follow me.” (Luke 18:18-22)
Israel’s entering into the Promised Land was incumbent upon Moses first dying, foreshadowing the manner in which Jesus has to die to save the people.
Jesus spoke with the Father directly, “Face to Face”, as did Moses, even though in his human capacity
Covenant: Both brought divine covenants from God for the people of Israel
Miracle: Both performed tremendous miracles
On the Mount of Transfiguration, with Moses and Elijah present, the voice of the Father says, in relation to Jesus “listen to him…”. This is exactly what is said of the Angel of the Lord, who is God himself who Moses encounters in the Burning Bush and Elijah on Mount Carmel, and of whom also is said “listen to him”.
“Then the Lord said to Moses, “See, I have made you like God to Pharaoh, and your brother Aaron will be your prophet” (Exodus 7:1, also 4:16 “you will be as God to him)
Indeed this prefigures the manner in which Jesus is God come to us himself, and with the prophets that speak his words, even as his own apostles and those that speak inspired with the Holy Spirit, the inspired writers of scripture and so on.
Is he in Gospel of John?
This is a real stretch, because it is a “spirit” which is promised, not a man in the first place. On top of that the comforter will be with us “forever”, and the fulfilment of the promise is in the Bible itself at Pentecost. It’s a non-starter. There’s no need to even reach up to the verses of the Spirit indwelling the believers, one has already lost interest in this claim.
Is he in Son of Solomon
If someone in the Bible states “he is altogether lovely” it automatically becomes a prophecy of Muhammed? Surely even Muslims can see the weakness of such argumentation missing any contextual referents.
Machmad מַחְמָדis is Strong’s 4641 and simply “desirable”, used 12 other times in the same sense in the OT, and is an expansion of chamadחָמַד which is seen an additional 28 times. Essentially these words are used when trying to express “desirable/ precious” in the Hebrew. The Muslim argument is based upon the mere occurrence of an obscure passage in the Bible with no supplied contextual referents of a lover telling their beloved that they are precious to them. It is difficult to see any significance in this.
If we investigate what the Jews thought about Song of Solomon, Dr. Michael Brown states that as per their Targumic writings it was if anything, interpreted not as prophetic but rather a historic symbolic representation of God’s loving relationship to Israel his people.
The majority scholarly consensus is that the Song is post-exilic, however it would be possible that earlier Songs were collated by a post-exilic author and hence the reason for the post-exilic language markers. Arguments form an earlier first millennium date as given in the NRSV Study Bible (p1091) are the fact that the genre parallels Egyptian and other ANE love poetry and further that v. 6:4 suggests that at the time of writing Tirzah was one of the two grand cities of Israel (comparable to Jerusalem) which supports a an early first millennium BC date. It goes into further details in the notes and also supplies examples of Egyptian love poetry (p.1093).
The NJBC writes (p463): “Remarkably both synagogue and church agree on a religious interpretation: Cant refers to the love of the LORD for his people or, for Christians to the love of the Lord for the church (or the individual soul). This view was supported by the there of the marriage between the Lord and Israel (Hos1-3, Isa 62:5, etc.) Hence the Targum treated the song as an allegory on the history of Israel, from the exodus on. For Christians, Origen set the pattern for allegory in his works..”
In fact this is a good occasion to undertake some study of the Song itself. This is from the NJBC (2nd ed., p462-3):
the work is dramatic in the sense that there is a dialogue between the following three speakers: a woman, a man and the daughters of Jerusalem (so if sing, the NRSV Study Bible states that it would contain sections of the woman or man singing solo, duets between them, and the women of Jerusalem singing in chorus [p.1091])
several literary forms appear: poems of yearning… teasing… admiration… reminiscence… boasting… and description of physical charms (i’ve left out the verses numbers).
The overall outline of the Song is given as (again leavning out verse numbers): 1. Superscription (which ascribes it to Solomon)>
2. Introduction
3. Dialogue between the lovers
4. Reminiscence
5. Loss and discovery
6. Solomon’s wedding procession
7. Dialogue between lovers
8. Dialogue between the women and the daughters
9. Dialogue between lovers
10. Dialogue
11. Appendixes
Examining Claimed Prophecies
Mohammed, purportedly a prophet, didn’t actually prophesy, nor fulfill prophecy. Threats of divine retribution and promises of reward form the bulk of his literary output. Muslims seem to have questioned him about this “When will this promise be fulfilled, if what you say be true?”(Q 10:48)- they receive an ambiguous answer: “Say: ‘I have no power to profit for myself, or hurt, but as God will (10:49) and “Should this scourge fall upon you…would you believe in it?” (Q 10:50)
There is a verse in the Quran where Mohammed seems to “predict” the defeat of the Persian army by Rome. This occurred in AD 628, before Mohamed died, so I’m not sure how it is being claimed as prophecy! Apart from this there are some tenuous claims of prophetic saying made in the Hadith which I prefer not to may much attention to. The property of a prophecy must be authenticity which is hardly verifiable with any certainty in the Hadith.
Tall Buildings?
If we combine all the identities of who it is that is supposed to be building the tall buildings, then we have:
“the Hour will not be established (…) till the people (Bukhari 7121) shepherds of black camels (Bukhari 50) Shepherds Ibn Majah 4044) barefoot unclothed herdsmen (ibn Majah 63) compete with one another in the construction of tall buildings”
In an additional tradition, Muhammad on being asked about the identity of these “people”, replied that it was “Arabs”. This is not a sahih narration: “It was said: ‘Who are the barefoot herdsmen?’ He answered: ‘The Arabs’” (Musnad Imam Ahmad bin Hambal Hadith 2924, graded Hasan).
The problem with these prophecies is that people have, as AP points out in the video, built tall monuments competitively since long before the time of Muhammed, like the Pyramids of Egypt, the ziggurats, the Lighthouse of Alexandria, and so on. In fact, Hagia Sophia was built between 532 and 537.
There is one that says that tall buildings will he built in the desert in Mecca and greenery would abound, but this even if truly stated by Mohammed could easily have been no more than some futuristic musings. There are science fiction writers that have predicted robots, artificial intelligence, space travel, before it was even possible and so on. This is a classic self-fulfilling prophecy, Muslims build the highest buildings in the world in order to demonstrate supposed prophetic fulfilment.
Muhammad, if indeed this is one of his quotes, could merely have been musing about the great monuments that his followers would one day build. It is not necessary that this followers were poor at the stage at which the quote was made, as they began to garner military success after success, and so he would already know that the poor/destitute/naked shepherds were no longer poor nor destitute nor butt naked, rather Muhammed may have been merely musing upon his humble beginnings when this was their condition. Or perhaps he meant that after the Decline of Islam’s Golden Age during the rise of European empire and colonialism Arabs would once again be reduced to poverty until the discovery of petroleum raised them back to affluence. One would counter that these cycles of economic growth and decline are merely the natural course that history takes, and the reference to the poor becoming rich is quite broad and non-specific.
Lastly, this is said to be a “Sign of the Hour”. Men building tall buildings is merely a sign of men’s learning to build tall buildings. However it only qualifies as a sign if the Hour does come now that the high-rises have indeed started to come up. Until that does happen (and the time of happening cannot be infinite into the future or the sign loses its significance), nothing more can be said really about it. It is only the Hour which truly fulfils the prophecy.
Tall Buildings are only one among many “signs of the hour”
This is the full version of Bukhari 7121 quoted above. It is a narration of Abu Huraira who is the most prolific of the hadith transmitters, and given huge importance in the tradition.
“Narrated Abu Huraira: Allah’s Messenger said, “The Hour will not be established (1) till two big groups fight each other whereupon there will be a great number of casualties on both sides and they will be following one and the same religious doctrine, (2) till about thirty Dajjals (liars) appear, and each one of them will claim that he is Allah’s Messenger, (3) till the religious knowledge is taken away (by the death of Religious scholars) (4) earthquakes will increase in number (5) time will pass quickly, (6) afflictions will appear, (7) Al-Harj, (i.e., killing) will increase, (8) till wealth will be in abundance —- so abundant that a wealthy person will worry lest nobody should accept his Zakat, and whenever he will present it to someone, that person (to whom it will be offered) will say, ‘I am not in need of it, (9) till the people compete with one another in constructing high buildings, (10) till a man when passing by a grave of someone will say, ‘Would that I were in his place (11) and till the sun rises from the West. So when the sun will rise and the people will see it (rising from the West) they will all believe (embrace Islam) but that will be the time when: (As Allah said,) ‘No good will it do to a soul to believe then, if it believed not before, nor earned good (by deeds of righteousness) through its Faith.’ (6.158) And the Hour will be established while two men spreading a garment in front of them but they will not be able to sell it, nor fold it up; and the Hour will be established when a man has milked his she-camel and has taken away the milk but he will not be able to drink it; and the Hour will be established before a man repairing a tank (for his livestock) is able to water (his animals) in it; and the Hour will be established when a person has raised a morsel (of food) to his mouth but will not be able to eat it.”
this is really scattergun? All of these could be true or not be true and there could be a number of world or anecdotal events that they could be applied to because there are no specifics. If they seem partially fulfilled then it is possible to say that the fulfilment is to come, and so on.
The stuff about increased earthquakes and increased killing and increasing suicidal ideation and increasing affliction, time will pass quickly, religious knowledge will be taken away (the brackets are perhaps a plausible addition, but we shouldn’t take it at face value), none of these make sense to me.
at the most one could concede that rates of depression have been on the increase in the Western world, although we have no means of knowing what they were in the 7th century. Religious knowledge is taken away in some parts of the world like China, N Korea, and some Islamic countries where you are not allowed to read the Bible. But this sort of thins comes in cycles, waxes and wanes- depression rates, state censorship etc. Actually one would think that in the information age we have the greatest dissemination of religious knowledge.
so its possible to argue these several ways, precisely because they lack specificity
there haven’t been 30 Muhammed wannabes- its too dangerous to be one. For goodness sake, its scary even to draw him, leave alone say “I am the next Muhammed”
The “Signs” parallel Matt. 24, minus the tall buildings
Islamic theology does not even provide for this. Christian theology in contrast provides some basis for fake Christs because we are expecting a Second Coming. So “about thirty Dajjals (liars) appear, and each one of them will claim that he is Allah’s Messenger,” sounds a lot like the signs that Jesus himself gives in Matthew 24 when the disciples ask him the same question:
“Tell us, when will this be, and what will be the sign of your coming and of the end of the age?”
and the passage continues, sounding quite a lot like Muhammed’s reply:
“Jesus answered them, “Beware that no one leads you astray.For many will come in my name, saying, ‘I am the Messiah!’ and they will lead many astray. 6 And you will hear of wars and rumors of wars; see that you are not alarmed, for this must take place, but the end is not yet. 7 For nation will rise against nation and kingdom against kingdom, and there will be famines and earthquakes in various places: all this is but the beginning of the birth pangs.
“Then they will hand you over to be tortured and will put you to death, and you will be hated by all nations because of my name. Then many will fall away, and they will betray one another and hate one another. And many false prophets will arise and lead many astray. And because of the increase of lawlessness, the love of many will grow cold. But the one who endures to the end will be saved. And this good news of the kingdom will be proclaimed throughout the world, as a testimony to all the nations, and then the end will come.” (4-13)
I skip a bit here for brevity, but the passage concludes with:
“Then if anyone says to you, ‘Look! Here is the Messiah!’ or ‘There he is!’—do not believe it. For false messiahs and false prophets will appear and produce great signs and wonders, to lead astray, if possible, even the elect. Take note, I have told you beforehand.So, if they say to you, ‘Look! He is in the wilderness,’ do not go out. If they say, ‘Look! He is in the inner rooms,’ do not believe it. For as the lightning comes from the east and flashes as far as the west, so will be the coming of the Son of Man.Wherever the corpse is, there the eagles will gather.” (vv.23-28)
Taller than mountains?
Finally there is a hadith that specifies that these “tall buildings” would actually be taller than mountains. Its the only narration that gives a attempts to quantify the height mentioned. However the actual quote is not even from Muhammed, rather it is a conversation between two companions giving their opinion of what Muhammed might have meant. It is also not a sahih narration.
Sayyiduna ‘Abdullah ibn ‘Amr is reported to have said: “……When you see tunnels/canals being dug in Makkah Mukarramah and the buildings (of Makkah Mukarramah) higher than the peak of the mountains then know that Qiyamah is close.” (Musannaf ibn Abi Shaybah, Hadith: 14306) Al Muhaddith Shaykh Muhammad ‘Awwamah has classified the above Hadith as sound (hasan) in his footnotes on Musannaf ibn Abi Shaybah, Hadith: 14306.
this is a quote from and reference to an article on an Islamic blog related to this narration: These are not Prophetic ḥadith but purportedly statements, mawquf (halted), that have been attributed to two companions, may Allah be pleased with them. Although in the excerpts provided they are referred to as being ḥadith, in none of the narrative channels seen are any of these raised and connected to the Prophet peace and blessings be upon him. Despite this, the wording as sent through above appears to be quoted verbatim in many websites, primarily to do with the building of the clock tower (and other tall buildings) in Mecca.
The mawquf narratives appear in various collections that are detailed below, ostensibly being attributed to the companions Abdullah ibn Umar and Abdullah ibn ‘Amr ibn al-Aāṣ. However, there does seem to be a semblance of disturbance within the narratives regarding precise attribution for the statements, mixing between Abdullah ibn Umar and Abdullah ibn ‘Amr ibn al-Aāṣ. Some have opined that this could be the result of a typographical error. Without having the time at present to peruse original manuscripts in this regard, it is not possible for formally determine this.
As standalone narratives, the probative legal value is found to be wanting. Concerning narratives of this type, Ibn Ḥazm writes in al-Muḥalla [Vol. 1, p. 72]:
The mawquf and mursal, do not establish by themselves proof. And like that, no one narrates it, except those that are not trustworthy in relation to their Deen and their memorisation. It is not lawful to leave (or abandon) what has come in the Qur’ān or that which is authentic from the Messenger of Allah peace be upon him, for the speech of a Companion or other than them. Whether it is the narrator of a ḥadith or it isn’t, and the mursal is (containing) an (omitted) narrator between it, or between the narrator and the Prophet peace be upon him. The mawquf is not known as being that which reaches (its line of transmission) to the Prophet peace be upon him
Predicting the Roman victory against the Persians- FOUR issues Against
Seriously, this is the only prophecy by Muhammed that made me scratch my head a little. But I think that the reason for its impact is that the real story-line is lost in history. We shall see why this can have a significant impact on its authenticity.
“Alif Lam Mim. 2. The Romans have been defeated. 3. In the nearest land, and they, after their defeat, will be victorious. 4.In Bid`i years. The decision of the matter, before and after is only with Allah. And on that day, the believers will rejoice 5. With the help of Allah. He helps whom He wills, and He is the All-Mighty, the Most Merciful. 6. A promise from Allah, and Allah fails not in His promise, but most men know not. 7. They know only the outer appearance of the life of the world, and they are heedless of the Hereafter.” (Q 30:1-7)
This is interpreted as a prediction of the Roman victory at a time when it seemed quite unlikely because the Romans had suffered some significant setbacks in their war against the Persians.
The main objection is the possibility that it was “reverse engineered” into the Surah. As with all things Qur’an, it is impossible to know the actual sequence events or verses. In support of this are TWO narrations, which seem to admit this “reverse-engineering” as we shall see.
In contrast, two hadith, also from Tirmidhi, and one of them of higher reliability (being sahih) state that the “prophecy” came after the event:
“Narrated ‘Atiyyah: Abu Sa’eed narrated: “On the Day of Badr, the Romans had a victory over the Persians. So the believers were pleased with that, then the following was revealed: ‘Alif Lam Mim. The Romans have been defeated, up to His saying: ‘the believers will rejoice – with the help of Allah… (30:1-5)'” He said: “So the believers were happy with the victory of the Romans over the Persians.” (Tirmidhi 3192, graded sahih- Darussalam)
“Narrated Abu Sa’eed: “On the Day of (the battle of) Badr, the Romans had a victory over the Persians. So the believers were pleased with that, then the following was revealed: Alif Lam Mim. The Romans have been defeated…” up to His saying: ‘…the believers will rejoice. (30:1-4)” He said: “So the believers were happy with the victory of the Romans over the Persians. (Tirmidhi 2935, graded hasan- Darussalam)
Muslim response
Muslims question the authenticity of these two hadith as:
These two are in effect the same hadith with one and the same chain of narration. Both chains contain the narrator ‘Atiya b. Sa’d al-’Awfi who is problematic for four reasons: (1) he is a weak narrator according to the overriding majority of hadith scholars – 14 hadith specialists who graded him ‘weak’ are given in Tahrir al-Taqrib (1997 ed., vol.3, p.20, #3616); (2) he makes many mistakes in his narrations as Ibn Hajar said in Al-Taqrib (#3616); (3) he commits tadlis (hides defects in his reports) so much so that in his work on such narrators Ibn Hajar places him in category four about which he says that nothing of their hadith should ever be accepted unless they confirm that they clearly heard the report from their immediate source – and this is not the case in this particular instance (see Ibn Hajar, Ta’rif Ahl al-Taqdis, p.50, #122); and (4) he would often relate Qur’an commentary from al-Kalbi, whose epithet (kunya) is Abu Sa’id, but in such a way as to give the impression that he was reporting from the Companion, Abu Sa’id al-Khudri, which is precisely the case with these hadith under discussion where he simply says, “on the authority of Abu Sa’id”, without clarifying who exactly his source is. For more on this latter point refer to al-Mubarakfuri’s commentary on these hadith in his Tuhfatul Ahwadhi where he rejects the authenticity. It would also appear that al-Tirmidhi himself viewed the reports as anomalous, at least in part, given that he includes the term “gharib” (odd or strange) in his grading.
The SECOND objection is that it could well be no more than a lucky shot. This war was ongoing for 300 years with multiple ups and downs, and its not difficult to predict further turn-arounds anyway. The Persians were finally defeated only by the Muslims. Muslim say that Muhammed was taking a big risk, given the adverse circumstances the Romans were in at that time (I’m not aware of the historical circumstance of how bad the situation was or was not for them). It’s not as if this could not have been taken back, other verses have been “abrogated” in the Qur’an.
The THIRD problem is that were the sequence correct, then the fulfilment, which came before the Qur’an was completed, would have been mentioned in the Qur’an itself, rather than in other “narrations”. Yet there is no verse in the Qur’an which reports the fulfilment and the Roman victory.
FOURTH, it is hard to know why the Roman victory would have been considered desirable by Allah when by this time the they are Trinitarians anyway, the Arian heresy has long been surpressed. To prove this, the Muslims end up atatcking and conquering Byzantium themselves! In fact on reading this verse the Muslims would believe they had a divine mandate to rejoice at the Christian victory. Why?
FIFTH, WHAT WAS THE ACTUAL TIME-SCALE? Bid’i is a word used only once in the Qur’an and in this verse. I’m very suspicious as to the real meaning of it. But in any case even if we do take the very odd time measurement unit of “3-9 years” as ibn Kathir claims, the final Roman victory came in 629AD. Do we know when the prophecy was made? I don’t know!
Failed attempted Prophesies
“the Hour”
“Constantinople will be conquered and the Last Hour will come” (Muslim 41:6924, 41:6979, Tirmidhi 4:7:2239, Dawud 38:4281 and more…)
“He said: “I an the Last Hour have been sent like this”, and joined his forefinger and his middle finger” (Muslim 41:7044-7049)
“the Last Hour will be nearer to mankind than this hand of mine is to your head” (Dawud 14:2529)
It also seems as though the signs of the last time have been coming to pass, for eg.
“Umar swore that ibn Sayyid was the expected Dajjal. Muhammad did not object” (Dawud 38:4315-4317)
“Narrated Abdullah ibn Hawalah al-Azdi: (…) He then placed his hand on my head and said: Ibn Hawalah, when you see the caliphate has settled in the holy land, earthquakes, sorrows and serious matters will have drawn near and on that day the Last Hour will be nearer to mankind than this hand of mine is to your head.” (Sunan Abu Dawud 2535, graded Sahih by Al-Albani)
YOUR Hour?
This is a complex series of scattered hadith of essentially the same quote, which like the ones to follow, one is given the impression that there has been some back-writing by the late Hadith writers to cover up for a prophecy that had by their times, like all doomsday predictions to date in any religion, obviously failed.
Bukhari writes “your hour” as does Muslim in 2952, seemingly a reference to the deaths of the audience, rather than the Last Day of Earth. This reply does not match the question, Muhammed is specifically asked about “the Hour”, not “when will we die”?
Narrated `Aisha: Some rough bedouins used to visit the Prophet and ask him, “When will the Hour be?” He would look at the youngest of all of them and say, “If this should live till he is very old, your Hour will take place.” Hisham said that he meant, their death.” (Bukhari 6511)
THE Hour
These are probably the original narration, since they match the question, and are free from added commentary. You decide, there’s so much to choose from!
‘A’isha reported that when the desert Arabs came to Allah’s Messenger they asked about the Last Hour as to when that would come. And he looked towards the youngest amongst them and said: If he lives he would not grow very old that he would find your Last Hour coming to you. (Muslim 2952)
Anas reported that a person asked Allah’s Messenger as to when the Last Hour would come. He had in his presence a young boy of the Ansar who was called Muhammad. Allah’s Messenger said: If this young boy lives, he may not grow very old till (he would see) the Last Hour coming to you. (Muslim 2953a)
Anas b. Malik reported that a person asked Allah’s Apostle: When would the Last Hour come? Thereupon Allah’s Messenger kept quiet for a while. Then looked at a young boy in his presence belonging to the tribe of Azd Shanu’a and he said: If this boy lives he would not grow very old till the Last Hour would come to you. Anas said that this young boy was of our age during those days. (Muslim 2953b)
Anas reported: A young boy of Mughira b. Shu’ba happened to pass by (the Holy Prophet) and he was of my age. Thereupon Allah’s Apostle said: If he lives long he would not grow very old till the Last Hour would come. (Muslim 2953c)
No one will be living in a 100 years?
Narrated `Abdullah bin `Umar: Once the Prophet led us in the `Isha’ prayer during the last days of his life and after finishing it (the prayer) (with Taslim) he said: “Do you realize (the importance of) this night?” Nobody present on the surface of the earth tonight will be living after the completion of one hundred years from this night.” (Bukhari 116, 564)
Bukhari 601 and Muslim 2537a try to offer clarification that in fact Muhammad only means that none of his companions would be alive at this time. This seems to be a strange quote, because I can say to literally any group of adults that none of them will be present in a 100 years from now. This is hardly a cause of “importance” for the night on which I make that statement. At the most it might mean that one of the companions age at their death would equal their age at that might plus a 100 years, which is actually quite old, whatever their present age might have been. In any case this does not explain the conundrum because the previous hadith say “nothing on the surface of the earth” will be alive at the time, not just Muhammed’s current listeners. This is eminently more likely to be a rear-guard corrective action by the hadith writers who arrived a 100 years after the “100 years” prophecy had passed only to find nothing untoward had happened and therefore attempted to back-write “explanations” into some of the narratives.
This is another complex passage of hadith where a seeming failed prophecy is made, and is then followed up by rearguard action:
“Jabir b. ‘Abdullah reported: I heard Allah’s Messenger as saying this one month before his death: You asked me about the Last Hour whereas its knowledge is with Allah. I, however, take an oath and say that none upon the earth, the created beings (from amongst my Companions), would survive at the end of one hundred years.”(Muslim 2538a-e, by the end of which a similar claim is made that “every living creature” refers solely to Muhammad’s companions at that time)
Forgotten Prophecy: Laylat’ul Qadr– “Night of Power”
Muslims have no clue as to whether they will or will not go to Heaven, due to the doctrine of pre-determination, see my article The Problem of Pre-Determination in Islam
This “night of power” is described in surahs 44:2-6 and 97:1-5.
the hadith elaborate on this:
“Narrated Abu Huraira: Allah’s Messenger said, “Whoever establishes the prayers on the night of Qadr out of sincere faith and hoping to attain Allah’s rewards (not to show off) then all his past sins will be forgiven.” (Bukhari 35)
But Muhammed forgot it
Narrated ‘Ubada bin As-Samit: “Allah’s Messenger went out to inform the people about the (date of the) night of decree (Al-Qadr) but there happened a quarrel between two Muslim men. The Prophet said, “I came out to inform you about (the date of) the night of Al-Qadr, but as so and so and so and so quarrelled, its knowledge was taken away (I forgot it) and maybe it was better for you. Now look for it in the 7th, the 9th and the 5th (of the last 10 nights of the month of Ramadan).” (Bukhari 49)
I do not know the authenticity of this narration since it is not specified on sunnah.com, but its corroborated by the narrationin Bukhari
“Ibn ‘Abbas said, “The Prophet of Allah came forward swiftly while we were sitting, He approached in such a manner that we wee alarmed by the speed with which he came towards us. When he reached us, he greeted us and said, ‘I came swiftly to you to tell you about the Night of Power. I forgot it in the time it took me to get to you, so look for it in the last ten nights (of Ramadan).'” (Al-Adab Al-Mufrad 813)
Absence of any Privileged Viewpoint
Does not even know Right from Wrong, leave alone the Future
Surah 72:21 “: Say, “Indeed, I do not possess for you [the power of] harm or right direction (rashadan- consistently this meaning is assigned in other occ.)”
‘A’isha reported: The Prophet entered my house when a Jewess was with me and she was saying: Do you know that you would be put to trial in the grave? The Messenger of Allah trembled (on hearing this) and said: It is the Jews only who would-be put to trial. ‘A’isha said: We passed some nights and then the Messenger of Allah said: Do you know that it has been revealed to me:” You would be put to trial in the grave”? ‘A’isha said: I heard the Messenger of Allah seeking refuge from the torment of the grave after this.” (Muslim 584)
He asked protection from various punishments: (Bukhari 6375, 8379) “Narrated ‘Aisha: The Prophet used to say, “O Allah! I seek refuge with You from laziness and geriatric old age, from all kinds of sins and from being in debt; from the affliction of the Fire and from the punishment of the Fire and from the evil of the affliction of wealth; and I seek refuge with You from the affliction of poverty, and I seek refuge with You from the affliction of Al-Masih Ad-Dajjal. O Allah! Wash away my sins with the water of snow and hail, and cleanse my heart from all the sins as a white garment is cleansed from the filth, and let there be a long distance between me and my sins, as You made East and West far from each other.”
In a context of just having told the people that he sends messengers “only to give good news and to warn…” (Q 6:49), the Qur’anic deity then asks Muhammed to say the following to them and seems to compare him to a blind man with respect to any hidden prophetic knowledge:
“I do not have the treasures of God, not do I know the unseen, nor do I tell you that I am an angel, I only follow what is revealed to me,”…”Is a blind person like one who can see? why will you not reflect?” (Q 6:50)
Successful Prophecy (!)
“Narrated `Aisha: The Prophet (ﷺ) in his ailment in which he died, used to say, “O `Aisha! I still feel the pain caused by the food I ate at Khaibar, and at this time, I feel as if my aorta is being cut from that poison.” (Bukhari 4428)
This is Muhammed’s seeming own agonized realization that he unintentionally fulfilled his own prediction with regards to false prophets.
“Had he invented against us any sayings, then we would have seized him by the right hand, then we would have cut from him the aorta” (Q 69:44-46)
Jesus’s Prophecy is actually in the Qur’an
The Qur’an confirms that the arrival of Jesus is indeed fulfilment of prophecy. This means that for a Muslim the fulfilment is documented in a divine text, in the words of God himself. However the text that confirms Muhammed is fulfilment of any prophecy cannot be found in any book. This is why this is a salient point. Only 6 verses later in v.45 Jesus is himself given this unique title “a word from God”. This verse is deeply entrenched in the passage about Mary, so its hard not to make the association, and most Muslims would agree with this, especially given that it also parallels the Biblical narrative in this respect, that John came to herald the way for Jesus:
“And the angels called to him (Zechariah), standing in the Sanctuary at worship, ‘Lo, God gives thee good tidings of John, who shall confirm a Word of God, a chief, and chaste, a Prophet, righteous.'” (Q 3:39)
There are a couple of reasons why Mohammed is not in the Bible, the main one being that the Bible is demonstrably a completed prophecy. It is the reason for the birth of Christianity, and it is the manner in which Jesus founded that new religion, as seen in specific passages where he interprets for his believers the manner in which he fulfils Old Testament prophecy. That meaning of the entire Old Testament is “God: says: “I am coming to save you”” and that of the New Testament: Jesus says, “I have saved you”.
The Whole Old Testament is about Jesus. Every time an Israelite High Priest sprinkled blood upon the Mercy Seat he was unconsciously playing out a Crucifixion, an enactment which as obscure as it was before, would be all too evident after the Crucifixion, to the point of being obvious: It was a prefigurment of the Sacrifice of the Lamb of God, Jesus. All during this time Israel is expecting a Messiah, and a King to rule forever on the throne of David. The fulfilment of this is played in the event of the Nativity of Jesus as we see King Herod ask his wise men for the interpretation of that very part of Scripture and they give it to him: the Messiah and King is to be born in Bethlehem, mentioned by name in the prophecy. The entire prophetic cycle is completed in the Bible, as two Testaments that testify to each other and therefore are perfectly fitted to each other. The entire cycle of festivals with Passover and Yom Kippur culminate at the Last Supper meal. At that same meal is fulfilled the prophesy of Jeremiah of the Old Covenant made new and his prophesy of the Law of God being written on the hearts of men which is fulfilled in the descent of the Holy Spirit upon the apostles at Pentecost. God’s action is the world itself is prophecy and fulfilment; the prophecy of his action and the occasion of its fulfilment.
There is a reason why God acts and reveals in a certain and obscure manner prior to his coming and that reason is a fulfilment of that prior action which amounts to man’s Salvation. Christian prophesy is not empty prediction of world events, it is the commencement of the promised Salvation and its fulfilment. That Revelation of man’s Salvation is commenced with in introduction of the notions of propitiatory sacrifice, of atonement of sins, of a certain people of God, of a chosen vehicle through which, and through which alone Grace is to be channeled, “a Royal Priesthood, a chosen Generation and a Holy Nation” which is to be the Church of God,and of a certain sacramental life and means of the administration of Grace within that Church. We know what prophecy is and what is prophecy in revelation only by knowing its fulfilment in Jesus and in the fulfilment that Jesus brings to the biblical narrative.
Muhammed’s and Mecca’s Prophetic Disconnect from Israel
The Child of Promise- Isaac, or Ishmael?
The Biblical Promise is through Isaac
God, in his promise to Abraham states:
“and by offspring (seed) shall all nations of the earth gain blessing for themselves, because you have obeyed my voice.”(Gen.22:18)
The Bible is clear that the son of the Promise is Isaac and not Ishmael, that is, God’s promise to Abraham will be fulfilled through Isaac and not Ishmael “…for it is through Isaac that offspring shall be named for you”(Gen.21:12). This is significant, because Abraham has other children too. Abraham receives the promise definitively in Gen.22 right after the great event of being demanded the sacrifice of his son:
“by myself I have sworn…by your offspring shall all nations of the earth gain blessing for themselves…” (22:15, 18).
These words are already spoken earlier in the text, seemingly unbeknown to Abraham at this point:
“…seeing that Abraham shall become a great and mighty nation, and all the nations of the earth shall be blessed in him? No, for I have chosen him, that he may charge his children and his household after him to keep the way of the Lord by doing righteousness and justice, so that the Lord may bring about for Abraham what he has promised him…” (Gen.18:18,19).
God has made his promise to Abraham even earlier in the narrative:
“I will establish my covenant between me and you and your offspring after you throughout their generations, for an everlasting covenant, to be God to you and to your offspring after you. 8 And I will give to you and to your offspring after you the land where you are now an alien, all the land of Canaan, for a perpetual holding, and I will be their God.” (Gen.17:7,8)
and again, it is asserted that God that the promise will be through Isaac, and not Ishmael:
“Then Abraham fell on his face and laughed and said to himself, “Can a child be born to a man who is a hundred years old? Can Sarah, who is ninety years old, bear a child?” And Abraham said to God, “O that Ishmael might live in your sight!” God said, “No, but your wife Sarah shall bear you a son, and you shall name him Isaac. I will establish my covenant with him as an everlasting covenant for his offspring after him. As for Ishmael, I have heard you; I will bless him and make him fruitful and exceedingly numerous; he shall be the father of twelve princes, and I will make him a great nation. But my covenant I will establish with Isaac, whom Sarah shall bear to you at this season next year.” And when he had finished talking with him, God went up from Abraham.”(Gen.17:17-22).
The Qur’an seems ambivalent…
The Qur’an states that prophethood is through the line of Isaac and does not even mention Ishmael in this verse. This is the only verse in the Qur’an is no other such verse in the Quran that speaks of prophetic lineage by descent, and
“And We gave (Abraham) Isaac and Jacob, and ordained among his progeny Prophethood and Revelation, and We granted him his reward in this life; and he was in the Hereafter (of the company) of the Righteous.” (Q 29:27)
In 37:11, we are told of the “glad tidings” of Isaac’s birth announced beforehand and that he would be a prophet and one of the Righteous. Abraham and Isaac. Ishmael who is already born at this point is not even mentioned:
“and we gave him the good news of Isaac- a prophet and one of the Righteous. And We blessed him and Isaac. But among their descendants is the doer of good and the clearly unjust to himself.” (Q:37:112,3)
Surah 6:84-87 does list Ishmael among those “favored over others”, “righteous” and “guided”, but instead of being listed among the sons or even descendants of Abraham, rather is mentioned later, seemingly as an afterthought:
“And We gave to Abraham, Isaac and Jacob – all [of them] We guided. And Noah, We guided before; and among his descendants, David and Solomon and Job and Joseph and Moses and Aaron. Thus do We reward the doers of good (6:84)-Zachariah, John, Eisa and Elijah- every one of them was righteous- Ishmael, Elisha, Jonah and Lot. We favored each one of them over other people, and also some of their forefathers, their offspring, and their brothers. We chose them and guided them in a straight path” (Q6:84-87)
Actually I’m not aware that the Qur’an even mentions Muhammed’s lineage from Ishmael. Rather it is the Bible that is clear about who is or isn’t a prophet.
Islamic Response
Ishmael is mentioned a total of 12 times in the Qur’an. Five of these are in Chapter 2 in two separate sequences. 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 also refer to him among prophetic lists, or the “steadfast ones” and so on, with the exception of 14:39 which is only a passing reference. All these will form the scriptural basis for Muslim’s belief in the prophethood of Ishmael, which is really in contradiction with the verses we quoted in the first section.
Who is the Obedient Son- Isaac or Ishmael?
Eid al- Adha is the greatest festival of Muslims, but there seems to be every manner of uncertainty at its roots. The very first issue is as to the identity of the obedient son. The Biblical account of course is very specific about Isaac, Ishmael is really not a central character of the narrative nor in the general Biblical account per se. The Torah (Genesis 22:2) and the New Testament (Hebrews 11:17, James 2:21) name the son as Isaac. However in Islam, the picture is not quite so clear.
Two other important questions arise- the second is as to why Muslims celebrate a festival that is not ordained in the Torah, nor is it specified in the Qur’an. The third question is related to the enigmatic surah 37:101- “we ransomed him with a great/momentous sacrifice”. Why does Allah demand this “great sacrifice”? I’ve addressed this here The “Borrowed Themes” of Islam. Since that question is theological we won’t discuss it here.
Ambiguity in the Qur’anic account
Let’s first look at what the Qur’an actually says. The account of the sacrifice in the Qur’an begins with Abraham being given “glad tidings of a forebearing/patient boy”:
(Q 37:101) “and we gave him glad tidings of a forebearing boy”.
It then proceeds (vv.100-107) with the actual sacrifice narrative without any mention of name, ending with the son being “ransomed with a great/momentous sacrifice” (vv.108-111).
Following this we are told that Abraham is “given good news of Isaac (v.112), a prophet and one of the Righteous, and blessed him with Isaac too” (v.113).
Does this mean that two births are announced, or is the Qur’an merely here repeating the previous announcement, which would also not be unusual given the Qur’an’s repetitive and generally unchronological nature?
First, there is no mention of a “second child” in the narrative, nor is the name of Ishmael even mentioned anywhere in the narrative, even in the list of stories of other prophets that immediately follow this narrative right down to v.148.
Second, it would seem quite incongruous that Abraham prays to God for a child while having sex with his slave? I don’t understand what kind of a prayer is that. And then God answers his prayers by enabling a pregnancy in the slave, although he already has a wife.
Thirdly, on top of everything, we are talking about a slave who is not even mentioned. Hagar, nor anything to do with her is ever mentioned in the Qur’an.
Fourthly, I think also extremely pertinent is that the act of obedience of the boy far exceeds that any other Qur’anic character, and yet when Ishmael’s name is mentioned, this is never remarked on, he is never commended for this act by name. This is the incredible interchange between him and his father Abraham:
“And, when he (his son) was old enough to walk with him, he said: “O my son! I have seen in a dream that I am slaughtering you (offer you in sacrifice to Allah), so look what you think!” He said: “O my father! Do that which you are commanded, Insha’ Allah (if Allah will), you shall find me of As-Sabirin (the patient ones, etc.).” (Q 37:102, Mohsin Khan)
The word for slaughter is أَذْبَحُكَ adhbahuka, root ذ ب ح, same as the word in 37:107 “great sacrifice”. I am uncertain why the festival does not take its name from this root, rather it is eid al-adha.
The usual Muslim argument is that the Biblical narrative has the word “only “, and so this must be Ishmael, not Isaac. This even though the full version is “only child whom you love”, and then Isaac is mentioned specifically by name and in speech no less than 5 times in the sacrifice account.
The earliest Muslims are divided on this issue
This is an excerpt from Maududi in his Tafhim al-Qur’an:
“Now let us consider the Islamic traditions, and they contain great differences.
According to traditions cited by the commentators from the Companions and their immediate followers, one group of them is of the opinion that the son was the Prophet Isaac, and this group contains the following names: Hadrat `Umar, `Hadrat `Ali, `Hadrat `Abdullah bin Mas’ud, Hadrat `Abbas bin `Abdul Muttalib, Hadrat `Abdullah bin `Abbas, Hadrat Abu Hurairah, Qatadah, `Ikrimah, Hasan Basri, Said bin Jubair, Mujahid, Sha`bi, Masruq, Makhul, Zuhri, `Ata, Muqatil, Suddi, Ka’b Ahbar, Zaid bin Aslam, and others.
The other group says that it was the Prophet Ishmael, and this group contains the names of the following authorities:Hadrat Abu Bakr, Hadrat ‘Ali, Hadrat `Abdullah bin `Umar, Hadrat ‘Abdullah bin ‘Abbas, Hadrat Abu Hurairah, Hadrat Mu’awiyah, `Ikrimah, Mujahid, Yusuf bin Mahran, Hasan Basri, Muhammad bin Ka`b al-Qurzi, Sha`bi, Said bin al-Musayyab, Dahhak, Muhammad bin ‘Ali bin Husain (Muhammad alBaqir), Rabi` bin Anas, Ahmed bin Hanbal, and others.
When compared, the two lists will be seen to contain several common names: this is due to the reason that from the same person two different views have been reported. For example, from Hadrat ‘Abdullah bin `Abbas, `Ikrimiah has related the saying that the son was the Prophet Isaac, but from him again `Ata’ bin Abi Rabah relates: “The Jews claim that it was Isaac, but the Jews tell a tie. ” Likewise. from Hadrat Hasan Basri, one tradition is to the effect that the Prophet Isaac was the son meant to be made the offering, but `Umar bin `Ubaid says that Hasan Basri had no doubt regarding that the son whom the Prophet Abraham had been commanded to offer as a sacrifice was the Prophet Ishmael (peace be upon him).
This diversity of tradition has resulted in the diversity of opinion among the scholars of Islam. Some of them e.g. Ibn Jarir and Qadi `Iyad, have expressed the firm opinion that the son was the Prophet Isaac. Others, like Ibn Kathir have given the verdict that it were the Prophet Ishmael. There ware others who are un-certain and wavering, e.g. Jalaluddin Suyuti. However, a deep inquiry into the question establishes the fact that the son intended to be offered as a sacrifice was the Prophet Ishmael.
“Abbas – Tanwîr al-Miqbâs min Tafsîr Ibn ‘Abbâs(And when (his son) was old enough to walk with him) when his son was old enough to strive for Allah and obey Him; it is also said that this means: when his son was old enough to walk with him in the mountains, ((Abraham) said) to his son Ishmael; and it is also said: to his son Isaac: (O my dear son, I have seen in a dream that I must sacrifice thee) I am commanded in a dream vision to sacrifice you. (So look, what thinkest thou) what do you say? (He said: O my father! Do that which thou art commanded) of sacrificing me. (Allah willing, thou shalt find me of the steadfast) in the face of this sacrifice.”
and al-Jalalayn:
(37:107) Jalal – Al-JalalaynThen We ransomed him, the one whom he had been commanded to sacrifice, namely, Ishmael or Isaac — two different opinions — with a mighty sacrifice, [a mighty] ram from Paradise, the same one that Abel had offered as as sacrifice: Gabriel, peace be upon him, brought it and the lord Abraham sacrificed it as he cried, Allāhu akbar, ‘God is Great’.
I have heard Shaykh Yassir Qadhi admit that most of the sahaba and tabieen take the child to be Isaac, and also that tafsir Qurtubi acknowledges this, but I don’t think that section of the tafsir has yet been translated into English. (there are 4 volumes so far tr. Aisha Bewley printed by Diwas Press, 2018 only going up to surah 5).
Qurrat al-Absar by Shaykh ‘Abd al-‘Aziz al-Lamti (a sirah work from the 1500s which has been translated by Sh. Hamza Yusuf) says that Sayyidina Ishaq (alayhi’s-salam) is the majority opinion.
God bless, Jesus loves you
The hadith tell that Abraham sent Ishmael away as a suckling babe and visited him only after he was married (a journey of 860 miles from Hebron to Mecca):
Dar-us-Salam reference Hadith 3364 (in relation with ayah 14:37 & 2:127)
“Ishmael’s mother was pleased with the whole situation as she used to love to enjoy the company of the people. So, they settled there, and later on they sent for their families who came and settled with them so that some families became permanent residents there Ishmael) grew up and learned Arabic from them and (his virtues) caused them to love and admire him as he grew up, and when he reached the age of puberty they made him marry a woman from amongst them. After Ishmael’s mother had died, Abraham came after Ishmael’s marriage in order to see his family that he had left before, but he did not find Ishmael there. When he asked Ishmael’s wife about him, she replied, ‘He has gone in search of our livelihood.’ Then he asked her about their way of living and their condition, and she replied, ‘We are living in misery; we are living in hardship and destitution, complaining to him. He said, ‘When your husband returns, convey my salutation to him and tell him to change the threshold of the gate (of his house).’ Bukhari 3364
“Ibn ‘Abbas (May Allah be pleased with them) reported: Ibrahim (ﷺ) brought his wife and her son Isma’il (ﷺ), while she was suckling him, to a place near the Ka’bah under a tree on the spot of Zamzam, at the highest place in the mosque. In those days, there was no human being in Makkah, nor was there any water…”
This is the hadith where Abraham sends his wife and Ishmael away:
“
Narrated Ibn `Abbas: When Abraham had differences with his wife), (because of her jealousy of Hajar, Ishmael’s mother), he took Ishmael and his mother and went away. They had a water-skin with them containing some water, Ishmael’s mother used to drink water from the water-skin so that her milk would increase for her child. When Abraham reached Mecca, he made her sit under a tree and afterwards returned home. Ishmael’s mother followed him, and when they reached Kada’, she called him from behind, ‘O Abraham! To whom are you leaving us?’ He replied, ‘(I am leaving you) to Allah’s (Care).’ She said, ‘I am satisfied to be with Allah.’…” (Bukhari 584)
Muhammed’s incomplete Genealogical link to Ishmael
The supposed genealogy of Mohammed is only present, even among Muslims upto someone called Adnan around 20 generations up. The overwhelming majority of traditions and Muslim scholars state that Adnan is a descendant of Kedar the son of Ishmael, except for Ibn Ishaq who claimed that Adnan was a descendant of Nebaioth, this confusion of Ibn Ishaq can be because one of the descendants of Kedar was also named “Nebaioth”.
Most of Muslim scholars refused any attempt to recite the ancestors between Adnan to Ishmael, and condemned some other scholars such as Ibn Ishaq for doing it.
This is the excellent compilation of key sources from the answering-islam website:
We begin with the statements of Ibn Kathir:
There is no question of ‘Adnan being of the line of Ishmael, son of Abraham, upon both of whom be peace. What dispute there is relates to the number of forebears there were from ‘Adnan to Ishmael according to the various sources.
At one end of the spectrum, there is the extreme view that considers there to have been FORTY; this is the view of Christians and Jews who adopted it from the writings of Rakhiya, the clerk of Armiya (Jeremy) b. Halqiya, as we will relate.
Some authorities maintain there THIRTY, others TWENTY, yet more FIFTEEN, TEN, NINE, or SEVEN.
It has been said that the lowest estimate given is for FOUR, according to the account given by Musa b. Ya‘qub, on the authority of ‘Abd Allah b. Wahb b. Zum’a al-Zuma‘i from his aunt, and then from Umm Salama who stated that the Prophet (SAAS) said that the line was: “Ma‘ad b. ‘Adnan b. Adab b. Zand b. al-Tara b. A‘raq al-Thara”.
According to Umm Salam this Zanad was al-Hamaysa‘, al-Yara was Nabit, while A‘raq al-Thara was Ishmael. This was implied because he was Abraham’s son; for Abraham was not consumed by hell-fire, since fire does not consume moist earth, the meaning of al-thara.
Al-Daraqatni stated that he knew of no “Zand” except the one in this tradition, and Zand b. al-Jawn, who was Abu Dalama the poet.
Abu al-Qasim al-Suhayli and other Imams stated that the time lapse between ‘Adnan and Ishmael was too great for there to have been only FOUR, TEN, or even TWENTY generations between them. That, they said, was because the age of Ma‘ad son of ‘Adnan was twelve at the time of Bukhtunassar (Nebuchadnezzar).
Abu Ja‘far al-Tabari and others related that Almighty God sent a revelation at that time to Armiya’ b. Halqiya telling him to go to Bukhtunassar to inform him that God had given him rule over the Arabs. And God commanded to Armiya’ to carry Ma‘ad b. Adnan on the horse al-Buraq so that they would not bear him any rancour saying, “For I shall draw forth from his loins a noble Prophet by whom I shall seal the prophets.”
‘Armiya did that, bearing Ma‘ad on al-Buraq to the land of Syria where he grew up among the Jews who remained there following the destruction of the temple at Jerusalem. There he married a woman named Ma‘ana, daughter of Jawshin unrest had quietened [sic] down and accord prevailed in the Arabian peninsula. Rakhiya, Armiya’s scribe, wrote his master’s genealogy down in a document he had there which was to go into Armiya’s library; and he similarly preserved the genealogy of Ma‘ad. But God knows best.
And this is why Malik, God bless him, DID NOT ENTHUSE OVER THE ATTEMPT AT TRACING GENEALOGY BACK TO BEFORE ‘ADNAN.
Al-Suhayli commented further, “We have merely discussed tracing back these lines to accord with the school of thought of those scholars who favour and do not disapprove of it, men such as Ibn Ishaq, al-Bukhari, al-Zubayr b. Bakkar, al-Tabari, and others.”
As for Malik, God have mercy on him, he expressed disapproval when asked about someone tracing his descent back to Adam and commented: “WHENCE COMES TO HIM KNOWLEDGE OF THAT?” When he was asked about tracing back to Ishmael, he expressed similar disapproval, asking, “WHO COULD PROVIDE SUCH AN INFORMATION?” Malik also disliked tracing the genealogy of the prophets, such as saying, “Abraham son of so-and-so”. Al-Mu‘ayti stated this in his book.
Al-Suhayli commented also that Malik’s viewpoint was analogous to what was related of ‘Urwa b. al-Zubayr who is reported to have said, “WE HAVE FOUND NO ONE WHO KNOWS THE LINE BETWEEN ‘ADNAN AND ISHMAEL.”
It is reported that Ibn ‘Abbas said, “Between ‘Adnan and Ishmael there were 30 ancestors WHO ARE UNKNOWN.”
Ibn ‘Abbas is also reputed to have said when he traced back lines of descent as far as ‘Adnan: “The genealogists have LIED. TWICE OR THRICE.” And that (scepticism) is even more characteristic of Ibn Mas‘ud, whose (attitude) was like that of Ibn ‘Abbas.
‘Umar b. al-Khattab stated, “We carry back the genealogy ONLY AS FAR AS ‘ADNAN.”
Abu ‘Umar b. ‘Abd al-Barr stated in his book Al-Anba’ fi Ma‘rifat Qaba’il al-Ruwah (Facts Concerning Knowledge of the Tribes of the Transmitters) that Ibn Lahi‘a related from Abu al-Aswad that he heard ‘Urwa b. al-Zubayr say, “WE NEVER FOUND ANYONE WHO KNEW [sic] GENEALOGY BACK PAST ‘ADNAN, NOR PAST QAHTAN, UNLESS THEY WERE USING CONJECTURE. “
Abu al-Aswad stated that he had heard Abu Bakr Sulayman b. Abu Khaytham, one of the very most knowledgeable men of the poetry and the genealogy of Quraysh, say, “WE NEVER KNEW ANYONE WITH INFORMATION GOING BACK BEYOND MA‘AD B. ‘ADNAN, whether relating poetry or other knowledge.”
Abu ‘Umar said that there was a group of the predecessors including ‘Abd Allah b. Mas‘ud, ‘Amr b. Maymun al-Azdi, and Muhammad b. Ka‘b al-Quradhi who, when they recited the verse from the Qur’an “and those after them who no one but God knows” (surat Ibrahim, XIV, v. 9) would comment, “THE GENEALOGISTS LIED.”
Abu ‘Umar, God have mercy on him, stated, “We hold the meaning of this to differ from their interpretation. What is implied is that regarding those who claim to enumerate Adam’s descendants, no one knows them except God who created them. But as for the lines of descent of the Arabs, the scholars conversant with their history and genealogy were aware of and learned by heart about the people and the major tribes, DIFFERING IN SOME DETAILS OF THAT.” (The Life of the Prophet Muhammad (Al-Sira al-Nabawiyya), Volume I, translated by professor Trevor Le Gassick, reviewed by Dr. Ahmed Fareed [Garnet Publishing Limited, 8 Southern Court, south Street Reading RG1 4QS, UK; The Center for Muslim Contribution to Civilization, 1998], pp. 50-52; capital emphasis ours)
The next section comes from Ibn Sa‘d:
.. he on the authority of Ibn ‘Abbas; he said: Verily the Prophet (may peace be upon him), WHENEVER he related his genealogy, DID NOT GO BEYOND MA‘ADD IBN ‘ADNAN IBN UDAD, then he kept quiet and said: The narrators of genealogy ARE LIARS, since Allah says: “There passed many generations between them.”
Ibn ‘Abbas says: The Prophet would have been informed of the genealogy (prior to Adnan by Allah) if he (Prophet) had so wished.
.. he on the authority of ‘Abd Allah. Verily he recited “(The tribes of) ‘Ad and Thamud and those after them; NONE SAVETH ALLAH KNOWETH THEM.” The genealogists ARE LIARS.
… between Ma‘add and Isma‘il there were more than THIRTY GENERATIONS; but he did not give their names, nor described their genealogy, probably he did not mention it because he might have heard the Hadith of Abu Salih on the authority of Ibn ‘Abbas who narrated about the Prophet (may Allah bless them) THAT HE KEPT QUIET AFTER MENTIONING MA‘ADD IBN ‘ADNAN.
Hisham said: A narrator informed me on the authority of my father, but I had not heard it from him, that he related the genealogy thus, Ma‘add Ibn ‘Adnan Ibn Udad Ibn al-Hamaysa’ Ibn Salaman Ibn ‘Aws Ibn Yuz Ibn Qamwal Ibn Ubayyi Ibn al-‘Awwam, Ibn Nashid Ibn Haza Ibn Buldas Ibn Tudlaf Ibn Tabikh Ibn Jahim Ibn Nahish Ibn Makha Ibn ‘Ayfa Ibn ‘Abqar Ibn ‘Ubayd Ibn al-Du‘a Ibn Hamdan Ibn Sanbar Ibn Yathriba Ibn Nahzan Ibn Yalhan Ibn Ir‘awa Ibn ‘Ayfa Ibn Dayshan Ibn ‘Isar Ibn Iqnad Ibn Ibham Ibn Muqsi Ibn Nahith Ibn Zarih Ibn Shumayyi Ibn Mazzi Ibn ‘Aws Ibn ‘Arram IBN QAYDHAR Ibn Isma‘il Ibn Ibrahim (my Allah bless them both).
… There was a Tadmurite whose patronymic was Abu Ya‘qub; he was one … of the Israelite Muslims, and had read Israelite literature and acquired proficiency in it; he mentioned that Burakh Ibn Nariyya the scribe of Irmiya (Jeremiah) drew the genealogy of Ma‘add Ibn ‘Adnan and wrote it in his books. This is known to the Israelite scholars and learned men. The names (mentioned here) resemble them, and if there is any difference it is because of the language since they have been translated from Hebrew.
… I heard a person saying: Ma‘add was contemporary with ‘Isa Ibn Maryam (Jesus son of Mary) and his genealogy is this: Ma‘add Ibn ‘Adnan Ibn Udad Ibn Zayd Ibn Yaqdur Ibn Yaqdum Ibn Amin Ibn Manhar Ibn Sabuh Ibn al-Hamaysa‘ Ibn Yashjub Ibn Ya‘rub, Ibn al-‘Awwam Ibn Nabit Ibn Salman Ibn Haml Ibn QAYDHAR Ibn Isma‘il Ibn Ibrahim.
He (Ibn Sa‘d) said: Some one has named al-‘Awwal BEFORE al-Hamaysa‘ thus showing (al-‘Awwam) as his son.
… Verily the genealogy of Ma‘add Ibn ‘Adnan HAS BEEN TRACED DIFFERENTLY. In some narrations it is Ma‘add Ibn ‘Adnan Ibn Muqawwam, Ibn Nahur Ibn Tirah Ibn Ya‘rub Ibn Yashjub IBN NABIT Ibn Isma ‘il.
He (Ibn Sa‘d) said: And some say: Ma‘add Ibn ‘Adnan Ibn Udad ’Itahab Ibn Ayyub IBN QAYDHAR Ibn Isma‘il Ibrahim.
Muhammad Ibn Ishaq said: Qusayyi Ibn Kilab traced his genealogy to Qaydhar Ibn Isma‘il in some of his verses. Muhammad Ibn al-Sa‘ib al-Kalbi recited this couplet on the authority of his father ascribing it to Qusayyi:
“I have nothing to do with nursing if the children of Qaydhar and Nabit did not establish relationship with the same.”
Abu ‘Abd Allah Muhammad Ibn Sa‘d said: I do not find much difference between them. Verily, Ma‘add was descended from Qaydhar Ibn Isma‘il; and this DIFFERENCE in his genealogy shows that the same WAS NOT CORRECTLY REMEMBERED and it was borrowed from the people of the scriptures (ahl al-Kitab) and translated, so they made differences. If it had been correct the Apostle of Allah must have known it. The best course with us is to trace the genealogy to Ma‘add Ibn ‘Adnan THEN TO KEEP QUIET UP TO ISMA‘IL IBN IBRAHIM.
… he on the authority of ‘Urwah; he said: WE DID NOT FIND ANY ONE TRACING THE GENEALOGY ABOVE MA‘ADD IBN ‘ADNAN.
… I heard Abu Bakr Ibn Sulayman Ibn Abu Hathamah saying… WE DID NOT FIND CERTAINTY IN THE KNOWLEDGE OF A SCHOLAR NOR IN THE VERSES OF A POET (ABOUT GENERATIONS) ABOVE MA‘ADD IBN ‘ADNAN…
He (Ibn Sa‘d) said: Hsiham Ibn Muhammad Ibn al-Sa‘ib informed us on the authority of his father that Ma‘add was with Bukht Nassar (Banu Ched Nader) when he fought in the forts of Yaman. (Ibn Sa’ad’s Kitab Al-Tabaqat Al-Kabir Volume I, parts I & II, English translation by S. Moinul Haq, M.A., PH.D assisted by H.K. Ghazanfar M.A. [Kitab Bhavan Exporters & Importers, 1784 Kalan Mahal, Daryaganj, New Delhi – 110 002 India], pp. 50-53; capital and underline emphasis ours)
We conclude with Al-Tabari. Much of what he says is material found above in Ibn Sa‘d:
“… I heard the Messenger of God say, ‘Ma‘add ‘Adnan b. Udad b. Zand b. Yara b. A‘raq al-Thara.’ Umm Salamah: Zand is al-Hamaysa‘, Yara is NABT and A‘raq al-Thara is Ishmael, son of Abraham.
… ‘Adnan, AS SOME GENEALOGISTS ASSERT, was the son of Udad b. Muqawwam b. Nahur b. Tayrah b. Ya ‘rub b. NABIT b. Isma‘il (Ishmael) b. Ibrahim (Abraham), WHILE OTHERS SAY: ‘Adnan b. Udad b. Aytahab b. Ayyub b. QAYDHAR b. Isma‘il (Ishmael) b. Ibrahim (Abraham). Qusayy b. Kilab traces his descent back to QAYDHAR in his poetry. YET OTHER GENEALOGISTS SAY: ‘Adnan b. Mayda‘ b. Mani‘ b. Udad b. Ka‘b b. Yashjub b. Ya‘rub b. al-Hamaysa‘ b. QAYDHAR b. Isma‘il (Ishmael) b. Ibrahim (Abraham). THESE DIFFERENCES arise because it is an old science, taken from the people of the first Book (the Old Testament).
… Muhammad b. al-Sa‘ib al-Kalbi, although I did not hear this from him myself, that he traced the descent as follows; Ma‘add b. ‘Adnan b. Udad b. al-Hamaysa‘ b. Salaman b. ‘Aws b. Buz b. Qamwal b. Ubayy b. al-‘Awwam b. Nashid b. Haza b. Bildas b. Yidlaf b. Tabakh b. Jaham b. Tahash b. Makha b. ‘Ayfa b. Abqar b. ‘Ubayd b. al-Da‘a b. Hamdan b. Sanbar b. Yathribi b. Yahzan b. Yalhan b. Ar‘awa b. ‘Ayfa b. Dayshan b. ‘Isar b. Aqnad b. Ayham b. Muqsir b. Nahath b. Rizah b. Shamma b. Mizza b. ‘Aws b. ‘Arram b. QAYDHAR b. Isma‘il (Ishmael) Ibrahim (Abraham).
… There was a man from Tadmur whose patronymic (kunyah) was Abu Ya‘qub. He was one of the children of Israel who had become a Muslim, who had read in their books and become deeply learned. He said that Barukh b. Nariyya, a scribe from Urmiya, had established the lineage of Ma‘add b. ‘Adnan with him and had set it in his writings. It was well known among the learned men of the People of the Book and set down in their books. It was close to the names given above, and perhaps the difference between them was owing to the language, since these names had been transliterated from Hebrew.
Al-Harith- Muhammad b. Sa‘d: Hisham (al-Kalbi) recited to me the following line of verse, which was related to him by his father:
I belong to no tribe which brought me up but that in which the descendants of Qaydhar and al-Nabit took root.
By al-Nabit, he meant Nabt b. Isma‘il (Ishmael).
… Ma‘add b. ‘Adnan b. Udad b. al-Hamaysa‘ b. Ashub b. NABT B. QAYDHAR b. Isma‘il (Ishmael).
OTHERS RELATE: Ma‘add b. ‘Adnan b. Udad b. Umayn b. Shajab b. Tha‘alabah b. ‘Atr b. Yarbah b. Muhallam b. al-‘Awwam b. Muhtamil b. Ra‘imah b. al-‘Ayqan b. ‘Allah b. al-Shahdud b. al-Zarib b. ‘Abqar b. Ibrahim (Abraham) b. Isma‘il b. Yazan b. A‘waj b. al-Mut‘im b. al-Tamh b. al-Qasur b. ‘Anud b. Da‘da‘ b. Mahmud b. al-Za‘id b. Nadwan b. Atamah b. Daws b. Hisn b. al-Nizal b. al-Qumayr b. al-Mushajjir b. Mu‘damir b. Sayfi b. NABT B. QAYDHAR b. Isma‘il (Ishmael) b. Ibrahim (Abraham), the Friend of the Compassionate.
STILL OTHERS: Ma‘add b. ‘Adnan b. Udad b. Zayd b. Yaqdir b. Yaqdum b. Hamaysa‘ b. NABT B. QAYDHAR b. Isma‘il (Ishmael) b. Ibrahim (Abraham).
OTHERS: Ma‘add b. ‘Adnan b. Udad b. Hamaysa‘ b. Nabt b. Salman, who is Salaman, b. Hamal b. NABT B. QAYDHAR b. Isma‘il (Ishmael) b. Ibrahim (Abraham).
OTHERS: Ma‘add b. ‘Adnan b. Udad b. al-Muqawwam b. Nahur b. M Mishrah b. Yashjub b. Malik b. Ayman b. AL-NABIT B. QAYDHAR b. Isma‘il (Ishmael) b. Ibrahim (Abraham).
OTHERS: Ma‘add b. ‘Adnan b. Udd b. Udad b. al-Hamaysa‘ b. Ashub b. Sa‘d b. Yarbah b. Nadir b. Humayl b. Munahhim b. Lafath b. al-Sabuh b. Kinanah b. al-‘Awwam b. NABT B. QAYDHAR b. Isma‘il (Ishmael).
A certain genealogist told me that he had found that some Arab scholars had memorized FORTY ANCESTORS OF MA‘ADD AS FAR AS ISMA‘IL (Ishmael) in Arabic, quoting Arabic verses as evidence for this, and that he had collated the names they gave with what the People of the Book say and had found that the number agreed BUT THAT THE ACTUAL NAMES DIFFERED. He dictated these names to me and I wrote them down. They are as follows; Ma‘add b. ‘Adnan b. Udad b. Hamaysa‘ (Hamaysa‘ is Salman, who is Umayn) b. Hamayta‘ (who is Hamayda‘, who is al-Shajab) b. Salamn (who is Munjir Nabit, so called, he calimed, because he fed Arabs on milk and flour anjara, as the people lived well in his time …)
Nabit b. ‘Aws (he is Tha‘labah, to whom the Tha‘labis descent is traced back) b. Bura (who is Buz, who is ‘Atr al-‘Ata‘ir, the first person to institute the custom of the ‘atirah for the Arabs) b. Shuha (who is Sa‘d Rajab, the first person to institute the custom of the rajabiyyah for the Arabs) b. Ya‘mana (who is Qamwal, who is Yarbah al-Nasib, who lived in the time of Sulayman b. Dawud the prophet) b. Kasdana (who is Muhallam Dhu al-‘Ayn) b. Hazana (who is al-‘Awwam) b. Bildasa (who is al-Muhtamil) b. Badlana (who is Yidlaf, who is Ra‘imah) b. Tahba (who is Tahab who is al-‘Ayqan) b. Jahma (who is Jaham, who is ‘Allah) b. Mahsha (who is Tahash. who is al-Shahdud) b. Ma‘jala (who is Makha, who is al-Zarib Khatim al-Nar b. ‘Aqara (who is ‘Afa, who is ‘Abqar, THE FATHER OF THE JINN, TO WHOM THE GARDEN ABQAR IS ASCRIBED) b. ‘Aqara (who is ‘Aqir, who is Ibrahim Jami ‘al-Shaml. He was called Jami‘ al-Shaml (settler of affairs) because every fearful person felt safe in his reign; he returned every outcast, and he attempted to make peace between all men) b. Banda‘a (who is Da‘a, who is Isma‘il Dhu al-Matabikh (master of kitchens), who was so called because during his reign he established a house for guests in every town of Arabs) b. Abda‘i (who is ‘Ubayd, who is Yazan al-Ta‘‘an, the first man to fight with lances, which are ascribed to him) b. Hamada (who is Hamdan, who is Isma‘il Dhu al-A‘waj; al-A‘waj was his horse, and the A‘waji breed of horses is ascribed to him) b. Bashmani (who is Yashbin, who is al-Mut‘im fi al-Mahl) b. Bathrani (who is Bathram, who is al-Tamh) b. Bahrani (who is Yahzan, who is al-Qasur) b. Yalhani (who is Yalhan, who is al-‘Anud) b. Ra‘wani (who is Ra‘wa, who is al-Da‘da‘) b. ‘Aqara (who is ‘Aqir) b. Dasan (who is al-Za‘id) b. ‘Asar (who is ‘Asir, who is al-Naydawan Dhu al-Andiyah…) b. Qanadi (who is Qanar, who is Ayyamah) b. Thamar (who is Bahami, who is Daws al-‘Itq…) b. Muqsir (who is Maqasiri, who is Hisn; he is also called Nahath, who is al-Nizal) b. Zarih (who is Qumayr) b. Sammi who is Samma, who is al-Mujashshir …
b. Marza- or, some say, Marhar- b. Sanfa (who is al-Samr, who is al-Safi …)
b. Ja‘tham (who is ‘Uram, who is al-Nabit, who is Qaydhar, the interpretation of Qaydhar, he said, is ‘ruler’, for he was the first of the descendants of Isma‘il to be king) b. Isma‘il (Ishmael), who was faithful to his promise, b. Ibrahim (Abraham), the Friend of the Compassionate b. Tarih (who is Azar) b. Nahur b. Saru‘ b. Arghawa b. Baligh (the interpretation of Baligh is ‘the divider’ as in Syriac; this is because it was he who divided the lands between the descendants of Adam, and he is Falij) b. ‘Abar b. Sha;ikh b. Arfakhshad b. Sam (Shem) b. Nuh (Noah) b. Lamk b. Mattushalakh b. Akhnukh (he is the prophet Idris) b. Yard (he is Yarid, in whose time idols were made) b. Mahla‘il b. Qaynan b. Anush b. Shithth (who is Hibatallah) b. Adam. Shith (Seth) was the successor of his father after Habil (Abel) was killed; his father said, ‘A gift of God (Hibatallah)’ in exchange for Habil,’ and his name was derived this.
We have mentioned earlier in this work in a concise and abridged form a part what we have been able to discover of the accounts of Isma‘il (Ishmael) b. Ibrahim (Abraham) and his ancestors, male and female, back to Adam, and of the events of every age during this period of time, and we shall not repeat them here. Hisham b. Muhammad: The Arabs used to say, ‘The flea has bitten since our father Anush was born, and sin has been forbidden since our father Shithth was born.’ The Syriac name for Shithth is Shith.” (The History of Al-Tabari, Volume VI, Muhammad At Mecca, translated and annotated by W. Montgomery Watt and M.V. McDonald [State University of New York Press, Albany, 1988], pp. 38-43; capital and underline emphasis ours)
Do notice the inherent contradictions of these traditions. First, none of the genealogical lists are uniform. Contradictions in the precise names and order of the names appear throughout these lists. Second, according to some traditions Ma‘add was a contemporary of the Lord Jesus. Yet, other traditions state that Ma‘add was a contemporary of Jeremiah and Nebuchadnezzar, the King of Babylon, men who lived six centuries before Christ was even born!
Third, as we had already noted in our original paper, these lists trace Muhammad to different sons of Ishmael. Some lists trace him to Kedar (Qaydhar), the son of Ishmael. Others trace it back to Nebaioth (Nabit), not Kedar. Fourth, much confusion exists regarding the exact number of generations from Ishmael and Adnan.
Finally, the very candid and open admission by the writers that no one was able to definitely trace Muhammad’s genealogy beyond Adnan serves to undermine the Muslim claim that Muhammad was an ACTUAL descendent of Ishmael.
Firstly we see that the Quran speaks of a house of prayer built by Abraham and Ishmael as: “Remember We made the House a place of assembly for men and a place of safety; and take ye the station of Abraham as a place of prayer; and We covenanted with Abraham and Isma’il, that they should sanctify My House for those who compass it round, or use it as a retreat, or bow, or prostrate themselves (therein in prayer). (125) (…) Abraham and Ishmael were raising the foundations of the House….” (Surah 2:125, 127)
However, surahs 28:46 , 32:3, 34:44 and 36:6 state that that no previous prophet/ “warner” or messenger was sent to the Qurayshi community before Mohammed. The Qur’an itself confirms that Ishmael is in the category of “warners” in in surahs 19:54, 55, 58 , 6:84, 89.
Thus what we have is the Qur’an claiming that Abraham and Ishmael built the Ka’bah in Mecca (Qur’an 2:127), and they were both prophets who were sent with scripture (Qur’an 2:136, 87:18-19). Therefore, according to the Qur’an, the people of Mecca had prophets with scripture among them in the past.
Yet, in verses 34:44 and 36:6 the Qur’an claims that the Meccans had no prophet sent to them in the past, and this is why Muhammad came with the Qur’an.
“Be We have given them [the Meccans] no Scriptures to study, nor have We sent to them any warner before you [Muhammad]”. (Qur’an 34:44)
“For you to warn a people who forefathers were not warned, and who are heedless.” (Qur’an 36:6)
The Hadith- Ka’ba was not built at the time of Abraham!
Finally, the Hadith confirm that the first mosque to ever be built was at Mecca, only 40 years before the one at Jerusalem!
“Narrated Abu Dhaar: I said, “O Allah’s Messenger ! Which mosque was built first?” He replied, “Al-Masjid-ul-Haram.”(this is the Ka’aba at Mecca where non-Muslims are not allowed- hence “haram”- forbidden) I asked, “Which (was built) next?” He replied, “Al-Masjid-ul-Aqs-a (i.e. Jerusalem).” I asked, “What was the period in between them?” He replied, “Forty (years).” (Bukhari 3425)
No Place of Religious significance outside Israel
Further, strange legends have arisen around presence of Hagar and Sarah in Mecca which make more sense if they were transplanted from Jerusalem where they originally arose. Hagar is said to be running between two hills in a desperate search for water to stave death from dehydration for herself and her son. The name of one of these hills “Marwa” is suspiciously similar to famous hill which is today located under the Muslim Dome of the Rock in Jerusalem, which is the place where Abraham is traditionally held by the Jews to have made his sacrifice – Mount Moriah. The story of Hagar searching for water is also found in the Bible, and once again, not anywhere near Mecca. Further, there is no reference to anything to do with a cuboid structure outside Jerusalem which is a place of pilgrimage for the Jews and which they travel to and circumambulate, or any of the other Islamic rituals
Conclusion: Ishmael and Abraham cannot be placed in Mecca historically, but neither can they be placed there Qur’anically! This calls into question some of the central beliefs of Islam. The house of worship at Mecca, cannot be said to have been the original house of God by any means (there is serious evidence building up in relation to Mecca that shows it is highly likely it did not even exist even at the time Muhammed is supposed to have lived, there is simply no historical record, document or map to be found of it. We discuss this elsewhere). Thus we can see that Ishmael was not in Mecca, Isaac was the intended sacrifice, and the prophethood was to continue in Isaac’s line not Ishmael, even in Qur’an! Further the site of the Sacrifice you can still see today, it is under the Dome of the Rock in Jerusalem, on the Muslim site! Not “Marwa”.
Mecca is mentioned by name a total of one time in the Qur’an (Q 48:24). There is a place called Bakah (3:96) which most Muslims will claim is Mecca (perhaps the old name for it). That’s about it. In addition there are a couple of references to “the mother of cities” and “the city” and “the trustworthy city”, bringing the grand total of all the references up to 8.
Muslims might claim that there is a reference to Mecca in the Bible in Psalm 84, again supposedly under the name “Bacca”. It is said that it will be made into a “place of springs”, where Mecca only has the Zam Zam well. In fact the meaning of the Hebrew word בָּכָה (baccah) is “weeping”, and this is actually what the Septuagint uses. The word בָּכָא (bacca) which is used in 84:6 lacks the “h” sound at the end, is used only once in the Bible and is said to be derived from the former word for weeping, which has 116 occurrences.
“Happy are those whose strength is in you, in whose heart are the highways to Zion. As they go through the valley of Baca, they make it a place of springs; the early rain also covers it with pools. They go from strength to strength; the God of gods will be seen in Zion.”(Ps.84:6)
The Septuagint has a reference to “the Law-giver”, which is quite obviously God himself, but I have heard this come up too. This is the Berean Septuagint:
(5)Blessed is the man whose help is of thee, O Lord; in his heart he has purposed to go up. (6) the valley of weeping, to the place which he has appointed, for there the law-giver will grant blessings. (7) They shall go from strength to strength: the God of gods shall be seen in Sion.“ (Ps.84:5-7, LXX)
Apart from this there is much controversy over whether the city of Mecca even existed in the seventh century Arabia, due to scant archeological evidence. I have not covered this here, but the CIRA channel have done a lot of video presentations on the topic.
One of the odd features of the Qur’an is that it contains several terms and concepts essentially alien to and superfluous in Islam, mere theological esotericisms to Muslim readers unfamiliar with the Bible, but strikingly familiar and even central to Christian and even in many cases even Jewish readers. Stitched together, these essentially yield the Christian story, a religion-within -a -religion, hidden in plain sight within the pages of the Qur’an. That these are present simultaneous with a handful of direct refutations of Christianity, also present in the Qur’an is one of the central contradictions and puzzles in Islam. This incredible feature is the theme of this article.
What could be the reason for this feature? We can only speculate today, but the Christian reader of the Qur’an will immediately get a sense of the discordance and the definite sense of a “pathwork gospel”, something that is not uncommon for apocryphal gospels of antiquity. Such gospels, typically put together to serve a specific agenda betray such theological inconsistencies since the writing is not primarily spiritual. With the Qur’an specifically, we will see that there is a definite sense in which the author is not really aware of the meaning of the terms being used, rather they are being employed rather as spiritual embellishments upon an otherwise rather dry textual backdrop. It is also quite likely that the meaning of these terms and concepts were simply not available to the author at the time in Arabia, given the mode fo transmission of the material which would likely have been some of of oral recitation and recounting at the time and the author’s own educational background given it is likely he was either entirely illiterate or only partly literate in any case.
Iblis is Greek for the Fallen Angel
Muslims believe in civilizations of invisible beings called “jinn”- living, breathing, eating, marrying, believing, disbelieving, warring, praying, and dying among us. The only one name is “Iblis”, cast in the role of the Biblical Satan or Devil. I-B-L-S is the consonantal form of the Greek Dia-B-L-S minus the “D”. “Dia-bolos” itself is a Greek compound word, “dia” (through) and “ballo” (to throw); signifying something like throwing apart, or dividing, and usually signifying accusing “the accuser”. It occurs 38 times in the New Testament (NT), for example in the accounts of Jesus’ Temptation, the parables etc. That devil is none other than the fallen angel, Satan:
“And the great dragon was thrown down, that ancient serpent, who is called the DEVIL AND SATAN, the deceiver of the whole world – he was thrown down to the earth, and his angels were thrown down with him” (Rev.12:9, also 20:2).
Luke does not use Diabolos in the parallel passage:
“He said to them, “I watched Satan fall from heaven like a flash of lightning” (Lk. 10:8)
In the Old Testament the references to Satan or the devil are sparse. From Isaiah we get the Latinization “Lucifer”: bearer of light.
(Is. 14:12) “How you have fallen from heaven, morning star, son of the dawn! You have been cast down to the earth, you who once laid low the nations!” (also Job 1:6),
The Hebrew noun “ha- satan” in the OT is derived from the verb meaning “to obstruct” or “to oppose.” to mean the “adversary” or “accuser.” In occurs only used nine times, and in five of those uses, is used for a human being who is a military, political or legal enemy of Israel.
The only time that satan appears without the definite article ha is 1 Chron.21. In the Book of Job, ha-satan is a heavenly being that questions the faith of Job before God. In the Book of Numbers, when Balaam goes to curse the Israelites, he is stopped by ha-satan, which is an oddity. In Zechariah 3 we see ha-satan in an accusatory role before the Throne of God.
In summary, the Quran takes a descriptive Greek word “the Divider”, “Diabolos” and Arabicizes it into a proper noun “Iblis”. This “Iblis” is then relegated to the species of “jinni”, pre-Islamic spirit-beings from Arabian folk-lore. The Biblical “Satan” becomes a generic term for evil jinni akin to the Biblical demons, as though there were also good jinni, nor do these have a separate name of their own. In doing so, the Qur’an christens a creature with a name that is only understood in the Greek language. That itself is incredible and if anything betrays the authors lack of knowledge of the word’s origin. But this article is full of instances which betray the author’s lack of knowledge of the original Biblical languages.
Iblis is destined to become the only jinn to be named in the only major world religion that has Arabiam jinni, and his name has meaning in the Greek language. Diabolos is not even in the Jewish Scriptures, it is a Greek Christianism of the Hebrew Satan.
On top of that, the entire story of Iblis which is made to parallel the Biblical story of the Fall ends up being a hotch-potch narrative and we have discussed this elsewhere.
Adam’s Banishment- Original Sin
There is so much wrong with the Garden story that it deserves its own article. See there please.
“Injil” is the Arabicized “euangelion”- Good News or in other words, Go-spel, the latter term is from the German. Modern Muslim trend is to assert the corruption of the Bible, yet Allah refers to them in Greek, which would confirm at the very least that an authentic Greek existed at some time.
The Jewish Story ends with the arrival of al-Masih, Eisa
Jesus is referred to as in the Qur’an :”(4:171, also 3:45, 4:157, 5:17, 5:72,75 and 9:30-31, denials of Jesus’ divinity in last 3). However, there’s not a single person who gets “anointed” in Quran. “Messiah” from the Hebrew masyach means “anointed”, and the literal meaning is simply to apply oil. Applying oil is done as a sign in Hebrew culture, and the Judaic religion is pregnant with expectation of a certain anointed one (messiah) who is to save Israel. In Islam, Muhammed who is supposedly the last person to come is not called Messiah! No one else is called Messiah in all Islam. “Masyach” is not even an Arabic word, it does not exist in any Islamic or pre-Islamic writings. Yet Jesus is referred to as al-Masih six times, a Hebrew word in an Arabic book. This necessitates the Islamic acceptance of Jesus’ fulfilment of the promises of the Jewish Scriptures. in making this endorsement of Jesus as the fulfilment of the Jewish scriptures, and yet it could not possibly be that that fulfilment was militaristic, since Muslims are aware Jesus had no military success. Further if this fulfilment, one that is not simply a local military victory were true, rather it is a spiritual fulfilment, then Muhammed? Do Muslims really believe that God’s authentic Torahic Messiah failed in his purpose? That’s an amazing entailment of the Qur’an’s admission of Jesus’ unique Messiahship. Its hardly surprising that we then get statements like “And there is none from the People of the Scripture but that he will surely believe in Jesus before his death. And on the Day of Resurrection he will be against them a witness.”(4:159) That cryptic verse if anything, is written by an author that believes in Jesus’ lordship, most likely a gnostic practitioner.
If every human being is destined in their last moments to acknowledge Christ, that is yet another admission of Jesus’ universal messiahship at the very least- clearly no other prophet engenders universal belief. And if the verse is to presuppose the hadithic tradition of Jesus coming back and then dying, and if “before his death” then refers to Jesus’ death we still have the same situation- he would be unique in accomplishing universal belief in his lifetime, universal messiahship again. All this aligns with that other cryptic verse that seems to be alluding to the same crucifixion event, yet with subtle differences. 3:55 states: “when Allah said, “O Jesus! I will take you (lit. cause you to die) and raise you up to Myself. I will deliver you from those who disbelieve, and elevate your followers above the disbelievers until the Day of Judgment. Then to Me you will return, and I will settle all your disputes.”. Again, belief in tthe universal Messiah is upheld in the ultimate analysis.
Mark Durie’s very excellent The Qur’an and its Biblical Reflexes has a chapter-length study of Messiahship in all three religions. But this is what he has to say about Messiah as related to the Qur’anic usage:
“There is nothing in the text of the Qur’an which could assist the reader to discern whether al-Masih has a meaning apart from being the title of Isa, or what its theological significance might be….nothing suggests that the epithet of al-masih has implications of kingship of divine favour for the Qur’an: it is simply presented as part of Isa’s full name, without any further meaning…it is widely accepted that al-masih was borrowed from the Syriac mesih (see Jeffries 1938,265), which is a regular Syriac participle of the root m-s-h “anoint”. (p.161)
“The difficulty of analyzing Arabic masīḥ opened the door to much speculation by Muslim exegetes about its interpretation. Lane’s entry for masīḥ states that the major lexicographer al-Fīrūzaba¯dī reported that 50 different meanings had been proposed.9 The Tanwīr al-Miqba¯s min Tafsīr Ibn ʿAbba¯s, 10 an influential commentary, suggests the meanings “because he travels from one country to another,” or “the king,” or “he has standing and position amidst people in the life of this world” (Guezzou 2008, 58, commentary on Q3:45). The interpretation of “one who travels” reflects an attempt to assign an etymology to the word on the basis of the root s-y-ḥ “run across the surface of the earth” (of water) or “journey through the land” (of people).11 Ibn Kathīr proposed to explain al-masīḥ with reference to the Arabic root m-s-ḥ “touch”: “His name will be Al-Masīḥ, ʿĪsa¯, the son of Maryam” and he will be known by this name in this life, especially by the believers. ʿĪsa¯ was called “Al-Masīḥ” (the Messiah) because when he touched (Masḥ) those afflicted with an illness, they would be healed by Alla¯h’s leave. (Tafsīr Ibn Kathīr—Ibn Kathīr 2003, 2.160) A fatwa¯ by Ibn Ba¯z, former Grand Mufti of Saudi Arabia, considered the question “Why is ʿIsa, the son of Maryam, called al-Masih?” His answer suggests several variations on the idea of “touching,” but his final comment is telling. He rules that the meaning of al-Masīḥ is irrelevant for Islamic faith and practice, since there is “minimal” benefit in such knowledge” (p.162)
“This contrasts with both the Hebrew Bible and the New Testament, in which the concept of “Christ” indexes a rich theological and liturgical tradition, including the textual history of the Davidic kingdom and Messianic psalms, in which the use of the title implied a claim about Jesus’ identity as the promised Messiah foretold by the prophets. All this meaning was stripped away when the bare title, a sequence of sounds, made its way into the Qurʾan as a title for the Qurʾanic Jesus. Al-Masīḥ of the Qurʾan is to mashiaḥ of the Hebrew Bible and christós of the New Testament what “juggernaut” is to Hindi Jaganna¯tha. Al-Masīḥ sits in the Qurʾan like a piece of flotsam washed up and isolated from its original context, meaningless, morphologically unanalyzable, and decontextualized. It is uninterpretable, except for what the Qurʾan affords to it. While it is true that reference to the Bible and Biblical Theology can help us explain the phonological form of masīḥ, any such explanation is an exercise in textual paleontology. There is no Christological “subtext” in the Qurʾan’s allusive use of the name al-masīḥ to refer to ʿĪsa¯, for the Qurʾan has a “Christ” without a Christology.12 What theology it does have for the Qurʾanic “Christ” is in fact its Rasulology, into which the material pertaining to ʿĪsa¯ is fitted. Passages which reference ʿĪsa¯ in the Qurʾan are devoted to exploring Rasulological themes. For example, when ʿĪsa¯ is repeatedly referred to as “only a messenger” (Q3:144; Q4:171; Q5:75), this functions to reinforce the status of the Messenger, in some cases using the very same formula which the Qurʾan uses for the Messenger” (p.163)
Were God ever to be Born, his Mother and He would be Pure & she a Virgin
Jesus and Mary are “pure” in Islam. Why is this so, when such terminology is not even used for Muhammad? Christianity has the meta-narrative, that Jesus is pure because he is God, and Mary because she is his Mother, and the same reason that she is preserved Virgin, because there is something truly miraculous and unprecedented about the birth. So also is Jesus’ reason for being born without earthly father, while in the Qur’an there is the attempt to rationalize this miracle by the particular explanatory ayahs that state that Jesus’ creation was “just like Adam, Allah said “Be!” and he was”, without a meta-narrative for why this should be so.
Protestant Christians might not agree about the purity of Mary, but my point is that irrespective of that, there is at least the possibility of an explanation in Christianity, and something that is in fact central to it, whereas in Islam it is just one more curious artefact with no context.
“…And [I have come] confirming what was before me of the Torah and to make lawful for you some of what was forbidden to you. And I have come to you with a sign from your Lord, so fear Allah and obey me.” (Q 3:50)
Qur’an does not have the concept of God “resting from the work of creation” on the seventh Day, which is the reason for the Sabbath, even though the Qur’anic creation account is 6 days, the same duration as in the Bible. The Qur’an has verses which berate persons, presumably Jews, for violating the Sabbath:
“And well you know there were those among you that transgressed the Sabbath, and We said to them, ‘Be you apes, miserably slinking!’” (Q 2:65, this is also repeated in 4:47, 4:154)
and again:
“And ask them about the town that was by the sea – when they transgressed in [the matter of] the sabbath – when their fish came to them openly on their sabbath day, and the day they had no sabbath they did not come to them. Thus did We give them trial because they were defiantly disobedient. (Q 7:153)
The word in Islam is also the same root word for “rest” سُبَاتًا as is seen in (25:47, 78:9). This means that the “rest” is appointed for certain people only, even though this “rest” refers to the day of rest in the Biblical creation account. In a different verse, the Qur’an seemingly “abrogates” the Sabbath itself, stating it is no more applicable. Effectively it is stating that the “rest”, the seventh day, which is the meaning of the term, is no longer to be a day of observance and to be kept holy. Not that the Qur’anic author betrays any understanding of this implication.
“The sabbath was only appointed for those who differed over it. And indeed, your Lord will judge between them on the Day of Resurrection concerning that over which they used to differ.” (Q 16:124)
Christians move their day to the Sunday only because it is the Day of the Resurrection. Muslims replace the Sabbath with a seemingly random choice of a Friday instead. The traditions regarding this have Muhammed stating that he merely wanted it to be different from the Jews and the Christians. This is a typical example of loss of context in the Qur’an, like all the rest.
In Islam, it is generally considered anathema for Allah to be on the Earth. When Moses merely asks to see him, a mountain is reduced to dust and he is knocked unconscious. But here the same Moses can hear Allah’s voice speaking “from the bush”. Is this ventriloquism? a taped recording? Or is this “borrowing” again?
(Q 28:30) ”When he came to it, a voice cried from the right of the watercourse, in the sacred hollow, coming from the tree: ‘Moses, I am God, the Lord of all Being.’”
We see numerous instance of the use of ahda (root ع ه د) translated usually as “covenant”. The Hebrew word seems completely unrelated berith בְּרִית, but overall it seems reasonable from the tone of the verses that some kind of promise is made to the people in return for their obedience.
(eg.: believe and obey Allah and his Messenger and obtain Allah’s favours) However in Judeo-Christianity “covenant” has rich connotation- for Judaism that God will “dwell with his people”, and for Christianity that this is fulfilled in Jesus. Importantly, there is no place in the Qur’an where Allah, in sharp contrast to what it is in the Bible, says “This is the covenant/promise I make with you today…” In Islam there is no promise, a promise cannot work in a pre-determined religion wherein no one is certain of their ultimate outcome, including Muhammed in his own words (Q 46:9, Bukhari 1243 “although I am Allah’s apostle I do not know what Allah will do with me”)
This passage relates the Biblical story of Abraham being tested by God by the demand that he sacrifice his son:
(Q 37:101, 107) “Then We gave him the good tidings of a prudent boy; and when he had reached the age of running with him, he said, ‘My son, I see in a dream that I shall sacrifice thee; consider, what thinkest thou?’ He said, ‘My father, do as thou art bidden; thou shalt find me, God willing, one of the steadfast. When they had surrendered, and he flung him upon his brow, We called unto him, ‘Abraham. You have fulfilled the vision.” Indeed, We thus reward the doers of good. This is indeed the manifest trial.‘ And We ransomed him with a great sacrifice”
“And We ransomed him (wafadaynāhu) with a great (ʿaẓīmin) sacrifice (bidhib’ḥin)” (Q 37:107) the Arabic words in brackets are used with exactly the same meaning in every other Qur’anic occurrence.
Allah “ransoms (Abraham’s child) with a great sacrifice” (37:107).
Everytime the dhāl bā ḥā (ذ ب ح) root is used it as a verb (7 times) it’s “slaughter”. This is the only verse in the Quran where it’s used as a noun. Ransom (Fadaynahu وَفَدَيْنَاهُ) fa-da-ya root is “padah” in Hebrew פָדָה Strong’s 6299. The first born of the Israelites is “redeemed” with a sacrifice. The whole concept of “redeeming” through sacrifice is very much Judaic and is not found anywhere in Islam.
8It raises questions that are only answered in Christ:
1. How is Allah ransoming the life of a man by giving himself a goat? is it not allegorical?
2. Why is Allah calling a goat “great” If he’s not referring allegorically to the Lamb of God, Jesus?
3. How can a goat be greater than Isaac.
The ransom for a man cannot be a goat, that makes no sense. A human can only be ransomed for another human.
-“Ransom” is to pay something.
-“Sacrifice” is the payment.
-“Him” is the one for whom the price is paid.
Further The verse makes no sense in Islam because the firm teaching is that no one can bear a another’s sins.
Summary: Allah tests Abraham by commanding a human sacrifice. And to pass the test Allah gave to Abraham a sacrifice from himself to himself. This is the exact analogy of Jesus’ atoning Sacrifice present in both Islam and Christianity.
Muslims affirm the tradition on the annual memorial of this same sacrifice the Eid of Slaughter (Eid-ul-adha عيد الأضحى), their second greatest festival (The words أضحى (aḍḥā) and قربان (qurbān) are synonymous in meaning ‘sacrifice’ (animal sacrifice), ‘offering’ or ‘oblation’. The first word comes from the triliteral root ضحى (ḍaḥḥā) with associated meanings of “immolate ; offer up ; sacrifice ; victimize”. No occurrence of this root with a meaning related to sacrifice occurs in the Qur’an[9] but in the Hadith literature).
The New Pascha is the Qur’an’s Last and only Eid!
This is the “Table” verse. Its seems to be the only time that there is a “festival” or Eid in the Quran, “from the first to the last of us”. It is the festival where Jesus gave the disciples food from Heaven? Is this referring to the “Bread of Life” discourse in John 6: “This (referring to Jesus) is the true Bread that came down from Heaven”? Or is it equally aknowledging Paul’s teaching on this, and the Synoptic Last Supper accounts in tying them in to the Jewish Passover Sacrifice, hence a “Festival” or “Eid”.
The only festival or “Eid” the Qur’an refers to, is a Jewish-Christian practise, nothing to do with Islam, in the context of “Allah” speaking directly to Jesus, something that even Mohammed does not experience, and then he is told this festival is “the first and last of us”, and a sign for thee and that “whoso of you hereafter disbelieves, verily I shall chastise him with a chastisement wherewith I chastise no other being” :
“…For Christ, our Passover lamb, has been sacrificed. Therefore let us keep the Festival…” (1Cor.5:7b-8a)
“And when the Apostles said, ‘O Jesus son of Mary, is thy Lord able to send down on us a Table out of heaven?’ He said, ‘Fear you God, if you are believers. They said, ‘We desire that we should eat of it and our hearts be at rest; and that we may know that thou hast spoken true to us, and that we may be among its witnesses.’ Said Jesus son of Mary, ‘O God, our Lord, send down upon us a Table out of heaven, that shall be for us a festival, the first and last of us, and a sign from Thee. And provide for us; Thou art the best of providers.’ God said, ‘Verily I do send it down on you; whoso of you hereafter disbelieves, verily I shall chastise him with a chastisement wherewith I chastise no other being.’” (Q 5:112-115)
“Your ancestors ate the manna in the wilderness, and they died. This is the bread that comes down from heaven, so that one may eat of it and not die. I am the living bread that came down from heaven. Whoever eats of this bread will live forever, and the bread that I will give for the life of the world is my flesh.” (John 6:49-51)
the Food that Jesus gave his disciples to eat is his Flesh (even if Protestants interpret it figuratively, it still means the same thing from 1Cor.5:7.8: The new Paschal festival is Christ himself.
And it is hard to see what else the Quran is referring to, a festival, the most important of the Christian year, which is celebrated “from the first to the last of us”.
One of the most he well-known verses of the Qur’an, 4:157 has Allah telling the reader that he saved Jesus crucifixion and instead miraculously “took him to ourselves”. This verse is literally the only scriptural basis for Muslims’ dogmatic belief in the Second Coming of Jesus. But such an instance of being “taken to God” without dying is completely alien to anything else in the Islamic narrative. Every other man, bar none, goes into the cold ground and stays there dutifully until the final judgement. The Qur’an says so itself, that “every creature dies”, however clearly Eisa does not. This is an incredible parallelism between the two religions where Jesus has the same transcendent journey to Golgotha and thence to Heaven in some way ahead of every other human being in history and the differences are only in how this comes about, not that it comes about. The Qur’an resorts to the Gnostic version of that journey of the Christ attested to in some of Iranaeus’ letters that predate Islam by several centuries. On top of that, the Qur’an does not seem to have a real concern about this uniqueness of Christ. When right after the incident it states “there is no man but will believe in him before his death”, there is no clear indication whether it is to mean that every individual will believe in Jesus at the time of their dying, which is the surface reading of the text or whether the Qur’an, as some, and certainly not all Muslims might hold is taking into account in this very place of the tradition about Eisa’s second sortee on Earth, because the Qur’an has no indication of such a second innings leave alone for Christ but for any individual. What then happens to Muslims after death and prior to the Day of Judgement? Islamic belief regarding this is rather obscure, it is (rather unimaginatively) named “Life of the Grave” something akin to Catholic Purgatory but lacking its theological signification, merely using it in a locative sense. I have heard Muslims console themselves hopefully using other Biblical verses like that a 1000 years seem like only moment for Muhammed (Psalm 90:4). It doesn’t end there, of course. Althought the Qur’an clearly doesn’t speak directly of the Second Coming of Christ, it speaks of the coming of God himself using the Gospel phrases that decribe the coming of Christ in Final Judgement of all Mankind. This is a truly unique and unmatched sequence if religious parallelism.
Both the Shekinah and the ark are mentioned in Q 2:248, and the shekinah by itself specifically in 48:4:
“And their Prophet (Samuel is not named here) said to them, ‘The sign of his kingship (of Saul) is that the Ark (l-tābūtu- تابوتsingle occ.) will come to you, in it a Shechina from your Lord, and a remnant of what the folk of Moses and Aaron’s folk left behind, the angels bearing it. Surely in that shall be a sign for you, if you are believers.’ (Q 2:248)
“It is He who sent down the Shechina into the hearts of the believers, that they might add faith to their faith — to God belong the hosts of the heavens and the earth; God is All-knowing, All-wise” (Q 48:4)
During the 40 years that the Israelites wandered in the desert, the Temple was a portable sanctuary of cloth covering over a frame. When God says that He will dwell in the midst of the Israelites the Hebrew text uses the verb form: שָׁכַן shakan or shekinah. The Hebrew word for the actual sanctuary tent is “mishkan“, which is the participial form (with “mi” prefix) of the same (In the NT when Peter offers to build three tents, the Greek uses σκηνή skene, which has the same s-k-n Hebrew root (Mt 17:4, Lk9:33, Hb 8:2,5)
Muslim commentators would not admit that “shekinah” in the Qur’anic usage represents the real Presence of God, rather using the translation of “tranquility” i.e. that God sends a certain peace or tranquility to the people by this, even the though the use exactly parallels the Biblical one “in it a shekinah”, plus it is associated with “what the folk of Moses and Aaron left behind” which can only be an obvious reference to the other well-known articles contained in the Ark, plus the angels bearing it referring to the carved cherubim. There are several usages of this root in the Qur’an, but a whole 12 of these are translatable as “dwelling” when it takes “wa” or “ma” prefix, and 6 as “tranquillity”. The translators get into all sorts of twists and most do everything they can to avoid the use of the Hebrew terms.
In summary, the Qur’anic author shows no awareness that the Ark is that “where God dwells between the Cherubim” and to say that the Shekinah came into someone’s heart is to say that God dwells in a person. A Jew would spot that immediately.
Q 21:105 states: “For We have written in the Psalms, after the Remembrance, ‘The earth shall be the inheritance of My righteous servants.’ The verse form the Psalms that most closely overlaps this is probably 37: 29: ‘The righteous will inherit the land, and dwell in it forever” which is only one of several Biblical references to the Israelites inheriting the land of Palestine. The 5th Surah is much more detailed:
And (remember) when Moses said unto his people: O my people! Remember Allah’s favour unto you, how He placed among you prophets, and He made you kings, and gave you that (which) He gave not to any (other) of (His) creatures. O my people! Go into the holy land which Allah hath ordained for you. Turn not in flight, for surely ye turn back as losers: They said: O Moses! Lo! a giant people (dwell) therein and lo! we go not in till they go forth from thence. When they go forth from thence, then we will enter (not till then). Then out spake two of those who feared (their Lord, men) unto whom Allah had been gracious: Enter in upon them by the gate, for if ye enter by it, lo! ye will be victorious. So put your trust (in Allah) if ye are indeed believers. They said: O Moses! We will never enter (the land) while they are in it. So go thou and thy Lord and fight! We will sit here. He said: My Lord! I have control of none but myself and my brother, so distinguish between us and the wrong-doing folk. (Their Lord) said: For this the land will surely be forbidden them for forty years that they will wander in the earth, bewildered. So grieve not over the wrongdoing folk.” (Q 5:20-26)
The direct Biblical parallel here is Num.13:1-3, 17-33.
There are multiple names in the Qur’an that bear the theophoric usage of Yahweh, the God of Israel. Clearly “Allah” of the Qur’an is using the theophoric names of Hebrew prophets without any qualms.
This is the case in at least three prophets he is commending – Zakariyya, Yahya and Ilyas, and either unaware, or affirmatory of it. :
“That is Our argument, which We bestowed upon Abraham as against his people. We raise up in degrees whom We will; surely thy Lord is All-wise, All-knowing.. And We gave to him Isaac and Jacob — each one We guided, And Noah We guided before; and of his seed David and Solomon, Job and Joseph, Moses and Aaron — even so We recompense the good-doers —Zakariyya and Yahya, Eisa and Ilyas; each was of the righteous” (Q 6:83-85)
“and indeed (wa-inna) Ilyas too was surely (lamina- emphatic prefix) one of the Messengers (l-mur’salina)” (Q 37:123), the passage continues as: “When he said to his people, “Will you not fear God ? Do you call upon Ba’l and leave the best of creators. God, your Lord, and the Lord of your fathers, the ancients?’ And they denied him, so indeed, they will be brought [for punishment]. xcept for God’s sincere servants; And We left for him [favorable mention] among later generations: “Peace upon Elias.” Indeed, We thus reward the doers of good.” (37:124-130)
Ilyas is from the Syriac-Aramaic Elias for the Hebrew Elijah (YHWH is my God).
Jesus himself is from Yehoshua, which is the Hebrew for Joshua. So the book of Joshua in the Hebrew Bible even today is Yehoshua like here https://www.chabad.org/library/bible_cdo/aid/15785/jewish/Chapter-1.htm. Translatedm this is “Yahweh saves”. It is possible that if contracted to “Yeshua” it can be taken to mean simply “he saves”. However to anyone even with a contracted name, were this the case, it would be obvious that it were a contraction of Yehoshua, or that “he saves” could harly refer to the individual, rather to individuals being saved by God. In a religious society full of theophoric names, this would be pretty obvious.
In the Qur’an, an Angel says:
“O Zakari-ya (YHWH Remembers), indeed we give you good tidings of a boy whose name is Yahi-ya (YHWH is Life)” (Q 19:7)
Thus we have a case of an angel bearing a message from God, taking the name of a servant of God that literally means “I remember Yahweh”, and bringing a prophecy of a son who will be a great prophet and it is God’s will that he be called a name that in the Qur’anic Hebrew (Yahya has no Arabic referents) is translated as “Yahweh is life”. The child of the Biblical Zechariah is called (in the Greek of Luke and of John) as Ἰωάννης (Ioannes or Yohannes, Gk. not have an initial “h” nor a “y”). In the Hebrew it is either יוֹחָנָן (Yochanan 2Kings 25:23, 1 Chron 3;15 etc.) or the longer form יְהוֹחָנָן (Yehochanan 1 Chron. 12:5,13 etc.) both to mean “the Lord is gracious”, or יְהוֹנָתָן (Yehonathan) which is “Yahweh has given” eg. 1 Sam.14:6. Whether the Qur’anic Yahya is the same as the NT Yohannes or Yohannan, is besides the point: Yahya is not Arabic, and both names refer to the same son of Zechariah who is to be a great prophet.
Further “el-Hayy” is used as a title for God in the Bible (Psalm 84:2, Strong’s 4216, 503 occ.), just as “al-hayy” is one of the names of Allah that Muslims use, though it is not mentioned specifically as such in the Qur’an (in Islam “al” is used as definite article, while in the Bible “El” is used for God himself). Also see other instances for “the living God” in Deut.5:6, Joshua 3:10, 1Sam.17:36, 2 Kings19:4,16; Psalm 42:2; 84:2; Isaiah 37:4,17; Jer.10:10.
Whether the Qur’anic Yahya is the same as the NT Yohannes or Yohannan, is besides the point: Yahya is not Arabic, and both names refer to the same son of Zechariah who is to be a great prophet.
The significance of Yahweh
Yahweh is the all-important name of the Biblical God of the Jews, so important that in some sects of Jews it became forbidden even to pronounce it. But the text bears out the witness:
“YHWH is my name” (Exodus15:3)
“God said to Moses, “Say to the Israelites “YHWH, the God of your fathers, the God of Abraham, the god of Isaac, and the God of Jacob, has sent me to you. This is my name forever, and this is the Name for generation to generation to use to call upon me” (Exodus 3:15)
“Praise the name of YHWH” (Psalms 135:1)
And from the all important Shema:
“YHWH our God, YHWH is one” (Deut.6:4)
Elijah in 1 Kings 18 “you have abandoned the commandments of YHWH and followed those of Baal”
“YHWH the god of Abraham, Isaac and Israel, let it be known today that you are God in Israel and that I am your servant”
“God spoke further to moss and said to him: “I am YHWH; and I appeared to Abraham, Isaac and Jacob as God Almighty, but by my Name YHWH I did not make myself known to them” (Exodus 6:2-3)
“I am YHWH, that is my Name; I will not give my glory to another, not my praise to idols” (Isaiah 42:8)
The name appears in praise repeatedly “alleluia”, as we see in the Psalms.
The issue is that it looks like the author of the Quran does not know that his own name is is it. Were this not the case, (if we’re saying that the Qur’anic author knows the Name is there) why would he not require Muslims to call him by that name of Yahweh. if Allah knew his name was Yahweh then why would he not require Muslims to call him that?? To me the shows that the author of Quran is unaware of this fact.
If Zakariya is a Muslim prophet (as Muslims claim), then Yah stands for his God, short for Yahweh. Because he is Hebrew speaking, not an Arab speaker.
I don’t think “Howa” is the right usage in Arabic. Huwa and Hiya is just pronouns. Even then Muslims don’t call God “ya howah”. Show me one place where this is written?. This sounds like Jehovah.
If God revealed his name to one people, maybe I can agree that he did not reveal the same name to another people because they were not worthy. Were the Muslims not worthy to receive the name of God.
But God does not reveal any name in the Qur’an to Muslims whatsoever. There is no verse saying “my name is Allah” The only name of Allah in the Quran is the Hebrew name, which as we said, seems hidden even to the author.
Names don’t change their meaning in a different language. If I settle in Saudi, my name will still be Sean with same meaning- it’s “John” which is Yohannanan. In the Hebrew it is either יוֹחָנָן (Yochanan 2Kings 25:23, 1 Chron 3;15 etc.) or the longer form יְהוֹחָנָן (Yehochanan 1 Chron. 12:5,13 etc.) both to mean “the Lord is gracious”, or יְהוֹנָתָן (Yehonathan) which is “Yahweh has given” eg. 1 Sam.14:6.
Summary: How the Christian story lies hidden in the Quran
Underlying the main narrative of the Qur’an is a second narrative that lies only just beneath the surface, the Christian story, which can be almost entirely reconstructed at least in outline from the Quranic verses themselves. I have already been through the details in the foregoing:
That God is a Trinity of Persons and his Name is Yahweh
God has a personified word and spirit in the Quran (Q 4:171), and they are both Jesus. The Qur’an has numerous theophoric names containing Yahweh that bear secret testimony to this, which we have seen above.
There is Original Sin, represented by the expulsion of “prophet Adam” from paradise even though he repents. And prophets are sinless in Islam, yet “prophet Adam” is not readmitted. Something remains, and it is a direct analogy to Christian Original Sin. All this complex theology of sin and redemption is quite alien to Islam. In Islam you repent and say sorry, and that’s about it.
Requiring a Sacrifice of Redemption
Mirroring Jesus’ Atoning Sacrifice, Allah admits that he can ransoms with a “Great Sacrifice” (Q37:107). As above, there is no Islamic reason why Allah might require a “great sacrifice” in order to save someone from his own wrath. Whether you agree with the theology or not, that’s Christianity 101.
God’s speaks directly to his prophets rather than through an intermediary angel: This is seen in the incident of him speaking to Moses “from the bush” and also speaking directly to certain pre-Islamic figures as also mentioned in the Qur’an.
Geographically, God’s Covenantal focus is Israel The word “covenant” gets used in the Qur’an without any description of what the covenant is. It is as though the Qur’anic author is not aware of the content of the Covenant, because when that very content actually does get mentioned, there is no simultaneous mention of any covenant.
That content related to the Biblical covenant is the promise that God will bring the Israelites to the Promised Land, which we know to be Palestine. This we seen in Q 5:20-26.
Spiritually, God’s Covenant is that he will Dwell “with his people”, “in his Temple” (Shekinah and Ark):
Islam rejects any notion of God “in a Temple” , “with people”. However the Qur’an alludes to both of these Biblical terms “Shekinah” and “Ark”. which denote just that. This is the whole spiritual meaning of the Covenant in Judaism: “I will be with them and I will dwell with them and I will be their God and they will be my people”.
God’s Way is one of Signs and Wonders
The Qur’an attests to the previous great public miracles and signs performed by God for the Israelites and Jesus’ own miracles, in sharp contrast to its own hearers who are told there are no miracles for them.
Jesus was born of a Virgin
Being born of virgin might not make divinity necessary, however one might well think it necessary that were the Eternal Son to be truly born as human, that the birth might be miraculous.
Jesus is the Jewish Messiah.
The Jews are actually expecting a Messiah or “anointed one” to save them. Muslims are not, they’ve got Muhammed, of whom no “anointing” is claimed. Both the word, and its connotation are entirely alien to Islam and Arabic, and yet its there in the Quran, only with relation to Jesus.
Jesus changed the Law
That the Advent of Jesus brought with it changes to the ancient Law of Moses is a Christian position, opposed by Jews. The Qur’an seems to support Christianity here against Judaism, at least with regards to the concept of change. However it would not support the specific changes that come into practise in the Christian religion, which Jesus does not specify, only alludes to in the Gospels.
the Sabbath is the Holy Day:
the Qur’an does not have any instruction to omit the Sabbath observance, on the contrary, it recounts the manner in which the Jews were punished for not doing so. And yet Muslims themselves do not observe the Sabbath.
Jesus is the New Passover
see the relevant section.
The Word of God is documented in the Greek language
Allah is describing his “Good News” by using Koine Greek since eternity. We could infer that he is intentionally naming in the manner that he knows the Greek-speaking Jews will. From this single fact we can reasonably infer that Allah is at the very least endorsing some Greek version of the Gospel of Jesus.
Non-Violence
Non-violence is commanded of the “Children of Israel” (Q ), which is precisely the Christian doctrine. The commandments directed at the Muslims, we shall say for the sake of brevity, are a “mixed bag”.
Jesus is raised up to the Father
God raised Jesus “to himself” alive prior to his death (4:157). This is completely un-Islamic, Allah tells Muhammed in Q 21:34 that the death of all humans, including him is certain. Muslims therefore are forced to believe that Jesus will come back to Earth again so that he can also have a human end and validate this surah. The entire narrative of Christianity is present in the Qur’an, and all of it runs contrary to Islam’s own narrative.
Hadith- Adam created in the nature of God
This hadith has been transmitted on the authority of Abu Huraira and in the hadith transmitted on the authority of Ibn Hatim Allah’s Apostle (ﷺ) is reported to have said: When any one of you fights with his brother, he should avoid his face for Allah created Adam in His own image.” (Muslim 2612e)
Abu Huraira reported Allah’s Messenger (ﷺ) as saying: Allah, the Exalted and Glorious, created Adam in His image with His length of sixty cubits, and as He created him He told him to greet that group, and that was a party of angels sitting there, and listen to the response that they give him, for it would form his greeting and that of his offspring. He then went away and said: Peace be upon you! They (the angels) said: May there be peace upon you and the Mercy of Allah, and they made an addition of” Mercy of Allah”. So he who would get into Paradise would get in the form of Adam, his length being sixty cubits, then the people who followed him continued to diminish in size up to this day. (Muslim 2841)
“Say to them, As I live, says the Lord God, I have no pleasure in the death of the wicked, but that the wicked turn from their ways and live; turn back, turn back from your evil ways; for why will you die, O house of Israel?” (Wisdom 33:11)
“Vengeance is mine, and recompense” (Deut 32:35)
“it is mine to avenge; I will repay.” (Romans 12:9)
“You shall not take vengeance or bear a grudge against the sons of your own people, but you shall love your neighbour as yourself: I am the Lord.” (Leviticus 19:18)
In my articles on Islam and violence I aim to cover the issue from all the pertinent angles, which would be the following:
firstly a faithful exegesis of the text itself,
a look at extra-Quranic hadithic narrations,
the life of Muhammad himself,
early Islamic history down to the 4 “rightly guided ones” , since one can assume that if Islamically “rightly guided ones” were violent, then they would have to have been rightly guided by a violent Quran.
Finally an analysis of the content and uptake of Sharia which in itself provides the authoritative crystallization of the teaching content of the Qur’an.
This article analyzes the violent beliefs thematically, focussing mainly on the Qur’anic text.
“Context” in religious violence is not complicated. The only valid mandate for it is an authentic command from God. Proving the authenticity is another matter. Religious wars are nearly always fought on a false mandate.
The reasons for the early fighting in Islam were related to territory and the control of the Ka’aba which Muhammed wanted to claim for Islam. So this is the context, and it is one that struggles for validation for two reasons:
The first is the claim that the Ka’ba at Mecca was a Mosque which Abraham built for God, which was to be something essential to the practise of global religion (this in turn is supposedly built upon the place of an original mosque built by Adam).
There is no reason to believe that Abraham or any other Judeo-Christian figure ever held that an empty prayer room per se was an essential of religion; the purpose of the Solomonic Temple in Jerusalem (or Mosaic Shrine in the Israeli desert wanderings) held animal sacrifice and housed the Ark of the Covenant.
There is seemingly no indication from canonical Judeo-Christian literature, nor any world literature whether genuine or spurious, fiction or non-fiction, prose or poetry that the prophesied Jewish Messiah was to be an Bedouin Arab.
In the absence of any such justification, the religion as also the violence inspired by it can rightly be shown to be truly and objectively misbegotten. In multiple articles I have shown that a search for such evidence – scriptural or extra-scriptural, publicly witnessed theophany, or historical or archaeological evidence, that would validate the claims of Islam are completely absent. If religious violence is unjustified in the present day then it is so because it was never justified, illegal now as it was then.
We can take the premise that the Qur’an in some verses is exhorting Muslims to rise up against persecutors and defend themselves from it. This in every sense would a fair threshold for unprovoked violence, anything exceeding this measure we can take as a call to unprovoked aggression. Since the Qur’anic verses are open- ended in every sense, that call becomes perpetual. A problem with Qur’anic verses is that violence is prescribed against those who “transgress” and “make mischief” and “injustice”. Unfortunately these thresholds could include anything that goes against sharia law and to include simple criticism of the Islamic faith and Muhammed. Islamic justice is not necessarily just and so these verses would fall above our threshold.
“Abrogation” for those who are not familiar with it is a Qur’anic device which facilitates changes in its own previously “revealed” teachings. Chronology which is not always accurate, is the only means of gauging the direction of abrogation. The device itself is claimed to be a “mercy of Allah” like everything else in the Qur’an. It is however generally accepted that all the fight verses are Medinan (form the second half of Mohammed’s career when he had begun to assert his power. The Medinan chapters (surahs) numerically comprise only about a fifth of all the Qur’anic chapters (25 of 114=21%). Yet the violent verses and concentrated in them, culminating in the last two chapters, 9 and 5. If the best chronology of the Quranic verses is indeed accepted, one would have to say in all honesty that the Meccan peace has been “abrogated” into Medinan violence.
Note that the passage does not even state ‘we knew’, rather only ‘we feared’. This parable lays the theological groundwork for honour killing, the murder of a family member for bringing shame to the family, either through apostasy or moral indiscretion, which in the case of females can be brough on through an act like marrying outside the faith. Muslim commentators are not in agreement whether the servant of Allah who murdered the boy was an angel or a prophet. It’s not as if God does not allow murderers to live, even Islamic ones! This is exactly what happens in the futuristic movie Minority Report where people are jailed for crimes they are about to commit in the future. However God certainly does not pluck a man off the surface of the Earth for a crime he has not yet committed and chuck him into Hell forever. Or is it Heaven forever as he hasn’t committed the crime.
“The Messenger of Allah said: `At the end of time, there will be people who recite Qur`an but it will go no further than their collarbones; they will pass out of Islam as the arrow passes out of the prey. Fighting them is a duty upon every Muslim.” (Musnad Ahmed 1346; “Sahih because of corroborating evidences] (Darussalam)”
Some people will argue that the original reason for this apostasy law is to deal with treason, because the state and religion were intertwined, but the problem is the majority of the hadith don’t mention treason.
Why did this ruling come about? Well the story goes that there was a bunch of Jews that became Muslim and then left Islam, in order to give Islam a bad name. The problem is, this ruling was never cancelled by the Prophet. This rule still applies to this day according to many Muslims and scholars…
The list of quotes calling for the murder of apostates is numerous:
‘Abdullah (b. Mas’ud) reported:Allah’s Messenger stood up and said: By Him besides Whom there is no god but He, the blood of a Muslim who bears the testimony that there is no god but Allah, and I am His Messenger, may be lawfully shed only in case of three persons: the one who abandons Islam, and deserts the community [Ahmad, one of the narrators, is doubtful whether the Prophet used the word li’l-jama’ah or al-jama’ah), and the married adulterer, and life for life. (Muslim 1676c, repeated in Dawud 4352, ibn Majah 2533, 2534, and an Nisa’i 4019, 4048, 4058)
These state “whoever changes their religion, kill him”: Sunan an Nisa’i SEVEN TIMES from 4059 to 4065. Also Ibn Majah 2535, Tirmidhi 1458, Bukhari 6922, and Muwatta Malik (Eng. 36:15, Arabic 36:1419)states: whoever changes his deen, strike his neck.
What the Classical Scholars say:
The Muslim jurists are unanimous that apostates must be punished, yet they differ as to determining the kind of punishment to be inflicted upon them. The majority of them, including the four main schools of jurisprudence (Hanafi, Maliki, Shafi`i, and Hanbali) as well as the other four schools of jurisprudence (the four Shiite schools of Az-Zaidiyyah, Al-Ithna-`ashriyyah, Al-Ja`fariyyah, and Az-Zaheriyyah) agree that apostates must be executed.
“Narrated Abu Burda: Abu Musa said, “I came to the Prophet (ﷺ) along with two men (from the tribe) of Ash`ariyin, one on my right and the other on my left, while Allah’s Messenger (ﷺ) was brushing his teeth (with a Siwak), and both men asked him for some employment. The Prophet (ﷺ) said, ‘O Abu Musa (O `Abdullah bin Qais!).’ I said, ‘By Him Who sent you with the Truth, these two men did not tell me what was in their hearts and I did not feel (realize) that they were seeking employment.’ As if I were looking now at his Siwak being drawn to a corner under his lips, and he said, ‘We never (or, we do not) appoint for our affairs anyone who seeks to be employed. But O Abu Musa! (or `Abdullah bin Qais!) Go to Yemen.'” The Prophet then sent Mu`adh bin Jabal after him and when Mu`adh reached him, he spread out a cushion for him and requested him to get down (and sit on the cushion). Behold: There was a fettered man beside Abu Muisa. Mu`adh asked, “Who is this (man)?” Abu Muisa said, “He was a Jew and became a Muslim and then reverted back to Judaism.” Then Abu Muisa requested Mu`adh to sit down but Mu`adh said, “I will not sit down till he has been killed. This is the judgment of Allah and His Apostle (for such cases) and repeated it thrice. Then Abu Musa ordered that the man be killed, and he was killed. Abu Musa added, “Then we discussed the night prayers and one of us said, ‘I pray and sleep, and I hope that Allah will reward me for my sleep as well as for my prayers.'” (Bukhari 6923)
Some Zanadiqa (atheists) were brought to `Ali and he burnt them. The news of this event, reached Ibn `Abbas who said, “If I had been in his place, I would not have burnt them, as Allah’s Messenger (ﷺ) forbade it, saying, ‘Do not punish anybody with Allah’s punishment (fire).’ I would have killed them according to the statement of Allah’s Messenger (ﷺ), ‘Whoever changed his Islamic religion, then kill him.'” (Bukhari 6922)
Searching on Sunnah.com for “Whoever changed his religion” brings up the playlist.
Muslims criticize the violent verses that are found in the Christian Old Testament. However Muhammed himself did quite the opposite- He uses the threat of that very violence visited upon those nations to convince his present hearers to obey him-or else. It is quite rich for Muslims to criticize Biblical violence when the Qur’an is copying the same stories (of Lot, Noah), without any qualification.
Surah 54 provides a general “rogues gallery” of the nations destroyed and is a general threat to everyone that they will meet the same fate if they continue in disobedience, it commences with the end-time sign of the Moon splitting introducing the theme. The destructions are also mentioned in several other Surahs, as we will see.
People of Lut– we see no evidence of anyone being saved apart from Lot and his family. Is it possible that there are no women and children in the entire city?
“But the (mighty) Blast overtook them before morning, And We turned (the cities) upside down, and rained down on them brimstones hard as baked clay. Behold! in this are Signs for those who by tokens do understand. And the (cities were) right on the high-road. (Surat al-Hijr: 73-76)
“ They said, ‘Lot, we are messengers of thy Lord. They shall not reach thee; so set forth, thou with thy family, in a watch of the night, and let not any one of you turn round, excepting thy wife; surely she shall be smitten by that which smites them. Their promised time is the morning; is the morning not nigh?’” (Q 11:81)
“So when Our command came, We turned it uppermost nethermost, and rained on it stones of baked clay, one on another” (Q 11:82)
“we released a stone-bearing wind against them, all except the family of Lot. we saved them before dawn as a favor from us.” (Q 54:34), this continues on to say “and early in the morning a punishment seized them that still remains” (Q 54:38), seemingly confirming the utter and lasting destruction of this city.
People of Nuh (Noah)– destroyed by Flood
“We, when the water (of Noah’s Flood) overflowed beyond its limits, carried you (mankind), in the floating (Ark), that We might make it a Message unto you, and that ears (that should hear the tale and) retain its memory should bear its (lessons) in remembrance (Qur’an Surah 69:11,12)
this is also retold (Q 54:11-13) “we opened the gates of the sky with torrential water, burst the earth with gushing springs…we carried him along on a vessel of planks and nails…”
People of A’ad– destroyed by hurricane
“As for Ad, they waxed proud in the earth without right, and they said, ‘Who is stronger than we in might?’ What, did they not see that God, who created them, was stronger than they in might? And they denied Our signs.” (Q 41:15)
(also Q 54:19)
The People of Thamud and Ad- destroyed by a terrible storm, lightning, earthquake
“The Thamud and the ‘Ad People (branded) as false the Stunning Calamity!But the Thamud – they were destroyed by a terrible Storm of thunder and lightning!“And the ‘Ad, they were destroyed by a furious Wind, exceedingly violent; He made it rage against them seven nights and eight days in succession: so that thou couldst see the (whole) people lying prostrate in its (path), as they had been roots of hollow palm-trees tumbled down! Then seest thou any of them left surviving? Pharaoh too and those before him and the ruined cities these people committed grave sins and disobeyed the messenger of their Lord so he sees them with an ever tightening grip(Q 69:4-10)
“And to Thamood their brother Salih; he said, ‘O my people, serve God! You have no god other than He; there has now come to you a clear sign from your Lord — this is the She-camel of God, to be a sign for you. Leave her that she may eat in God’s earth, and do not touch her with evil, lest you be seized by a painful chastisement (…) So they hamstrung the She-camel and turned in disdain from the commandment of their Lord, saying, ‘O Salih, bring us that thou promisest us, if thou art an Envoy.’ (Q 7:73,77)
So the earthquake seized them, and morning found them in their habitation fallen prostrate (Q 7:78)
also (Q 54:31)
Shuaib, prophet to Madyanand Pharaoh:
“And when Our command came, We delivered Shuaib and those who believed with him by a mercy from Us, and the evildoers were seized by the Cry, and morning found them in their habitations fallen prostrate” (Q 11:94)
“Then an ˹overwhelming˺ earthquake struck them and they fell lifeless in their homes. Those who rejected Shu’aib were ˹wiped out˺ as if they had never lived there. Those who rejected Shu’aib were the true losers.” (Q 7:91,92)
“..And Pharaoh, and those before him, and the Cities Overthrown, committed habitual Sin. And disobeyed (each) the apostle of their Lord; so He punished them with an abundant Penalty.” (Q 69:9,10)
Pharoah is mentioned again “the people of Pharaoh rejected all our signs so we seized them with all our might and power” (Q 54:41)
Reference to all/multiple destroyed nations:
“Have they not regarded how We destroyed before them many a generation We established in the earth, as We never established you, and how We loosed heaven upon them in torrents, and made the rivers to flow beneath them? Then We destroyed them because of their sins, and raised up after them another generation” (Q 6:6)
“Has there not reached them the news of those before them – the people of Noah and [the tribes of] ‘Aad and Thamud and the people of Abraham and the companions of Madyan and the towns overturned? Their messengers came to them with clear proofs. And Allah would never have wronged them, but they were wronging themselves.” (Q 9:70, SI)
“Not one city that We destroyed before them believed; what then, will they not believe? “(Q 21:6)
“That it was he who destroyed in their entirety ancient Ad and Thamud and before them the people of Noah who were even more unjust and insolent, that it was he who brought down the ruined cities and cover them completely with whatever fell on them” (Q 53:50-53, AH)
“Is it not a guidance to them, how many generations We destroyed before them in whose dwelling-places they walk? Surely in that are signs for men possessing reason.” (Q 20:128)
Verses about Allah’s willingness to wipe out all of mankind:
“They are unbelievers who say, ‘God is the Messiah, Mary’s son.’ Say: ‘Who then shall overrule God in any way if He desires to destroy the Messiah, Mary’s son, and his mother, and all those who are on earth?’ For to God belongs the kingdom of the heavens and of the earth, and all that is between them, creating what He will. God is powerful over everything.” (Q 5:17)
There is an ambiguous verse in the Qur’an that seems to discourage questioning. The commentaries are also ambiguous and also seem to discourage questioning (find these here: Commentaries for 5.101 (quranx.com)).
This is the verse:
“O believers, question not concerning things which, if they were revealed to you, would vex you; yet if you question concerning them when the Koran is being sent down, they will be revealed to you. God has effaced those things; for God is All-forgiving, All-clement.” (Q 5:101, Arberry)
The hadith are not ambiguous at all. Nations have been annihilated for this:
“Abu Hurayra heard the Messenger of Allah say: “Avoid that which I forbid you to do and do that which I command you to do to the best of your capacity. Verily the people before you were destroyed only because of their excessive questioning and their disagreement with their Prophets.”[Al-Bukhari & Muslim-#9 in the 40 hadith of an-Nawawi]
Narrated Abu Hurairah: that the Messenger of Allah (ﷺ) said: “Leave me with what I left you. When I narrated a Hadith to you, then take it from me. The people before you were only destroyed by their excessive questioning and disagreeing with their Prophets. (Graded sahih, Tirmidhi 2679)
Abu Huraira (Allah be pleased with him) reported: Allah’s Messenger (ﷺ) addressed us and said: O people, Allah has made Hajj obligatory for you; so perform Hajj. Thereupon a person said: Messenger of Allah, (is it to be performed) every year? He (the Holy Prophet) kept quiet, and he repeated (these words) thrice, whereupon Allah’s Messenger (ﷺ) said: If I were to say” Yes,” it would become obligatory (for you to perform it every year) and you would not be able to do it. Then he said: Leave me with what I have left to you, for those who were before you were desroyed because of excessive questioning, and their opposition to their apostles. So when I command you to do anything, do it as much as it lies in your power and when I forbid you to do anything, then abandon it. (Muslim 1337)
“Narrated `Aisha: Usama approached the Prophet (ﷺ) on behalf of a woman (who had committed theft). The Prophet (ﷺ) said, “The people before you were destroyed because they used to inflict the legal punishments on the poor and forgive the rich. By Him in Whose Hand my soul is! If Fatima (the daughter of the Prophet (ﷺ) ) did that (i.e. stole), I would cut off her hand.”” (Bukhari 6787)
“Narrated Ibn `Umar: Allah’s Messenger (ﷺ) said, “If Allah sends punishment upon a nation then it befalls upon the whole population indiscriminately and then they will be resurrected (and judged) according to their deeds. ” (Bukhari 7108)
Killing of Women and Children
It was narrated that Ibn ‘Abbas said: “Sa’b bin Jaththamah said: ‘The Prophet (ﷺ) was asked about the polytheists who are attacked at night, and their women and children are killed.’ He said: ‘They are from among them.’” (Ibn Majah 2839)
“It is reported on the authority of Sa’b b. Jaththama that the Prophet of Allah (ﷺ), when asked about the women and children of the polytheists being killed during the night raid, said: They are from them.” (Sahih Muslim 1745a, also 1745b and c are similar)
“Narrated As-Sab bin Jaththama: The Prophet (ﷺ) passed by me at a place called Al-Abwa or Waddan, and was asked whether it was permissible to attack the pagan warriors at night with the probability of exposing their women and children to danger. The Prophet (ﷺ) replied, “They (i.e. women and children) are from them (i.e. pagans).” I also heard the Prophet (ﷺ) saying, “The institution of Hima is invalid except for Allah and His Apostle.” (Bukhari 3012)
some hadith also forbid it
“Narrated Ibn `Umar: During some of the Ghazawat of Allah’s Messenger (ﷺ) a woman was found killed, so Allah’s Messenger (ﷺ) forbade the killing of women and children.” (Bukhari 3015)
Similar narrative is also found in Muslim 1744b, Dawud 2668, ibn Majah 2841, and a couple in Muwatta Malik
Well, Allah is quite generous to those who fight. He only promises them everything and the kitchen sink. A gracious provision and admission to a pleasing place 8:76, 22:58-9, the Garden of Paradise 9:111, a rich recompense (4:74), are promised in direct reference to fighting. This is of course small change compared to all the other grandiose and sexual rewards for believers discussed in detail elsewhere.
the sins of those who fight will be forgiven:
“And their Lord answers them: ‘I waste not the labour of any that labours among you, be you male or female — the one of you is as the other. And those who emigrated, and were expelled from their habitations, those who suffered hurt in My way, and fought, and were slain — them I shall surely acquit of their evil deeds, and I shall admit them to gardens underneath which rivers flow.’ A reward from God! And God with Him is the fairest reward.” (Q 3:195)
47:7 (Pickthall) And those who are slain in the way of Allah, He rendereth not their actions vain. He will guide them and improve their state, And bring them in unto the Garden which He hath made known to them. O ye who believe! If ye help Allah, He will help you and will make your foothold firm.
9:111 God has purchased from the faithful their lives and worldly goods, and in return has promised them the Garden. They will fight for the cause of God and, they will slay and be slain. Quran (9:111) – “Allah hath purchased of the believers their persons and their goods; for theirs (in return) is the garden (of Paradise): they fight in His cause,
(D)4:74 Fight for the cause of God, whoever fights for the cause of God, whether he dies or triumphs, on him we shall bestow a rich recompense.
8:76 ‘Those who have embraced the Faith and fled their homes and fought for the cause of God, and those that have sheltered them and helped them- they are the true believers, Forgiveness and a gracious provision awaits them.’
22:58,59(good provision of admission to a pleasing place for those who die in the cause of God). “Those who leave their homes in the cause of God, and are then slain or die, on them will God bestow verily a goodly provision
Sura 9:52 (Muslims can expect either martyrdom/paradise or victory in battle. Unbelievers can expect only punishment from God. Fight hard against unbelievers, whose abode is hell.)
Those who go out to fight are not on an equal footing with those who decide not to. It is obvious that this is referring to actual physical violence because it is contrasted with with “sits at home”:
“Such believers as sit at home — unless they have an injury — are not the equals of those who struggle in the path of God with their possessions and their selves. God has preferred in rank those who struggle with their possessions and their selves over the ones who sit at home; yet to each God has promised the reward most fair; and God has preferred those who struggle over the ones who sit at home for the bounty of a mighty wage” (Q 4:195)
No Punishment for Intentional Killing non-Muslims?
“And whoso slays a believer wilfully, his recompense is Gehenna, therein dwelling forever, and God will be wroth with him and will curse him, and prepare for him a mighty chastisement.” (Q 4:93)
“They but wish that ye should reject Faith, as they do, and thus be on the same footing (as they): But take not friends from their ranks until they flee in the way of Allah (From what is forbidden). But if they turn back (several occ. = tawallaw- تَوَلَّوْا), seize them and slay them wherever ye find them; and (in any case) take no friends or helpers from their ranks.” (4:89) (analysed further under Surah 4 verses)
“O ye who believe! Choose not disbelievers for (your) friends in place of believers. Would ye give Allah a clear warrant against you?” 4:144 (Pickthall)
Dawood 5:51 “Believers, take neither the Jews nor the Christians for your friends. They are friends with one another. Whoever of you seeks their friendship shall become one of their number. God does not guide the wrongdoers.”
“your friend can only be Allah, and his messenger, and those who believe, who establish worship and pay the poor-due, and bow down (in prayer)” (Q 5:55)
5:57 (YA) O ye who believe! take not for friends and protectors those who take your religion for a mockery or sport, – whether among those who received the Scripture before you, or among those who reject Faith; but fear ye God, if ye have faith (indeed).
“Believers, do not make friends with those who are enemies of mine and yours. Would you show them kindness when they have denied the truth that has been revealed to you and driven out the apostle and yourselves, because you believe in God, your Lord?…” (Q 60: 1)
Muslims might argue that this not being friendly is only context-based, because some other verse, particularly 60:8 ““God forbids you not, as regards those who have not fought you in religion’s cause, nor expelled you from your habitations, that you should be kindly to them, and act justly towards them; surely God loves the just.”
The problem here is that many of the verses are just hanging in there threateningly with no context at all. Further, kindness in the best verse is only mentioned as an option “not forbidden”, rather than “commnded”.
“Abu Huraira reported Allah’s Messenger (ﷺ) as saying: Do not greet the Jews and the Christians before they greet you and when you meet any one of them on the roads force him to go to the narrowest part of it.” (Muslim 2167a)
The Quran itself while expressing condemnation, does not prescribe punishments explicitly. – An account that is borrowed from the Biblical story of Sodom. Muslim scholars through the centuries have interpreted the “rain of stones” on the town as meaning that homosexuals should be stoned. (The story is also repeated in suras 15:74, 27:58 and 29:40. Presumably for emphasis) – “…For ye practice your lusts on men in preference to women: ye are indeed a people transgressing beyond bounds…. And we rained down on them a shower (of brimstone)” (Surah 7:80-84)
Hadith: Abu Dawud (4462) – The Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) said, “Whoever you find doing the action of the people of Loot, execute the one who does it and the one to whom it is done.”. Abu Dawud (4448) – “If a man who is not married is seized committing sodomy, he will be stoned to death.” (Note the implicit approval of sodomizing one’s wife). Sahih Bukhari (72:774) – “The Prophet cursed effeminate men (those men who are in the similitude (assume the manners of women) and those women who assume the manners of men, and he said, ‘Turn them out of your houses .’ The Prophet turned out such-and-such man, and ‘Umar turned out such-and-such woman.”
Al-Tirmidhi, Sunan 1:152 – [Muhammad said] “Whoever is found conducting himself in the manner of the people of Lot, kill the doer and the receiver.“
Homosexuals in countries enforcing strict sharia can often expect to be hooded, thrown off a building and what’s left of them stoned.
There is no merit in minding one’s own prayers, business and family matters. Refusal to fight is not approved of in the Qur’an.
In 216, 7 we see that apparently fighting if grievous/ heinous only if its in the sacred months (no one is even sure what these “months” are), on the other hand, fighting per se is “good for you, although you dislike it”. I’m honestly reminded of gangster movies where the mob killers are at some point repulsed by their own actions, but have no option to stop. In 2:126 we find is it not just persecution that is grievous, but disbelief, and fighting is to be preferred again, alarmingly.
“when ye are asked to go forth in the cause of God, ye cling heavily to the earth Unless ye go forth, He will punish you with a grievous penalty, and put others in your place” (9:38-41).
If anyone on that day turns his backs to them….he shall incur the wrath of God and Hell shall be his home: an evil fate. (8:16). Rain enmity and hatred (60:1),
be stern, ruthless, rigorous in your dealings, not forgiving like Abraham (60:1) and who prayed to God for his own father
9:81 (D) …They say to each other: ‘Do not go to war, the heat is fierce.’ Say to them: ‘More fierce is the heat of Hell-fire!’ Would that they understood.
9:86 Whenever a chapter was revealed, saying: ‘Believe in God and fight alongside his apostle,’ the rich among them excused themselves to you saying, ‘Leave us with those who are to stay behind.’
9:93 The offenders are those that seek exemption although they are men of wealth. They are content to be with those that stay behind.
9:120 (D) No cause have the people of Madina and the desert Arabs who dwell around them to forsake God’s apostle or to jeopardise his life so as to safeguard their own.
4:95 (Pickthall) “Those of the believers who sit still, other than those who have a (disabling) hurt, are not on an equality with those who fight in the way of Allah with their wealth and lives. Allah hath conferred on those who fight with their wealth and lives a rank above the sedentary. Unto each Allah hath promised good, but He hath bestowed on those who strive a great reward above the sedentary.” (AYA uses ‘strive and fight’, and Dawood ‘Fight in the cause of Allah’).
‘Convention with respect to the Laws and Customs of War on Land’-This, the second treaty of the Hague convention of 1899 contains the laws to be used in all wars on land between signatories. It specifies the treatment of prisoners of war, includes the provisions of the Geneva Convention of 1864 for the treatment of the wounded, and forbids the use of poisons, the killing of people who have surrendered and the attack of undefended towns or habitations. Inhabitants of occupied territories may not be forced into military service.
(1) The verse of stoning was revealed, but later it was abrogated. (2) The Hadith, which says that verse of stoning was eaten by a goat (or tame sheep), is Dai’f. (3) The ruling of that verse is not abrogated and the ruling is that adulterers should be stoned to death. Stoning the adulterer is a Sunnah and the Four Rightly Guided Khalifs practiced this Sunnah after the Death of Prophet Muhammad (pbuh). (4) The verse of Stoning WAS NOT written down. Even if we agree that it was written on a piece of paper (for the sake of argument), it does not make the ABROGATED VERSE part of the Quran.” The verse of Stoning was REVEALED and it was RECITED and it was also MEMORIZED by the sahaba.
It was narrated from Ibn`Abbas that `Umar bin Khattab said: “I fear that after a long time has passed, some will say: ‘I do not find (the sentence of) stoning in the Book of Allah’ and they will go astray by abandoning one of the obligations enjoined by Allah. Rather stoning is a must if a man is married (or previously married) and proof is established, or if pregnancy results or if he admits it. I have read it (in the Quran). “And if an old man and an old woman commit adultery, stone them both.” The Messenger of Allah stoned (adulterers) and we stoned (them) after him.’” (Sunan Ibn Majah 2553 Graded Sahih)
“Abdullah b. ‘Abbas reported that ‘Umar b. Khattab sat on the pulpit of Allah’s Messenger and said: Verily Allah sent Muhammad with truth and He sent down the Book upon him, and the verse of stoning was included in what was sent down to him. We recited it, retained it in our memory and understood it. Allah’s Messenger awarded the punishment of stoning to death (to the married adulterer and adulteress) and, after him, we also awarded the punishment of stoning, I am afraid that with the lapse of time, the people (may forget it) and may say: We do not find the punishment of stoning in the Book of Allah, and thus go astray by abandoning this duty prescribed by Allah. Stoning is a duty laid down in Allah’s Book for married men and women who commit adultery when proof is established, or it there is pregnancy, or a confession. (Muslim 1691)
“Verily stoning in the book of God is a penalty laid on married men and women who commit adultery, if proof stands or pregnancy is clear or confession is made” (Ibn Ishaq, Sirat Rasulullah, p.684).
“…Zirr ibn Hubaish reported: “Ubayy ibn Ka’b said to me, ‘What is the extent of Suratul-Ahzab?’ I said, ‘Seventy, or seventy-three verses’. He said, ‘Yet it used to be equal to Suratul-Baqarah and in it we recited the verse of stoning’. I said, ‘And what is the verse of stoning’? He replied, ‘The fornicators among the married men (ash-shaikh) and married women (ash-shaikhah), stone them as an exemplary punishment from Allah, and Allah is Mighty and Wise.”‘ (As-Suyuti, Al-Itqan fii Ulum al-Qur’an, p.524).
“Among what was revealed to him was the Ayah of stoning.” (Jami` at-Tirmidhi Book 17 Hadith 1432)
“Umar b. al-Khattab gave an address saying: Allah sent Muhammad (pbuh) with truth and sent down the Books of him, and the verse of stoning was included in what He sent down to him. We read it and memorized it.” (Sunan Abu Dawood Book 40 Hadith 4404)
“I have read it (verse of stoning).” (Sunan Ibn Majah Book 20 Hadith 2553)
Narrated Ash-Sha’bi: from ‘Ali when the latter stoned a lady to death on a Friday. ‘Ali said, “I have stoned her according to the tradition of Allah’s Apostle.” (Sahih al-Bukhari Book 82 Hadith 803, can’t find this on sunnah.com)
Narrated Ibn `Abbas: `Umar said, “I am afraid that after a long time has passed, people may say, “We do not find the Verses of the Rajam (stoning to death) in the Holy Book,” and consequently they may go astray by leaving an obligation that Allah has revealed. Lo! I confirm that the penalty of Rajam be inflicted on him who commits illegal sexual intercourse, if he is already married and the crime is proved by witnesses or pregnancy or confession.” Sufyan added, “I have memorized this narration in this way.” `Umar added, “Surely Allah’s Messenger carried out the penalty of Rajam, and so did we after him.” (Bukhari 6829, also 6830)
In Bukhari 6841, 4556 and 6819, Mohammed orders the stoning of Jewish couples allegedly caught in adultery based on the teaching found in the Torah
Narrated Ash-Shaibani: I asked `Abdullah bin Abi `Aufa about the Rajam (stoning somebody to death for committing illegal sexual intercourse). He replied, “The Prophet carried out the penalty of Rajam,” I asked, “Was that before or after the revelation of Surat-an-Nur?” He replied, “I do not know.” (Bukhari 6840, repeated 6813)
Umar bin Al-Khattab said: “The Messenger of Allah (pbuh) stoned, Abu Bakr stoned, and I stoned…” (Jami` at-Tirmidhi Book 17 Hadith 1431)
So the Messenger of Allah (pbuh) stoned, and we stoned after him… Indeed stoning is the retribution for the adulterer if he was married and the evidence has been established, or due to pregnancy, or confession (Jami` at-Tirmidhi Book 17 Hadith 1432)
Jabir narrated: “I saw the Messenger of Allah stoning the Jimar with what was similar to pebbles for Al-Khadhaf.” (Graded sahih, Jami` at-Tirmidhi 897)
The Messenger of Allah (Peace be upon him) had people stoned to death and we have done it also since his death…. Stoning is a duty laid down (by Allah) for married men and women who commit fornication when proof is established, or if there is pregnancy, or a confession. (Sunan Abu Dawood Book 40 Hadith 4404).
Rather stoning is a must if a man is married (or previously married) and proof is established, or if pregnancy results or if he admits it. The Messenger of Allah (Peace be upon him) stoned (adulterers) and we stoned (them) after him.’ ” (Sunan Ibn Majah Book 20 Hadith 2553)
The Messenger of Allah, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, stoned, so we have stoned. (Muwatta Imam Malik Book 41 Hadith 10)
It was narrated from Mujalid that ‘Amir said: Sharahah had a husband who was absent in Syria. She became pregnant and her former master brought her to `Ali bin Abi Talib and said: This one has committed zina, She admitted it, so he gave her one hundred lashes on Thursday and stoned her on Friday; he dug a hole for her to her navel, and I was present. Then he said: Stoning is a Sunnah established by the Messenger of Allah. If anyone saw her do it, the first one to throw a stone should be the one who witnessed it; he should give his testimony and follow his testimony with his stone. But she admitted it, so I will be the first one to stone her. He threw a stone at her, then the people stoned her and I was among them. By Allah, I was among those who killed her. (Musnad Ahmed 978)
Abdullah bin Amr narrated: “A man asked the Messenger of Allah: ‘I shaved before slaughtering.’ So he said: ‘Slaughter, and there is no harm.’ Another man asked him: ‘I performed the sacrifice before stoning.’ He said: ‘Stone, and there is no harm.'” (ami` at-Tirmidhi 916, Graded Sahih)
“I will expel the Jews and Christians from the Arabian Peninsula and will not leave any but Muslim” (Muslim 1767a, also Musnad Ahmed 217 Graded Sahih, last phrase missing)
“Narrated Abu Huraira: The Verse:–“You (true Muslims) are the best of peoples ever raised up for mankind.” means, the best of peoples for the people, as you bring them with chains on their necks till they embrace Islam” (Bukhari 4557)
This is a famous hadith:
“Narrated Abu Huraira: Allah’s Messenger (ﷺ) said, “I have been sent with the shortest expressions bearing the widest meanings, and I have been made victorious with terror, and while I was sleeping, the keys of the treasures of the world were brought to me and put in my hand.” Abu Huraira added: Allah’s Messenger (ﷺ) has left the world and now you, people, are bringing out those treasures (i.e. the Prophet (ﷺ) did not benefit by them).” (Bukhari 2977)
The word for “terror” is ru’b in the Arabic:
“” بُعِثْتُ بِجَوَامِعِ الْكَلِمِ، وَنُصِرْتُ بِالرُّعْب’ (the last word in that bil-rubin)
Obviously “terror” has the connotation of terrorism, and there is no concept of “terrorist” in the ancient world. Rather the word conveys fear and anxiety, so the translation “terror” is a valid one, since it means the same thing in essence and without any political connotations. It appears in another hadith where it can be similarly translated:
The Prophet (pbuh): “I was given victory through Ru`b: the enemy becomes filled with Ru`b even though they are the distance of a month’s journey away from me.” (Ahmad #20337)
Abu Zubair heard Jabir b. ‘Abdullah (Allah be pleased with him) saying: Allah’s Messenger ordered us to kill dogs, and we carried out this order so much so that we also kill the dog coming with a woman from the desert. Then Allah’s Apostle forbade their killing. He (the Prophet further) said: It is your duty the jet-black (dog) having two spots (on the eyes), for it is a devil. (Muslim 1572)
The Messenger of ‘Allah said: When any one of you stands for prayer and there is a thing before him equal to the back of the saddle that covers him and in case there is not before him (a thing) equal to the back of the saddle, his prayer would be cut off by (passing of an) ass, woman, and black Dog. I said: O Abu Dharr, what feature is there in a black dog which distinguish it from the red dog and the yellow dog? He said: O, son of my brother, I asked the Messenger of Allah as you are asking me, and he said: The black dog is a devil. (Muslim 510a)
