Debate Material- Is the Quran God’s Word
The following article is written to aid Christians in refuting Muslim claims
for the divine origin of the Quran and Islam. Permission is granted to any one
interested in using the material either in public or private discourse as long
as the purpose is to glorify the Lord Jesus Christ. We do not welcome any use of
this material in a manner that is both degrading to Muslims and unworthy of true
biblical Christianity. (cf. 2 Timothy 2:24-26)
With this just stated we now proceed to the arguments against Islam.
The Necessity of the Sunna For An Understanding of the Quran:
A Muslim that professes to be Sunni cannot reinvent new meanings or
interpretations for the Quran. A Sunni Muslim must look towards the Sunna of his
prophet and discover how the first community of Muslims understood the verses of
the Quran.
One Muslim writes:
In Islam, the Arabic word sunnah has come to denote the
way Prophet Muhammad, the Messenger of Allah, lived his life. The Sunnah is
the second source of Islamic jurisprudence, the first being the Qur'an.
Both sources are indispensable; one cannot practice Islam without
consulting both of them. The Arabic word hadith (pl. ahadith)
is very similar to Sunnah, but not identical. A hadith is a narration
about the life of the Prophet or what he approved - as opposed to his life
itself, which is the Sunnah as already mentioned.
In M. M. Azami's Studies in Hadith Methodology and Literature, the
following precise definition of a hadith is given,
According to Muhaddithiin [scholars of hadith -ed.] it stands for
'what was transmitted on the authority of the Prophet, his deeds, sayings,
tacit approval, or description of his sifaat (features) meaning his physical
appearance. However, physical appearance of the Prophet is not included in
the definition used by the jurists.'
Thus hadith literature means the literature which consists of the
narrations of the life of the Prophet and the things approved by him.
However, the term was used sometimes in much broader sense to cover the
narrations about the Companions [of the Prophet -ed.] and Successors [to the
Companions -ed.] as well.
The explosion of Islam in the 7th and 8th centuries confronted Islamic
scholars with a daunting task: to preserve the knowledge of the Sunnah of the
Prophet. Hence the science of hadith evaluation was born. We recommend that
you read the "Introduction to the Science of Hadith" below to
understand the tremendous efforts that were required to sift the true reports
from the false reports. The success of the early scholars is also captured
below by some collections of hadith. (http://islamicweb.com/?folder=quran)
Renowned Muslim scholar Dr. Abu Ameenah Bilal Philips, comments on the
sources Muslims must appeal in order to understand such things as possession:
From the aforementioned arguments, it may be concluded that those who deny
the possibility of diabolical possession rely on only two sources- Qur’anic
texts and logic- while those who affirm it rely on three- Qur’anic texts, texts
from the Sunnah and logic. According to the correct methodology of
Qur’anic interpretation outlined by Ibn Katheer in the introduction of his
exegesis of the Qur’aan, the interpretations of the Sunnah are essential
for determining the correct understanding of the Qur’anic text. Ibn
Katheer wrote,
If it is asked what is the best method of interpretation, the reply is that
the most correct method is that of [interpretation of] the Qur’aan by the
Qur’aan. This is because what has been generalized in one place has been
specified in another. If an explicit explanation is not found in another
verse, then the answers are found in the Sunnah, for it explains and
clarifies the Qur’aan. In fact, Imaam Muhammad ibn Idrees
ash-Shaafi’ee said, "Whatever the Messenger of Allaah ruled was
based upon what he understood from the Qur’aan…
Due to this fact, the Messenger of Allaah stated,
‘I have been given the Qur’aan and something similar to it along with
it.’
He meant the Sunnah, because the Sunnah was revealed to him as the
Qur’aan was revealed, except that it was not recited as the Qur’aan
was recited. (Philips, The Exorcist Tradition in Islaam [Dar Al Fatah;
Sharjah U.A.E., 1997], pp. 87-88 bold emphasis ours)
Furthermore, a Muslim must also not create new meanings for Arabic words of
the Quran. Instead he must see how the first Muslims understood the Arabic and
what meanings they gave to these words. As Abdullah Yusuf Ali noted:
"Every serious writer and thinker has a right to use all the knowledge
and experience he possesses in the service of the Qur’an. But he must not
mix up his own theories and conclusions, however reasonable, with the
interpretation of the Text itself, which is usually perfectly perspicuous,
as it claims to be. Our difficulties in interpretation often arise from
various causes, of which I will mention just a few:
"(1) Arabic words in the Text have acquired other meanings than
those which were understood by the Apostle and his Companions. All living
languages undergo such transformations. The early Commentators and
Philologists went into these matters with a very comprehensive grasp, and we
must accept their conclusions. Where they are not unanimous, we must use
our judgment and historic sense in adopting the interpretation of that
authority which appeals to us most. We must not devise new verbal meanings."
(Yusuf Ali as cited by Dr. William Campbell, The Qur’an and the Bible in
the light of History and Science [Middle East Resources PO Box 96 Upper
Darby PA 19082), pp. 9-10)
Failed Prophecies
Preservation of the Quran
We are told in S. 15:9 that Allah will preserve the Quran:
We have, without doubt, sent down the Message; and We will assuredly
guard it (from corruption).
Yet, the authentic Islamic traditions show that the Quran is missing many verses as well as chapters.
What the Scholars Have to Say
Much like the Bible, the Quran has thousands of variants distributed
throughout the extant MSS. This is a point that is admitted by Orientalists and
Muslims alike.
Noted European archaeologist Arthur Jeffery wrote a book, Material for the
History of the Text of the Qur'an, documenting the variant readings between
the competing codices in circulation prior to the Quran's standardization under
Uthman. Jeffery claims that "when we come to the accounts of 'Uthman's
recension, it quickly becomes clear that his work was no mere matter of
removing dialectal peculiarities in reading [as many Muslims claim], but was
a necessary stroke of policy to establish a standard text for the whole
empire."
He continues, "there were wide divergences between the
collections that had been digested into Codices in the great Metropolitan centers
of Madina, Mecca, Basra, Kufa and Damascus." Thus, "Uthman's solution
was to canonize the Madinan Codex and order all others to be destroyed."
Jeffery then states, "there can be little doubt that the text canonized by
'Uthman was only one among several types of text in existence at the time."
(Jeffery, pp. 7-8)
He concludes that "it is quite clear that the text which 'Uthman
canonized was only one out of many rival text... [and] there is grave
suspicion that 'Uthman may have seriously edited the text he canonized."
(Ibid. ix-x)
The well-known scholar W. Montgomery Watt, commenting on the variant readings
between the codices of Abdullah Ibn Masud and Ubay Ibn Kab, writes:
"No copies exist of any of the early codices, but the list of variant
readings from the two just mentioned is extensive, running to a thousand or
more items in both cases." (Watt, Bell's Introduction to the
Qur'an [Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press, 1970], p. 45)
British Scholar Sir Norman Anderson states:
"So, although it is true that today the Kufan text of Hafs is accepted
almost everywhere in the Muslim world, the claim commonly made by Muslims that
they have ipsissima verba of what Muhammad actually said, without
any variant readings, rests upon an ignorance of the facts of history."
(Anderson, Islam in the Modern World [Leicester: Apollos, 1990], p. 47)
Islamicist Alfred Guillaume states in regards to the variant readings of the
Holy Bible and the Quran:
"The only difference between the Qur'an and the Bible today is that
the Christian Church in the interest of truth, carefully preserved the variant
readings... whereas the Muslims at the time of Uthman deemed it expedient to
destroy as far as possible all the evidences of different readings of the
Qur'an in the cause of standardizing one text for the whole of the Muslim...
These facts must also always be considered against the background of
further evidence from the Hadith that the Qur'an today is still not complete."
(Anderson, pp. 20-21)
L. Bevan Jones sums it up:
"… while it may be true that no other work has remained for twelve
centuries with so pure a text, it is probably equally true that no other
has suffered so drastic a purging." (Jones, The People of the
Mosque [London: Student Christian Movement Press, 1932], p. 62)
The Evidence From Islamic Traditions
1. Quran Is Incomplete
"Many (of the passages) of the Qur'an that were sent down were known
by those who died on the day of Yamama ... but they were not known (by
those who) survived them, nor were they written down, nor had Abu Bakr, Umar
or Uthman (by that time) collected the Qur'an, nor were they found with even
one (person) after them." (Ibn Abi Dawud, Kitab al-Masahif, p.
23).
According this source, portions of the Quran that had been memorized by those
slain in the battle vanished, never to be found again.
Narrated Ibn 'Abbas:
'Umar said, Ubai was the best of us in the recitation (of the Qur'an) yet
we leave some of what he recites.' Ubai says, 'I have taken it from the
mouth of Allah's Apostle and will not leave for anything whatever.' But Allah
said: None of Our revelations do we abrogate or cause to be forgotten but We
substitute something better or similar (2.106)" (Bukhari Volume 6, Book
61, Number 527)
Narrated Ibn Abbas:
Umar said, "Our best Qur'an reciter is Ubai and our best judge
is 'Ali; and in spite of this, we leave some of the statements of Ubai
because Ubai says, 'I do not leave anything that I have heard from Allah's
Apostle while Allah: "Whatever verse (Revelations) do We abrogate or
cause to be forgotten but We bring a better one or similar to it."
(2.106) (Bukhari, Volume 6, Book 60, Number 8)
These missing verses cannot be referring to abrogated parts of the Quran
which were no longer essential since even the abrogated parts still form part of
the text today.
This is why Ibn Umar would say:
It is reported from Ismail ibn Ibrahim from Ayyub from Naafi from Ibn Umar
who said: "Let none of you say 'I have acquired the whole of the Qur'an'.
How does he know what all of it is when much of the Qur'an has disappeared?
Rather let him say 'I have acquired what has survived.'" (as-Suyuti, Al-Itqan
fii Ulum al-Qur'an, p.524).
2. Suras Added or Deleted
The Islamic traditions agree that certain Muslim reciters included extra
suras not found in the present text of the Quran. For instance, Ubay Ibn Kabb
was considered one of the best Muslim reciters, being dubbed "the Master of
the Quranic Reciters." Yet, interestingly Kabb included two extra suras,
which he claimed were part of the revelation:
"Written in the text of Ubayy ibn Ka'b were the Fatihal-kitab
(the Opening Surah) and the Mu'awwi-thatayni (the Charm Surahs) and Allahumma
innaa nasta'iinka (the opening words of Suratul-Khal' meaning 'O
Allah, we seek your help') and Allahumma ayyaaka na'budu (the opening
words of Suratul-Hafd meaning 'O Allah, we worship you')".
(as-Suyuti, Al-Itqan fii Ulum al-Qur'an, p.153).
Here are the two suras in their entirety:
Surat al-Hafd
You (alone) we worship, and to You (alone) we pray and lie prostrate, and to
You (alone) we proceed and have descendants. We fear Your torture and hope for
Your mercy. Truly Your torture will overtake the infidels.
Surat al-Khal'
O Allah, You (alone) we ask for help and forgiveness. We speak appreciatingly
of Your goodness. Never do we disbelieve You. We repudiate and disbelieve
anyone who follows immorality.
Interestingly, Ubay was not the only one who included these suras into his
codex. According to al-Suyuti, both Ibn Abbass and Abu Musa also included them
as part of their text. (Al-Itqan, p. 154)
QUESTION FOR THE DEBATER
Why are these suras not part of the Quran today seeing that Muslim reciters
such as Ubay claimed that God revealed them as part of the text?
Another Muslim considered an authority in Quranic recitation was Abdullah Ibn
Masud:
Narrated Masriq:
'Abdullah bin 'Amr mentioned 'Abdullah bin Masud and said, "I shall
ever love that man, for I heard the Prophet saying, 'Take (learn) the Qur'an
from four: 'Abdullah bin Masud, Salim, Mu'adh and Ubai bin Ka'b."
(Bukhari Volume 6, Book 61, Number 521)
Masud made the following claim:
Narrated 'Abdullah (bin Mas'ud): By Allah other than Whom none has the
right to be worshipped! There is no Sura revealed in Allah's Book but I
know at what place it was revealed; and there is no Verse revealed in Allah's
Book but I know about whom it was revealed." (Bukhari Volume 6, Book
61, Number 524)
Yet, in spite of his claiming to know the exact place each Sura and verse was
revealed, Masud not only rejected the two extra suras of Kabb but omitted three
additional chapters from his codex as well! This makes Masud's Quran only 111
Suras in length. Interestingly, Bukhari records that Masud and Kabb were in
disagreement over this very issue:
Narrated Zirr bin Hubaish:
I asked Ubai bin Ka'b, "O Abu AlMundhir! Your brother, Ibn
Mas'ud said so-and-so (i.e., the two Mu'awwidh-at do not belong to
the Quran)." Ubai said, "I asked Allah's Apostle about them, and
he said, 'They have been revealed to me, and I have recited them (as a part of
the Quran)," So Ubai added, "So we say as Allah's Apostle has
said." (Bukhari Volume 6, Book 60, Number 501)
QUESTION FOR THE DEBATER
Whose testimony should we accept, that of Masud or that of Kabb? Do we
agree that Allah only revealed 111 chapters or do we accept the 116 chapters
of Kabb's codex? Furthermore, why is it that the Uthmanic text contains 114
chapters, three more than that of Masud and two short from that of Kabb?
3. Missing Verses
The hadiths also supply us with evidence that there are missing verses:
Missing Part On The Fatherhood Of Muhammad:
Yusuf Ali records that S. 33:6 in the text of Ubay read differently from
the Uthmanic text. The Uthmanic text presently reads:
"The prophet is closer to the believers than their own selves, and his
wives are their mothers."
Yet Ubay's codex read:
"The prophet is closer to the believers than their own selves, and
he is a father to them, and his wives are their mothers."
Hence, Yusuf Ali states:
"In spiritual relationship the Prophet is entitled to more respect and
consideration than blood-relations. The Believers should follow him rather
than their fathers or mothers or brothers, where there is conflict of duties.
He is even nearer - closer to our real interests - than our own selves. In
some Qiraats, like that of Ubai ibn Ka'b, occur also the words 'and he is a
father to them,' which imply his spiritual relationship and connect on
with the words, 'and his wives are their mothers.' Thus his spiritual
fatherhood would be contrasted pointedly with the repudiation of the vulgar
superstition of calling any one like Zaid ibn Haritha by the appellation Zaid
ibn Muhammad (xxxiii. 40): such an appellation is really disrespectful to
the Prophet." (Ali, The Holy Qur'an, p. 1104, f. 3674)
Missing Part On Asr Prayer
Yahya related to me from Malik from Zayd ibn Aslam from al-Qaqa ibn Hakim
that Abu Yunus, the mawla of A'isha, umm al-muminin said, "A'isha
ordered me to write out a Qur'an for her. She said, 'When you reach this ayat,
let me know, "Guard the prayers carefully and the middle prayer and stand
obedient to Allah."' When I reached it I told her, and she dictated to
me, 'Guard the prayers carefully and the middle prayer and the asr prayer
and stand obedient to Allah.' A'isha said, 'I heard it from the Messenger
of Allah, may Allah bless him and grant him peace.’" (Malik's
Muwatta, Book 8, Number 8.8.26)
Yahya related to me from Malik from Zayd ibn Aslam that Amr ibn Rafi said,
"I was writing a Qur'an for Hafsa, umm al-muminin, and she said,
'When you reach this ayat, let me know, "Guard the prayers carefully and
the middle prayer and stand obedient to Allah."' When I reached it I told
her and she dictated to me, 'Guard the prayers carefully and the middle prayer
and the asr prayer and stand obedient to Allah.’" (Malik's
Muwatta, Book 8, Number 8.8.27)
Compare it with today's present text:
"Be guardians of your prayers, and of the midmost prayer, and stand up
with devotion to Allah." S. 2:238 Pickthall
Missing Verse On Suckling
Narrated Aisha:
It had been revealed in the Qur'an that ten clear sucklings make the
marriage unlawful, then it was abrogated (and substituted) by five sucklings
and Allah's Apostle (peace_be_upon_him) died and it was before that time
(found) in the Qur'an (and recited by the Muslims). (Sahih Muslim, Book 8,
Number 3421)
Missing Verse On Stoning
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 Apostle carried out the penalty of Rajam, and
so did we after him." (Bukhari, Volume 8, Book 82, Number 816; See
also: Vol. 8, No. 817 and Vol. 9, No. 424)
Missing Bismillah
Ibn 'Abbas asked `Uthman what possessed him to place surat al Anfal,
one of the mathani, with Bara'a, one of the mi'in, join them
with no bismillah between them and place them among the seven lengthy
suras. `Uthman replied that often the Prophet received quite long revelations.
He would call for one of the scribes and say, 'Put these verses in the sura in
which so-and-so occurs.' Anfal was among the first of the Medina revelations
and Bara'a among the last. Since its contents resembled those of Anfal,
`Uthman took it to belong with it, for the Prophet had died without
explaining that it was part of it. (p. 164, Jalal al Din `Abdul Rahman b.
abi Bakr al Suyuti, al Itqan fi `ulum al Qur'an, Halabi, Cairo,
1935/1354, pt 1, p. 60)
Malik had a shorter explanation for the absence of this bismillah.
The beginning of Bara'a fell out and its bismillah fell out with it.
(p. 164-165, Jalal al Din `Abdul Rahman b. abi Bakr al Suyuti, al Itqan fi
`ulum al Qur'an, Halabi, Cairo, 1935/1354, pt 1, p. 65)
Missing Part On "Valley of Riches"
Anas b. Malik reported Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him) as saying:
If there were two valleys of gold for the son of Adam, he would long for
another one, and his mouth will not be filled but with dust, and Allah returns
to him who repents. (Sahih Muslim, Number 2284)
Ibn'Abbas reported Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him) as saying: If
there were for the son of Adam a valley full of riches, he would long to
possess another one like it, and Ibn Adam does not feel satiated but with
dust. And Allah returns to him who returns (to Him). Ibn 'Abbas said: I do not
know whether it is from the Qur'an or not; and in the narration transmitted by
Zuhair it was said: I do not know whether it is from the Qur'an, and he made
no mention of Ibn 'Abbas. (Sahih Muslim, Number 2285)
In light of the preceding evidence, can any Muslim honestly claim that the
Quran has been completely preserved?
4. Traditions Which Show Muslims Accusing Each Other Of Tampering With The
Quran
Interestingly, both Muslims of the past and present have accused each other
of adding or omitting portions from the Quran:
Hudhaifah therefore said to Othman: "Oh Commander of the Faithful, be
careful of the people." He answered, "What is the problem?"
Hudhaifah said, "I took part in the expedition against Armenia where
there were Iraqis as well as Syrians. But the Syrians follow the reading of
the Qur'an according to Ubai ibn Ka`b, and they say some things which the
Iraqis have not heard, so the latter accuse them of unbelief. In the same
way the Iraqis, who follow the reading of Ibn Mas`ud, read some things
which the Syrians have not heard. and the Syrians accuse them of unbelief.
Restrain this people before they differ in the book, as do the Jews and the
Christians."
Accordingly Othman sent to Hafsa, saying, "Send us the sheets that we
may copy them into the volumes. Then we shall return them to you." Hafsa
therefore sent them to Othman. Then he commanded Zaid ibn Thabit and Abdullah
ibn al Zubair and Said ibn al As and Abdullah ibn Harith ibn Hisham, and they
copied them into the volumes. And Othman said to the company of the three
Quraishites, "When you differ, you and Zaid ibn Thabit, in any portion of
the Qur'an write it in the dialect of the Quraish, for verily it came down in
their dialect." And they did so until, when they had copied the sheets
into the volumes, Othman restored the sheets to Hafsa. And he sent to every
region a volume from what they had copied, and commanded regarding
everything of the Qur'an besides it, in every sheet and volume, that it should
be burned. (Mishkat al-Masabih, trans. James Robson [Ashraf Lahore,
1963], p. 185 Bukhari transmitted from Anas bin Malik)
These traditions clearly affirm that the Syrians had readings not known to
the Iraqis and vice-versa. These readings had nothing to do with dialectal
variations since variations in dialect would not result in the parties not
having heard verses contained in the other codices. Furthermore, who gave Uthman
the right to burn codices written by eye and ear witnesses of Muhammad? One
Muslim who refused to submit his codex to burning was Abdullah Ibn Masud:
Hudhaifah went on to say, "O Abdullah ibn Qais, you were sent to the
people of Basra as their governor (amir) and teacher and they have submitted
to your rules, your idioms and your reading". He continued, "O
Abdullah ibn Mas'ud, you were sent to the people of Kufa as their teacher who
have also submitted to your rules, idioms and reading". Abdullah said to
him, "In that case I have not led them astray. There is no verse
in the Book of Allah that I do not know where it was revealed and why it was
revealed, and if I knew anyone more learned in the Book of Allah and I could
be conveyed there, I would set out to him". (Ibn Abi Dawud, Kitab
al-Masahif, p.14).
"The people have been guilty of deceit in the reading of the Qur'an.
I like it better to read according to the recitation of him (Prophet) whom
I love more than that of Zayd Ibn Thabit. By Him besides Whom there is no
god! I learnt more than seventy surahs from the lips of the Apostle of Allah,
may Allah bless him, while Zayd Ibn Thabit was a youth, having two locks
and playing with the youth." (Ibn Sa'd, Kitab al-Tabaqat al-Kabir,
Vol. 2, p. 444)
Interestingly, the charge that Muslims have tampered with the text is not
limited solely to the past. There are certain Shiite Muslims who hold to the
belief that Uthman omitted portions of the Quran that spoke favorably of Ali.
(W. St. Clair-Tisdall, A Manuel of the Leading Muhammedan Objections to
Christianity [London: Society for Promoting Christian Knowledge, 1904], p.
59; B. Todd Lawson, "Notes for the Study of a Shi'i Qur'an," in Journal
of Semitic Studies [Autumn 1991], vol. 36, no. 2, pp. 279-96)
Furthermore, even today there are some Shiite Muslims that claim to have two
genuine suras that forms part of their Quranic text:
Sura Al-Nurain
"O you who believe, believe in the two lights. He has revealed them unto
you, warning you against the torture of the Great Day - two lights emanating
from one another, for I am the All-Hearing and the All-Knowing. Truly those who
fulfill Allah's pledge and his Apostle's verses shall be rewarded with Paradise.
Those who disbelieve by breaking their covenant and what they have pledged to do
before the Apostle shall be thrown into hell, for they did injustice to
themselves and disobeyed the supporter of the Apostle. Therefore, they shall be
caused to drink from the Hamim River in hell. Truly Allah is the light of heaven
and the earth as he wills, and he has chosen his angels and apostles and made
believers of those whom he created. All do whatever he wills. There is no god
but him - the Merciful and the Compassionate. Those who came before them cheated
their apostles, and so I have stricken them with my cunningness vehemently and
painfully. O Apostle! Preach my admonition, for they shall know. Those who
fulfill their pledge to you are likened to me to be rewarded by Paradise. Truly
Ali is one of the pious. We have sent Moses and Aaron, being appointed his
successor, yet they disobeyed Aaron. Be of good patience! They will become old.
We have given you judgment, just as we did to other apostles before you. We have
appointed a guardian to you from them, that they might return. Truly Ali is
devout, lying prostrate at night, warning as regards the Last Day, and hoping
for the mercy of his Lord. Say: "Should those who act unjustly be treated
equally, while they know my torture?"
Source: Mohammad Azat Darwaza, Al-Qur'an al-Majid, page 60 and
Mohammed Ahmed Maal Allah, Al Shi'a wa Tareef Al Quran; also see Theodor
Nöldeke: Geschichte des Qorans Zweite Auflage, völlig umgearbeitet von
Friedrich Schwally, Zweiter Teil: Die Sammlung des Qorans, Leipzig
[Dieterich'sche Verlagsbuchhandlung] 1919, Seiten 102-103 (see also this
article: http://answering-islam.org/Quran/Miracle/nurain.html)
Sura Al-Wilaya
On the name of the all merciful God
You who are believers, believe in the prophet and the saint (patron, God-man)
"which is Ali Bin Abi Taleb, Mohammed cousin" which we sent, they will
guide you to the strait path.
A prophet and a saint "belong to" each other, and I am the all
knowing, the experienced.
Those who do (obey) God's covenant they "deserve" comforting
paradises.
And those who if it read to them our verses, they contradict it.
[Meaning: If somebody (unknown) were to read the verses (from the Qur'an) to
them, they reject would it.]
They have a great (big) place in Hell, if they called in the day of
judgement: where is the unfair, the contradictory for the messengers?!
The messengers don't leave them "without" the truth, and God
"will not allow them" to win (appear, show) till a short time.
Praise your lord "and" thank "him", and Ali "Ali Bin
Abi Taleb, Mohammed cousin" "one" from the witnesses.
Source: "ALThWRh AL'YARANYh FY MYzAN AL'sLAM" (The Iranian
revolution in the balance of Islam), published in Egypt (see also this article: http://answering-islam.org/Quran/Miracle/wilaya.html)
The issue of whether these two suras are authentic is immaterial to our
discussion. What is relevant to our discussion is the fact that these two suras
prove that Muslims are not in agreement over the issue of whether the Quran has
been perfectly preserved down through the ages without any omissions or
additions.
Finally, Muslim followers of Rashad Khalifah claim that Sura 9:128-129 was
not originally part of the Quranic text. This is why in their version of the
Quran these two verses have been omitted. (See related articles: http://www.moslem.org/9128.htm
and http://www.moslem.org/sura9.htm)
The Roman Victory Over the Persians
Another failed prophecy includes S. 30:2-4:
"The Roman Empire has been defeated - in a land close by: But they,
(even) after (this) defeat of theirs, will soon be victorious - within a few
years."
As the prophecy stated the Byzantines did become victorious over the Persians
who had at first defeated them. Yet, there are fundamental problems with this
alleged prophecy:
 |
According
to Yusuf Ali the Arabic word for "a few years," Bidh'un,
signifies a period of three to nine years; yet according to some scholars
the victory did not come until nearly twelve years later. The Persians
defeated the Byzantines and captured Jerusalem at about A.D. 614 or 615.
The Byzantine counter-offensive did not begin until A.D. 622 and the
victory was not complete until A.D. 625, making it a period between ten to
eleven years, not "a few years" alluded to in the Quran. |
|
The
original Quranic text had no vowel marks. Thus, the Arabic word Sayaghlibuna,
"they shall defeat," could easily have been rendered, with the
change of two vowels, Sayughlabuna, "they (i.e. Romans) shall
be defeated." Since vowel points were not added until some time after
this event, it could have been quite possible for a scribe to deliberately
tamper with the text, forcing it to become a prophetic statement. |
This fact is solidified by Muslim commentator al-Baidawi. C.G. Pfander
mentions Baidawi's comments on the variant readings surrounding this passage:
"But Al Baizawi shatters the whole argument of the Muslims by
informing us of certain varied readings in these verses of Suratu'r Rum.
He tells us that some read (Arabic text appears here) instead of the usual
(Arabic text appears here) and (Arabic text appears here) instead of (Arabic
text appears here). The rendering will then be: 'The Byzantines have conquered
in the nearest part of the land, and they shall be defeated in a small
number of years,' &c. If this be the correct reading, the whole
story about Abu Bakr's bet with Ubai must be a fable, since Ubai was dead long
before the Muslims began to defeat the Byzantines, and even long before the
victories which Heraclius won over the Persians. This shows how unreliable
such Traditions are. The explanation which Al Baizawi gives is, that the
Byzantines became conquerors of 'the well-watered land of Syria' (Arabic text
appears here) and that the passage predicted that the Muslims would soon
overcome them. If this is the meaning, the Tradition which records the
'descent' of the verses about six years before the Hijrah must be wrong, and
the passage must belong to A.H. 6 at earliest. It is clear that, as the
vowel points were not used when the Qur-an was first written down in Cufic
letters, no one can be certain which of the two readings is right. We have
seen that there is so much uncertainty about (1) the date at which the verses
were 'sent down', (2) the correct reading, and (3) the meaning, that
it is quite impossible to show that the passage contains a prophecy which was
fulfilled. Hence, it cannot be considered to be a proof of Muhammad's
prophetic office." (C. G. Pfander, Mizan-ul-Haqq- The Balance of Truth,
revised and enlarged by W. St. Clair Tisdall [Light of Life P.O. Box 18,
A-9503, Villach Austria], 279-280) [emphasis ours]
This being the case, no Muslim can confidently tell us what the true reading
of the text is and hence cannot insure us that this verse originally predicted
the Byzantine victory over the Persians.
|
It
amazes us that a prophecy from God would not specify the exact time of the
victory, seeing that God is all-knowing and all-wise, declaring the end
from the beginning. For God to guess that the Byzantines would win in
"a few years" as opposed to specifying the exact year, is
inconsistent with the belief in an Omniscient, Omnipotent Being. Hence, it
is unlikely that the true God would actually make such a prophecy. |
Interestingly, some Muslims fail to comment on the phrase "a few
years" seeing that this actually hinders the point Muslims seek to make.
They also do not mention the fact that Abu Bakr believed "a few years"
meant that the Byzantines were going to win in three years:
"This passage refers to the defeat of the Byzantines in Syria by the
Persians under Khusran Parvis. (A.D. 615 - 6 years before the Hegira).
However, the defeat of the Persians should take place soon--"in a small
number of years". In the light of this prediction, Abu-Bakr undertook a
bet with Ubai-ibn-Khalaf that this prediction would be fulfilled within
three years, but he was corrected by Mohammed who stated that the "small
number" is between three and nine years (Al-Baizawi). Muslims tell us
that the Byzantines overcame their enemies within seven years. The fact,
however, is that the Byzantines defeated Persia in A.D. 628 (Al-Baizawi
commentary). That was twelve years after the prediction of Mohammed.
Consequently this passage does not qualify as a prophecy, particularly as the
time between prophecy and fulfillment was far too short, and in addition the
event was easily predictable." (Gerhard Nehls, Christians Ask Muslims
[Life Challenge, SIM International; Africa, 1992], pp. 70-71)
In light of the preceding considerations, we must conclude that this prophecy
failed to materialize in the manner described by the Quran.
Meaningless Quranic Words
There are certain letters in the Quran which has baffled Muslims till this
day. The letters are those that appear at the beginning of certain chapters:
|
Alif Lam
Ra- Suras 10, 11, 12, 14, 15. |
|
Alif Lam
Mim- Suras 2, 3, 29, 30, 31, 32. |
|
Alif Lam
Mim Ra- Sura 13. |
|
Alif Lam
Min Sad- Sura 33. |
|
Ha Mim-
Suras 40, 41, 43, 44, 45, 46. |
|
Ha Mim
'Ain Sin Qaf- Sura 42. |
|
Sad-
Sura 38. |
|
Ta Sin-
Sura 27; |
|
Ta Sin
Mim- Suras 26, 28. |
|
Ta Ha-
Sura 20. |
|
Qaf-
Sura 50. |
|
Ka Ha Ya
'Ain Sad- Sura 19. |
|
Nun-
Sura 68. |
|
Ya Sin-
Sura 36. |
Muhammad Asad admits:
"About one-quarter of the Qur'anic suras are preceded by mysterious
letter-symbols called muqatta'at ('disjointed letters') or, occasionally,
fawatih ('openings') because they appear at the beginning of the relevant
suras. Out of the twenty-eight letters of the Arabic alphabet, exactly one-half-
that is, fourteen- occur in this position, either singly or in varying
combinations of two, three, four, or five letters. They are always pronounced
singly, by their designations and not as mere sounds- thus: alif lam mim, or ha
mim, etc.
"The significance of these letter-symbols has perplexed the
commentators from the earliest times. There is no evidence of the Prophet's
having ever referred to them in any of his recorded utterances, nor any of his
Companions having ever asked him for an explanation. None the less, it is
established beyond any possibility of doubt that all the Companions- obviously
following the example of the Prophet- regarded the muqatta'at as integral
parts of the suras to which they are prefixed, and used to recite them
accordingly: a fact which disposes effectively of the suggestion advanced by
some Western orientalists that these letters may be no more than the initials of
the scribes who wrote down the individual revelations at the Prophet's
dictation, or of the Companions who recorded them at the time of the final
codification of the Qur'an during the reign of the first three Caliphs.
"Some of the Companions as well as some of their immediate successors
and later Qur'anic commentators were convinced that these letters are
abbreviations of certain words or even phrases relating to God and His
attributes, and tried to 'reconstruct' them with much ingenuity; but since
the possible combinations are practically unlimited, all such interpretations
are highly arbitrary and, therefore, devoid of any real usefulness…"
(Asad, The Message of the Qur'an [Dar al-Andalus Limited, 3 Library Ramp
Gibraltar, rpt. 1993], App. II, p. 992)
After summarizing several different interpretations, Asad concludes:
"…and so, in the last resort, we must content ourselves with the
finding that a solution of this problem still remains beyond our grasp. This
was apparently the view of the four Right-Guided Caliphs, summarized in these
words of Abu Bakr: 'In every divine writ (kitab) there is [an element
of] mystery- and the mystery of the Qur'an is [indicated] in the openings of
[some of] the suras." (Ibid., p. 993)
Even A. Yusuf Ali states:
"As shown in Appendix I (Sipara 3), the Abbreviated Letters are mystic
symbols, about whose meaning there is no authoritative explanation. If
the theory advanced in n. 25 to ii 1 has any validity, and the present group
A.L.R. is cognate to the group A.L.M., we have to consider and form some idea in
our minds as to the probable meaning of the variation… But no one should be
dogmatic in speculation about mystic Symbols." (Ali, The Holy Qur'an-
Introduction to Sura X [Yunus], p. 481)
We are also told in Ali's footnote 25, p. 17, that the meaning A.L.M.:
"…Much has been written about the meaning of these letters, but
most of it is pure conjecture. Some commentators are content to recognize
them as some mystic symbols, of which it is unprofitable to discuss the
meaning by mere verbal logic. In mysticism we accept symbols as such for a
time being: their esoteric meaning comes from the inner light when we are
ready for it…"
Ibn Kathir notes:
"The 'ulama do not agree as to the interpretation of
<Alif-Lam-Mim> and other similar letters at the beginning of some
suras. They have been given the following interpretations:
1.The letters belong to Mutashabih (allegorical) verses, whose meaning
is known only to Allah.
2.They are the names of Allah.
3.They have meaning, and Allah did not reveal them in vain and without a
purpose. Those ignorant people who say that the Qur'an contains words for mere
worship, that have no meaning whatsoever- are certainly in great error. There
is no doubt that the letters at the beginning of some Surahs have a meaning:
we say about them only what is authentically said about them by the Prophet.
Otherwise, we say nothing further about them and recite the verse <'We
believe in it; it is all from our Lord.'> (3:7).
As for the wisdom behind these letters, some scholars have said it is:
1.To alert the polytheists so that they might listen to the words of Allah.
This is a very weak reason in light of the fact that such disconnected letters
do not appear at the beginning of every Surah. Besides al-Baqarah
and al-'Imran that follows it, both start with these letters,
and both were revealed in Madinah where there were no polytheists.
2.Others believe that they are an example of the miraculous wonder of the
Qur'an and the people are unable to confront it. This opinion is held by many
scholars, including the Sheikh of Islam, Ibn Taymiyya. This opinion is borne
out by the fact that all disconnected letters mentioned in the Qur'an are
followed by a mention of the Qur'an itself and its revelation by Allah, Lord
of the worlds. For example: <Alif-Lam-Mim. This is the Book ...>
(2:1), <Ha. Mim. By the Book that makes things clear, that is this
Qur'an)> (43:1), <Alif-Lam-Mim. Allah! There is no god but Him,
the Living, the Self-Subsistent. He has revealed to (Muhammad) the
Scripture> (3:1-3). <Alif-Lam-Ra. (This is) a Scripture which We
have revealed unto you (O Muhammad) ...> (14:1) (Tafsir Ibn
Kathir-Part 1 Surah Al-Fatiha Surah Al-Baqarah, ayat 1 to 141, Abridged by
Sheikh Muhammad Nasib Ar-Rafa'i [Al-Firdous Ltd., London 1998], pp. 55-57;
bold italic emphasis ours)
That Ibn Kathir's second explanation is unconvincing is seen by the fact that
certain suras begin by mentioning the Quran without the mysterious letters
preceding it. For example S. 18:1 begins:
In the Name of Allah, Most Gracious, Most Merciful. Praise be to Allah, Who
hath sent Hs Servant the Book, and hath allowed therein no Crookedness. (cf.,
S. 24:1; 25:1; 39:1-2; 52:1-3; 55:1-2; 97:1)
In other suras, we find the letters appearing without any reference to the
Quran. One such sura is S. 191-2:
In the Name of Allah, Most Gracious, Most Merciful. Kaf. Ha. Ya. Ain. Sad.
(This is) a mention of Zakariya.
And:
In the name of Allah, Most Gracious, Most Merciful. Alif-Lam-Mim. Do men
think that they will be left alone on saying, "We believe", and that
they will not be tested? S. 29:1-2 (cf. S. 30:1-2; 68:1)
The late Christian writer, 'Abdallah 'Abd al-Fadi, wrote:
"Our question is: Considering that only God knows the meaning of these
words, as Muslims claim, what do they benefit us? God never inspires a man
with profitless words; His words are clear and His oracles are a guidance to
the people." (Al-Fadi, Is the Qur'an Infallible? [Light of
Life, PO Box 13, A-9503 Villach, Austria], p. 297)
QUESTION FOR THE DEBATER
Since Muslims such as Asad clearly admit that there is no report suggesting
that Muhammad spoke about these mysterious letters in his recorded utterances,
where did the Companions come up with such a practice especially since these
letters left them perplexed as to their meanings? Furthermore, no report has
come down to us indicating that the Companions had inquired Muhammad on the
meaning of these mysterious letters. This is indeed strange since had these
letters been part of the original revelation why would the Companions not have
asked about their meaning? This seems to suggest that scribes added these
letters much later and hadiths were then forged to establish their authenticity.
Fables of the Quran
The Quran contains myths and fables that were well known during the time of
Muhammad. The Quran testifies that the unbelievers accused Muhammad of borrowing
fables already known to them and claiming it as revelation from God:
Of them there are some who (pretend to) listen to thee; but We have thrown
veils on their hearts, So they understand it not, and deafness in their ears;
if they saw every one of the Signs, they will not believe in them; in so much
that when they come to thee, they (but) dispute with thee; the Unbelievers
say: "These are nothing but TALES OF ANCIENTS." S. 6:25
When Our Signs are rehearsed to them, they say: "We have heard this
(before): if we wished, we could say (words) like these: these are nothing but
TALES OF ANCIENTS." S. 8:31
When it is said to them, "What is it that your Lord has
revealed?" they say, "TALES OF ANCIENTS!" S. 16:24
"Such things have been promised to us and to our fathers before! they
are nothing but TALES OF ANCIENTS!" S. 23:83
And they say: "TALES OF ANCIENTS, which he has caused to be
written: and they are dictated before him morning and evening." S. 25:5
"It is true we were promised this,- we and our fathers before (us):
these are nothing but TALES OF ANCIENTS." S. 27:68
But (there is one) who says to his parents, "Fie on you! Do ye hold
out the promise to me that I shall be raised up, even though generations have
passed before me (without rising again)?" And they two seek Allah's aid,
(and rebuke the son): "Woe to thee! Have faith! For the promise of Allah
is true." But he says, "This is nothing but TALES OF ANCIENTS!"
S. 46:17
When to him are rehearsed Our Signs, "TALES OF ANCIENTS",
he cries! S. 68:15
When Our Signs are rehearsed to him, he says, "TALES OF ANCIENTS!"
S. 83:15
According to the Quran, Solomon had animals under his control and actually
would have conversations with them much like the way humans do:
"And there were gathered together unto Solomon his armies of the
jinn and humankind, and of the birds, and they were set in battle order;
Till, when they reached the Valley of the Ants, an ant exclaimed: O ants!
Enter your dwellings lest Solomon and his armies crush you, unperceiving.
And (Solomon) smiled, laughing at her speech, and said: My Lord, arouse
me to be thankful for Thy favour wherewith Thou hast favoured me and my
parents, and to do good that shall be pleasing unto Thee, and include me in
(the number of) Thy righteous slaves. And he sought among the birds and
said: How is it that I see not the hoopoe, or is he among the absent? I verily
will punish him with hard punishment or I verily will slay him, or he verily
shall bring me a plain excuse. But he was not long in coming, and he
said: I have found out (a thing) that thou apprehendest not, and I come
unto thee from Sheba with sure tidings. Lo! I found a woman ruling over
them, and she hath been given (abundance) of all things, and hers is a mighty
throne. I found her and her people worshipping the sun instead of Allah; and
Satan maketh their works fairseeming unto them, and debarreth them from the
way (of Truth), so that they go not aright; So that they worship not Allah,
Who bringeth forth the hidden in the heavens and the earth, and knoweth what
ye hide and what ye proclaim…" S. 27:17-25
Muslim Muhammad Asad must allegorize this passage since he was seemingly
aware of the difficulty in viewing this historically:
"In this instance, Solomon evidently refers to his own understanding
and admiration of nature (cf. 38:31-33 and the corresponding notes) as well as
to his loving compassion for the humblest of God's creatures, as a great
divine blessing: and this is the Qur'anic moral of the LEGENDARY story of
the ant." (Asad, p. 578, n. 17)
Now compare this fable with the credible historical version of the Holy
Bible:
"God gave Solomon wisdom and very great insight, and a breadth of
understanding as measureless as the sand on the seashore. Solomon's wisdom was
greater than the wisdom of all the men of the East, and greater than all the
wisdom of Egypt. He was wiser than any other man, including Ethan the
Ezrahite-wiser than Heman, Calcol and Darda, the sons of Mahol. And his fame
spread to all the surrounding nations. He spoke three thousand proverbs and
his songs numbered a thousand and five. He described plant life, from the
cedar of Lebanon to the hyssop that grows out of walls He also taught about
animals and birds, reptiles and fish. Men of all nations came to listen to
Solomon's wisdom, sent by all the kings of the world, who had heard of his
wisdom." 1 Kings 4:29-34
The Quran even claims that both the winds and jinns (demons) were subservient
to Solomon:
"And to Solomon (We subjected) the wind strongly raging, running by
his command towards the land which We had blessed. And of everything We
are the All-Knower. And of the Shayâtin (devils) (from the jinns) were
some who dived for him, and did other work besides that; and it was We
Who guarded them." S. 21:81-82
"So, We subjected to him the wind, it blew gently to his order
whithersoever he willed, And also the Shayâtin (devils) from the jinns
(including) every kind of builder and diver, And also others bound in
fetters. [Saying of Allâh to Solomon]: ‘This is Our gift, so spend you or
withhold, no account will be asked’." S. 38:36-39
Ibn Kathir in his commentary on Solomon 's control over the winds states that
Solomon was using the wind to travel by a flying carpet!
Muslim Alhassan Albasri claimed:
Solomon was traveling on his carpet from Damascus to have lunch in
"Istcher", then he moved from there to Kabel to spend the night.
Between Damascus and Istcher a month traveling for the one that is traveling
fast. And between Istcher and Kabel a month traveling for the one who is
traveling fast.
Muhammad Asad states:
"In this as well as in several other passages relating to Solomon, the
Qur'an alludes to many POETIC LEGENDS which were associated with his name
since early antiquity and had become part and parcel of Judeo-Christian and
Arabian lore long before the advent of Islam. Although it is undoubtedly
possible to interpret such passages in a 'rationalistic' manner, I do not
think that this is really necessary. Because they were so deeply ingrained
in the imagination of the people to whom the Qur'an addressed itself in the
first instance, these legendary accounts of Solomon's wisdom and magic
powers had acquired a cultural reality of their own and were, therefore,
eminently suited to serve as a medium for the parabolic exposition of certain
ethical truths with which this book is concerned: and so, without denying
or confirming their MYTHICAL character, the Qur'an uses them as a foil for
the idea that God is the ultimate source of all human power and glory, and
that all achievements of human ingenuity, even though they may sometimes
border on the miraculous, are but an expression of His transcendental
creativity." (Asad, p. 498, n. 77)
Another Quranic fable includes S. 18:9-23, 25-26 and the Story of the
Sleepers of the Cave. According to this tale, several youths and their dog fled
to a cave where according to one version of the story they slept for 309 years.
Once again, here is Asad:
"…We may, therefore, safely assume that the LEGEND of the Men
of the Cave- stripped of its Christian garb and the superimposed Christian
background- is, substantially, of Jewish origin... But whatever the source
of this LEGEND, and irrespective of whether it is of Jewish or Christian
origin, the fact remains that it is used in the Qur'an IN A PURELY
PARABOLIC SENSE: namely, as an illustration of God's power to bring about
death (or 'sleep') and resurrection (or 'awakening'); and, secondly, as an ALLEGORY
of the piety that induces men to abandon a wicked or frivolous world in order
to keep their faith unsullied, and of God's recognition of that faith by His
bestowal of a spiritual awakening which transcends time and death."
(Ibid., p. 439, n. 7)
And,
"The future tense in sayaqulun points once again to the
LEGENDARY character of the story as such, and implies that all speculation
about its details is irrelevant to its parabolic, ethical purport."
(Ibid., p. 442, n. 31)
In fact, Asad often points out the fact that many of the Quranic tales are
legendary, mythical. Note the following comments:
Asad on S. 2:102
"…At any rate, it is certain that from very ancient times Babylon was
reputed to be the home of magic arts, symbolized un the LEGENDARY persons-
perhaps kings- Harut and Marut; and it is to this LEGEND that the Qur’an
refers with a view to condemning every attempt at magic and sorcery, as well
as all preoccupation with occult sciences in general." (Ibid., p.22, n. 83)
Asad on S. 2:259
"…The story told in this verse is obviously a PARABLE meant to
illustrate God’s power to bring the dead back to life… The speculation of
some of the earlier commentators as to the ‘identity’ of the man and the
town mentioned in this story are without any substance, and may have been
influenced by TALMUDIC LEGENDS." (Ibid., p. 58, n. 253)
Asad on S. 18:50
"…This short reference to the oft-repeated ALLEGORY of God’s
commands to the angels to ‘prostrate themselves before Adam’ is meant,
in the above context, to stress man’s inborn faculty of conceptual
thinking…" (Ibid., p. 446, n. 52)
And,
"… As regards Satan’s SYMBOLIC ‘rebellion’ against God,
see notes 26 on 2:34 and note 31 on 15:41." (Ibid., p. 447, n. 55)
When we turn to Asad’s notes to S. 2:34-35 on the story of Adam, Eve and
the Garden something interesting emerges:
"… Lit., ‘the garden’. There is a considerable difference of
opinion among the commentators as to what is meant here by ‘garden’; a
garden in the earthly sense, or the paradise that awaits the righteous in the
life to come, or some special garden in the heavenly region? According to some
of the earliest commentators (see Manar I, 277), an earthly abode
is here alluded to- namely, an environment of perfect ease, happiness and
innocence. In any case, this story of Adam is OBVIOUSLY one of the
ALLEGORIES referred to in 3:7." (Ibid., p. 9, n. 27)
Again,
"… As in the parallel account of this parable of the Fall in
2:35-36, the dual form of the address changes at this stage into the plural,
thus connecting once again with verse 10 and the beginning of verse 11 of this
surah, and making it clear that the story of Adam and Eve is, in
reality, an ALLEGORY of human destiny… In this deeper sense, the ALLEGORY of
the Fall does not describe a retrogressive happening but, rather, a new stage
of human development…" (Ibid., p. 205, n. 16)
Asad on S. 18:60
"…In this instance, it evidently marks a connection, with verse 54
above (‘many facets have We given in this Qur’an to every kind of lesson
[designed] for [the benefit of] mankind’), and introduces an ALLEGORY meant
to illustrate the fact that knowledge, and particularly spiritual knowledge, is
inexhaustible… The subsequent PARABLE of Moses and his quest for knowledge
(verses 60-82) has become, in the course of time, the nucleus of INNUMERABLE
LEGENDS with which we are not concerned here… There is no doubt that
this Tradition is a kind of ALLEGORICAL introduction to our Qur’anic
PARABLE… As for the ‘junction of the two seas’, which many of the
early commentators endeavored to ‘identify’ in geographical terms (ranging
from the meeting of the Red Sea and the Indian Ocean at the Bab al-Mandab to
that of the Mediterranean Sea and the Atlantic Ocean at the Straits of
Gibraltar), Baydawi offers, in his commentary on verse 60, a purely
ALLEGORICAL explanation…" (Ibid., pp. 448-449, n. 67)
And,
"…In the Tradition on the authority of Ubayy ibn Ka’b (referred to
in note 67) this mysterious sage is spoken of as Al-Khadir or Al-Khidr,
meaning ‘the Green One’. Apparently this is an epithet rather than a name,
implying (according to popular LEGEND) that his wisdom was ever-fresh
(‘green’) and imperishable: a notion which bears out the assumption
that we have here an ALLEGORIC FIGURE symbolizing the utmost depth of mystic
insight accessible to man." (Ibid., p. 449, n. 73)
Asad is not alone in acknowledging that the Quran contains ancient tales of
the Arabs and of the Judeo-Christian communities. Abdullah Yusuf Ali, in his
famous translation of the Quran, also acknowledges this fact.
Ali On S. 2:55
"…We have hitherto had instances from Jewish traditional Taurat (or
Pentateuch). Now we have some instances from Jewish traditions in the Talmud,
or body of exposition in the Jewish theological schools…" (Ali, The
Holy Qur’an-Translation and Commentary, p. 30, n. 70)
Ali On S. 2:70
"…The gushing twelve springs from a rock evidently refers to a
LOCAL TRADITION well known to Jews and Arabs at Mustafa’s time… The
Jewish Tradition would be based on Exod. xvii. 6: ‘Thou shalt smite the
rock, and there shall come water out of it that the people may drink…"
(Ibid., p. 32, n. 73)
Ali On the Jews fishing on the Sabbath Day
"…There must have been a Jewish tradition about a whole fishing
community in sea side town, which persisted in breaking the Sabbath and were
turned into apes…" (Ibid., p. 34, n. 79)
Ali On Abraham being tossed in the Fire
"…traditionally the fire incident is referred to a king
called Nimrud… if Nimrud 's capital was in Assyria, near Ninevah (site
near modern Mosul), we may suppose either that the king 's rule extended over
the whole of Mesopotamia, or that Abraham wandered north through Babylonia to
Assyria." (Ibid., p. 837, n. 2725)
"…Can we localize Nimrud? If LOCAL TRADITION can be relied upon,
the king must have ruled over the tract which includes the modern Nimrud, on the
Tigris, about twenty miles south of Mosul. This is the site of the Assyrian
ruins of great interest, but the rise of Assyria as an empire was of course much
later than the time of Abraham. The Assyrian city Kalakh (Calah), and
archaeological excavations carried out there have yielded valuable results,
which are however irrelevant for our commentary." (Ibid., p. 533, n. 1565)
And,
"…In Arab tradition there is the story of Abraham. Nimrud
tries to burn him to death, but on account of Abraham's faith the fire became
a means of safety for Abraham…" (Ibid., p. 1714, n. 6055)
The late Syed Abu-Ala' Maududi concedes the fact that the Quranic story of
the drowning of the Pharaoh at S. 10:90-91 finds parallels in the Talmud:
"…Though this is not mentioned in the Bible, it is explicitly
recorded in the Talmud in the following words: ‘Who is like Thee, O
Lord, among the gods?’" (Towards Understanding the Qur’an-Vol.
IV, Surahs 10-16, an english translation of Tafhim al-Qur’an by
Zafar Ishaq, assisted by A.R. Kidwai [The Islamic Foundation (printed and
bound in Great Britain by the Cromwell Press), rpt. 1999], p. 63, n. 91)
We conclude this section with the words of Faruq Sherif:
Some Legendary Figures
In the course of developing its teachings, the Qur’an frequently cites
the example not of prophets and sages of ancient times, but also of some
LEGENDARY, MYTHICAL or even FICTITIOUS persons. Chief among these is
Khidr, the Evergreen who, though not mentioned by name, is recognised as the
mysterious person (the possessor of divinely-inspired knowledge of the secret
sources of life) whom Moses met on his ALLEGORICAL journey… Another
LEGEND prominently described in the Qur’an is that of the ‘seven
sleepers’ or the ‘Companions of the Cave’ also mentioned in another
section of this book. In this connection mention is made of the angels Harut
and Marut who taught magic at Babylon, but warned the people that the teaching
was imparted to them only to try them. In the commentaries of the Qur’an
Harut and Marut have been identified with the two fallen angels of Jewish
tradition who, having sinned on earth, were hung by their feet over a well
for punishment.
A summary is given below of the contents of the Qur’an relating to
three LEGENDARY figures: Dhulqarnain, Luqman, Qarun. A section is also
included on Pharaoh who, although a historical person, often appears in the
Qur’an as an archetype for autocracy. The experiences or characteristics
of these MYTHICAL or SEMI-MYTHICAL figures are included to serve a salutary
example or a dissuasive lesson to believers." (Sherif, A Guide to
the Contents of the Qur’an [Garnet Publishing, 8 South Court South
Street, Reading, RG1 4QS UK, 1995], pp. 94-95)
Need we say more?
Questionable and Pornographic Language of the Quran
The Virgin birth of Christ
The Quran describes Jesus’ virginal conception and birth in seemingly
graphic and tasteless language:
And (remember) her who guarded her SEXUAL ORGAN (Arabic-farjahaa):
We breathed into her from Our Spirit, and We made her and her son a Sign
for all people. S. 21:91
And Mary the daughter of ‘Imran, who guarded her SEXUAL ORGAN (Arabic-farjahaa)
and We breathed INTO IT of Our spirit; and she testified to the truth
of the words of her Lord and of His revelations, and was one of the devout
(servants). S. 66:12
Mahmoud M. Ayoub contrasts the birth narratives of the Gospel of Luke with
that mentioned in the Quran:
"The language of this verse (author- Luke 1:35) is clearly
circumspect. It implies no sexual union or divine generation of any kind.
Furthermore, while Luke’s description agrees with both in form and spirit
with the Qur’anic idea conception of Christ, the language of the Qur’an IS
FAR MORE GRAPHIC AND OPEN TO INTERPRETATION." (Christian-Muslim
Encounters, ed. Yvonne Yazbeck Haddad & Wadi Z. Haddad [University
Press of Florida, 1995], p. 67)
He goes on to say:
"…Then of Mary He (author-allegedly God) continues: ‘And she who
guarded well [lit. fortified] her chastity [lit. GENERATIVE ORGAN], and
thus We breathed INTO HER of our spirit, and We made her and her son a
sign [or miracle, ‘Aya] for all beings’ (S. 21:90-91)…
"In the second instance the Qur’an speaks of Mary as a righteous
woman who lived in strict chastity and obedience to God: ‘And Mary daughter
of ‘Imran who guarded well her GENERATIVE ORGAN farjaha, and
thus We breathed INTO HER of our spirit’ (S. 66:12). THE BOLD AND GRAPHIC
STATEMENT APPEARS TO HAVE SHOCKED TRADITIONISTS AND COMMENTATORS, so that
most of them tired to cover it up with different and FARFETCHED signification
or glosses over it with out comment…
"Ibn Kathir interprets the phrase ‘guarded well her generative
organ’ to mean: ‘safeguarded and protected it. Guarding well ihsan
signifies chastity and high birth.’ He comments on the phrase, ‘and thus
We breathed into it of our spirit’ thus ‘that is, through the angel
Gabriel. This is because God sent him to her, and he took for her the form of
a man of good stature (S. 19:17). God commanded him to breathe INTO THE
BREAST OF HER CHEMISE. HIS BREATH WENT DOWN AND PENETRATED HERE GENERATIVE
ORGAN, AND THUS CAUSED HER TO CONCEIVE JESUS… (Ibid.)
Finally:
"Abu Ja’far al-Tusi, the jurist doctor of the Shi’i community, as
well as his well known disciple al-Tabarsi, read the words, ‘We breathed
into it’ literally. Al-Tusi says: ‘It has been held that Gabriel BREATHED
INTO MARY’S GENERATIVE ORGAN then God created Christ in it’…"
(Ibid., p. 68)
Wife Beating
One sad aspect of Muhammad's sunna is that Muslim men are given the privilege
of beating their wives if the women show signs of rebellion:
"Men are superior to women on account of the qualities which God hath
gifted the one above the other, and on account of the outlay they
make from their substance for them. Virtuous women are obedient, careful,
during the husband's absence, because God hath of them been careful.
But chide those for whose refractoriness ye have cause to fear; remove them
into beds apart, and SCOURGE THEM: but if they are obedient to you then
seek not occasion against them: verily, God is High, Great!" S. 4:34
Rodwell
The embarrassment of this passage has led Muslim scholars to redefine
scourging as a light tap which leaves no mark. An example of such a view is Ibn
Kathir:
<And beat them.> if they do not abstain from their disobedience
through both advise and desertion. However, the beating should be Dharbun
ghayru mubrah, i.e. light, according to the hadith narrated in Sahih
Muslim, on the authority of Jabir, who had quoted the Prophet as saying in his
farewell pilgrimage: "And fear Allah in women, for they are your aides,
and their duties towards you is that your beds should not be shared with
someone you dislike. Therefore, if they disobey you, beat them lightly,
and your duty towards them is that you should maintain and buy them clothes in
a reasonable manner."
Scholars said: Dharbun ghayru mubrahun means: The husband
should beat his wife lightly, in way which does not result in breaking one of
her limbs or affecting her badly. (Tafsir Ibn Kathir, part 6,
p. 53 bold italic emphasis ours)
Notice that even in Ibn Kathir's translation of S. 4:34 the command to beat
one's wife sticks out clearly. Furthermore, there is absolutely no justification
in beating women even if that beating is mild. This is simply inhumane to say
the least.
Some Muslims also appeal to Hadiths where it is reported that Muhammad
disallowed wife abuse. Yet, unfortunately for these Muslims the preceding
statement from Ibn Kathir that at the time of the Farewell Pilgrimage Muhammad
gave the command to beat women cancels out such an attempt to deny spousal
abuse. In fact, other traditions clearly show Muslims beating their wives with
Muhammad's approval:
"…the above verse (i.e., 4:34) was revealed in connection with a
woman who complained to Mohammad that her husband slapped her on the face
(which was still marked by the slap). At first the Prophet said to her:
'Get even with him,' but then added: 'Wait until I think about it.' Later on
the above verse was revealed, after which the Prophet said: 'We wanted one
thing but Allah wanted another, and what Allah wanted is best.’"
(Ar-Razi, At-tafsir al-Kabir on Q. 4:34)
Ibn Kathir reports:
On the authority of Ali, Ibn Mardawih narrated: "A man from al-Ansar
came with a woman to the Prophet, then the woman said: 'O Allah's Messenger!
Her husband who was known as so and so from al-Ansar had hit her and that
had affected her face.' The Prophet replied: 'He should not have
done that.’ Then, the verse, <men are the protectors and maintainers
of women. >, as far as discipline is concerned, was revealed.
Therefore, the Prophet said: 'You wanted something and Allah wanted
something else.'" (Ibid., pp. 50-51 italic emphasis ours)
In Sahih al-Bukhari, Volume 7, Number 715 we find another woman who was
beaten severely enough that a green bruise was found on her body.
Narrated Ikrima:
Rifa'a divorced his wife whereupon Abdur-Rahman bin Az-Zubair Al-Qurazi
married her. Aisha said that the lady (came), wearing a green veil (and
complained to her (Aisha) of her husband and showed her a green spot on her
skin caused by the beating.) It was the habit of ladies to support each
other, so when Allah's Apostle came, Aisha said, "I have not seen any
woman suffering as much as the believing woman. Look! Her skin is greener than
her clothes!" When Abdur-Rahman heard that his wife had gone to the
Prophet, he came with his two sons from another wife. She said, "By
Allah! I have done no wrong to him, but he is impotent, and is useless to me
as this," holding and showing the fringe of her garment. Abdur-Rahman
said, "By Allah, O Allah's Apostle! She told a lie! I am very strong and
can satisfy her but she is disobedient and wants to go back to Rifa'a."
Allah's Apostle said to her, "If that is your intention, then know that
it is unlawful for you to remarry Rifa'a unless Abdur-Rahman has had sexual
intercourse with you." Then the Prophet saw two boys with Abdur-Rahman
and asked (him), "Are these your sons?" On that Abdur-Rahman said,
"Yes." The Prophet said, "you claim what you claim (i.e., that
he is impotent)? But by Allah, these boys resemble him as a crow resembles a
crow."
We notice two things from this Hadith. First, Aisha attests that Muslim women
were suffering more than any other women. Second, Muhammad never once corrected
Abdur-Rahman for beating his wife so hard as to leave a bruise on her body but
focuses instead on his wife's allegations and motives.
In Sunan of Abu Dawud, # 2141 we read:
Iyas Dhubab reported the apostle of Allah as saying: "Do not beat
Allah's hand maidens," but when Umar came to the apostle of Allah and
said: "Women have become emboldened towards their husbands," he (the
prophet), gave permission to beat them. Then many women came
round the family of the apostle of Allah complaining against their husbands.
So the apostle of Allah said, "Many women have gone round Muhammad's
family complaining against their husbands. They are not the best among
you."
And, in # 2142 Umar reported the prophet as saying:
"A man will not be asked as to why he beat his wife."
When Ash'ath Ibn al-Qays discovered Umar b. Khattab beating his wife, Umar
stated: "Memorise three things from me, which I memorised from the
prophet, who said: 'The man is not to be asked why he beat his wife…" (Ibn
Kathir on Q. 4:34, taken from a Hadith reported by Abu Dawood, al-Nisa'i and
Ibn Magah)
In Sahih al-Bukhari Volume 7, Number 132 Muhammad said:
"None of you should flog his wife as he flogs his slave and
then have sexual intercourse with her in the last part of the day."
In other words, it is all right to flog women, only not as hard as slaves, or
on the day a person decides to have intercourse with them. This exposes Islam's
harsh treatment of both women and slaves.
Another time where a woman was beaten occurred shortly after an incident
involving Muhammad's youngest wife, Aisha. According to the traditions, after
the Muslims were returning to Medina from the campaign of Banu al-Mustaliq,
Aisha fell behind. Safwan Mu'attal ibn al-Salami found her stranded and brought
her back to the camp. A rumor began to spread that Safwan and Aisha had
committed adultery, causing Muhammad to distrust his young wife.
In order to get to the heart of the matter, Ali ibn Abu Talib decided to
question Aisha's female servant in the presence of Muhammad about the latter's
wife. Haykal notes,
"The servant was called in and Ali immediately seized her and
struck her painfully and repeatedly as he commanded her to tell the truth
to the Prophet of God." (Husayn, The Life of Muhammad, p. 336)
According to Mishkat Al-Masabih's translator, in his footnote of Fatwa
by Qazi Khan, that beating a wife mildly is:
"allowed in four cases (1) when she does not wear fineries though
wanted by the husband, (2) when she is called for sexual intercourse and she
refuses without any lawful excuse, (3) when she is ordered to take a bath (to
clean herself) from impurities for prayer and she refuses and (4) when she
goes abroad without permission of her husband." (Mishkat, Bk.1,
section "duties of husband and wife," f. 138)
This is confirmed by Abu Dawud in his notes on #2141 and #2142:
"This shows that wives should obey their husbands," and,
"This means that a man tries his best to correct his wife, but if he
fails to do so, he is allowed to beat her as a last resort. This tradition
never means that a husband should beat his wife without any valid reason."
In fact, the hadiths record Muhammad singling out one Muslim for having the
reputation of being a great wife beater!:
Fatima bint Qais (Allah be pleased with her) reported that her husband
divorced her with three, pronouncements and Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon
him) made no provision for her lodging and maintenance allowance. She (further
said): Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him) said to me: When your period of
'Idda is over, inform me. So I informed him. (By that time) Mu'awiya, Abu Jahm
and Usama b. Zaid had given her the proposal of marriage. Allah's Messenger (may
peace be upon him) said: So far as Mu'awiya is concerned, he is a poor man
without any property. So far as Abu Jahm is concerned, he is a great beater
of women, but Usama b. Zaid... She pointed with her hand (that she did not
approve of the idea of marrying) Usama. But Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon
himn) said: Obedience to Allah and obedience to His Messenger is better for
thee. She said: So I married him, and I became an object of envy. (Sahih
Muslim, Book 009, Number 3526) Fatima bint Qais (Allah be pleased with her)
reported: My husband Abu 'Amr b. Hafs b. al-Mughira sent 'Ayyish b. Abu Rabi'a
to me with a divorce, and he also sent through him five si's of dates and five
si's of barley. I said: Is there no maintenance allowance for me but only this,
and I cannot even spend my 'Idda period in your house? He said: No. She said: I
dressed myself and came to Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him). He said:
How many pronouncements of divorce have been made for you? I said: Three. He
said what he ('Ayyish b. Abu Rabi'a) had stated was true. There is no
maintenance allowance for you. Spend 'Idda period in the house of your cousin,
Ibn Umm Maktum. He is blind and you can put off your garment in his presence.
And when you have spent your Idda period, you inform me. She said: Mu'awiya and
Abu'l-Jahm (Allah be pleased with them) were among those who had given me the
proposal of marriage. Thereupon Allah's Apostle (may peace be upon him) said:
Mu'awiya is destitute and in poor condition and Abu'l-Jahm is very harsh with
women (or he beats women, or like that), you should take Usama b. Zaid (as
your husband). (Sahih Muslim, Book 009, 3527)
We must ask the Debater the following question. Does Muhammad's allowance of
Muslim men to beat rebellious wives show signs of integrity? What women would
view Muhammad as honest and trustworthy seeing that he favors domestic abuse?
S. 4:34 also points out the fact that Allah has made man superior to woman.
This superiority is not due solely to position as we find in the Holy Bible, but
also includes the fact that Allah has given men superior qualities over women.
This idea is restated in S. 2:28:
"…Women have such honorable rights as obligations, but their men
have a degree above them."
Ibn Kathir on 4:34 states:
In this verse Allah says that the man is the leader over the woman and
is the one who disciplines her if she does wrong. <Because Allah has
made one of them excel the other.>, this is because men are
better than women, and man is better than woman. Therefore, prophethood
and kingship were confined to men, as the Prophet said: 'A people that
choose woman as their leader will not succeed.' This hadith was narrated by
Al-Bukhari. Added to that positions such as judiciary, etc…. <And
because they spend from their means.> Here, Allah refers to the dowry
and expenses, which Allah has prescribed in the Qur'an and Sunnah; and
given a man is better than a woman, it is appropriate that he be her protector
and maintainer, as Allah says: <But men have a degree over
them.> (2:228). (Tafsir Ibn Kathir, part 6, p. 50 bold italic
emphasis ours)
And Ibn Kathir on 2:228:
<But men have a degree over them.>, that is, men have a degree
over women as far as virtue, behavior, status, obeying orders, expenditure,
fulfilling duties, and grace in both worldly life and the Hereafter… (Tafsir
Ibn Kathir, part 2, p. 204)
Unlimited Concubines For Sex
The Quran also allows Muslims the right to have an unlimited amount of
slave girls for sex:
If ye fear that ye shall not be able to deal justly with the orphans, marry
women of your choice, two, or three, or four; but if ye fear that ye shall not
be able to deal justly (with them), then only one, or that which your right
hands possess. That will be more suitable to prevent you from doing
injustice. S. 4:3
According to Ibn Kathir, the phrase "that which your right hands
posses" refers to the slave girls in the possession of Muslim men:
The Ayah commands, if you fear that you will not be able to do
justice between your wives by marrying more than one, then marry only one
wife, OR SATISFY YOURSELF WITH ONLY FEMALE CAPTIVES, FOR IT IS NOT
OBLIGATORY TO TREAT THEM EQUALLY, rather, it is recommended. So if one
does so, that is good, and if not, there is no harm on him… (Tafsir
Ibn Kathir-Abridged Volume 2 Surat Al-Baqarah, Verse 253, to Surat An-Nisa,
Verse 147, parts 3-5, p. 375)
Temporary Marriages-Mut’a
One shameful aspect of Islam is the practice of temporary marriages called mut'a.
This practice granted Muhammad's followers the privilege of gratifying their
carnal desires with women for a temporary time period at a very cheap price:
And all married women (are forbidden unto you) save those (captives)
whom your right hands possess. It is a decree of Allah for you. Lawful
unto you are all beyond those mentioned, so that ye seek them with your wealth
in honest wedlock, not debauchery. And those of whom ye seek content (by
marrying them), give unto them their portions as a duty. And there is no sin
for you in what ye do by mutual agreement after the duty (hath been done).
Lo! Allah is ever Knower, Wise. S. 4:24 Pickthall
Ibn Kathir comments:
"… <And how could you take it back and you have gone in unto
each other.> (4:21): the general meaning of which was given as evidence
for Mut'a Marriage (Marriage for an intended short time) which was,
undoubtedly, PREVALENT at the onset of Islam, but was abrogated thereafter.
Ash-Shafi'i and a group of scholars were of the opinion that Mut'a Marriage
had once been permitted but was later invalidated on two occasions. Some
were more assertive than that, while others have made it lawful only if
necessary. The majority of scholars, however, have opposed this view. The
correct statement is mentioned in Sahih Al-Bukhari and Sahih Muslim, on the
authority of Ali Ibn Abu Talib: 'The Prophet forbade Mut'a Marriage and
the meat of local skylarks (a type of bird) on the Day of Khaibar.'
"It is narrated in Sahih Muslim, on the authority of Ar-Rabi' Ibn
Sabrah Ibn Ma'bad Al-Juhani, who had quoted from his father, who had
participated in the Conquest of Makkah with the Prophet who said: 'O, People! I
have permitted you to do Mut'a Marriage and Allah has forbidden it until the
Day of Judgment. Therefore, whosoever is married to a woman through this type
of marriage, should release them and should not take anything back from Mahr
you have given them.' According to Muslim, it was said during Hujjatal Wadaa'
(Farewell Pilgrimage). This Hadith has other meanings in the Book of Al-Ahkaam."
(Tafsir Ibn Kathir, abridged by Sheikh Muhammad Nasib Ar-Rafa'i
[Al-Firdous Ltd., London; First edition 2000], part 5, pp. 29-30 italic
emphasis ours)
-
The Hadith supplies several examples of such marriages:
Abdullah (b. Mas'ud) reported: We were on an expedition with Allah's
Messenger (may peace be upon him) and we had no women with us. We said: Should
we not have ourselves castrated? He (the Holy Prophet) forbade us to do so
He then granted us permission that we should contract temporary marriage for a
stipulated period giving her a garment, and 'Abdullah then recited this
verse: 'Those who believe do not make unlawful the good things which Allah has
made lawful for you, and do not transgress. Allah does not like trangressers"
(al-Qur'an, v. 87). (Sahih Muslim Book 008, Number 3243)
Jabir b. 'Abdullah and Salama b. al-Akwa' said: There came to us the
proclaimer of Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him) and said: Allah's
Messenger (may peace be upon him) has granted you permission to benefit
yourselves, i. e. to contract temporary marriage with women. (Sahih
Muslim, Book 008, Number 3246)
Abu Nadra reported: While I was in the company of Jabir b. Abdullah, a
person came to him and said that Ibn 'Abbas and Ibn Zubair differed on the
two types of Mut'as (Tamattu' of Hajj 1846 and Tamattu' with women),
whereupon Jabir said: We used to do these two during the lifetime of
Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him). Umar then forbade us to do
them, and so we did not revert to them. (Sahih Muslim, Book 008, Number
3250)
Finally:
Rabi' b. Sabra reported that his father went on an expedition with Allah's
Messenger (may peace be upon him) during the Victory of Mecca, and we stayed
there for fifteen days (i. e. for thirteen full days and a day and a night),
and Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him) permitted us to contract
temporary marriage with women. So I and another person of my tribe went out, and
I was more handsome than he, whereas he was almost ugly. Each one of us
had a cloak, My cloak was worn out, whereas the cloak of my cousin was quite
new. As we reached the lower or the upper side of Mecca, we came across a
young woman like a young smart long-necked she-camel. We said: Is it
possible that one of us may contract temporary marriage with you? She said:
What will you give me as a dower? Each one of us spread his cloak. She
began to cast a glance on both the persons. My companion also looked at her
when she was casting a glance at her side and he said: This cloak of his is
worn out, whereas my cloak is quite new. She, however, said twice or
thrice: There is no harm in (accepting) this cloak (the old one). So I
contracted temporary marriage with her, and I did not come out (of this) until
Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him) declared it forbidden. (Sahih
Muslim, Book 008, Number 3253)
What kind of prophet would sanction such immorality? Is not this type of
temporary marriage a form of legal prostitution since the intent in the marriage
is sexual gratification as opposed to marital union and family upbringing? And
how does this maintain the integrity of the women who are simply provided
material gifts for the degrading of their bodies in satisfying the sexual lust
of men acting as untamed animals?
Sex In Paradise
The Holy Bible states that there will be no sexual activity in heaven:
- Jesus replied, "The people of this age marry and are given in
marriage. But those who are considered worthy of taking part in that age and
in the resurrection from the dead will neither marry nor be given in
marriage, and they can no longer die; for they are like the angels. They are
God's children, since they are children of the resurrection." Luke
20:34-36
Our joy in heaven is to be in God’s holy and perfect presence:
- Then I saw a new heaven and a new earth, for the first heaven and the
first earth had passed away, and there was no longer any sea. I saw the
Holy City, the new Jerusalem, coming down out of heaven from God, prepared
as a bride beautifully dressed for her husband. And I heard a loud voice
from the throne saying, "Now the dwelling of God is with men, and he
will live with them. They will be his people, and God himself will be with
them and be their God. He will wipe every tear from their eyes. There will
be no more death or mourning or crying or pain, for the old order of
things has passed away." He who was seated on the throne said,
"I am making everything new!" Then he said, "Write this
down, for these words are trustworthy and true." He said to me:
"It is done. I am the Alpha and the Omega, the Beginning and the End.
To him who is thirsty I will give to drink without cost from the spring of
the water of life. He who overcomes will inherit all this, and I will be
his God and he will be my son. But the cowardly, the unbelieving, the
vile, the murderers, the sexually immoral, those who practice magic arts,
the idolaters and all liars--their place will be in the fiery lake of
burning sulfur. This is the second death." Revelation 21:1-8
Yet the Quran teaches that men will be granted access to a paradise that is
purely carnal:
As to the righteous, they will be in gardens and in happiness... (to them
will be said,) "Eat and drink ye with profit and health, because of your
(good) deeds." They will recline (with ease) on thrones (of dignity)
arranged in ranks; and We shall join them (in the original: marry them) to
companions with beautiful, big and lustrous eyes… And We shall bestow on
them, of fruit and meat, anything they desire. S. 52:17, 19, 20, 22 (see also
4:57; 76:12-22; 55:54-56; 47:15)
Even more astonishing is this description:
"Surely for the godfearing awaits a place of security, gardens and
vineyards, and maidens of SWELLING BREASTS (kawa'eb), like of age,
and a cup overflowing." S. 78:33 Arberry (see also Dawood, Rodwell)
Ibn Kathir, one of Islam's premiere commentators, notes:
"Kawa'eb" – "SWELLING AND FIRM, NOT SAGGING." (Quoted
from M. Rafiqul-Haqq and P. Newton, Place of Women in Pure in Islam, p.
30 – you can read it online.
To imagine that God would reveal such a verse, wherein he would actually say
that in paradise one will find women who literally have firm breasts is
incredulous.
The idea of having sexual relations in Paradise has led some Muslims to
interpret these passages metaphorically. This in turn has prompted the
assumption that the description is merely a poetic attempt to describe that
which is indescribable.
Unfortunately for these scholars, Muhammad will not allow for such an
interpretation. In Sahih Muslim, no. 6793 and 6794, we are told:
"In Paradise… every person would have two wives (so beautiful) that
the marrow of their shanks would glimmer beneath the flesh and there would be
none without a wife in Paradise."
According to Ibn Kathir's commentary on S. 56:35-37, a Muslim will be given
seventy specially created females with two of his earthly wives, for a total of
seventy-two maidens in Paradise.
In Mishkat Al-Masabih, Muhammad indicates:
"The believer will be given such and such strength in Paradise for
sexual intercourse. It was questioned: O prophet of Allah! Can he do that? He
said: ‘He will be given the strength of one hundred persons.’"
(Bk. IV, chp. XLII, Hadith no. 24; transmitted by Tirmizi who classified this
Hadith as sound)
Even more amazing is this statement from Muhammad:
"The Prophet was asked: 'Do we have sex in Paradise?' He answered:
‘Yes, by him who holds my soul in his hand, and it will be done dahman,
dahman. And when it is finished she will return pure and virgin
again.’" (Ibn Kathir's commentary on S. 56:35-37)
An editorial footnote to Ibn Kathir’s translation indicates that the word dahman
means intercourse done with such "shove and disturbance." (Ibid.)
In fact, according to some Muslim scholars homosexuality will also be
permitted in heaven! :
"Abul-Ala al-Maari said that homosexuality will be
permissible in paradise. He based this opinion on Sura al-Waqi’a
56:17-23: ‘Round about them ARE MALE YOUTHS OF FRESHNESS… and there
will be huris ("beautiful companions with large and lustrous eyes,
like pearls well-guarded").’
"Abul-Ala said: ‘If wine is prohibited in this world and allowed in
paradise, the same will happen with homosexuality’ (Risala al-ghufran
by al-Maarri and Khawater Muslim fi al-mas’ala al-Jinsiyya by
Muhammad Jalal Kishk)." (True Guidance, pt. 4, p. 122)
To say that this is incredulous would be a wild understatement!
Finally, the Quran speaks of women as tillage that one can plow into anyway
they choose:
"Your women are a tillage for you, so go to your tillage as you
will." S. 2:223
According to some Muslim sources, this verse was revealed to condone anal
sex:
Narrated Jabir:
Jews used to say: "If one has sexual intercourse with his wife from
the back, then she will deliver a squint-eyed child." So this Verse
was revealed:-
"‘Your wives are a tilth unto you; so go to your tilth when or how
you will.’ (2.223)" (Bukhari, Volume 6, Book 60, Number 51)
And,
"Ibn Abbas said, in question with this verse, that the Muslims from
Medina had previously practiced a type of sexual relationship between husband
and wife which they had learned from the Jews, in which the husband
honours his wife with respect. When the Muslims from Mecca arrived, they
brought a different standard of behaviour with them. This created a severe
tension in the Islamic community. Muhammad answered it with the above verse
and allowed men to behave as they wished. He allowed his followers anything
that would satisfy their beastly lusts. (The full text of this hadith
is not translated out of spiritual reservations).
"Ibn Abbas said: ‘Umar came to Muhammad and said: "I have
perished." "Why?" Muhammad asked. "It is because I have
altered the normal position of sex tonight."’ He meant to say that he
had sexual intercourse away from his usual place. At first, Muhammad gave no
reply, then he claimed that Allah gave him license. Muhammad and Umar were
shameless and immodest. Muhammad should have guided Umar to God’s holiness
and purity.
"Al-Bukhari narrated after Ibn Umar that al-Baqara 2:223 was revealed on
the issue of having anal intercourse with women. Al-Tabarani narrated in Al-Aswat,
with a reliable chain of traditions, that ‘Your women are a tillage for
you’ was only revealed to license anal intercourse (Asbab al-Nuzul
by al-Suyuti on Sura al-Baqara 2:223)." (True Guidance, pt. 5, pp.
48-49)
Interestingly, we find Bukhari’s Hadith on Ibn Umar’s comments to S.
2:223 yet with one added twist:
Narrated Nafi':
Whenever Ibn 'Umar recited the Qur'an, he would not speak to anyone till he
had finished his recitation. Once I held the Qur'an and he recited Surat-al-Baqara
from his memory and then stopped at a certain Verse and said, "Do you
know in what connection this Verse was revealed?" I replied,
"No." He said, "It was revealed in such-and-such
connection." Ibn 'Umar then resumed his recitation. Nafi added regarding
the Verse:--"So go to your tilth when or how you will" Ibn
‘Umar said said, "It means one should approach his wife in…" (Bukhari,
Volume 6, Book 60, Number 50)
According to Muhsin Khan the reason for the break in the quotation is due to
the fact that, "Al-Bukhari left a blank space here because he was not sure
of what Ibn ‘Umar had said." (Khan, Sahih Al-Bukhari, Volume 6, p.
39)
We are left wondering as to why Bukhari decided to leave a blank space
precisely at the point when Umar was about to explain S. 2:223? Could it be that
Ibn Umar had in fact justified anal sex, leaving Bukhari too embarrassed to
include this in his collection?
Interestingly, Ibn Kathir indirectly affirms that certain Muslims had
concocted hadiths justifying anal intercourse:
"…However, is forbidden to have sex with one’s wife in the anus...
Quoting his father, from his grand father, Amru Ibn Shu’aib narrated that
the Prophet said: ‘Having sex with one’s wife in the anus is minor
sodomy.’213 On the authority of Ali Ibn Talq, Imam Ahmad narrated: ‘’The
Prophet has forbidden sexual intercourse with one’s wife in the anus, for
Allah is not ashamed of the truth.’214 Quoting Abu Hurayrah: The Prophet
said: ‘Allah will not look at whoever has sex with his wife in the
anus.’215 Also, it was narrated on the authority of Abu Hurayrah that the
Prophet said: ‘Cursed is he who has sex with his wife in the anus.’ 216 Any
Ahadith which allow such act are considered incorrect and they were all
examined by our Sheikh al-Hafidh Abu Abdullah adh-Dhahabi in a volume which he
compiled, and proved weak and false.
"It was narrated on the authority of IBN UMAR, Malik, ash-Shafi’i
and at-Tahawi THAT IT IS LAWFUL but it is untrue. An-Nasr as-Sabbagh said:
Ar-Rabi’ used to swear by Allah that Ibn Abdul Hakam had lied, when he
had made allegations against ash-Shafi’i concerning the lawfulness of having
sex with one’s wife in the anus. On the contrary, ash-Shafi’i
mentioned the unlawfulness of having sex with one’s wife in the anus in six
of his books, and Allah knows best. Also, Ibn Umar forbade it. On the
authority of Sa’id Ibn Yasar abu al-Habbab, ad-Darami narrated: ‘I said to
Ibn Umar: "What do you think of having sex with one’s wife in the
anus?" Ibn Umar said: "Does anyone of the Muslims do that?"’
This is a good Isnad, and explicitly reveals the unlawfulness of such
act, and anything attributed to him is rejected on the ground of the above
Hadith.
"Ma’mar Ibn ‘Isa narrated that Malik considered having sex with
one’s wife in the anus is unlawful. Quoting Isarel Ibn Rawh, Abu Bakr Ibn
Zayyad an-Nisaburi narrated: ‘I asked Malik Ibn Anas’s opinion on having
sex with one’s wife from the back, he said: "You are but Arabs, and can
sowing be in a place other than that which has been ploughed? Do not go beyond
the vagina." I said: "People claim that you say that?" He
said: "It is a lie, it is a lie."’ Thus, this is what has been
attributed to them, and it involved Abu Hanifa, ash-Shafi’I, Ahmed Ibn
Hanbal and their companions, followers and other scholars from the Salaf.
They entirely denied the allegation and some of them even believed that
having sex with one’s wife in the anus is Kufr." (Tafsir Ibn
Kathir-Part 2 Sura Al-Baqarah, ayat 142-252, Abridged By Sheikh Muhammad
Nasib Ar-Rifa’i [Al-Firdous Ltd., London 1998], pp. 191-192)
Ibn Kathir acknowledges that Muslims were circulating hadiths permitting anal
sex, even appealing to the authority of Ibn Umar as evidence.
What is even more amazing is that one modern Muslim source has discredited
the hadiths forbidding anal sex. According to the Learner, the hadiths
that claim that anal sex is forbidden are questionable and do not conclusively
disprove having sex in the anus.
After commenting on the said hadiths with their chains of transmission and
the opinions of hadith Scholars, the article states:
Keeping in view the condition of these narratives, it should be quite
obvious why I have not based my argument on these narratives. Though the
referred narratives have been reported in some of the collections of hadith,
yet I cannot call the contents of these narratives "directives of the Shari`ah".
There are two reasons for this. Firstly because, as is pretty obvious from the
discussion above that the sanad (chain of narrators) of these
narratives is not reliable to qualify for ascription of the saying to the
Prophet (pbuh). This weakness in sanad is actually a hindrance for me in
ascribing something to the Prophet (pbuh) which has not reached us through
unquestionably reliable sources. Secondly, because in my opinion, the
nature of Khabr-e-wahid (hadith) is such that it does not allow us to
base the directives of Shari`ah on it alone. It seems that even if the
Prophet (pbuh) had said something about the prohibition of anal sex, it should
be placed as a natural prohibition (as I have done in my referred answer)
rather than a prohibition of the Shari`ah. Prohibitions mentioned in khabr-e-wahid
(hadith) are those that are either natural prohibitions or clear
corollaries of prohibitions mentioned in the Qur'an (Shari`ah). Unless
a prohibition mentioned in a khabr-e-wahid (hadith) clearly relates to
a natural prohibition or is clearly related to a prohibition mentioned in
the Qur'an, the ascription of such khabr-e-wahid (hadith) to the
Prophet (pbuh) becomes quite questionable.
In the referred case, although it is quite clear that prohibition of anal
sex is a natural prohibition but the reason that I avoided quoting these
narratives ascribed to the Prophet (pbuh) was that, in my opinion, the sanad
of these narratives is not reliable enough to ascribe these to the Prophet (pbuh).
Moreover, we see that none of the three most accepted collections of the
sayings ascribed to the Prophet (pbuh), that is the Sahih Bukhari, the Sahih
Muslim and the Mu'atta Imaam Malik contain any of these narratives
ascribed to the Prophet (pbuh). This fact obviously, creates serious doubts
regarding the ascription of such narratives to the Prophet (pbuh). (http://www.understanding-islam.com/rb/mb-061.htm)
Hence, we find arguments on both sides of the fence on whether anal sex is
permitted or prohibited.
Contradictions in the Quran
1. Abram or Abraham
The Holy Bible teaches that Abraham was originally called Abram. This name
remained until he was 99 years old when God then changed his name to Abraham:
"When Abram was ninety-nine years old, the LORD appeared to him
and said, 'I am God Almighty, walk before me and be blameless... Abram
fell facedown, and God said to him… No longer will you be called Abram,
your name will be Abraham for I have made you father of many nations.’"
Genesis 17:1, 3, 5
Yet, according to the Quran even while a youth Abraham's name remained the
same:
"They said: ‘We heard of the youth talked of them: He is
called Abraham.’" S. 21:60
2. John the Baptist's Name
According to S. 19:7, the name John was given to none before the Baptist:
"O Zachariah! Lo! We bring thee tidings of a son whose name is John;
we have given the same name to none before (him)."
However, we read of a John (Hebrew- Johanan) in 1 Kings 25:23, 1 Chronicles
3:15, 24, 6:9, 10, Ezra 8:12, etc. In fact, there are 27 instances of the name
"Johanan" mentioned in the Old Testament. The Hasmonean Dynasty ruled
Palestine in the century before John the Baptist appeared on the scene.
Palestine at that time was very Hellenized and Greek became the main language.
One of the priest-king of the Hasmonean Dynasty was John Hyrcanus, well attested
to in many historical and classical sources. Josephus talks about a John the
Essene who served as a general of the rebel force in Timna (Jewish War, 2.125).
1 Maccabees 2:1 tells us of "Mattathias son of John son of Simeon".
Mattathias also has a son called John (1 Maccebees 2:2). John's brother, Judas,
led the Jews in rebellion against Antiochus IV Epiphanes. Simon also has a son
named John (1 Maccebees 16:19). All these Johns lived before John the Baptist.
John was indeed a very common name.
One Muslim apologist, Dr. Jamal Badawi, attempts to cover up this error by
suggesting that the Quran is not emphasizing the uniqueness of the name per
se, but that name here implies there would be none like John in his
prophetic qualities. But even this won't work, since we discover that there is
one exactly like John, namely Elijah. This is due to the fact that the Baptist
came "in the spirit and power of Elijah," being the Elijah of Jesus'
first coming. (Cf. Luke 1:17; Matthew 17:10-13)
3. Sacrifices Commanded Upon All?
The Quran claims that all believers were commanded to offer animal
sacrifices:
"To every people did We Appoint rites (of sacrifice), That they might
celebrate The name of God over The sustenance He gave them From the animals
(fit for food). But your God is One God: Submit then your wills to Him (In
Islam): and give thou The good news to those Who humble themselves." S.
22:34
There is only one problem, namely that Christians have never been commanded
to offer sacrifices. Jesus is the Christian's only perfect and final sacrifice,
having been delivered up for our sins once, never to be repeated.
4. Messengers to all Nations or from Abraham's Seed?
According to the Quran, God sent messengers to every nation:
"And verily We have raised among every people a messenger,
(proclaiming): Serve Allah and shun false gods…" S. 16:36
Yet, this contradicts two other references, which seemingly imply that
prophethood was placed solely amongst the seed of Abraham and that God has not
willed that everyone should receive the guidance:
"And We bestowed on him Isaac and Jacob, and We established the
prophethood and the Scripture among his seed, and We gave him his reward
in the world, and lo! in the Hereafter he verily is among the righteous."
S. 29:27
And,
"And if We had so willed, We could have given every soul its
guidance, but the word from Me concerning evildoers took effect: that I
will fill hell with the jinn and mankind together." S. 32:13
Days of Creation In the Quran
The Quranic view of the origin of the Universes is completely incompatible
with modern science. Note the following two Quranic passages:
Say: Is it that ye deny Him Who created the earth in two Days? And do ye
join equals with Him? He is the Lord of (all) the Worlds. He set on the
(earth), mountains standing firm, high above it, and bestowed blessings on the
earth, and measure therein its sustenance, in four Days, alike for (all) who
ask. THEN (thumma) He turned to the sky, and it had been (as)
smoke: He said to it and to the earth: "Come ye together, willingly
or unwillingly." They said: "We do come (together), in willing
obedience." So He completed them as seven firmaments in two Days, and He
assigned to each heaven its duty and command. And We adorned the lower heaven
with lights, and (provided it) with guard. Such is the Decree of (Him) the
Exalted in Might, Full of Knowledge. S. 49:9-12
It is He Who hath created for you all things that are on earth; THEN
(thumma) Then He turned to the heavens, and made them into seven
firmaments; and of all things He hath perfect knowledge. S. 2:29
Dr. William Campbell comments:
a. The Quranic Days of Creation.
In Chapter II of Section I, we talked about the meaning of the word
"smoke" in relation to the days of creation. In this section we want
to look a little more at the number of days and their order. There are seven
references which speak of God creating the heavens and the earth in six days -
7:54, 10:3, 11:7 25:59, 32:4, 50:38, and 57:4. Of these it will be sufficient
to quote the Late Meccan Sura of Jonah (Yunus) 10:3, which includes all the
information given by the others.
"Indeed, your Lord is God Who created the heavens and the earth in six
days, then He mounted on the throne directing all things. There is no
intercessor except after his permission. That is God your Lord, so worship
Him."
That all sounds very straight forward, but in the Late Meccan Sura of Ha-Mim
Al-Sajda 41:9-12, it reads,
"Say, ‘Do you deny Him Who created the earth in two days? And
do you join equals to Him? He is the Lord of the worlds, and He placed
therein firm hills rising above it, and blessed it and measured therein its
nourishment in four days, according to (the need) of those who ask
(for food).
Then He turned equally to the heaven when it was smoke, and said unto it
and unto the earth, "Come together willingly or unwillingly."
They both said, "We come obediently."
And He completed them seven heavens in two days and inspired in each
heaven its command, and We adorned the lower heaven with lamps and rendered
it guarded. That is the decree of the Mighty, the Knower.’"
It doesn't take a genius in mathematics to read this and see that it seems to
say that God made the earth in two days, and the nourishment according to the
needs of each one in four days, which makes a total of six. And after the
mountains were formed and nourishment - presumably plants and animals - THEN
God made the seven heavens in two days for a total of eight days.
So now we have a contradiction!?
The Qur'an says seven times that God did it in six days, while here it says
eight days, so what does one do? According to the rule suggested by Aristotle
which was quoted at the end of Section Three, Chapter I, we should give the
benefit of the doubt to the author, and not take it to ourselves.
Therefore, it seems logical to make the basic assumption that in Muhammad's
understanding some of these days were concurrent and going along together, thus
allowing a total of only six days. That still leaves the problem of the earth
being formed, cooled, and growing nourishment, before the heavens are formed - a
sequence which is also found in the Sura of the Heifer (Al-Baqara) 2:29 which
says,
"He it is Who created for you all that is in the earth. Then He turned
to the heaven, and fashioned it as seven heavens."
These Quranic statements do not agree at all with modern theories of the
beginning of the universe, but I shall allow others to attempt a solution to
that. (Campbell, The Qur'an & the Bible in the Light of History
& Science [Middle East Resources 1992, ISBN 1-881085-00-7], pp. 178-179
bold italic emphasis ours)
Not only do the passages above contradict modern science, but they also
contradict the following Quranic passage as well:
What! Are ye the more difficult to create or the heaven (above)? (Allah)
hath constructed it: On high hath He raised its canopy, and He hath given it
order and perfection. Its night doth He endow with darkness, and its splendor
doth He bring out (with light). And the earth, MOREOVER (bad’a), hath
He extended (to a wide expanse); He draweth out therefrom its water and its
pasture; And the mountains hath He firmly fixed;- S. 79:27-32
According to this passage, the heavens came first then the earth.
To resolve these problems, Muslims posit new meanings to already established
Arabic words. Worse still, Muslims attach meanings to words that, although valid
for a different era, were not known or defined as such by either Muhammad or his
companions.
For instance, Muslims presume that the term thumma does not
necessarily imply sequential or chronological time. Rather, the term can also
denote parallel action as well.
Words have different meanings in different context at different times. Hence,
we must read the available literature from the seventh century Arabia in order
to know what thumma meant to Muhammad and his companions.
We must look at the way the early Muslim scholars understood the term thumma,
especially its use in the context of creation. Once this is done, one discovers
that both Muhammad and his Companions believed that the earth was created first
and then the heavens. This indicates that nearly all the early Muslims
understood the use of thumma in the Quranic account of creation as
referring to sequential or chronological development or time. Most, if not all,
Muslim commentators such as at-Tabari and Ibn Kathir record this fact. The
following traditions are taken entirely from The History of al-Tabari, Volume
1- General Introduction and from the Creation to the Flood (trans. Franz
Rosenthal, State University of New York Press, Albany 1989), pp. 187-193:
"We have stated before that time is but hours of night and day and
that the hours are but traversal by the sun and the moon of the degrees of the
sphere. Now then, this being so, there is (also) a sound tradition from the
Messenger of God told us by Hannad b. al-Sari, who also said that he read all
of the hadith (to Abu Bakr)- Abu Bakr b. `Ayyash- Abu Sa'd al-Baqqal- `Ikrimah-
Ibn Abbas: The Jews came to the Prophet and asked him about the
creation of the heavens and the earth. He said: God created the earth on
Sunday and Monday. He created the mountains and the uses they possess on
Tuesday. On Wednesday, He created trees, water, cities and the cultivated
barren land. These are four (days). He continued (citing the Qur'an): `Say: Do
you really not believe in the One Who created the earth in two days, and set
up others like Him? That is the Lord of the worlds. He made it firmly anchored
(mountains) above it and blessed it and decreed that it contain the amount of
food it provides, (all) in four days, equally for those asking'- for those who
ask. On Thursday, He created heaven. On Friday, He created the stars, the
sun, the moon, and the angels, until three hours remained. In the first of
these three hours He created the terms (of human life), who would live and who
would die. In the second, He cast harm upon everything that is useful for
mankind. And in the third, (He created) Adam and had him dwell in Paradise. He
commanded Iblis to prostrate himself before Adam, and He drove Adam out of
Paradise at the end of the hour. When the Jews asked: What then, Muhammad? He
said: `Then He sat straight upon the Throne.' The Jews said: You are right, if
you had finished, they said, with: Then He rested. Whereupon the Prophet got
very angry, and it was revealed: `We have created the heavens and the earth
and what is between them in six days, and fatigue did not touch Us. Thus be
patient with what you say.’"
According to this tradition from Ibn Abbas, Muhammad believed the earth and
everything within it was created on the first four days whereas the heavens and
the constellations were created afterwards on Thursday and Friday. Hence,
Muhammad believed that vegetation was created even before the heavens and the
sun, a gross scientific error!
"According to al-Muthanna- al-Hajjaj- Hammad- `Ata' b. al-Sa'ib- `Ikrimah:
The Jews asked the Prophet: What about Sunday? The Messenger of God
replied: On it, God created the earth and spread it out. They asked about
Monday, and he replied: On it, He created Adam. They asked about Tuesday, and
he replied: On it, He created the mountains, water, and so on. They asked
about Wednesday, and he replied: Food. They asked about Thursday, and he
replied: He created the heavens. They asked about Friday, and he replied:
God created night and day. Then, when they asked about Saturday and mentioned
God's rest(ing on it), he exclaimed: God be praised! God then revealed: `We
have created the heavens and the earth and what is between them in six days,
and fatigue did not touch Us.'"
We again have the heavens being created after the earth.
At-Tabari then comments:
"The two reports transmitted by us from the Messenger of God have made
it clear that the sun and the moon were created after God had created many
things of His creation. That is because the hadith of Ibn Abbas on the
authority of the Messenger of God indicates that God created the sun and the
moon on Friday. If this is so, earth and heaven and what was in them,
except the angels and Adam, had been created before God created the sun and
the moon. All this (thus) existed while there was no light and no day,
since night and day are but nouns designating hours known through the
traversal by the sun and the moon of the course of the sphere. Now, if it is
correct that the earth and the heaven and what was between them, except
what we have mentioned, were in existence when there was no sun and no
moon, the conclusion is that all existed when there was no night or day.
The same (conclusion results from) the following hadith of Abu Hurayrah
reported on the authority of the Messenger of God: God created light on
Wednesday- meaning by `light' the sun, if God wills."
At-Tabari is therefore honest enough to state that both the Quran and
Muhammad's interpretation of it clearly posit the creation of the heavens, the
sun and the entire constellations after the earth and its nourishment had
already been made.
Ibn Kathir comments on S. 2:29:
Before Allah mentioned proof of the creation to the disbelievers and what
they witness in themselves. In this verse, He mentions another proof of the
creation of the heavens and the earth: <He created for you all that
there is on earth; then He turned to the sky and fashioned it into seven
heavens.>
Mujahid said that Allah created the earth before the heavens, and
when He did, smoke evolved and rose- by the will of Allah- <then
He turned to the sky>. The action of turning to the sky involves
movement because the verb is followed by the preposition (to). <and
fashioned it into seven heavens.> that is created seven heavens. The
interpreters do not agree as to whether Allah created the earth before the
heavens or vice versa. Each has evidence although the evidence of
those supporting the opinion that the creation of the earth preceded the
heavens IS STRONGER BECAUSE ALLAH SAID: <He created for you all
that there is on the earth; then he turned to the sky> using the adverb
"then", WHICH IMPLIES SEQUENCE, that is Allah created
the earth and what is in it, then He moved to the sky and fashioned it
into seven heavens. On the other hand, those who support the opinion that the
creation of the heavens was before the earth refer to the verse <What!
Are you harder to create than the heaven which He has built? He raised it high
and fashioned it. He made dark its night and brought out its light. And after
that He spread the earth, And then drew its water and its pastures. The the
mountains he fixed:> (79:27-32) This was narrated by Ibn Jarir who
quoted Qatadah. However, this opinion is not sound; in fact, the truth
is the reverse. Al-Bukhari mentions n his Sahih that when Ibn ‘Abbas
was asked about this very issue his reply was that the earth was created
before the heavens, and that it was spread out after the creation of the
heavens. The phrase ‘spread out’ was further explained in the
verse <And after that he spread the earth, And then drew from it water
and pastures. Then the mountains He fixed:> (79:31-32) whereby the
action of spreading is explained by drawing out the water stored in it and
thus causing plants to flourish in their myriad types, forms, kinds, colours
and shapes. Tafsir Ibn Kathir-Part 1 Surah Al-Fatiah Surah Al-Baqara, ayat
1 to 141, abridged by Shaikh Muhammad Nasib Ar-Rafai’i [Al-Firdous Ltd.,
London, 1998 second edition], pp. 92-93 bold italic emphasis ours)
Here also is Ibn Kathir’s lengthy commentary on S. 41:9-12:
<Who created the heavens and the earth in Six Days> (7:54).
is explained in more detail; the creation of the earth and the creation of
the heaven are discussed separately. Allah says that He created the earth
FIRST, because it is the foundation, and the foundation should be built first,
then the roof. Allah says elsewhere:
<He it is Who created for you all that is on the earth. Then He rose
over (Istawa ila) the heaven and made them seven heavens>
With regard to the Ayat…
<Are you more difficult to create or is the heaven that He constructed?
He raised its height, and has perfected it. Its night He covers with darkness
and its forenoon He brings out (with light). And after that He spread the
earth, And brought forth its water and its pasture; And the mountains He has
fixed firmly, (to be) a provision and benefit for you and your cattle.>
(79:27-33)
This Ayah states that the spreading of the earth came after the
creation of the heavens, but the earth itself was created BEFORE the
heavens according to some texts. This was the response of Ibn’Abbas, may
Allah be pleased with him, as recorded by Al-Bukhari in his Tafsir of
this Ayah in his Sahih. He recorded that Sa’id bin Jubayr
said: "A man said to Ibn ‘Abbas, may Allah be pleased with him, saying:
‘I find some things in the Qur’an which confuse me:…
…And Allah says:
<Are you more difficult to create or is the heaven that He
constructed?> until;…
<And after that He spread the earth.> (79:27-32)
So He mentioned the creation of the heavens before the earth, then He said:
<Say: "Do you verily disbelieve in Him who created the earth in two
Days?"…> until;…
<We come willingly.> Here He mentioned the creation of the earth
before the creation of the heavens...
Ibn ‘Abbas, may Allah be pleased with Him. Replied:…
Allah created the earth in two days, THEN He created the heavens, THEN
He (Istawa ila) the heaven and gave it its shape in two more days. THEN
He spread the earth, which means that He brought forth therefrom its water and
its pasture. And he created the mountains, sands, inanimate things, rocks
and hills and everything in between, in two more days. This is what
Allah says:
<(He) spread (the earth)> (79:30)
And Allah saying:
<(He) created the earth in two Days> So He created the earth and
everything in it in four days, and He created the heavens in two
days…’" (Tafsir Ibn Kathir-Abridged Volume 8 Surat Al-Ahzab, verse
51to the end of Surat Ad-Dukhan, pp.517-521 bold and capital emphasis
ours)
Ibn Kathir continues:
<(He) created the earth in two Days> means Sunday and Monday…
<He placed therein firm mountains from above it, and He blessed it.>
means, He blessed it and gave it the potential to be planted with seeds and
bring forth produce…
<And measured therein its sustenance>
means, what its people need of provision and places in which to plant
things and grow crops. This was on Tuesday and Wednesday, which together
with the two previous days add up to four days…
…<Then He completed and finished their creation (as) seven heavens
in two Days>
means, He finished forming them as seven heavens in two more days, which
were Thursday and Friday. (Ibid., pp. 521-522 bold emphasis ours)
The problem with Ibn Kathir’s proposed harmonization is that it contradicts
both the Quran in S. 41:9-12 and the traditions cited earlier by at-Tabari that
the earth and all its life-sustaining items, such as vegetation, was created
before the heavens, a fact affirmed in Sahih Muslim, Chapter MCLV, The beginning
of creation and the creation of Adam, Hadith No. 6707:
"Abu Huraira reported that Allah's Messenger (mpbuh) took hold of my
hands and said: Allah the Exalted and Glorious, created the clay on Saturday
and He created the mountains on Sunday and He created the trees on Monday
and He created the things entailing labour on Tuesday and created light on
Wednesday and He caused animals to spread on Thursday and created Adam (pbuh)
after 'Asr on Friday; the last creation at the last hour of the hours of
Friday, ie. Between afternoon and night."
Muhammad states that vegetation preceded the formation of light, i.e. the
sun. This presumes that the heavens were fashioned after God had already created
the earth and all its nourishment.
Some Muslims have tried to claim that this tradition is weakly attested. Yet,
M.S.M Saifullah notes that not all Muslims agree that this hadith is weak.
In a footnote to on his articles, # 64, Saifullah quotes some Muslims that
believed this tradition to be actually sound:
64. Ibn Taimiyyah, Majmu' Fatawa (37 vols., ed. Abd al-Rahmân b. Qasim
& his son Muhammad, Riyad, 1398), 18:18f. Ibn Taimiyyah mentions that
Imâm Muslim's authentication of this hadîth is supported by Abû Bakr al-Anbari
& Ibn al- Jauzi, whereas al-Baihaqi supports those who disparaged it.
Al-Albani says that it was Ibn al-Madini who criticised it, whereas Ibn
Ma'in did not (the latter was known to be very strict, both of them were
shaikhs of al-Bukhârî). He further says that the hadîth is Sahih,
and does not contradict the Qur'ân, contrary to the probable view of the
scholars who criticised the hadîth, since what is mentioned in the
Qur'ân is the creation of the heavens and the earth in six days, each of
which may be like a thousand years, whereas the hadîth refers to the
creation of the earth only, in days which are shorter than those referred to
in the Qur'ân (Silsilah al-Ahadîth as-Sahihah, no. 1833). (see: http://islamic-awareness.org/Hadith/Ulum/aape.html)
Ibn Kathir himself cites this hadith from Abu Hurayrah with approval. Ibn
Kathir commented on S. 7:54 stating:
Imam Ahmad recorded Abu Huraryah saying: Allah’s Messenger told me:…
<Allah created the dust on Saturday, and He created the mountains on
Sunday, and He created the trees on Monday, and He created the unpleasant
things on Tuesday and He created the light on Wednesday and He spread the
creatures through out it on Thursday and He created Adam after ‘Asr on
between ‘Asr and the nigth.> (Tafsir Ibn Kathir-Abridged Volume 4,
Surat Al-A’raf to the end of Sura Yunus, p. 77)
Here is Yusuf Ali's footnote to S. 41:9-12, #4470:
"…The Commentators understand the ‘four Days’ in verse 10 to
include the two Days in verse 9, so that the total for the universe comes to
six Days. This is reasonable, because the processes described in verses 9
and 10 form really one series. In one case it is the creation of the
formless matter of the earth; in the other case it is the gradual evolution
of the form of the earth, its mountains and seas, and its animal and
vegetable life, with the ‘nourishment in due proportion’, proper to each.
-
Hence, Yusuf Ali concurs with our assessment.
So problematic a passage S. 79:27-32 turned out to be for Muslims, that At-Tabari
presents their struggles in trying to reconcile this passage with the other
Quranic verses stating that heaven was created after the earth:
Others said: God created the earth with the food it provides before heaven,
without spreading it out. "Then He stretched out straight toward heaven
and fashioned it into seven heavens."
Thereafter, He spread out the earth.
Those who said
According to ‘Ali b. Dawud- Abu Salih (‘Abdallah b. Salih_- Mua’wiyah
(b. Salih)- ‘Ali b. Abi Talhah- Ibn ‘Abbas, commenting on God’s word when
He mentioned the creation of the earth before heaven and then mentioned heaven
before the earth: (It is explained by the fact that) He created the earth
with the food it provides before heaven, without spreading it out. "Then
He stretched out straight toward heaven and fashioned it into seven
heavens." Thereafter, He spread out the earth. This is (meant by) God’s
word: "And it was the earth that He spread out thereafter."
According to Muhammad b. Sa’d- his father- his paternal uncle- his
father- his father- Ibn ‘Abbas, commenting on: "And it was the earth
that He spread out thereafter. He brought forth from it its water and its
pasture, and the mountains He anchored firmly." It means that He created
the heavens and the earth. When he had finished with heaven before creating
food of the earth, He spread the food on it after creating heaven. And He
firmly anchored the mountains. This is meant by "spreading it out."
The food and the plants of the earth used to be good only on the night and the
day. This (meant by) God’s word: "And it was the earth He spread out
thereafter." Have you not heard that He continues: "He brought forth
from it its water and its pasture"?
Abu Ja’far (al-Tabari) says: Regarding this, the correct statement, in
our opinion, is the one of those who said: God created the earth on Sunday.
He created the heaven on Thursday, and He created the stars and the sun and
the moon on Friday. (We consider it correct) because of the soundness
of the report mentioned earlier on the authority of Ibn ‘Abbas from the
Messenger of God. The tradition transmitted to us on the authority of Ibn
‘Abbas is not impossible. It says that God created the earth but did not
spread it out. Then He created the heavens "and fashioned them (into
seven heavens)," and thereafter "spread out" the earth.
"He then brought forth its water and its pasture, and the mountains He
anchored firmly." Indeed, in my opinion this is the correct statement.
That is because the meaning of "spreading out" is different from
that of "creating." God says, "Are you more difficult to create
than the haven He constructed? He raised high its roof and fashioned it. He
darkened its night and brought forth its morning. And it was the earth He
spread out thereafter. He brought forth from it its water and its pasture, and
the mountains He anchored firmly." (Ibid., pp. 214-216)
The preceding hadiths transmitted on the authority of Ibn Abbas claim that
the earth’s nourishment, i.e. food, water etc., was created only after the
formation of the heavens. As was already noted, this contradicts S. 41:9-12 as
well as the other traditions and Yusuf Ali’s footnote that posit the creation
of food, vegetation etc. prior to the formation of the heavens. Therefore, these
hadiths along with Yusuf Ali’s comments leave no room for understanding S.
79:27-32 in the manner prescribed by Ibn Kathir.
At-Tabari also comments on those who would try to translate ba’da in
S. 79:27-32 to mean other than "after that":
Someone might say: You realize that a number of interpreters have
considered God's word: "And it was the earth that He spread out
thereafter," to mean: "He spread out simultaneously"
(attributing to the preposition ba'da "after" the meaning of ma'a
"together [simultaneous] with"). Now, what is your evidence
for the soundness of your statement that we have here the meaning of
"after", the opposite of "before"? The reply would be: The
meaning of "after" generally known in Arabic speech, as we have
said, is that of the opposite of "before," and not
"simultaneous with." Now, word meanings considered applicable are
those that are preponderant and generally known among speakers (of a
language), and no others are. (Ibid., p. 216)
This, therefore, leaves us with an irreconcilable contradiction not just with
established scientific theories, but within the Quran itself.
This concludes our debate. In light of the evidence, it is clear that the
Quran is not the word of God, Muhammad is not God’s Messenger, and Allah is
not the true God Yahweh. In the service of Jesus Christ our Risen Lord of Glory
forever!
Abrahamic Faith