Why Muslims Ought to Denounce Islam
Gen. James Green
S INCE I’VE WRITTEN about the “contradictions” found in the Islamic Qur’an, I’ll be brief with this article. To be honest and fair I’ll quote Muslim scholars and not just Christian Orientalists who have done a fine job of pointing out the same contradictions. Since I read a lot of books written by both Muslim and Christian, I pretty much know my way around these subjects I’m writing about. I am not a Christian scholar, or an expert (of any kind) on the subject of Islam, BUT it is foolish to avoid what Islamic sources teach, e.g. The Qur’an (there are many authors now available) and the Hadith (I use Sahih of Al-Bukhari aka, Bukhari and Al-Husayn Muslim, aka Muslim.
I write this article in behalf of those dear (“lost”) Muslims who believe in Muhammad as a (true) prophet of God. They are DECEIVED as well as many Christians who believe in many (false) teachers/preachers/prophets in Christianity (like Jehovah’s Witnesses, Mormons etc.).
MUSLIMS LOVE to brag that their book–the Qur’an—was first revealed in the Arabic Language. Let me quote several Suras where this is found (note: Ali’s Qur’an and Commentary usually have footnotes, therefore it would be beneficial to read some of them. But through my studies, I’ve see that some authors disagree, so don’t be surprised):
“Thus have We revealed it to be a judgment of authority in Arabic. Wert thou to follow their (vain) desires after the knowledge which hath reached thee, then wouldst thou find neither protector nor defender against God” (see note 1859).
Ali says that “…The Qur’an is in Arabic…But it is also universal…” Universal? ARABIC IS NOT A UNIVERSAL LANGUAGE, AS IS ENGLISH!
“We sent not an apostle except (to teach) in the language of his (own) people, in order to make (things) clear to them…” (see note 1874). Here we have a Sura telling Muslims that the language (Arabic) was ONLY for Muhammad’s own people, not for the whole world.
Ali goes into a diatribe about the word language: “…It is not merely a question of alphabets, letters, or words…God’s message—being universal—can be expressed in all moulds and forms…In this respect the Qur’an is marvellous. It is for the simplest as well as the most advanced.” But that Sura says: “We (God-the Son-the Holy Spirit? or whomever the “We” consists of?) sent not an apostle except (to teach) in the language of his (own) people…” I DON’T READ “UNIVERSAL” INTO THIS. BUT TO OUTDO THE JEWS AND CHRISTIANS, MUHAMMAD MAKES IT OUT LIKE GOD GAVE HIM THE END TIME MESSAGE TO SPREAD (WITH THE SWORD OF COURSE!!!).
Let us keep in mind as we go thru all this, that Muhammad was forming up his very own religion in order to compete with the Jews (Judaism) and with the Christians (Christianity). He lifted (stole!) many verses from both the Old and New Testaments and put many in there with an Arabic twist for HIS PEOPLE the Arabs.
“(It is) A Qur’an in Arabic, without any crookedness (therein): In order that they may guard against Evil” (note 4285). Ali says “Previous revelations had been in other languages. Now the revelation was given in Arabia in Arabic itself…and fit to be the vehicle of sublime truth.”
“Thus have We sent by inspiration to thee an Arabic Qur’an: that thou mayest warn the Mother of Cities and all around her…” (note 4533). The “city” was Mecca according to Ali’s note 4534.
“We have made it A Qur’an in Arabic that ye may be able to understand (and learn wisdom)” (note 4605).
“We know indeed that they say, ‘It is a man that teaches him.’ The tongue of him they wickedly point to is notably foreign, while this is Arabia, pure and clear” (note 2143), then Ali gives another lengthy note trying to convince us that Muhammad received revelations from God, not men.
Scholars have noted that in 16:103 and 41:44, the Qur’an commands the deletion of any dialect other than the Arabic language.
“Had We sent this as A Qur’an (in a language) other than Arabic, they would have said: ‘Why are not its verses explained in detail? What! (a Book) not in Arabic and (a Messenger) on Arab?’ say: (It is a guide and a healing to those who believe…)’” (note 4516).
In “The Itqan” (pt. 2, p. 105) the Suyuti tells his readers that many scholars (among them the Shafi’i, ibn Jarir, al-Tabari) base their claim on the two above Qur’anic texts.
Al-Risala, a book by the Shafi’i (edited by Ahmad Shakir (p. 41) states:
“It is said, ‘What is the proof that the Book of God is in the Arabic language without being mixed with any (foreign words)?’ The proof is the Book of God itself.”
Before I go on let me mention that the Qur’an teaches that Arabic is the language of Allah. What ignorance! they believe that the Arabic Qur’an is the perfect, exact representation of Allah’s Words, HOWEVER there is a BIG problem—Muhammad used a number of foreign words/phrases in the Qur’an. Oops!!:
Injil= “Gospel,” comes from the GREEK language. The Arabic word is bisharah;
Heber, sakinah, maoon, turat, and jehannim come from the HEBREW language;
“Pharaoh” comes from EGYPT, it is found 84 times in the Qur’an;
Taboot, taghouth, zakat, malakout, are SYRIAC;
“Adam” and “Eden,” found 24 times, are ACCADIAN words. Dr. Anis Shorrosh says that a more correct term for “Adam” in Arabic is basharon or insan=mankind. “Eden” is janna=garden;
“Haroot” and “Maroot” are PERSIAN, names of angels. “Sirat” should have been Altareeq=the path. “Hoor” is the Persian word whose Arabic counterpart is Tilmeeth=a disciple;
“Jinn” normally refers to evil/good demons, the Arabic word is ruh;
“Firdaus” is a Persian word=Jannah in Arabic and refers to the highest, or seventh, Heaven;
“Abraham” comes from the ASSYRIAN language. It should be Abu Raheen in Arabic;
Below are several things Dr. Shorrosh has revealed for his readers:
If this is not revealing enough, one ought to pay attention to Qur’anic misquotes and Qur’anic errors in the Old Testament and New Testament.
Back to the Shafi’i
AFTER WE’VE READ a quote from al-Risala (by the Shafi’i), he has a (very) hard time defending his “no foreign words,” for he is up against Muslims such as ibn’ Abbas, Mujahid, ibn Jubayr,’ Akrama, and ‘Ata, all legists.
Also included in this entourage of legists/scholars is the Suyuti as well as other scholars like Dr. Muhammad Rajab. In “Solidarity” (al-Tadamun) magazine (1989, April issue), he expressed his views about the Qur’an being pure Arabic. In his book called The Itqan (pt. 2, pp. 108-119), the Suyuti lists 118 non-Arabic words. I have read other quotes: some lower, some higher.
Ibn’ Abbas asserts that some Qur’anic words are Persian (as I quoted Shorrosh [a Christian, Ethiopian and Nabatean], p. 105).
Dr. Bayyumi agrees with Suyuti.
Faced with these contradictions how does the Suyuti explain this? On page 106 he writes:
“The existence of a few non-Arabic words does not make the Qur’an non-Arabic as the verses indicate.” No it does not. But if we’re to believe every word—coming from Allah, or was it Gabriel?—that the Qur’an is PURE Arabic, this does cause the Muslims, especially Muhammad, a BIG problem. You see, the Qur’an DENIES any foreign words. Period! Can we not honestly and rightly call this a contradiction—118 (or more) non-Arabic words? Some scholars have even picked out Berber and Turkish words.
Tell us, Muslims, how can the Qur’an be PURE Arabic??
Sura 2:78 comes to mind concerning all this:
“And amongst them are ignorant persons, who know not the Book but only foolish stories; they follow naught but their imaginations.”
Of course the Qur’an was speaking of the Jews/Christians here, but we could rightly TURN THIS UPON THE MUSLIMS AND BE TOTALLY JUSTIFIED. It is the Muslims that are ignorant. The following was written by Abdiyah Akbar Abdul-Haqq (his father was a convert from Islam to Christianity. Haqq speaks English, Hindi, Urdu, and Punjabi. He also reads in Urdu, Persian, English, Greek, and Arabic). He points out the word “ignorant” in Sura 2:78:
“The Arabic word translated ‘ignorant’ in the above-mentioned verse is ‘ummiun.’ It does not signify illiteracy in general. It implies ignorance and illiteracy in regard to revealed Scriptures of God. The Muslims use this verse as a proof text for their theory that ‘ummiun’ means ‘unlettered,’ and since their prophet is called ‘ummi’ in the Koran, he was totally illiterate. Hence, the Koran is considered a literary miracle from an illiterate prophet. However, the verse under discussion clearly shows that the term ‘ummiun’ is a technical one related to the knowledge of revealed Scriptures. In this sense the prophet was an ‘ummi’ (unlearned) as far as the Judeo-Christian Scriptures were concerned. But the question may be raised here as to why the prophet, pagan Arabs, and even many Jews and Christians were unlearned in the Bible. As to the scriptural ignorance of the Jews, it must be borne in mind that a majority of them in Arabia were proselytes rather than pure Hebrews.”
For example, speaking of the Jewish tribes of Kuraiza and Nadir in the city of Medina, the Muslim historian Yaqubi writes:
“THEY WERE NOT PURE JEWS BUT JUDAIZED CLANS OF THE ARABIC TRIBE OF DJUDHAM.” (Shorter Encyclopaedia of Islam, p. 292)
It is also important to note that even real Jews had become Arabicized by the time Islam came on the scene. Wellhausen has aptly pointed out:
“The Arabian Jews by their language, their knowledge of the scripture, their manner of life, their fondness for malicious mockery, secret arts, poison, magic and cursing and their fear of death, make an unusual impression which cannot be explained simply by the Judaizing of pure Arabs. But on the other hand, it must not be forgotten that the Jews in Arabia were very much influenced by their surroundings and had assumed a character of their own. (Shorter Encyclopaedia of Islam, p. 292)There was a widespread alienation from their scripture on the part of the Arabian Jews because they had succumbed to a degenerate type of belief and practice in religion. This spiritual corruption must have been aided by the great influx of proselytes from among pagan Arabs. The personal religion of a majority of the Jews consisted of crass superstition and heterodox beliefs and practices based on non-canonical, apocryphal and magical sources of information. Most of them COULD NOT EVEN READ their scripture in Hebrew. It had to be translated orally in free style Arabic during worship services in the synagogues. Hence the Koranic reference to their general ignorance of the Scripture is true to facts. (End Quote)”
4 Wives at a Time
THE QUR’AN tells us that Muslim men can only marry up to 4 wives at a time (something that our Holy Bible—in the New Testament—forbids).
Sura 4:3 reads: “But if ye fear that you shall not treat them fairly, then only one.” But as we turn to 4:129, we read: “You will not be able to deal equally between your wives however much you wish to do so.” Let’s read some more of v. 129:
“But turn not away (from a woman) altogether, so as to leave her (as it were) hanging (in the air)…” Ali’s note no. 639 tells us: “…Legally more than one wife (up to four) are permissible on the condition that the man can be perfectly fair and just to all…”
We’ve already noted the Suyuti’s book, The Itqan. On page 85, (part 3) we read: “In the first verse we can understand that fairness is possible while in the second, we perceive that fairness is not possible.” Ah, another CONTRADICTION!
From the Qur’an’s point of view (and Muhammad’s), “fairness is possible” to be practiced by the evidence that they got (and still get) married to 4 women. Therefore, “fairness” seemed possible for them because, as one author put it, “it is not reasonable that all of them, including Umar, Ali, Uthman and Muhammad violated the (perfect Arabic!!) Qur’anic teaching.”
But we have a problem: 4:3 and 4:129 do not agree. Well, in order to save face and solve the PROBLEM, the Suyuti goes into the argument:
“The first verse (meant) fairness in regard to fulfilling the pledges while the second verse is related to the heart’s inclination and it is not within the ability of a man to be fair in this matter.”
Scholars point out that the Jalalan (p. 82) and Baydawi (p. 130) agree with this Suyuti.
The Baydawi reiterates what the Suyuti wrote and adds to it: “Muhammad himself was fair with his women in the matter of human rights, but in the inclination of the heart, he used to say to God, ‘Forgive me in regard to that over which I have no control.’”
We need to remember, scholars tell us, that Muhammad FAVORED A’ISHA (his baby wife!) over the rest and he did not harbor any inclination toward Sawdah bint Zemea. The Zamakh-shari asserts Muhammad’s favoritism for A’isha and states that some people have interpreted the second verse to mean that you cannot be fair in love.
The book “Opinions,” by Sheik Kashkak, indicates that some favoritism is permissible (see pt. 5, p. 52). The Zamakh-shari gives us a different opinion:
“God has relieved you of (implementation) complete fairness to that which you are able to carry out because it is obligatory to treat the women equally in dividing their portions, expenses and pledges and many other things hardly uncountable. It is something which is beyond (human) ability even if they all were beloved. How would the situation be if the heart inclined toward but some of them!” (pt. 1, pp. 568, 569).
In “Behind The Veil,” the authors let us know the Muslim scholars cited Muhammad as an example, and the issue became more complicated, for what would happen to the poor wife if her husband devoted his love to another wife? Well, according to Islam, SHE CANNOT OBJECT BECAUSE HER HUSBAND IS “INNOCENT” OF ANY WRONGDOING. The Qur’an asserts that you cannot from an emotional point-of-view, treat women justly, and the prophet himself has rejected the request of his daughter, Fatima, to treat all his wives alike, and not to bestow on A’isha, his favorite wife, more than the rest of them (see our “Women in Islam” articles: Beware women!).
WESTERN ORIENTALISTS say that the Qur’an contradicts itself when it alludes to the creation of earth and heaven by saying on the one hand that heaven was created AFTER the earth (many verses) then on the other hand, in one verse, it said the earth was created AFTER the heavens (Muslim scholars Suyuti, Baydawi, Jalalon, and Zamakh-Shari all try to explain these contradictions by telling us that, for example, the proper usage of the language, such as by saying THE WORD ‘AFTER’ MEANS ‘BEFORE.’ Really? This is new to all of us.
Sura 90:1: “I do call to witness this city” (they said that God does not swear in the sacred land Mecca, as Ali’s footnote no. 6130 points out), then in Sura 95:3 we read: “And this City of Security” (footnote no. 6197, 98 tells us that Mecca is the City of “Security”). Here we see God swearing in Mecca the “sacred land.” We can’t miss this glaring contradiction. Yet the Suyuti (with other scholars) denied this BECAUSE, he says, THE WORD ‘NO’ IN SURA 90 IS REDUNDANT. It is not intended to negate but to affirm! Wow! What would happen if we Christians set out to do this?
That is not all, this (cheating and dishonest) Muslim scholar points to “What Was Mistaken to be Contradiction,” in which he summarizes the OPINIONS of the scholars in response to (justified) criticism:
“The people did not reject what you rejected because the Arabs may use ‘not’ in the context of their conversation and abolish its meaning.” This is dishonesty, pure and simple. Muslims just can’t admit that the Qur’an contains errors/contradictions and the like. If they did, they would have to admit that their (false) book was not a “perfect Book” from Heaven.
As one Muslim author writes:
“...EVERYTHING IN the world, or every phenomenon other than man, is administered by God-made Laws. This makes the entire physical world necessarily obedient to God and submissive to His Laws, which, in turn, means that it is in a state of Islam [submission], or it is Muslim.” Thus, “the physical world has no choice of its own. It has no voluntary course to follow on its own initiative but obeys the Law of the Creator, the Law of Islam or submission.”
Hammudah Abdalati, Islam in Focus (Indianapolis: American Trust Publications, 1975), 9.
Regarding God’s creation of the natural order, the Qur’an teaches that “it is God who has created the heavens and the earth, and all between them, in six days” (32:4). “We created the heavens and the earth and all between them in six days, Nor did any sense of weariness touch us.” (50:38) However, elsewhere the Qur’an declares that “He completed them as seven firmaments in two days, and He assigned to each heaven Its duty and command.” (41:12) Again, “Say: Is it that ye deny Him who created the earth in two days?” (41:9)
SURA 56 (“al Waqi’ah”) talks about those who are destined to enter paradise. Verses 13 and 14 state that the majority will be from the nations who came before Muhammad and the minority will be from people who believed in Muhammad (what a LIE! NO ONE finds salvation in Islam. Period!).
V. 13: “A number of people from those of old” (Ali’s footnote no. 5228 tells us this about the majority, but he goes on one of his “praise Muhammad” / “Praise Islam” themes and writes: “As he (the prophet) was the last of the Prophets (so he says!), he and the great Teachers under his dispensation will be comparatively fewer in number, BUT their teachings is the sum and flower of ALL mankind’s spiritual experience.” Does this, my dear Muslims, include murder, rape, terror, theft, blasphemy, lying, deceiving, etc., etc.??)
V. 14: “And a few from those of later times...”
But in this same chapter (vv. 39, 40), it is said that the majority will be from those people who came before and after the (false) prophet also. Is not this a contradiction? Yes!
V. 39: “A goodly number from those of old,”
V. 40: “And a goodly number from those of later time.”
Ali says that “this class—the righteous—will be a large company in Heaven, belonging to ALL ages of the world,” note no. 5241. One translation of the Qur’an says: “…a multitude of those of later time.” (see Baydawi’s commentary [p. 710; Zamakh-Shari in his Kash-Shaf, pt. 4, p. 458; and the Jalalan, p. 453]). These two just say that: “…the formers are the nations from Adam to Muhammad and the latter are the people of Muhammad.” Hence, the Qur’an says, “A minority from others,” then “a majority (or multitude) from others.” This may be splitting hairs, BUT, since Muslims claim PERFECTION of the Qur’an, well, sorry, it is FAR FROM BEING DIVINE OR PERFECT.
THE AUTHORS of Behind the Veil point out that:
“In part 3, p. 83 of ‘The Itqan,’ the Suyuti designated many pages under the title, ‘What is Mistaken For Contradiction in the Qur’an.’ He remarks that there is something in the Qur’an to which Ibn ‘Abbas stopped short of giving any answer. A man told him that one verse in the Qur’an mentions that the length of the day of resurrection is one thousand years and another verse says it is 50 thousand years (al-Sayda; 5 and al-Ma’arji: 4). Ibn ‘Abbas said, ‘These are two days which God—may He be exalted—has mentioned in His book, and God knows best.’ This is an honest acknowledgment by Ibn ‘Abbas without any attempt of justification.
When Ibn Musayyib, one of the great companions, was asked about these two days and why they contradict each other, he says, ‘Ibn ‘Abbas avoided talking about them and he is more knowledgeable than me.’ Yet we find some contemporary scholars who endeavor to justify this contradiction and claim that they are more knowledgeable than Ibn ‘Abbas!!”
The Suyuti Says
IN THE SAME PART (p. 79), the Suyuti tells us that the Qur’an states in Sura 6:22-24 that in the day of judgment, infidels/non-Muslims attempt to conceal something from God, while in Sura 4:42 the Qur’an contradicts that:
“One day shall we gather them all together: we shall say to those who ascribed partners (to Us): ‘Where are the partners whom ye (invented and) talked about?’
(v. 23) There will be (left) no subterfuge for them but to say: ‘By God Our Lord, we were not those who joined gods with God!’
(v. 24) ‘Behold! how they be against their own souls! But the (lie) which they invented will leave them in the lurch.’”
“on that day those who reject faith and disobey the apostle will wish that the earth were made one with them: But never will they hide a single fact from God!”
The Suyuti tries to justify this contradiction by saying that ibn ‘Abbas was asked about it and he said that they conceal it by their tongues but their hands and limbs admit it. What kind of answer is that?
Contradiction of Science
IN SURA 18:86 (the cave), it is said: “Till, when he reached the setting-place of the sun, he found it setting in a muddy spring, and found a people thereabout…” Scholars point out that only the superstitious in Muhammad’s age believed this. If they believe the Qur’an is right they need to see a psychiatrist quickly!
While we’re on this subject of contradicting science, here is food for thought:
Several thousand years ago, the Holy Bible clearly recorded that the earth is round and that it is hung on nothing.
“It is He who sits above the circle of the earth” (Isa. 40:22).
“He stretches out the north over empty space; He hangs the earth on nothing” (Job 26:7).
Yet, the Qur’an challenges these established scientific facts. In many places, it alludes to the fact that the earth is flat and its mountains are like poles which create a balance so that the Earth does not tilt. Let us consider what the Qur’an says about the Earth:
In Sura 88:17,20, it is recorded:
“Will they not regard the camels how they are created...and the Earth how it is spread?”
On page 509, the Jalalan says,
“In his phrase, ‘how it is spread’, he denotes that the earth is flat. All the scholars of Islamic law agree upon this. It is not round as the physicists claim.”
THE QUR’ANIC TEACHING IS OBVIOUS FROM THE COMMENT OF JALALAN THAT “THE EARTH IS FLAT AND NOT ROUND AS THE SCIENTISTS CLAIM.” What made Jalal al-Din say so is that the Qur’an hints in many chapters that the earth is flat (refer to 19:6, 79:30, 18:7, and 21:30). Also the Qur’an indicates that:
“We have placed in the earth firm hills lest it quake so as not to sway and hurt people” (21:31).
Scholars who agree upon the meaning of this verse believe as the Jalalan states (pp. 270-271),
“God has founded firm mountains on earth lest it shake people.”
On page 429, al-Baydawi says,
“God has made firm mountains on earth lest it sway people and quake. He also made heaven as a ceiling and kept it from falling down!”
The Zamakhshari agrees with the above authors and reiterates the same words (refer to Zamakhshari part 3, p. 114). In the Qur’an (Sura 50:7), we find another verse which carries the same meaning,
“And the earth have we spread out, and have flung firm hills therein” (Surah Qaf: 7).
This is accompanied by the same comment by the above Muslim scholars (refer to Jalalan, p. 437; Baydawi, p. 686, Tabari, p. 589, and Zamakhshari, part 4, p. 381). All of them assure us that “if it were not for these unshakable mountains, the earth would slip away.”
Zamakhshari, the Baydawi and the Jalalan say: “God has built heaven without pillars but He placed unshakable mountains on Earth lest it tilts with people.” Concerning chapter 50:7, the Suyuti says that scholars indicate that “Qaf is a mountain which encompasses the entire earth” (refer to Itqan, part 3, p. 29). Qaf is an Arabic L like K.
These are the comments of the ancient Muslim scholars word for word. Even some Saudi scholars wrote a book a few years ago to disprove the spherical aspect of the earth and they claimed that it is a myth, agreed with the above mentioned scholars, and said we must believe the Qur’an and reject the spherical aspect of the earth.
It is also well-known that the Qur’an proclaims that there are seven earths—not just one (refer to the commentary of the Jalalan, p. 476, al-Baydawi, p. 745 as they interpret chapter 61:12, Surah Divorce: 12).
It is very clear that the sun does not traverse the heaven and set down in a murky, muddy well, or slimy water, or a place which contains both of them as the Baydawi, Zamakhshari, and the Qur’an remark.
Nor is the earth flat and the mountains, the pillars and the towerings [are they] which prevent the earth from moving as the Qur’an and the scholars said. Nor is there a mountain which encompasses the whole earth—nor are there seven earths.
Neither is the lightning an angel whose name is Rafael, nor is the thunder an angel. It never happened that the angel Gabriel inspired Muhammad to write a complete chapter about his friend the angel thunder! The thunder and lightning are natural phenomena and not God’s angels like Michael and Gabriel as the prophet of Islam claims.
All this proves (at least to me) that the Qur’an CANNOT be trusted. I agree it has some truths, but naturally these truths were lifted from our Holy Bible, put into the Arabic mind-set/culture and called “Perfect” revelations.
In my next article I want to show you just how UNTRUSTWORTHY THE QUR’AN REALLY IS. I want to show you the many different claims Muhammad made for his (supposedly) prophetic call.