Sam Shamoun

The following is an outline highlighting the difficulties in the Muslim belief that the Quran is the Word of God. We will basically be using the very same methodology that Shabir Ally uses throughout his debates to prove that the Holy Bible is not the Word of God.

Shabir's attack on the Holy Bible falls under several different categories, some of which include:

• Textual Variants of the Bible
• Alleged Contradictions of the Bible
• False Prophecies of the Bible
• NT Misquoting the OT

Instead of dealing with specific charges made by Ally against the Holy Bible, we will employ his very own method against the Quran and see if it passes Ally's test. We would like to state that the allegations against the Holy Bible have been answered and will provide links documenting this point.

We would further point out that Shabir's method against the Holy Bible serves to disprove the Quran as a credible witness. The reason being is that the Quran as well as the early Islamic traditions affirm the purity and preservation of the Bible. Hence, if Shabir thinks he has proven that the Bible is not the pure unadulterated Word of God, then he must also reject the Quran as a revealed text since it bears testimony that the Holy Bible is something that it actually is not, namely the preserved Word of God. For more on this subject, please read this article.

With this brief introduction, we proceed to the arguments.

Textual Variants of the Quran

• 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. Muslim translator Muhammad Hamidullah states in the introduction to his French translation of the Quran:

Noted Eurpoean 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 centres 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:

British Scholar Sir Norman Anderson states:

Islamicist Alfred Guillaume notes that:

Guillaume continues:

L. Bevan Jones sums it up:

• The Evidence From Islamic Traditions

1. Quran Is Incomplete

According this source, portions of the Quran that had been memorized by those slain in the battle vanished, never to be found again.

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:

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:

Here are the two suras in their entirety:

Surat al-Hafd

Surat al-Khal'

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 SHABIR

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:

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!

Hence, Masud excluded three Suras from his codex, implying that Masud's Quran only included 111 Suras. Interestingly, Bukhari records that Masud and Kabb were in disagreement over this very issue:

QUESTION FOR SHABIR

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:

Yet Ubay's codex read:

Hence, Yusuf Ali states:

Missing Part On Asr Prayer

Compare it with today's present text:

Missing Verse On Suckling

Missing Verse On Stoning

Missing Bismillah

Missing Part On "Valley of Riches"

In light of the preceding evidence, can Shabir 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:

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:

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

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)

Sura Al-Wilaya

Source: "ALThWRh AL'YARANYh FY MYzAN AL'sLAM" (The Iranian revolution in the balance of Islam), published in Egypt (see also this article )

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: [1] and [2].

5. Some More Examples of Variant Readings

We present some more variant readings between the codices extant today:

Sura                   Hafs                  Warsh

2:132                  wawassa               wa'awsa

     (Al-Dani mentions that Abu `Ubayd saw wa'awsa 
       in the imam, the mushaf `Uthman)

3:133                  wasari'u              sari'u

5:54                   yartadda              yartadid

     (Al-Dani quotes that Abu `Ubayd saw yartadid in the imam)

3:81                   ataytukum             ataynakum

2:259                  nunshizuha            nunshiruha

2:140                  taquluna              yaquluna

2:125                  wattakhidhu           wattakhadhu

2:9b                   yakhda'una            yukhadi`una

2:214                  yaqula                yaqulu

3:37                   wakaffalaha           wakafalaha

20:63                  In hazayni            Inna hazani

(Reference)

6. The Myth Of Memorization As A Means Of Preservation

Ally assumes that memorization was the chief means of preserving the Quran. We have already seen how memorizers of the Quran were in disagreement over the contents of the Quran and that some memorizers died, taking with them portions of the Quran that only they had known.

Furthermore, the hadith provides evidence for the faulty memories of both Muhammad and his companions:

Contradictions In The Quran

Before proceeding into this section, we again need to reiterate the point made earlier. We use this critical approach for the sole purpose of demonstrating the faulty methodology of Shabir Ally. As we had stated earlier, the very method of criticism employed by Shabir against the Holy Bible can be used more forcefully against the Quran. With that just said, let us proceed into the Quranic errors.

1. Geographical Errors

Olive Trees in Sinai

So obvious is this error that Muhammad Asad tries to cover it up:

Asad comments:

Abdullah Yusuf Ali notes:

It seems to not have dawned on Ali that an olive tree round about Sinai is not the same thing as saying that the tree is from Sinai. Hence, the error remains.

Rain In Egypt

The context of the passage deals with the famine that was to hit Egypt during the time of Joseph. Al-Fadi comments:

2. Historical Errors

We had previously mentioned that the Quran affirms that the Holy Bible is the uncorrupt Word of God. This entails the fact that whenever there is disagreement between the two Books the Quran is wrong by virtue of it testifying to the authority and trustworthiness of the Holy Bible. With that in mind let us proceed to some of the historical problems of the Quran:

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:

Yet, according to the Quran even while a youth Abraham's name remained the same:

John the Baptist's Name

According to S. 19:7, the name John was given to none before the Baptist:

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)

Sacrifices Commanded Upon All?

The Quran claims that all believers were commanded to offer animal sacrifices:

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.

Messengers to all Nations or from Abraham's Seed?

According to the Quran, God sent messengers to every nation:

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,

Queen of Sheba and Sun Worship

The Quran claims that the Queen of Sheba and her people were sun worshipers:

Yet, archaeology has proven this to be incorrect since moon worship was prevalent in this particular region:

3. Fables As History

According to the Quran, Solomon had animals under his control and actually would have conversations with them much like the way humans do:

Muhammad Asad must allegorize this passage since he was seemingly aware of the difficulty in viewing this historically:

Now compare this fable with the credible historical version of the Holy Bible:

The Quran even claims that both the winds and jinns (demons) were subservient to Solomon:

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:

Muhammad Asad:

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:

And,

Need we say more?

4. Parallel Accounts that Conflict

Shabir often complains that the parallel accounts of the Gospel often conflict in wording and detail. Yet, interestingly we find this same problem in the Quran. The Quran often retells the same story but with different wording and detail. One such example includes:

Compare,

Of particular interest is A. Yusuf Ali's footnote:

One Muslim historian noted:

(For more examples of conflicting parallel accounts see this article)

5. Scientific Errors

• Eight Or Six Days Of Creation?

According to S. 41:9-12 God created the heavens and the earth in eight days. Yet, suras 7:54, 10:3, 11:7 and 25:59 state that it took God six days to create the universe.

In order to resolve this contradiction, Shabir assumes that the first two days of S. 41:9 are concurrent with the four days of 41:10 that it took God to create its nourishment. This would then total up to exactly six days.

The problem with Shabir's interpretation is that it neglects the earliest Muslim interpretation of these passages. When we look at these early traditions, some of which are attributed to Muhammad, we find that the contradiction sticks. Hence, it is the interpretation of Muhammad that leaves us with a contradiction. Muhammad personally believed that the heavens and the constellations were created after the earth had already been formed. 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:

According to this tradition from Ibn Abbas, Muhammad believed the earth and everything within it were created on the first four days whereas the heavens and the constellations were created afterwards on Thursday and Friday. This seems to agree with Shabir that the two days God fashioned the earth are concurrent with the four days it took God to supply its nourishment. Yet, we are still left with the problem of the heavens and constellations being created after the earth. This fact contradicts the following Sura which places the creation of the heavens before the formation of the earth:

Tabari comments on those who would try to translate the word ba'da to mean other than "after that":

Tabari continues:

This tradition has Adam being created before God had even created food and vegetation. We also have the earth being formed on Sunday, whereas its provisions were only created a couple of days later on Tuesday and Wednesday.

Al-Tabari comments:

Hence, it is both Muhammad's and the early Muslim writers' interpretations of the Quran which leads to internal contradictions as well as conflict with modern scientific views on the origins of the universe.

Finally, the fact of the matter is that Shabir must presuppose that the Quran has no contradictions and therefore interprets every discrepancy in light of this belief. Hence, the real question is not whether if the Quran contains contradictions, but whether Shabir's presuppositions will allow him to admit that it does.

• Embryology

Shabir claims that the Quran is a scientific miracle, foretelling modern scientific facts that were only discovered recently. One such example is the Quran's alleged accurate description of the fetus' development in its different stages. He cites Dr. Keith Moore, former Professor of embryology at University of Toronto, as his authority.

We will examine the alleged scientific accuracy of the Quran and demonstrate that the description of the developing embryo is a gross scientific error. We will even appeal to Moore for proof!

Some Muslims see in the phrase, "three darkness," an allusion to: (l) the anterior abdominal wall; (2) the uterine wall; and (3) the amniochorionic membrane.

Besides this being a seemingly forced interpretation of the text, the fact is that this passage refers to the stages in which the developing embryo goes through. Yet, according to Dr. Moore's textbook, The Developing Human, there are thirteen stages, not three, in the development of the embryo. Why did the Quran not mention these other stages as well?

The other alleged miracle stems from the following Sura:

According to one Muslim article:

In order to arrive at the conclusion that the Quran accurately depicts the developing embryo, the author must propose a new meaning for the term Nutfah. Yet, even the author admits that the phrase has been interpreted as sperm or spermatozoon. This perhaps best demonstrates the willful attempts of Muslim apologists to devise entirely new meanings to already established Arabic words in order to arrive at their conclusions that the Quran is scientifically accurate. The late Muslim translator, Abdullah Yusuf Ali, noted:

Furthermore, here is a sampling of Quranic verses in which the term Nutfah is used:

16:4 He created man from a drop of fluid (Pickthall)

16:4 He has created man from a sperm-drop

32:8 He made his seed from a quintessence of despised fluid

35:11 ...then from a little fluid (Pickthall)

53:46 (he created) from a drop of seed when it is poured forth (Pickthall)

53:46 From a sperm-drop when lodged (in its place)

56:58 Have ye seen that which ye emit (Pickthall)

56:58 Do you then see? The (human Seed) that ye emit

75:37 Was he not a drop of fluid which gushed forth (Pickthall)

75:37 Was he not a drop of sperm emitted (in lowly form)?

76:2 We create man from a drop of thickened fluid (Pickthall)

76:2 We created Man from a drop of mingled sperm

80:19 From a sperm-drop He hath created him

86:6-7 He is created from a drop emitted - proceeding from between the backbone and the ribs.

Dr. Lactantius notes:

The Islamic article goes on to say:

The word alaqa is only appropriate if one already presupposes that the term can carry the meaning of "leech." Yet, as we shall see this is another time where Muslims must give a completely different definition from the established meaning of the specific term in question. Notice the following meanings given by the following Islamic translations:

- un grumeau de sang (a small lump of blood) -- Kasimirski, 1948 (last Ed. during life of author was 1887)

- a leech-like clot -- Yusuf Ali, (translation of 1938) 1946

- a clot -- Pickthall, (translation of 1940) 1977

- a clot -- Maulana Muhammad Ali, 1951

- un caillot de sang -- Masson, 1967

- a clot -- Muhammad Zafrulla Khan, 1971

- de caillot de sang (clot of blood) -- Hamidullah, 1981

And,

Hence, these Muslims understood the term nutfah to mean the water gushing from the male (i.e. sperm) and alaqa to mean clot or congested blood. Yet, these established meanings leave gross scientific problems since at no point in time is the fetus a blood clot.

The Qamus al-Muheet, one of the most important Arabic dictionaries ever compiled, by Muhammed Ibn-Yaqub al-Firuzabadi (AD 1329-1415, Al Munjid fil Lugha wala'aam [Dar Al Mashreq sarl, Lebanon, 1987]) states alaqa has the same meaning as a clot of blood.

Dr. William Campbell comments:

Continuing further into the Muslim arguments, we are told:

At the surface, these statements seem to be scientifically correct. Yet, when we go to the earliest Muslim sources, we find that Muhammad's interpretation leaves us with serious scientific errors:

Hence, Muhammad believed that the fetus went from a drop of sperm for the first forty days to a clot for an additional forty days. It then becomes chewed meet from day 80 till the 120th day.

These statements are in clear contradiction to what modern gynecological studies tell us:

In fact, these statements from Muhammad contradict Keith Moore's book as documented in the very same Islamic article cited above! For instance, Moore claims that the fetus resembles a "leech" (i.e. clot) at the seventh day of post-fertilization and remains such until the 24th day. After that it starts to resemble chewed flesh from days 26-27. Hence, either Moore is right and Muhammad and the Quran is wrong or Keith Moore is wrong. Either way, we are left with difficulties.

Furthermore, the Hadith claims that the fetus' gender is only determined after the 120 days of its post-fertilization when it goes from sperm to clot to chewed flesh. This again is a gross error.

Finally, the talk of embryology is nothing new since discussion on the development of the embryo spans centuries before Muhammad ever came unto the scene. For instance, Greek physician Galen had written on the fetus long before the birth of Islam:

Dr. Lactantius comments:

And,

Basim Musallam, Director of the Centre of Middle Eastern Studies at the University of Cambridge concludes

Hence, if anything, all this proves is that the one inspiring Muhammad was not God, but Greek physicians whose works had been translated into Arabic by Christian Nestorians. These writings were taught at Christian schools throughout Arabia during the time of Muhammad.

• Fasting In The Month Of Ramadan

Muslims fast annually during the month called Ramadan. The fast entails that Muslims refrain from eating or drinking from the time of sunrise all the way till sunset:

The major problem with this command is that there are certain regions where the sun does not set at all. As Dr. Campbell points out:

In light of the above, we ask Shabir was God not aware of the fact that in certain regions the sun does not set at all? If so, then why command a fast that revolves around the rising and setting of the sun? Furthermore, did God not realize that praying five times a day towards Mecca would be an inconvenience for space travel? If so, then why command prayers directed towards Mecca? Was God unaware of the fact that in the future man would travel in space?

• Meteors/Stars As Objects Used For Stoning Devils

Are we to really believe that Allah created the stars/meteors as missiles to throw at the devils, preventing them from eavesdropping on the heavenly council? Does Shabir expect us to accept such statements as examples of scientific fact?

• Creation Of Man

The Quran gives conflicting accounts on how man was created:

From the earth

Out of dry clay (Arabic Salsaal)

From nothing

From mud

From water

Out of dust

Out of dead persons

In his article, Dr. Lactantius makes the following observation:

• Numerical Discrepancies

The Quran contains many numerical discrepancies. This point is interesting since Shabir questions the integrity of the biblical text due to its alleged numerical discrepancies.

Yet, Shabir finds no problem with the Quranic text in spite of the fact that it also contains numerical errors! Some of the numerical errors contained in the Quran include:

Does Allah's day equal to 1,000 (Sura 22:47, 32:5) or 50,000 years (Sura 70:4)?

Observe how similar 32:5 and 70:4 are worded' "ascend unto him in a day the measure whereof is [fifty] thousand years [of your reckoning]."

This is due perhaps to the fact that the verses originally read "fifty thousand" in both and "fifty" dropped out during the transcription of the MSS? Or is the discrepancy possibly due to the work of corrupt scribes? Or does God just not know how to relate the length of days to human years?

Even Ibn Abbas, a Sahabah and Muhammad's cousin, was at a loss for words in trying to reconcile these conflicting accounts:

Few of the Latter Believers or Many?

COMPARE:

How many Muslims does it take to defeat an army?

Yet the verse following immediately after contradicts the above given estimates:

Let us break this down:

v. 65: Twenty Muslims can overtake two hundred of the opposition.

v. 66: A hundred Muslims can overtake two hundred of the opposition.

v. 65: A hundred Muslims can overtake a thousand of the opposition.

v. 66: A thousand Muslims can overtake two thousand of the opposition, which means it will now take five hundred Muslims, as opposed to the one hundred of v. 65, to overcome a thousand of the opposition.

How many gardens are there in paradise?

ONE: 39:73, 41:30 [the Garden], 57:21 [a Garden], 79:41 [the Garden], or

MANY: 18:31, 22:23, 35:33, 78:32 [each time: "Gardens"]?

The plural "Gardens" has to refer to at least three because if it/they were two, then the Arabic would use the dual form of the noun. Therefore this is a discrepancy of at least 200% from "one" to "several".

How many groups appear on the Judgment Day, 3 or 2?

S. 56:7 mentions three distinct groups of people for judgment. But 90:18-19, 99:6-8, etc. mention only two groups

There are conflicting views on who takes the souls at death.

S. 32:11 reads:

S. 47:27 says:

This again presupposes their specific identity and a greater number than one. But then S. 39:42 doesn't speak of angels anymore at all:

Messengers sent to Pharaoh, 1 or 2?

S. 73:15-16 says that one messenger was sent to Pharaoh, while S. 10:75 speaks of two (Moses and Aaron).

In S. 73:15 we are told that only "a" (not a stress on "one") messenger has been sent to Pharaoh. The comparison of this messenger to Muhammad, who is sent just in the same way makes a strong point for the "one", since Muhammad undoubtedly was only one in his time. And verse 16 affirms this by saying "the" messenger. S. 73:15

S. 7:103 also speaks only of sending Moses.

Angels and Wings

The Qur'an states:

According to Sura 35:1 angels have 2, 3, or 4 pairs of wings. This is contradicted by several hadith which state that Gabriel had 600 wings. Bukhari, Volume 4, Book 54, Number 455:

(Note- For more on contradictions and errors of the Quran please click on this link)

False Prophecies

Shabir claims that the Holy Bible contains false prophecies. The reality is that it is not the Holy Bible that contains false predictions, but rather it is Ally's erroneous understanding of the nature of prophecy that is faulty. Using Shabir's fallible understanding of how prophecy works, we can demonstrate that both the Quran and Hadiths contain false prophecies as well.

As the prophecy states the Romans did become victorious over the Persians who had at first defeated them. Yet again we are confronted with several problems:

1. 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 Romans and captured Jerusalem at about A.D. 614 or 615. The Roman 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.
2. 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]

3. 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 Romans 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.

Another false prophecy includes the following:

According to Muhammad's interpretation of the preceding passage, there are five things man will never know:

Besides the rest of the difficulties, the statement that none will know what is in the mother's womb is false since we now are able to tell whether a child will be male or female long before the time of delivery.

Shabir also complains against the fact that certain Bible writers spoke of Christ as descending during their lifetime. Failing to appreciate the fact that Christ's return could transpire at any moment, Shabir presumes that this is an error in the Holy Bible.

Yet, Shabir forgets to mention the fact that Muhammad uses similar language when speaking of Christ's return. Seeing that the Quran has little to say about the manner in which Christ will return, we turn to the Muslim traditions for the details:

Using Shabir's logic, we are forced to conclude that Muhammad is a false prophet since the latter claimed that Jesus would descend during the lifetime of his companions and they would be able to recognize him. Nearly 14 centuries has transpired since then and the companions have died and Christ still has not returned.

Useless Words Of The Quran

We believe that God's Word should benefit mankind and have meaning behind it. We believe that it should be relevant either for the specific communities to which a specific revelation was given, as well as having meaning for the world today. It should not contain any useless aspects to it. Yet, we find that the Quran contains useless words that have no bearing on the life of a Muslim. They are:

• 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 Mim Sad- Sura 7.
• 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.

The late Christian writer, 'Abdallah 'Abd al-Fadi, wrote:

A. Yusuf Ali comments on Sura 10 and the meaning of Alif Lam Ra:

We are also told in Ali's footnote 25, p. 17, that the meaning A.L.M.:

Muslim translator, Muhammad Asad, has a whole appendix that deals with this issue:

After summarizing several different interpretations, Asad concludes:

QUESTION FOR SHABIR

Since Asad admits 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? Yet, 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.

Finally:

The authors produce an example of why some of these chapters were titled after insects and the like:

Perhaps Shabir can explain to us why he chooses to believe in the Quran in light of such stories.

Questionable Language Of The Quran

Another area of criticism against the Holy Bible is its metaphorical references to Israel as adulteresses who lusted after the genitalia of its lovers (Ezekiel 23), or the Song of Solomon and its constant references to the physical stature and shape of Solomon's lover etc. Despite the fact that these are poetic and metaphorical statements illustrating spiritual truths, Muslims still find offense with these writings.

The problem with such arguments is that it fails to note that the Quran itself speaks in similar language. Yet, the major difference between the Holy Bible and the Quran is that the latter is not speaking metaphorically or poetically, but literally. For instance, Quran teaches that men will be granted access to a paradise that is purely carnal:

Even more astonishing is this description:

Ibn Kathir, one of Islam's premiere commentators, notes:

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:

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:

Even more amazing is this statement from Muhammad:

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! :

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:

According to some Muslim sources, this verse was revealed to condone anal sex:

And,

Interestingly, we find Bukhari’s Hadith on Ibn Umar’s comments to S. 2:223 yet with one added twist:

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:

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:

Hence, we find arguments on both sides of the fence on whether anal sex is permitted or prohibited.

Another attack on Scripture relates to the biblical usage of "dogs" and "swine" in describing unbelievers and Gentiles (Cf. Matthew 7:6, 15:26; Philippians 3:2). Muslims claim that it is offensive to insinuate that prophets would actually use such descriptions in describing human beings. Hence, to ascribe such terminology to prophets is to accuse them of sin.

It is obvious to anyone reading the Bible that such terms are used metaphorically to show how depraved and corrupt man can be, and is, without the grace of God. Without the guidance of God, man is totally corrupt, doing things that even animals would not do.

Furthermore, the Quran itself uses such metaphors to describe evildoers:

In light of these passages, will a Muslim now assume that God sinned (God forbid!) by using such metaphorical expressions to describe evildoers? If not, then to attack the Bible for using such metaphors is unwarranted.

Biblical Misquotations

Shabir also complains against the NT authors paraphrasing Old Testament passages. Shabir insists that if it is not a literal quote then it must be considered an error. Using Ally's method, the Quran is also guilty of misquoting the OT as the following examples prove:

Quran:

Compare:

Quran:

Compare:

We are forced to conclude that because the Quran does not literally quote the OT word for word, but paraphrases it, it is therefore in error. Would Shabir accept this? He must if he is to remain consistent in his critical approach to the Holy Bible.

Claiming Statements and Prophecies In The Holy Bible That Do not Exist

The Quran asserts certain biblical facts and prophecies that do not exist in the Holy Bible. For instance, the Quran claims that it is IN the previous scriptures:

We challenge Shabir to show us one place where the Quran is mentioned or where the Quran exists within previous scriptures.

The Quran also claims that there are prophecies of Muhammad when in reality there are absolutely none:

First, it should be noted that this particular citation is taken from John 15:23-16:1. This implies that the Gospel of John was believed to be that Gospel conveyed by Jesus to his disciples. Secondly, Ishaq affirms that the apostle John wrote the fourth Gospel, debunking Shabir's attempts of trying to appeal to liberal scholarship to deny Johannine authorship. This indicates that Shabir is not even faithful to the testimony of his own Muslim sources that agree with conservative Biblical scholarship and the early Church on the authorship of certain NT books.

For instance, not only do the early Islamic traditions consider the Gospel of John to be authentic but certain statements made by the Apostle Paul are considered revelation from God as well. In fact, Paul is considered a legitimate representative of the teachings of Christ!:

Furthermore, Bukhari even quotes a passage from a letter written by Paul and attributes it to God:

According to this Hadith, Muhammad purportedly claims that Allah is the author of the preceding quotation. Compare what Allah is supposed to have revealed to Muhammad with what Paul writes in his first letter to the Corinthians:

Paul paraphrases the following citation from Isaiah:

Hence, the Hadith implicitly affirms that the One who inspired Paul's saying, which Muhammad quotes virtually verbatim, is God Almighty!

This basically means that Shabir's liberal position against the conservative views of the Holy Bible cannot be maintained without this debunking both the Quran and the early Muslim sources. Seeing that Ibn Ishaq and Bukhari affirm that both John's Gospel and Paul's work originate from God and Christ, Shabir must either toss out his methodology or drop his belief in the Quran and Sunna.

QUESTION FOR SHABIR:

Since the earliest Muslim sources on Muhammad's life document that Paul was a legitimate messenger of Christ's teaching and a companion of the Apostle Peter, how could you even question Paul's integrity when neither Muhammad nor his followers did so? Can you please provide documentation where Muhammad and his followers attacked Paul's integrity? Furthermore, can you document from the earliest traditions and biographies where anyone of the Sahabah questioned the Gospels as they existed in their time? I have quoted one Islamic source that claims the opposite of what you have tried to demonstrate in your writings and debates on the Apostle Paul and the conservative view on the authorship of certain NT books.

Returning back to our main argument, we provide the following links for the proof that Muhammad is not mentioned in the Holy Bible: [1], [2], [3].

Documentary Hypothesis And The Quran

Shabir also embraces the Liberal Documentary Hypothesis view on the origins of the Torah-Pentateuch. This view claims that four independent sources were compiled together to form the Pentateuch. These documents have been classified as J (Yahwist), E (Elohist), D (Deuteronomists), P (Priestly Editors).

The problem with this view is that both archaeology and the majority of biblical scholars have thoroughly debunked the Documentary Hypothesis completely.

Instead of quoting scholars and their evidence for debunking this theory, we will apply this method to the Quran and see how this also serves to discredit Shabir's methodology:

Sura 	Date of	      Times 	  Number      Times per   Times       Times		
Number 	Sura 	      Allah used  of Verses   Verse       Rabb Used   per Verse
48 	6 AH 	       19          29          .65         0            0. 
49 	9 AH 	       27          18         1.50         0            0. 
50 	Early Meccan	1          45          .02         2             .04 
51 	Early Meccan	3          60          .05         5             .08 
52 	Early Meccan	3          49          .06         6             .12 
53 	Early Meccan	6          62          .10         7             .11 
54 	Early Meccan	0          55           0.         1             .02 
55 	Early Meccan	0          78           0.        36             .46 
56 	Early Meccan	0          96           0.         3             .03 
57 	8 AH 	       32          29         1.10         3             .10 
58 	5-7 AH 	       40          22         1.81         0            0. 
59 	4 AH 	       29          24         1.21         1             .04 
60 	8 AH 	       21          13         1.61         4             .31 
61 	3 AH 	       17          14         1.21         0            0. 
62 	2-5 AH 	       12          11         1.09         0            0. 
63 	4-5 AH 	       14          11         1.27         1             .09 
64 	1 AH 	       20          18         1.11         1             .06

If Shabir wants to embrace the critical results of liberal scholars, he must remain consistent and also accept the implication such theories have on the authenticity of the Quran.

This concludes our debate material. We dedicate this to the glory and honor of our Great God and Savior Jesus Christ, our risen Lord of eternal Glory. May he be praised and highly exalted forever. Amen, Come Lord Jesus. We Love You.

Recommended Books And Web Links

For the serious student who wants to examine the thousands of variant readings between the different codices of the Quran we highly recommend the following colossal work available on the net titled:

A 'Perfect' Qur'an OR "So it was made to appear to them"?

We also highly recommend the following books and links:

Dr. William Campbell
The Qur'an and the Bible in the Light of History & Science
343pp., Middle East Resources 1992
ISBN 1-881085-00-7

When Critics Ask - A Popular Handbook On Bible Difficulties
Norman Geisler & Thomas Howe
Victor Books, 1992 by SP Publications, Inc.
ISBN: 0-89693-698-8

Hard Sayings Of The Bible
Walter C. Kaiser Jr. & Peter H. Davids & F.F. Bruce & Manfred T. Brauch
InterVarsity Press, Downers Grove, ILL.
ISBN: 0-8308-1423-X

Encyclopedia of Bible Difficulties
Dr. Gleason L. Archer
Zondervan Corporation, 1982, Grand Rapids

True Guidance - 5 Part Series
Light of Life - P.O. BOX 13
A-9503 Villach, Austria

(Note - These series of books were written to refute two Islamic writings against the Bible. One is titled Izhar ul-haqq [The Revelation of the Truth], a book that was written to refute C. G. Pfander's Mizan ul-Haqq. And the other being titled al-Sayf al-Hamidi al-Saqil [The Furbished Hamidi Sword]. Highly recommended.)

Answering Islam (http://answering-islam.org)

The most comprehensive web site dealing with Muslim issues. Do a web search for Bible contradictions and you will find some great answers and links to alleged biblical contradictions. Also see Answering-Islam's Bible section

Debate Site - 101 Cleared Up Contradictions

A paper responding to Muslim Apologist Shabir Ally's 101 Clear Contradictions of the Bible. It is both excellent and scholarly.

A Christian Think Tank

A site respected even by atheists. Perhaps the most comprehensive answers ever compiled on Bible difficulties. The answers are based primarily on a superb exegetical understanding of scripture, as well as an amazing knowledge of archaeology. Fantastic.

Tekton Apologetics

Another fantastic site refuting alleged Bible contradictions and arguments from Atheists.

Further articles by Sam Shamoun
Answering Islam Home Page