Sam Shamoun
This study examines the crucial question that needs to be addressed which is
whether the God presented in the Quran is indeed the same God revealed in the
Holy Bible. The Quran alleges that the God of Islam, Allah, is indeed the God of
Abraham and hence the God of Scripture, Yahweh Elohim. But is this the case?
Are we to assume that just because the Quran states that Allah is Yahweh of
the Bible that both Jews and Christians are obligated to believe this to be
true? Or do we examine the nature and attributes of Allah in order to compare
them with the biblical portrait of Yahweh to find if this is the case?
This process of examination is essential since our objective is to discover
the true nature of God, a process whose outcome entails eternal consequences in
regards to man's future destiny in the afterlife. After all, if Allah is the God
of Abraham then Jews and Christians are wrong for not embracing Islam. But if
Allah is not Yahweh, then Muslims are not worshiping the same God only with a
different name.
We will examine certain qualities of Allah as stated in the Quran and briefly
compare them to Yahweh and see where the evidence leads us. The reason why we
are comparing Allah to Yahweh as opposed to contrasting Yahweh to the quranic
portrait of Allah, using the Quran as the standard, is due to the fact that it
is Islam that claims to worship the same God of the Holy Bible. Thus, the burden
of proof rests upon the Muslims to defend this contention since they believe
Allah is the same as Yahweh.
AUTHOR OF EVIL
The Holy Bible teaches that God cannot be tempted by evil and neither tempts
anyone with evil; evil being understood as referring to immorality and sin.
James 1:13 (c.f. Psalm 5:4-5; Habakkuk 1:13)
Yet, the Quran teaches that Allah is the author of evil:
And (the unbelievers ) schemed and planned, and Allah
schemed
also, and the best of schemers is Allah. S. 3:54
Remember how the unbelievers schemed against thee, to keep thee in bonds, or
to slay thee, or get thee out (of thy home). They scheme and plot, but the
best of schemers is Allah. S. 8:30
The term for scheme in Arabic is
makara which denotes one who is a
deceiver, one who is conniving, a schemer. It is always used in a negative
sense. Allah is thus seen as the best of deceivers, the premiere schemer and
conniving one.
This is not simply a Christian perspective but one thoroughly endorsed by
Muslim theologians as well.
For example Dr. Mahmoud M. Ayoub in his book,
The Quran and Its
Interpreters, Vol. II The House of Imran , brings up the
question of "how the word makr (scheming or plotting), which
implies deceitfulness or dishonesty, could be attributed to God." (
Ibid. [ 1992 State University of New York Press, Albany ], p. 165 )
After listing several Muslim sources he quotes ar-Razi as arguing that
"scheming (makr) is actually an act of deception aiming at
causing evil. It is not possible to attribute deception to God. Thus the
word is one of the muttashabihat [multivalent words of the Quran]."
(Ibid., p. 166)
In fact the Quran furnishes plenty of examples on some of the methods Allah
adopts in devising evil:
Remember in thy dream Allah showed them as a few:
if he had showed
them to thee as many, ye would surely have been discouraged, and ye would surely
have disputed in your decision: but Allah saved you: for He knoweth well
the ( secrets ) of ( all ) hearts. S. 8:43
Allah is said to have shown the opposing fighting forces as few to Muhammad
since if he had shown them as they actually were, the Muslims would have been
afraid to fight. Hence, Allah had to use deception in order to encourage the
Muslims to fight in his cause.
And when We desire to destroy a city,
We command its
men who live at ease, and they commit ungodliness therein, then
the Word is realized against it, and We destroy it utterly. S. 17:16
Allah commands men to sin in order to destroy them completely.
They (Jinns- demon spirits) worked for him (Solomon) as he desired
... then when We decreed death upon him, nothing showed them his death except a
little creeping creature of the earth, which gnawed away at his staff. And when
he fell the Jinns saw clearly how, if they had known the unseen,
they would not have continued in the humiliating penalty (of work). S.
34:13-14
Allah deceived the Jinns into working for Solomon by preventing the latter's
death from being disclosed to them, otherwise they would have stopped their
work.
Allah also deceived both Christians and Jews into thinking that Jesus was
crucified when in fact "it was so made to appear unto them", seeing that he
never was crucified or killed. S. 4:157
According to S. 9:51, nothing befalls Muslims except what Allah has ordained.
And in S. 14:4, we are told,
"Allah leads astray whomsoever He will and guides whomsoever he will."
And,
"Whomsoever Allah guides, he is rightly guided, and whom He leads astray,
they are the losers! We have created for Hell many Jinns and
men... Do ye desire to guide him whom Allah led astray? Whom Allah leads
away, you will find no way for him." S. 4:87, 90 ( c.f. S. 11:118, 120)
Not only does Allah guide people astray, but also has created men
specifically for hell. To make matters worse, he even ordains the evil one
commits as we have already seen in S. 17:16 and further clarified by this Muslim
tradition:
Abu Huraira reported Allah's Apostle as saying:
Verily Allah has fixed the very portion of adultery which a man will indulge
in, and which
he of necessity must commit
(or there would be no
escape from it )." Sahih Muslim # 6421, 6422
To even imagine that Allah causes adultery is not only horrendous but
disqualifies him from being the God of Moses.
A keen reader might raise the objection that the Bible itself indicates in
several places that God had intended to do evil to certain nations and
individuals such as Absalom in 2 Samuel 17:14. Or that Jeremiah had been
deceived by God in Jeremiah 20:7:
"O LORD, thou hast deceived me and I was deceived. " King James
Version
Firstly, in regards to 2 Sam. 17:14 as we had noted earlier God does not
tempt anyone with moral evil in the form of sin but brings upon man calamity as
a consequence of their sins. In fact, the term which the King James translates
as evil is the Hebrew ra. Accordingly, some Hebrew scholars
see it as being derived from the word ra'a which means to "break,
smash, crush." (Vine's Complete Expository Dictionary of Old and New
Testaments, p. 232 )
Strong's Exhaustive Concordance of the Bible gives various meanings some
of which include adversity, affliction, calamity, distress, evil, grief ( #7451
of the Hebrew Dictionary Section ).
Thus, the evil God poured out upon these individuals was not immorality like
that of the Quran but judgement upon the wicked due to their persistence in sin
and a refusal to come into repentance.
The Hebrew term for deceive used in Jeremiah 20:7 is
pathath.
Strong's lists it as #6601 in the Hebrew section with the following
meanings; allure, enlarge, entice, deceive, flatter, persuade, silly. Based on
the preceding translations, there is no reason to assume that Jeremiah meant
that God was actually deceiving him.
This is based primarily on the passage itself, since the context is referring
to God persuading Jeremiah to continue his ministry, in spite of the latter's
reluctance to do so. Jer. 20:8-9
God was therefore insisting that Jeremiah continue and did so by constant
persuasion. This passage has nothing to do with deception whatsoever.
Another possible objection would be the King James rendering of Ezekiel 20:25
where God says to Israel that he "gave them also statutes that were not good,
and judgements whereby they should not live." This strongly suggests that God is
the author of evil.
The context of the passage is referring to Israel's reluctance in observing
God's holy commands, which prompted God to hand them over to their own desires.
(all of chapter 20)
Scripture clearly teaches that when God sees that a nation refuses to embrace
the truth he has revealed, the Lord then hardens their hearts that they might
continue in their wickedness. This is done that he might bring upon them the
judgement that they deserve for their evil. (c.f. Romans 1:18-32; 2
Thessalonians 2:9-12)
Therefore, God does not give them unholy commands but allows them to embrace
statutes which are evil. This is the meaning of the Hebrew text as accurately
reflected in the New King James Version:
"Therefore, I
also gave them up to statutes that were
not good, and judgements by which they could not live."
Yet, the Arabic makara
does not allow for other possible
meanings. And the Quran itself gives examples of Allah using deception and sin
to fulfill his will.
AUTHOR OF ABROGATION
According to the Quran Allah reveals a verse only to have it canceled out a
short time later:
None of Our revelations do We abrogate or cause to be forgotten but We
substitute something better or similar- Knowest thou not that Allah has power
over all things? S. 2:106
When We substitute one revelation for another- and Allah knowest best what He
reveals (in stages)- They say, "Thou art but a forger"; But most of them
understand not. S. 16:101
This leaves us with the difficulty of having a God who does not remain
consistent and often changes his revealed purpose. This being the case, how is
one to know that the promises of such a Being in regards to eternal security can
be trusted? Just as he changes his mind in relation to the revelation, he can
also decide to change his mind in regards to the believer's ultimate destiny
without anything stopping him from doing so.
This is different from Yahweh of the Holy Bible who does not change and as
such can be totally trusted in fulfilling all his promises:
God is not a man that he should lie, nor a son of man that he should
repent. Has he said, and will he not do? Or has he spoken, and will he not make
it good? Numbers 23:19
For I, Yahweh, do not change. Malachi 3:6
If we are faithless, he remains faithful; he cannot deny himself. 2 Timothy
2:13
Jesus Christ is the same yesterday, today, and forever. Hebrews 13:8
Because the God of the Bible is immutable he can promise, "Heaven and earth
will pass away but my words will not pass." Matthew 24:35
Two responses can possibly be presented and often are by Muslims. The first
is the fact that abrogation is not referring to the Quran but to previous
scriptures such as the Bible.
Unfortunately, this interpretation cannot be defended in light of S. 87: 6-8:
By degrees shall We teach thee ( Muhammad ) to declare ( the Message ) so
thou shalt not forget, except as Allah Wills: For He knoweth what is
manifest and what is hidden. And We will make it easy for thee ( to follow ) the
simple ( Path ).
It becomes obvious that certain parts of the revelation given to Muhammad
will eventually be caused to be forgotten, since Allah later willed it.
The second response often presented is that the Bible clearly speaks of God
regretting to create man or having repented of bringing on a certain disaster
which he had planned to do. (c.f. Genesis 6:6; Exodus 32:14)
There are basically two responses for this assumed Muslim allegation. First,
both the Holy Bible and the Quran use anthropomorphic language in describing
both the nature and acts of God. For instance, both books speak of God's eyes,
hands and feet without implying that these things are to be taken literally. The
purpose of using such language is to communicate certain incomprehensible truths
of God in human language in order for man to grasp certain realities of the
divine nature. Hence, statements such as God having regrets is used to
communicate certain realities to man in relational terms, i.e. that God
identifies with our human condition and grieves for man's fallen state, having
compassion for him.
Secondly, the reason for indicating that God refrained from fulfilling an act
he had decreed is an indication of his divine patience. God does not desire to
destroy the wicked but to save them, desiring that they come into repentance:
Say to them: "As I live", says the Lord God, "I have no pleasure in the death
of the wicked, but that the wicked turn from his way and live. Turn, turn from
your evil ways! For why should you die, O house of Israel?" Ezekiel 33:11
Likewise, if a nation which has been promised prosperity turns to wickedness,
God will also refrain from fulfilling his promises of blessing. This is pointed
out in Jeremiah 18:7-10:
"The instant I speak concerning a nation and concerning a kingdom, to pluck
up, to pull down, and to destroy it, if that nation against whom I have spoken
turns from its evil, I will relent of the disaster I thought to bring upon it.
"And the instant I speak concerning a nation and concerning a kingdom, to
build and plant it, if it does evil in My sight, so that it does not obey My
voice, then I will relent concerning the good with which I would benefit it."
An example of this is seen in I Kings 21:29 where God had sworn to destroy
Ahab for his wickedness, but decided against it:
"See how Ahab has humbled himself before Me?
Because he has humbled
himself before Me, I will not bring the calamity in his days.
In
the days of his son, I will bring the calamity on his house."
Or God deciding not to destroy Ninevah after seeing their sincere repentance
and humbleness:
"Then God saw their works, that they turned from their evil way; and God
relented from
the disaster that He had said He would bring upon them, and
He did not do it. " Jonah 3:10
Hence, it is not God who changes his mind but man who changes, resulting in
God responding accordingly.
AUTHOR OF HISTORTCAL ERRORS
The Quran contains historical errors which implies that Allah is not an
Omniscient Being, since an all-knowing Being would be able to accurately recall
historical events. Below is a list of just some of the many problems we find in
the Quran.
-
In S. 17:1 we are told that Muhammad was taken to the farthest Mosque,
Masjid al-Aqsa. The problem with this is that Aqsa Mosque had
not yet been erected, seeing that Abd al-Malik only finished building it in
A.D. 691. It also cannot be referring to the Temple in Jerusalem since that
had been destroyed by Titus' Roman armies in A.D. 70.
-
According to S. 18:83-98, Alexander the Great called
Zhul Qarnain, "the
Two Horned One," was a Muslim who traveled till he found the Sun literally
setting in a muddy spring. When we keep in mind that the title "the Two Horned One," was a title given to Alexander in pre-Islamic times,
Muslim attempts in trying to deny this fact utterly falls.
-
According to S. 4:157 the unbelieving Jews boasted by saying, "We killed
the Messiah Jesus the son of Mary, the apostle of Allah." The only problem
with this is that the unbelieving Jews never admitted that Jesus was Messiah,
since the Jews would never have killed their long-awaited Messianic Deliverer.
The reason Jesus was killed is because the Jews believed he was a false
Messiah:
"And they began to accuse him, saying, 'We have found this man subverting
our nation. He opposes payment of taxes to Caesar and CLAIMS
to be Christ, a king.' " Luke 23:2 N.I.V
And behold! Allah will say: "O Jesus the son of Mary! Didst thou say unto
men, Worship me and my mother ... " S. 5:116
Christ the son of Mary was no more than an apostle- many were the apostles
that passed away before him. His mother was a woman of truth. They had both
to eat their (daily) food. See how Allah doth make His Signs clear to them
... S. 5:75
In blasphemy indeed are those that say that Allah is Christ the son of Mary.
Say: "Who then hath the least power against Allah, if His Will were to destroy
Christ the son of Mary, his mother, and all-every one that is on the
earth..." S. 5:17
This presumes that since Mary ate food and could be destroyed by Allah she
could not possibly be divine, implying that Christians believe her to be more
than simply human.
In fact, the Quran proceeds to accuse Christians of worshiping three gods:
"They do blaspheme who say:
Allah is the third of three (inallaaha
thaalithu thalaatha)" S. 5:73
"... so believe in Allah and His apostles. Say not
three ( thalaatha
): desist: It will be better for you: for Allah is one Allah ..." S.
4:171
According to Muslim biographer Ibn Ishaq in his work,
Sira Rasulullah,
a Christian deputation from Najran came to debate Muhammad on the person of
Jesus. Accordingly, these Christians allegedly believed that Jesus, "is God; and
He is the son of God; and He is the third Person of the Trinity, which is the
doctrine of Christianity." ( Alfred Guilliame trans., The Life of
Muhammad [Oxford University Press, Karachi], p.271 )
He goes on to say, "They argue that he is the third of three in that God
says: We have done, We have commanded, We have created and We have decreed, and
they say, If He were one He would have said I have done, I have created, and
soon, but He is He and Jesus and Mary. Concerning all these assertions the
Quran came down." ( Ibid., p.p. 271-272 )
The errors in the Quranic teaching on what Christians believe becomes
apparent to anyone familiar with the basics of Christian doctrine. Firstly,
Christians have never taken Mary as a goddess alongside God. Secondly,
Christians have never said God is three or the third of three which is
tritheism, three separate gods forming a unity; as opposed to Trinity,
ONE God who exists in Three distinct yet inseparable Persons:
Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.
Thirdly, Christianity has never taught as part of its doctrine that Jesus is
the third Person of the Trinity. Rather, he is the Second Person, with
the Holy Spirit being the third Person of the Godhead. Matthew 28:19
Fourthly, Muslims believe that Allah of the Quran is the same as God the
Father of the Holy Bible since they do not believe in God the Son, Jesus Christ,
nor in God the Holy Spirit who to Muslims is the angel Gabriel. This again
causes a problem since if Allah is indeed the same Person as God the Father then
the Quran is wrong in saying that Christians believe that the Father is the
third of three. Christians teach that the Father is the First Person of
the One True Godhead, not the third deity of three gods.
And finally, Christians do not believe that Allah is the Messiah, or that God
is the Messiah since this implies that Jesus is the entire Godhead, which would
be modalism. The correct and biblical statement is that Jesus is God,
since this suggests that although Jesus is fully God by nature he is not the
only Person who shares the essence of Deity perfectly. The Bible also teaches
that both the Father and the Holy Spirit are fully God.
Behold! The wife of Imran ( i.e. Amram ) said, "O my Lord! I do
dedicate unto thee what is in my womb"... When she was delivered, she said: "O
my Lord! Behold! I am delivered of a female child ... I have named her
Mary... " S. 3:35, 36
"And Mary the daughter of Imran, who guarded her chastity.." S. 66:12.
"... They said: 0 Mary! Truly an amazing thing hast thou brought!
0 sister
of Aaron! Thy father was not a man of evil, nor thy mother a woman
unchaste." S. 19:27-28
"Then Mary ( Heb. Mariam ), the prophetess,
the sister of
Aaron, took the timbrel in her hand ..." Exodus 15:20
"The name of Amram's wife was Jochebed, the daughter of Levi, who was
born to Levi in Egypt; and to Amram she bore Aaron and Moses and their sister
Miriam." Numbers 27:59
This is an error of nearly 1400 years! How could Moses' sister Mary be Jesus'
mother, making Moses his uncle?
Muslims give two responses in trying to deal with this anachronism. First, it
is assumed that sister of Aaron and daughter of Amram refers to lineage, i.e.
that Mary was a descendant of Aaron and Amram of the tribe of Levi.
Unfortunately, this assertion cannot possibly be the case since Mary was a
daughter of Judah, a descendant of David:
"Now Jesus Himself began his ministry at about thirty years of age, being
(as was supposed) the son of Joseph, the son of Heli ... the son of
David ... the son of Judah." Luke 3:23, 31, 33
The words, "as was supposed," are given to clarify the fact that it is Mary's
genealogy which is being presented, with Joseph acting as the male
representative. This is supported by extrabiblical documents such as the Jewish
tractate of the Talmud, Chagigah, where a certain person had a dream in
which he saw the punishment of the damned. There, "He saw Mary the daughter
of Heli amongst the shades." ( John Lightfoot, Commentary On the New
Testament from the Talmud and Hebraica [Oxford University Press, 1859; with
a second printing from Hendrickson Publishers Inc., 1995], vol. 1, p. v; vol. 3,
p.55)
In the book of Hebrews we are told that, "it is evident that our Lord ( Jesus
) arose from Judah, of which tribe Moses spoke nothing concerning
priesthood" Heb. 7:14.
And,
"I ( Jesus ) am the Root
and Offspring of David, the Bright Morning
Star." Revelation 22:16
It is therefore impossible for Mary to be a descendant of Levi, since both
the orthodox Jewish understanding and the biblical record agree that Messiah
would arise out of Judah. ( c.f. Genesis 49:10-12; Matthew 22:42-45)
Someone might interject at this point and suggest that the Bible calls
Elizabeth a relation of Mary:
"Now, indeed, Elizabeth
your relative also conceived a son in her
old age..." Luke 1:36 N.K.J.V.
This seems to imply that Mary is of Levitical descent, since Elizabeth is
addressed as one of Aaron's descendants. (Cf. Luke 1:5)
The term used for relative in the Greek is
syngenes. Gerhard Kittel
and Gerhard Friedrich define it as:
a. " The adjective refers to a person
of common origin, i.e.,
belonging to the same family, race, tribe, or people. It can then mean
‘related' in disposition, ‘corresponding', ‘analogous', or ‘similar.'
b. The noun means 'relationship' by
descent or disposition, then more
broadly ‘analogy' (e.g. between deity and humanity, or ideas and the senses, or
the stars and human destiny), whether in philosophy or popular belief."
(Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, abridged in one volume by
George W. Bromiley [Eerdmans, 1985], p. 1097)
Hence, Elizabeth and Mary were related in the sense of being of the same race
of people, i.e. the Israelites.
Furthermore, even if Elizabeth and Mary were blood relatives this would not
prove that Mary was of the tribe of Aaron. All this would prove is that
Elizabeth had Judean blood in her, since Levites were allowed to marry women
from any of the twelve tribes:
"The woman he (the Levitical Priests) marries must be a virgin. He must not
marry a widow, a divorced woman, or a woman defiled by prostitution, but only a
virgin from his people." Leviticus 21:13-14 N.I.V.
Muslims are not to be blamed for this attempt of trying to make the phrase
"brother of" imply lineage since Muhammad also used a similar line of reasoning
to cover up this error. In Sahih Muslim Mughirah ibn Shu'bah narrates:
"When I came to Najran, they (the Christians of Najran) asked me: You read
‘sister of Harun' (i.e., Mary), in the Quran, whereas Moses was born well before
Jesus. When I came back to Allah's Messenger I asked him about that, and he
said: ‘The (people of old age) used to give names (to their persons) after the
names of Apostles and pious persons who had gone before them.'" #5326
Again,
Ibn Abi Ahaybah and Ahmad and Abdel Hameed and Muslim and At-Tirmidhi and
An-Nassaa'I and Ibn Al-Mundhir and Ibn Abi Haatim and Ibn Hibbaan and
At-Tabaraani and Ibn Mardaweih ans Al-Bayhaqi in ad-dalaa'il, narrated that
Al-Mughirah Ibn Shu'bah said: "The Prophet of God (PBUH) sent me to the people
of Najran. They asked me: DO you see what you read? O sister of Harun while
Moses precedes Jesus with such a long time? He (Al-Mughirah) said: So I went
back to the Prophet and mentioned that to him. He told me: "Would you tell them
the folk used to be called after Prophets and pious people who preceded them?"
(Jalaaluddeen As-Suyuti, Ad-durr Al-Manthur)
The only difficulty with Muhammad's statement is that the Jews before and
during the time of Christ never used this phrase in this manner at all. Not one
single reference from the Bible, either Old or New Testaments, the Jewish
literature before the birth of Christ, or even the Jewish Talmud and Targums
after Christ can be found to support Muhammad's assertion. This is simply a
gross error which cannot be swept away.
The second argument is actually a clarification of the first in that it is
suggested that both the Bible and the Quran furnish further evidence for the
term "sister of" being used to imply ancestry:
"His (Zechariah) wife was of the daughters of Aaron, and her name was
Elizabeth." Luke 1:5
It is obvious that the term "daughters" is speaking of Elizabeth's lineage
and is not to be taken to literally mean that her father was actually Aaron the
brother of Moses.
Again it is unfortunate for Muslims that this argument does not help them,
but actually serves to weaken their argument. Although the Bible does use the
phrases "son of," or "daughter of" to refer to ancestry, it never
uses the terms "brother of" or "sister of" to indicate this fact.
A few examples of the former usage include:
"So ought not this woman, being
a daughter of Abraham, whom Satan
has bound- think of it - for eighteen years, be loosed from this bond on the
Sabbath'?" Luke 13:16
"And Jesus said to him, 'Today salvation has come to this house, because he
also is a son of Abraham." Luke 19:9
"And behold, two blind men sitting by the road, when they heard that Jesus
was passing by, cried out, saying, 'Have mercy on us, 0 Lord, Son of David.
' " Matthew 20:30
Scripture never addresses a person as a "brother of Abraham," or "sister of
David" when wishing to imply lineage. Hence, the Muslim position cannot be
defended biblically.
The second example is from the Quran where Salih is called Thamud's brother:
"We sent ( aforetime ) to the Thamud,
their brother Salih ..." S.
27:45
The term brother here refers to kinsmen, not actual bloodbrothers,
exemplifying the many different ways the term is used.
Once again the problem is far from being resolved since the term "brother" is
used to address Salih's contemporaries, not his ancestors. This implies that to
call Mary Aaron's sister meant that Mary and Aaron were contemporaries, living
at the same time.
Unlike the Quran, the Holy Bible contains no historical errors. Most attacks
on the Bible stem from arguments from silence, i.e. the fact that no independent
archeological research has been discovered in support of certain recorded
biblical events. Yet, such arguments only prove that as of yet archeology has
failed to furnish evidence in regards to an event related in the Bible.
This is far different from archeology providing evidence to show that certain
events did not occur in the same manner in which the Bible says it did. In fact,
not one archeological discovery has ever proven the Bible wrong; discovery after
discovery has demonstrated the amazing historical accuracy of scripture. The
following quotations from the world's leading archeologists affirms this fact:
"Nowhere has archeological discovery refuted the Bible as history." (
John Elder, Prophets Idols and Diggers [New York; Bobs Merrill, 1960], p.
16 )
"Near Eastern archeology
has demonstrated the historical and
geographical reliability of the Bible in many important areas. By
clarifying the objectivity and factual accuracy of biblical authors, archeology
also helps correct the view that the Bible is avowedly partisan and subjective.
It is now known, for instance, that, along with the Hittites, Hebrew scribes
were the best historians in the entire ancient Near East, despite
contrary propaganda that emerged from Assyria, Egypt, and elsewhere." ( E. M.
Blalklock, editor's preface, New International Dictionary of Biblical
Archeology [Grand Rapids, MI; Regency Reference Library/ Zondervan, 1983],
p. p. vii-viii)
The late William F. Albright, one of the world's foremost archeologists,
stated:
"There can be no doubt that archeology
has confirmed the substantial
historicity of Old Testament tradition." (J. A. Thompson, The Bible
and Archeology [Grand Rapids, MI; Eerdmans, 1975], p. 5)
Nelson Glueck, world renowned archeologist, concurs: "As a matter of fact,
however, it maybe clearly stated categorically that no archeological
discovery has ever controverted a single biblical reference.
Scores of archeological findings have been made which confirm in clear
outline or exact detail historical statements in the Bible." ( Norman
Geisler & Ron Brooks, When Skeptics Ask; A Handbook on Christian
Evidences [Wheaton, IL; Victor, 1990], p. 179)
It should be noted that both Albright and Glueck were not conservative
Christians and did not believe in the inspiration of scripture. Their
conclusions were based strictly on the archeological data, forcing them to make
the above admissions.
This cannot be said of the Quran with all of its historical and scientific
mistakes.
AUTHOR OF CARNAL PLEASURES
The Quranic paradise is totally different from the biblical portrait of
heaven. In Allah's paradise, we find sexual and carnal pleasures for believers
to engage in throughout eternity:
But give glad tidings to those who believe and work righteousness, that
their portions is Gardens, beneath which rivers flow, every time they are fed
with fruits therefrom, they say: "Why, this is what we were fed with before,"
for they are giving things in similitude; And they have therein damsels
(Arabic - Houris ) pure ( and holy ); and they abide
therein (forever )." S. 2:25
But to those who believe and do deeds of righteousness, We shall soon admit
to Gardens, with rivers flowing beneath, their eternal home. Therein they have
damsels pure and holy; We shall admit them to shades, cool and
ever deepening. S. 4:57
Of a rare creation have We created the
Houris, and We have made
them ever virgins, dear to their spouses, of equal age with them
for the people of the right hand. S. 56:35-38
But for those who fear Allah is a blissful abode, enclosed gardens and
vineyards, and damsels with swelling breasts (Arabic - Kawa'eb),
their peers in age, and a full cup. S. 78:31-34 (Arberry; Rodwell
trans.)
The orthodox Islamic understanding of these references are that Muslim men
shall have a host of swelling breasted maidens to engage in sex with, who return
to their virginal state after intercourse.
The paradise of Yahweh is one that is devoid of such carnality, being filled
with the infinite love and joy of God instead. Hence, the believers' reward is
to dwell with God forever in eternal glory:
"Jesus answered and said to them, 'The sons of this age marry and are given
in marriage. But those who are counted worthy to attain that age and the
resurrection from the dead, neither marry nor are given in marriage;
nor can they die anymore for they are equal to the angels and are sons
of God, being sons of the resurrection." Luke 20:34-36
The kingdom of God is not food or drink, but righteousness, peace and joy in
the Holy Spirit. Romans 14:17
"And I heard a loud voice from heaven saying, 'Behold, the tabernacle of God
is with men, and He will dwell with them, and they shall be His people. God
Himself will be with them and be their God. And God will wipe away every tear
from their eyes; there shall be no more death, nor sorrow, nor crying. There
shall be no more pain, for the former things have passed away." Revelation
21:3-4
AUTHOR OF FOREIGN WORDS
The Quran claims to be in pure Arabic speech:
We have sent it down as an
Arabic Quran, in order that ye may
learn wisdom. S. 12:2
"An Arabic Quran, wherein there is no crookedness..." S. 9:28
And We know very well that they say, "Only a mortal is teaching him." The
speech of him at whom they hint is barbarous- and this is Arabic,
pure and clear. S. 16:103
But according to Arabic scholars the Quran is not in pure Arabic, containing
dozens of foreign words:
Abariq S. 56:18 Persian
Adam S. 2:34 Akkadian
Araik S. 18:31 Persian
Firdaus S. 18:107 Pahlavi
Fir'awn S. 73:15 Syriac
Habr S. 9:31 Hebrew (Haver)
Istabraq S. 18:31 Persian
(Istabar)
Sakina S. 2:248 Hebrew
Sijjil ( baked clay ) S. 105:4 Persian
Taghut ( idols ) S. 2:257 Syriac
(Teghutha)
Zakat S. 2:1 10 Syriac
(Zkhutha)
Zanjabil ( ginger ) S. 76:17 Pahlavi
Muslims respond by presuming that all living languages adopt words from other
cultures, and it is therefore not an error for the Quran to contain foreign
words. This argument only works in regards to imperfect human beings who
continually adopt and adapt to other cultures and customs.
Unfortunately, this argument will not work for an all-powerful Being who is
the Originator of human language. Such a Being is capable of inspiring his word
in perfect Arabic completely devoid of foreign words, especially when he himself
states that he would.
AUTHOR OF GRAMMATICAL ERRORS
Not only does the Quran contain foreign words, but according to Arabic
grammarians it also contains grammatical mistakes:
The Qor'an contains sentences which are incomplete and not fully
intelligible without the aid of commentaries; foreign words, unfamiliar Arabic
words, and words used with other than the normal meaning, adjectives and verbs
inflected without observance of the concords of gender and number- illogically
and ungrammatically applied pronouns which sometimes have no referent- and
predicates which in rhymed passages are often remote from the subjects ... To
sum up, more than one hundred Qor'anic aberrations from the normal rules
and structures have been noted ... ( Ali Dashti, 23 Years: A Study of
the Prophetic Career of Muhammad [Costa Mesa, Ca. 1994; Mazda Publishers],
p.p. 48, 50)
A few examples include the following passages:
Arabic - "inna rahmata Allahi qaribun min al-mohseneen."
The word qaribun is the predicate of
rahmata Allahi, and as
such should match in gender. Since rahmata is feminine the word
qaribun ( which is masculine ) should be qaribah, its
feminine form.
Arabic - "wa qata'nahom 'ethnata 'ashrata asbatan."
In Arabic, any noun which is counted by a number above ten should be
singular, as is the case in S. 7:142; 2:60; 5:12; 9:36; 12:4. As such the Arabic
asbatan should be sebtan.
-
S. 5:69 -"Surely they that believe, and those of Jewry, and
the
Sabians, and the Christians, whosoever believes in Allah and the Last Day,
and works righteousness- no fear shall be on them, neither shall they
sorrow."
Arabic- "Innal-laziina 'aamanuu wal-laziina haaduu
was-Saabi'uuna
wan-Nasaara man'amaana bilaahi wal-Yawmil Aakhiri wa 'amila saali-hanfalaa
khaw-fun 'alay-him wa laa hum yah-zanuun."
According to scholars, the Arabic
Saabi'uuna has been wrongly
declined. Compare the same grammatical structure found in the following suras:
S. 2:62- "Innal-laziina 'aamanuu wal-laziina haaduu wan-Nasaara
was-Saabi'iina.."
S. 22:17- "Innal-laziina 'aamanuu wal-laziina haaduu
was-Saabi'iina wan-Nasaara..."
In the last two suras the term was declined correctly,
Saabi'iina, as
opposed to Saabi'uuna. This is due to the word inna found in the
beginning of the sentence causing a form of declension called "nasb" ( as in the
cases of accusative or subjunctive ) with the "yeh" being the "sign of
nasb". But the word Saabi'uuna is given the case of 'uu, a
sign of "rafa" ( as in cases of nominative and indicative ). Accordingly, the
verse in 5:69 is wrong.
Arabic- "was-samaaa-i wa
maa ba-naahaa."
The word ma is impersonal in Arabic. Yet, the subject of the verse is
Allah, heaven's Creator. As such the word man, meaning
"him who", should have been used instead of the impersonal
ma.
It should be pointed out that it is not only Arabic scholars who have
discovered dozens of grammatical mistakes within the Quran, but Muhammad's very
own companions in the past have also admitted this fact. The Muslim scholar Ibn
al-Khatib in his book al Furqan quotes Muhammad's wife Aisha as saying:
"There are three grammatical errors in the Book of Allah, they are the
fault of the scribe: In 20:63 ... And in 5:69 ... And in 4:162." (Muhammad M.
abd al-Latif Ibn al-Khatib, Al-Furqan [Dar al-Kutub al-elmiyah, Beirut],
p. 91)
After seeing the first standard copy of the Quran, Islam's third Caliph
Uthman proclaimed, "I see grammatical errors in it, and the Arabs will
read it correctly with their tongues." (Ibid., p.90)
For the Quran to be the word of Allah and for Allah to be God one should find
no grammatical mistakes, especially since Muslims claim that the Quran contains
no human element whatsoever. Muslim view is that the Quran was dictated word for
word to Muhammad, which implies that Allah is the Author of theses grammatical
errors. This disqualifies Allah from being God, especially Yahweh God of the
Holy Bible.
To avoid this problem, Muslims assert that the Quran was revealed in a style
called balaagha, which is an eloquent method of expressing the Arabic.
Due to this feature, the Quran is not required to be grammatically correct since
its aim is at eloquence.
Once again this assumption serves to undermine the Muslim position. It is
true that a document written by man cannot be both grammatically correct and
still retain an optimum level of eloquence, since a human writer most often
sacrifices one literary feature over the other. But this cannot be said of God
since he can easily produce a book which contains both perfect grammar and
eloquence without ever sacrificing one for the other. This the Quran fails to
do.
ALLAH AND OATHS
A real point of difference between Allah and Yahweh is that Yahweh swears by
himself, since there is nothing greater for him to swear by:
For when God made a promise to Abraham, because He could swear by no one
greater, He swore by Himself. Hebrews 6:13
For men indeed swear by the greater, and an oath for
confirmation is for them an end of all dispute. Hebrews 6:16
Hence, every time God makes a pledge he swears only by himself to insure
believers that he will do all that he promises:
"I have sworn by Myself; the word has gone out of My mouth in
righteousness, and shall not return, that to Me every knee shall bow..." Isaiah
45:23
"I swear by Myself, says the LORD." Jeremiah 22:5
Yet, Allah swears by things less than him:
Swears by the Quran
By the Quran, full of wisdom. S. 36:2
By the Quran, full of admonition. S. 38:1
Swears by the sky and constellations
By the sky and the night visitant S. 86:1
Nay verily: By the moon, and
by the night as it retreateth, and by the dawn as it shines forth. S. 74:32-34
By the star when it goes down. S. 53:1
Swears by the pen
By the pen and by the record which [men] write. S. 68:1
Swears by the city
Nay I do swear by this city. S. 90:1
Swears by the Creation
By the night as it cancels [the light];
by the day as it
appears in glory; by the Creation of male and female. S. 92:1-3
The fact that Allah swears by practically anything and everything,
while Yahweh swears only by himself, makes it very difficult for the two to be
the one and the same God.
ALLAH IS NOT TRIUNE
The final proof that Allah is not Yahweh Elohim of the Holy Bible is that
Allah is not a trinity. According to the Holy Bible, there is only One true God-
Deuteronomy 6:4; Galatians 3:20.
Yet, at the same time Scripture affirms that this One God eternally exists in
three Persons:
The Father
"...elect according to the foreknowledge of God
the Father..." 1
Peter 1:2
The Son
"... looking for that blessed hope and glorious appearing of our
Great God and Savior Jesus Christ..." Titus 2:13
The Holy Spirit
"But Peter said, 'Ananias, why has Satan filled your heart
to lie to
the Holy Spirit ... you have not lied to men but to God."
Acts 5:3-4
Three in One
"... baptizing them in the
Name (singular- implying unity) of
the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit..." Matthew 28:19
But the Allah of the Quran is not any of the three Persons mentioned above.
For example S. 112 states,
Say: He is Allah, the One and Only; Allah, The Eternal, Absolute-,
He
begetteth not, Nor is He Begotten; And there is none like unto
Him. S. 112: 1-4
Allah does not "beget" meaning that Allah has no children either in
a spiritual or carnal sense. Thus, Allah can never be the Father. Nor does he
allow himself to be "begotten", i.e. does not take on human nature such as God
the Son did when he became man for our salvation. Finally, in orthodox Islam the
Holy Spirit is not God, but the angel Gabriel. This fact separates Allah from
ever possibly being the same God that Christians worship.
Furthermore, we read in I John 2:22-23:
"Who is a liar but he who denies that Jesus is the Christ?
He is
Antichrist who denies the Father and the Son. Whoever denies the Son
does not have the Father either; he who acknowledges the Son has the Father
also."
Thus, to the Christians Allah cannot be the biblical God since the inspired
New Testament record teaches that anyone denying the Father and Son as God is
Antichrist.
One common Muslim allegation needs to be briefly addressed before concluding.
In Exodus 31:17 it says that after Yahweh created the universe, he rested on the
Sabbath and was refreshed. This description is not befitting God since he never
fatigues nor does he need to be refreshed.
In response to this, as we have already noted scripture often uses
anthropomorphic language in describing God's relations with man. The context of
this passage deals with the necessity of Sabbath observance as a sign between
God and Israel, and as such God is speaking to his covenant people in relational
terms.
Just as God rested on the seventh day, it is important for Israel to do
likewise especially in light of the fact that they are the chosen people of God
and must imitate him by observing all his commands.
Furthermore, the term for Sabbath in Hebrew is
shabat. It is listed in
Strong's as #7673 with the following meanings: to stop, to cease, to rest, to
end. Thus, the term does not necessarily imply rest but that after the formation
of man God stopped his work of creation since he saw that everything was very
good at that point. (c.f. Genesis 1:31)
Finally, the Bible clearly affirms that God is in no need of rest or sleep:
"He will not allow your foot to be moved- He who keeps you
will not
slumber. Behold, He who keeps Israel shall neither slumber nor
sleep." Psalm 121: 3-4
"Have you not known? Have you not heard? The everlasting God, the LORD, the
Creator of the ends of the earth, neither faints nor is weary. His
understanding is unsearchable." Isaiah 40:28
To then try and use
Exodus 31:17 as a prooftext while neglecting the overall context of scripture is
rather poor exegesis and unscholarly, since the Bible is clear that God has
inexhaustible power and energy.
Our brief examination of Allah as presented in the Quran leads us to conclude
that he cannot possibly be the same God worshiped by Abraham and as described in
the Holy Bible. The contradictions in attributes and nature between Yahweh and
Allah are too numerous to pass over, and cannot be reconciled.
With that in mind, we must point out another major difference between the
two; namely that the God of the Holy Bible gives an assurance of salvation
through Jesus Christ the Lord, something which Allah never guarantees:
For God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten Son that whoever
believes in him should not perish, but have everlasting life. John 3:16
Most assuredly, I say to you, he who hears my word and believes in him who
sent me has everlasting life, and shall not come into judgement, but has
passed from death into life. John 5:24
And if anyone hears my words and does not believe, I do not judge him; for I
did not come to judge the world but to save the world. John 12:47
The Bible clearly teaches that there is no other way for man to be
saved, since Jesus alone can guarantee eternal life, something which the Quran
cannot promise any Muslim:
"Jesus said to him, 'I am the Way, the Truth, and the Life. No man comes to
the Father except through me.' " John 14:6
"Nor is there salvation in any other, for there is no other name under heaven
given among men by which we must be saved." Acts 4:12
The reason why Christ alone can promise salvation is because he alone paid
the penalty for sin which is death. By his death on the cross Christ provided
the only acceptable sacrifice to God on behalf of sinners:
"Being justified as a gift by His grace through the redemption which is in
Christ Jesus; whom God displayed publicly as a propitiation ( a
sacrifice offered which satisfies the divine justice of God) in his blood ..."
Romans 3:24-25
"For the wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life through
Jesus Christ our Lord." Romans 6:23
It is therefore up to Muslims to decide whether to accept Jesus Christ as
Yahweh's Son and the Savior of the world and receive the assurance of eternal
salvation. Or continue to worship Allah of the Quran who never promises Muslims
the joy of knowing that their sins have been forgiven, giving them the assurance
of eternal salvation. The choice is left for the reader to decide.
NOTE TO THE READER
We are well aware that the name
Allah is used by Arab speaking
Christians for the God of the Bible. In fact, the root from which the name is
derived from, ilah, stems from the ancient Semitic languages,
corresponding to the Mesopotamian IL, as well as the Hebrew-Aramaic
EL, as in Ishma-el, Immanu-el, Isra-el. These terms
were often used to refer to any deity worshiped as a high god, especially the
chief deity amongst a pantheon of lesser gods. As such, the Holy Bible uses the
term as just one of the many titles for Yahweh, the only true God.
Yet the problem arises from the fact that Muslims insist that Allah is not a
title, but the personal name of the God of Islam. This becomes problematic since
according to the Holy Bible the name of the God of Abraham is Yahweh/Jehovah,
not Allah:
God spoke further to Moses and said to him, "I am Yahweh (YHVH) and I
appeared to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, as God Almighty; BUT BY MY NAME,
YAHWEH, I did not make myself known to them." Exodus 6:2-3
Therefore, Christians can use Allah as a title but not as the personal name
for the God of the Bible.
Further articles by Sam
Shamoun
