Jalal Abualrub has written a book titled Holy Wars, Crusades, Jihad where he discusses Islamic Jihad, Biblical wars, and the military expeditions carried out by both Jews and Christians throughout the centuries. Currently this book is out of print but Abualrub is working on a revision and has plans to republish it in the near future (*). By the grace of Christ, we managed to get our hands on a copy of the first edition of volume 1, edited by Alaa Mencke, Madinah Publishers and Distributors, 2002.

As we perused this volume one point stuck out clearly; Abualrub not only has no problem distorting what God’s true Word, the Holy Bible, says he also has no qualms twisting what his own religious sources teach. Moreover, his volume is a classic textbook of logical fallacies since all throughout Abualrub commits most, if not all, of the typical fallacies which Muslims often make.

As the grace of the Lord Jesus permits we plan to write responses to specific sections of his book in order to demonstrate these fallacies and distortions for our readers.

We begin this series by discussing Abualrub’s criteria to determine when a specific command of God is not abrogated so as to show our readers how his arguments backfire against him since they essentially provide evidence that Muhammad is not God’s prophet.

In trying to prove his position that Q. 2:190 has not been abrogated Abualrub writes:

The above verse prohibits attacking those who did not commit aggression against Muslims. This is because when Allah states that He ‘dislikes’ something, it is a type of news that CANNOT be changed or abrogated. (P. 114; capital emphasis ours)

He then states in a footnote that:

[2] Fiqh as-Sunnah, Vol., 3, Pg., 79; published by Dar al-Fat’h lil-I’lam al-‘Arabi, Cairo, Egypt, 1998. The statement above, which Shaikh Sayyid Sabiq issued, is valid and stronger than the statements of several respected scholars stating that the verse about forbidding aggression [2:190] was abrogated. This is because when Allah states that He does like something, His statement here is not a part of the Law, but a matter of the Unseen reporting Allah’s Actions. The only part of Allah’s Revelation that Allah (God) abrogates are the practical aspects of the religion, meaning, the Law, so that Alah makes things easier for mankind. Accounts of what happened in the past, what will happen in the future and what Allah likes or dislikes CANNOT be abrogated. Yet, we should state that the part of this verse that the scholars said was abrogated came after Muslims gained strength and increased in number and power. Then, Muslims were permitted to take the initiative and attack the pagans who consistently attacked and killed Muslims and sought to destroy Islam. In this case, Muslims did not wait for combatant unbelievers to attack first, but took the war to their territory and preempted their treachery and aggression. What the scholars did not suggest was abrogated, is unjustified aggression … (Pp. 114-115; capital and underline emphasis ours)

To reiterate what Abualrub is saying, passages narrating past events and/or commands where Allah mentions his personal likes or dislikes cannot be abrogated according to his understanding of Islam. This claim is rather interesting since the Quran contradicts a command given by God in an account narrating past history where he mentions his personal dislike!

The Quran gives the following instructions regarding divorce and remarriage:

A divorce is only permissible twice: after that, the parties should either hold together on equitable terms, or separate with kindness. It is not lawful for you, (men), to take back any of your gifts (from your wives), except when both parties fear that they would be unable to keep the limits ordained by Allah. If ye (judges) do indeed fear that they would be unable to keep the limits ordained by Allah, there is no blame on either of them if she give something for her freedom. These are the limits ordained by Allah. So do not transgress them if any do transgress the limits ordained by Allah, such persons wrong (themselves as well as others). So if a husband divorces his wife (irrevocably), he cannot, after that, re- marry her until after she has married another husband and he has divorced her. In that case there is no blame on either of them if they re-unite, provided they feel that they can keep the limits ordained by Allah. Such are the limits ordained by Allah, which He makes plain to those who understand. S. 2:229-230

A person who desires to remarry his divorcee cannot do so until she marries someone else and is divorced by him. The narrations attributed to Muhammad go so far as to make it mandatory for the divorcee to sleep with her new husband before she can return to her former spouse:

Narrated 'Aisha:
Rifa'a Al-Qurazi divorced his wife irrevocably (i.e. that divorce was the final). Later on 'Abdur-Rahman bin Az-Zubair married her after him. She came to the Prophet and said, "O Allah's Apostle! I was Rifa'a's wife and he divorced me thrice, and then I was married to 'Abdur-Rahman bin AzZubair, who, by Allah has nothing with him except something like this fringe, O Allah's Apostle," showing a fringe she had taken from her covering sheet. Abu Bakr was sitting with the Prophet while Khalid Ibn Said bin Al-As was sitting at the gate of the room waiting for admission. Khalid started calling Abu Bakr, "O Abu Bakr! Why don't you reprove this lady from what she is openly saying before Allah's Apostle?" Allah's Apostle did nothing except smiling, and then said (to the lady), "Perhaps you want to go back to Rifa'a? No, (it is not possible), unless and until you enjoy the sexual relation with him ('Abdur Rahman), and he enjoys the sexual relation with you." (Sahih Al-Bukhari, Volume 8, Book 73, Number 107)

Yahya related to me from Malik from al-Miswar ibn Rifaa al-Quradhi from az-Zubayr ibn Abd ar-Rahman ibn az-Zubayr that Rifaa ibn Simwal divorced his wife, Tamima bint Wahb, in the time of the Messenger of Allah, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, three times. Then she married Abd ar-Rahman ibn az-Zubayr and he turned from her and could not consummate the marriage and so he parted from her. Rifaa wanted to marry her again and it was mentioned to the Messenger of Allah, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, and he forbade him to marry her. He said, "She is not halal for you until she has tasted the sweetness of intercourse." (Malik's Muwatta, Book 28, Number 28.7.17)

These specific instructions go against Yahweh’s command to Moses:

"If a man marries a woman who becomes displeasing to him because he finds something indecent about her, and he writes her a certificate of divorce, gives it to her and sends her from his house, and if after she leaves his house she becomes the wife of another man, and her second husband dislikes her and writes her a certificate of divorce, gives it to her and sends her from his house, or if he dies, then her first husband, who divorced her, is not allowed to marry her again after she has been defiled. That would be detestable in the eyes of the LORD. Do not bring sin upon the land the LORD your God is giving you as an inheritance." Deuteronomy 24:1-4 NIV

"then her former husband, who sent her away, may not take her again to be his wife, after she has been defiled, for that is an abomination before the LORD. And you shall not bring sin upon the land that the LORD your God is giving you for an inheritance." Deuteronomy 24:4 ESV

Notice what Yahweh says about a person returning to a former spouse who has remarried; Yahweh emphatically calls this practice an abomination, something he utterly detests and abhors!

Thus, according to Abualrub’s criteria since this instruction from Yahweh is found in a book narrating past events and expressly mentions Yahweh’s personal hatred this means that it must be one of those very commands that cannot be abrogated and has to be observed by all true believers at all times.

But Muhammad failed to uphold Yahweh’s instruction, in fact he taught something which completely goes against and contradicts it! In light of this, will Abualrub apply his criteria fairly and consistently and conclude that Muhammad was a false prophet for breaking God’s pure Word?

Moreover, Abualrub mentioned that certain scholars believed that Q. 2:190 was abrogated after the Muslims had grown in numbers and military power. Note, once again, his comments:

… Yet, we should state that the part of this verse that the scholars said was abrogated CAME AFTER Muslims gained strength and increased in number and power….