On page 131 Ibn Warraq states that Arabs are not decendants from Abraham’s son, Ishamael. This of course is not true. Arabs are descedants of Ishamel as we see here in both of these family trees:
Adnan- Ma'ad- -Nizar-Mudar-Elias-Mudar-Elias-Mudrikah/Amir-Khuzaiman-Kinana-Al-Nadr/Qais-Malik-Fahr/Quraysh
- Ghalib-Lo'i- Ka'b- Murra-Kilab- Qusai-'Abd Munaf/Al-Mugherra- Hashim-'Abd Al Muttalib/ Shaiba- Abd Allah- Prophet Mohammad.
All reliable sources agree that Adnan was a descendant of Qaydar (The Biblical Kedar), the second son of Prophet Ismael.
12 This is the account of Abraham's son Ishmael, whom Sarah's maidservant, Hagar the Egyptian, bore to Abraham.13 These are the names of the sons of Ishmael, listed in the order of their birth: Nebaioth the firstborn of Ishmael, Kedar, Adbeel, Mibsam, 14 Mishma, Dumah, Massa, 15 Hadad, Tema, Jetur, Naphish and Kedemah. 16 These were the sons of Ishmael, and these are the names of the twelve tribal rulers according to their settlements and camps.
(Genesis 25:12-16)
On the same page he alleges that the Quran speaks of the Torah being given to Moses and says that Jews, Christians and Muslims all agree that the five books of Pentatech has been authored by Moses. He then goes on to prove that the Torah has been changed and altered over time using books on scholars of the Bible and referring to the J, E, P D document theory which say that the Pentatech was finalized 1000 years after Prophet Moses. The Quran however is speaking about the revelation given to Moses in Sura 2:87. The Quran clearly states that the Torah has been corrupted over time (sura 2:79,
On page 134 Warraq says the Quran says that David had received the Psalms the same way Moses had received the Torah (surah 4:163-65). He then goes on to say that Biblical scholars doubt that David wrote many if all of them. Well guess what Warraq? The Quran agrees with you and those scholars! Surah 2:79 states that the Jews have written the book with their own hand and say that they say its from Allah and Allah curses them for saying so. So thanks, Warraq, your helping to prove the Quran correct!
on page 137 Warraq claims that the Quran says that the earth was created before the heavens (41:12). Warraq is lying. THE QURAN DOES NOT SAY THAT. Heres what the Quran really says:
So He completed them as seven firmaments in two Days, and He assigned to each heaven its duty and command. And We adorned the lower heaven with lights, and (provided it) with guard. Such is the Decree of (Him) the Exalted in Might, Full of Knowledge. (Quran 41:12)
So the Quran does not speak of earth, rather the seven heavens. The term means the universe. That could be the first heaven the Quran is talking about. Allah says that he adorned the lower heaven with lights so that could be implying the stars. As Warraq states that there were stars before the sun so Allah is speaking about that. Warraq then foolishly states that the Quran says that the moon gives off light and quotes Surah 10:5. However nowhere does the Quran say that the moon gives off its own light. The Quran as a matter of fact says what Ibn Warraq is saying that the moons light is reflected off the sun! The Quran states: Do you not see how He created seven heavens in layers, and placed the moon as a light in them and made the sun a blazing lamp? (Qur'an, 71:15-16)
In the above verse, the word "light" is used for the Moon ("nooran" in Arabic) and the word "lamp" for the Sun ("sirajan" in Arabic.) The word used for the Moon refers to a light-reflecting, bright, motionless body. The word used for the Sun refers to a celestial body which is always burning, a constant source of heat and light.
On the other hand, the word "star" comes from the Arabic root "nejeme," meaning "appearing, emerging, visible." As in the verse below, stars are also referred to by the word "thaqib," which is used for that which shines and pierces the darkness with light: self-consuming and burning. Plus the Quran says that the sun is a blazing lamp in the above verse, and else where in Sura 78:12-13. Nowhere in that verse does it say that the moon is a blazing lamp or that it gives off its own light. And yes Warraq, the earth does orbit the sun and the Quran agrees with that, 86:11 and 51:7. All the Quran says that the sun has an orbit in Surah
Warraq then makes a foolish claim about the Quran and the big bang. He says that modern cosmology and physics in general are based on mathematics. He says that math has to be used in order to get the precision. However the Quran clearly talks about the big bang in sura 41:11. Math or no math, the Quran is correct. Let us note that only in the 20th century have scientists discovered that the universe emerged from a hot gas in the form of smoke. It doesn’t matter if math was used or not. What matters is that the Quran is correct in what it says. Allah does not dig into the details. Instead he gives a brief and simple description of what he wants to say and whatever he says in the Quran is correct.
The Deciect of Evolution
the next section of Warraq’s book is called the origins of Life and the theory of Evolution. Warraq uses this argument over and over in his book. In this section he quotes a Russian biochemist, Oparin about his theory on how life on earth started. He then quotes Darwin, de Lamettrie and T.H. Huxley on how animals are closely related to humans. After all of their so called evidence, Warraq then notes that man like all living creatures is the result of evolution. However the question for Jews, Muslims and Christians is is evolution true or not? Lets take a look.
he person who originally put forward the theory of evolution, essentially in the form that it is defended today, was an amateur English biologist by the name of Charles Robert Darwin.
EVOLUTION FORGERIES
Deceptions in Drawings
The fossil record is the principal source for those who seek evidence for the theory of evolution. When inspected carefully and without prejudice, the fossil record refutes the theory of evolution rather than supporting it. Nevertheless, misleading interpretations of fossils by evolutionists and their prejudiced representation to the public have given many people the impression that the fossil record indeed supports the theory of evolution.
The susceptibility of some findings in the fossil record to all kinds of interpretations is what best serves the evolutionists' purposes. The fossils unearthed are most of the time unsatisfactory for reliable identification. They usually consist of scattered, incomplete bone fragments. For this reason, it is very easy to distort the available data and to use it as desired. Not surprisingly, the reconstructions (drawings and models) made by evolutionists based on such fossil remains are prepared entirely speculatively in order to confirm evolutionary theses. Since people are readily affected by visual information, these imaginary reconstructed models are employed to convince them that the reconstructed creatures really existed in the past.
Evolutionist researchers draw human-like imaginary creatures, usually setting out from a single tooth, or a mandible fragment or a humerus, and present them to the public in a sensational manner as if they were links in human evolution. These drawings have played a great role in the establishment of the image of "primitive men" in the minds of many people.
These studies based on bone remains can only reveal very general characteristics of the creature concerned. The distinctive details are present in the soft tissues that quickly vanish with time. With the soft tissues speculatively interpreted, everything becomes possible within the boundaries of the imagination of the reconstruction's producer. Earnst A. Hooten from
To attempt to restore the soft parts is an even more hazardous undertaking. The lips, the eyes, the ears, and the nasal tip leave no clues on the underlying bony parts. You can with equal facility model on a Neanderthaloid skull the features of a chimpanzee or the lineaments of a philosopher. These alleged restorations of ancient types of man have very little if any scientific value and are likely only to mislead the public… So put not your trust in reconstructions.(6)
Did Men and Apes Come from a Common Ancestor?
According to the claims of the theory of evolution, men and modern apes have common ancestors. These creatures evolved in time and some of them became the apes of today, while another group that followed another branch of evolution became the men of today.
Evolutionists call the so-called first common ancestors of men and apes " Australopithecus " which means "South African ape". Australopithecus , nothing but an old ape species that has become extinct, has various types. Some of them are robust, while others are small and slight.
Evolutionists classify the next stage of human evolution as "Homo", that is "man". According to the evolutionist claim, the living beings in the Homo series are more developed than Australopithecus , and not very much different from modern man. The modern man of our day, Homo sapiens, is said to have formed at the latest stage of the evolution of this species.
The fact of the matter is that the beings called Australopithecus in this imaginary scenario fabricated by evolutionists really are apes that became extinct, and the beings in the Homo series are members of various human races that lived in the past and then disappeared. Evolutionists arranged various ape and human fossils in an order from the smallest to the biggest in order to form a "human evolution" scheme. Research, however, has demonstrated that these fossils by no means imply an evolutionary process and some of these alleged ancestors of man were real apes whereas some of them were real humans.
Now, let us have a look at Australopithecus , which represents to evolutionists the first stage of the scheme of human evolution.
The Homo Series: Real Human Beings
The next step in the imaginary human evolution is "Homo", that is, the human series. These living beings are humans who are no different from modern men, yet who have some racial differences. Seeking to exaggerate these differences, evolutionists represent these people not as a "race" of modern man but as a different "species". However, as we will soon see, the people in the Homo series are nothing but ordinary human racial types.
According to the fanciful scheme of evolutionists, the internal imaginary evolution of the Homo species is as follows: First Homo erectus , then Homo sapiens archaic and Neanderthal Man, later Cro-Magnon Man and finally modern man.
Despite the claims of evolutionists to the contrary, all the "species" we have enumerated above are nothing but genuine human beings. Let us first examine Homo erectus , who evolutionists refer to as the most primitive human species.
The most striking evidence showing that Homo erectus is not a "primitive" species is the fossil of "Turkana Boy", one of the oldest Homo erectus remains. It is estimated that the fossil was of a 12-year-old boy, who would have been 1.83 meters tall in his adolescence. The upright skeletal structure of the fossil is no different from that of modern man. Its tall and slender skeletal structure totally complies with that of the people living in tropical regions in our day. This fossil is one of the most important pieces of evidence that Homo erectus is simply another specimen of the modern human race. Evolutionist paleontologist Richard Leakey compares Homo erectus and modern man as follows:
One would also see differences in the shape of the skull, in the degree of protrusion of the face, the robustness of the brows and so on. These differences are probably no more pronounced than we see today between the separate geographical races of modern humans. Such biological variation arises when populations are geographically separated from each other for significant lengths of time.(9)
Leakey means to say that the difference between Homo erectus and us is no more than the difference between Negroes and Eskimos. The cranial features of Homo erectus resulted from their manner of feeding, and genetic emigration and from their not assimilating with other human races for a lengthy period.
Another strong piece of evidence that Homo erectus is not a "primitive" species is that fossils of this species have been unearthed aged twenty-seven thousand years and even thirteen thousand years. According to an article published in Time – which is not a scientific periodical, but nevertheless had a sweeping effect on the world of science – Homo erectus fossils aged twenty-seven thousand years were found on the
The Miraculous Molecule: DNA
The theory of evolution has been unable to provide a coherent explanation for the existence of the molecules that are the basis of the cell. Furthermore, developments in the science of genetics and the discovery of the nucleic acids (DNA and RNA) have produced brand-new problems for the theory of evolution.
In 1955, the work of two scientists on DNA, James Watson and Francis Crick, launched a new era in biology. Many scientists ected their attention to the science of genetics. Today, after years of research, scientists have, largely, mapped the structure of DNA.
Here, we need to give some very basic information on the structure and function of DNA:
The molecule called DNA, which exists in the nucleus of each of the 100 trillion cells in our body, contains the complete construction plan of the human body. Information regarding all the characteristics of a person, from the physical appearance to the structure of the inner organs, is recorded in DNA by means of a special coding system. The information in DNA is coded within the sequence of four special bases that make up this molecule. These bases are specified as A, T, G, and C according to the initial letters of their names. All the structural differences among people depend on the variations in the sequence of these bases. There are approximately 3.5 billion nucleotides, that is, 3.5 billion letters in a DNA molecule.
The DNA data pertaining to a particular organ or protein is included in special components called "genes". For instance, information about the eye exists in a series of special genes, whereas information about the heart exists in quite another series of genes. The cell produces proteins by using the information in all of these genes. Amino acids that constitute the structure of the protein are defined by the sequential arrangement of three nucleotides in the DNA.
At this point, an important detail deserves attention. An error in the sequence of nucleotides making up a gene renders the gene completely useless. When we consider that there are 200 thousand genes in the human body, it becomes more evident how impossible it is for the millions of nucleotides making up these genes to form by accident in the right sequence. An evolutionist biologist, Frank Salisbury, comments on this impossibility by saying:
A medium protein might include about 300 amino acids. The DNA gene controlling this would have about 1,000 nucleotides in its chain. Since there are four kinds of nucleotides in a DNA chain, one consisting of 1,000 links could exist in 4 1000 forms. Using a little algebra (logarithms), we can see that 4 1000 =10 600 . Ten multiplied by itself 600 times gives the figure 1 followed by 600 zeros! This number is completely beyond our comprehension.(15)
The number 4 1000 is equivalent to 10 600. We obtain this number by adding 600 zeros to 1. As 10 with 11 zeros indicates a trillion, a figure with 600 zeros is indeed a number that is difficult to grasp.
Evolutionist Prof. Ali Demirsoy was forced to make the following admission on this issue:
In fact, the probability of the random formation of a protein and a nucleic acid (DNA-RNA) is inconceivably small. The chances against the emergence of even a particular protein chain are astronomic.(16)
In addition to all these improbabilities, DNA can barely be involved in a reaction because of its double-chained spiral shape. This also makes it impossible to think that it can be the basis of life.
Moreover, while DNA can replicate only with the help of some enzymes that are actually proteins, the synthesis of these enzymes can be realized only by the information coded in DNA. As they both depend on each other, either they have to exist at the same time for replication, or one of them has had to be "created" before the other. American microbiologist Jacobson comments on the subject:
The complete ections for the reproduction of plans, for energy and the extraction of parts from the current environment, for the growth sequence, and for the effector mechanism translating instructions into growth – all had to be simultaneously present at that moment (when life began). This combination of events has seemed an incredibly unlikely happenstance, and has often been ascribed to divine intervention.(17)
The quotation above was written two years after the disclosure of the structure of DNA by James Watson and Francis Crick. Despite all the developments in science, this problem remains unsolved for evolutionists. To sum up, the need for DNA in reproduction, the necessity of the presence of some proteins for reproduction, and the requirement to produce these proteins according to the information in the DNA entirely demolish evolutionist theses.
Two German scientists, Junker and Scherer, explained that the synthesis of each of the molecules required for chemical evolution, necessitates distinct conditions, and that the probability of the compounding of these materials having theoretically very different acquirement methods is zero:
Until now, no experiment is known in which we can obtain all the molecules necessary for chemical evolution. Therefore, it is essential to produce various molecules in different places under very suitable conditions and then to carry them to another place for reaction by protecting them from harmful elements like hydrolysis and photolysis.(18)
In short, the theory of evolution is unable to prove any of the evolutionary stages that allegedly occur at the molecular level.
To summarize what we have said so far, neither amino acids nor their products, the proteins making up the cells of living beings, could ever be produced in any so-called "primitive atmosphere" environment. Moreover, factors such as the incredibly complex structure of proteins, their right-hand, left-hand features, and the difficulties in the formation of peptide bonds are just parts of the reason why they will never be produced in any future experiment either.
Even if we suppose for a moment that proteins somehow did form accidentally, that would still have no meaning, for proteins are nothing at all on their own: they cannot themselves reproduce. Protein synthesis is only possible with the information coded in DNA and RNA molecules. Without DNA and RNA, it is impossible for a protein to reproduce. The specific sequence of the twenty different amino acids encoded in DNA determines the structure of each protein in the body. However, as has been made abundantly clear by all those who have studied these molecules, it is impossible for DNA and RNA to form by chance.
The Fact of Creation
With the collapse of the theory of evolution in every field, prominent names in the discipline of microbiology today admit the fact of creation and have begun to defend the view that everything is created by a conscious Creator as part of an exalted creation. This is already a fact that people cannot disregard. Scientists who can approach their work with an open mind have developed a view called "intelligent design". Michael J. Behe, one of the foremost of these scientists, states that he accepts the absolute being of the Creator and describes the impasse of those who deny this fact:
The result of these cumulative efforts to investigate the cell – to investigate life at the molecular level – is a loud, clear, piercing cry of "design!" The result is so unambiguous and so significant that it must be ranked as one of the greatest achievements in the history of science. This triumph of science should evoke cries of "
But, no bottles have been uncorked, no hands clapped. Instead, a curious, embarrassed silence surrounds the stark complexity of the cell. When the subject comes up in public, feet start to shuffle, and breathing gets a bit labored. In private people are a bit more relaxed; many explicitly admit the obvious but then stare at the ground, shake their heads, and let it go like that. Why does the scientific community not greedily embrace its startling discovery? Why is the observation of design handled with intellectual gloves? The dilemma is that while one side of the elephant is labeled intelligent design, the other side must be labeled God.(19)
Today, many people are not even aware that they are in a position of accepting a body of fallacy as truth in the name of science, instead of believing in Allah. Those who do not find the sentence "Allah created you from nothing" scientific enough can believe that the first living being came into being by thunderbolts striking a "primordial soup" billions of years ago.
Flood famine and drought
Warraq states that rain is a sign from God and is a bringer of God’s mercy in sura 7:56. He then states that floods claim the lives of thousands of people in
When Warraq states that earthquakes, tornadoes, etc are all the work of the benevolent God what does that prove? Nothing. All it proves is that God is capable to do whatever he wants and is able to punish anybody he wants even muslims. Allah tests many people and even prophets as we see in the Quran. Solomon is punished in the Quran for ignoring the prayer in 38:31-35. Moses commits murder and asks for forgivness in sura 28:15-16. Job is tested by Allah and then regains all that he had lost 21:83-84 and 38:41-44. So Allah tests whoever he wants to test. Maybe the people are doing wrong or maybe Allah wanted to take the righteous muslims in
Miracles
Ibn warraq claims that the Qurans says that Prophet Mohammed didn’t perform any miracles. He quotes suras 29:49,
1. The clefing of the moon: “The Hour (of Judgment) is nigh, and the moon is cleft asunder. But if they see a Sign, they turn away, and say, "This is (but) transient magic." sura 54:1- The hadith also support this claim that Prophet Mohammed had split the moon in Bukhari Volume 4, Book 56, Number 83.
2. The battle of Badr where assistance for the muslims was given: Allah had helped you at Badr, when ye were a contemptible little force; then fear Allah; thus May ye show your gratitude. Remember thou saidst to the Faithful: "Is it not enough for you that Allah should help you with three thousand angels (Specially) sent down? "Yea, - if ye remain firm, and act aright, even if the enemy should rush here on you in hot haste, your Lord would help you with five thousand angels Making a terrific onslaught. (3:123-125) Ibn Warraq makes a mistake he quotes 3:120-121 when the verse in his book is actually 3:123-125). Anyways, Muslims won that battle and that proved a miracle. To me this is further proof that Mohammed is truthful and really is the messenger of God.
3. The night journey: Glory to (Allah) Who did take His servant for a Journey by night from the Sacred Mosque to the farthest Mosque, whose precincts We did bless,- in order that We might show him some of Our Signs: for He is the One Who heareth and seeth (all things). (sura 17:1). Again the hadith support this miracle in Bukhari hadith in 9:608, 1:345, 4:429, 4:462,etc. Prophet Mohammed even proves that he ascended into the heavens in Bukhari hadith #5: 226. So this is even more proof the Prophet Mohammed is indeed a messenger of Allah.
4. The Quran tells that itself is a miracle in sura 29:48. And the Quran truly is a miracle as you’ll further read in the chapter the miracles of the Quran.
Ibn Warraq states that we live in a time when the laws of nature apply not the law of God intervening for us. He further states that miracles are useless unless they can help people as a whole such as ending world hunger, etc. Well the Islamic miracles prove that God exists. They strengthen ones belief in Allah, therefore the believer will do good and do good to others as the Quran states in sura 19:96 that Allah loves those who believe and do deeds of righteouness. So the miracles work in that way, to strengthen ones belief so they listen to Allah and Prophet Mohammed and do what they tell us, mainly good deeds and helping others as a true muslim should.
Jesus in Islam
Warraq being a secularist believes that Jesus never existed and that the virgin birth is not to be taken literally. He states that liberal Christians now are proclaiming this. He then states that the Gospels are not accurate biographies of Jesus and that they were written forty to eighty years after Prophet Jesus peace be upon him left the world. He quotes various people on this. Good job Warraq, your helping prove the Quran and Islam! Allah clearly says that the New Testament is conjecture or corruption in sura 4:157. So Warraq is doing Islam a favor. Maybe he should write about Christianity. Anyways yes, the Quran does acknowledge the existence of Jesus. And yes there is evidence for Jesus.
Quite simply, one must ignore a great deal of evidence, and treat what evidence is left most unfairly, in order to deny that Jesus existed. Greco-Roman historian Michael Grant, who certainly has no theological axe to grind, indicates that there is more evidence for the existence of Jesus than there is for a large number of famous pagan personages - yet no one would dare to argue their non-existence. Meier [Meie.MarJ, 23] notes that what we know about Alexander the Great could fit on only a few sheets of paper; yet no one doubts that Alexander existed. Charlesworth has written that "Jesus did exist; and we know more about him than about almost any Palestinian Jew before 70 C.E." [Chars.JesJud, 168-9] Sanders [Sand.HistF, xiv] echoes Grant, saying that "We know a lot about Jesus, vastly more than about John the Baptist, Theudas, Judas the Galilean, or any of the other figures whose names we have from approximately the same date and place."
Although many Biblical scholars do state that the Gospels (Mark, Matthew, Luke and John) are not historical accounts of Jesus and rather the beliefs of the church, the figure Jesus Christ did exist.
Elaine Pagels writes: "Although the gospels of the New Testament-- like those discovered at Nag Hammadi-- are attributed to Jesus' followers, no one knows who actually wrote any of them." [Pagels, 1995]
The consensus of many biblical historians put the dating of the earliest Gospel, that of Mark, at sometime after 70 C.E., and the last Gospel, John after 90 C.E. [Pagels, 1995; Helms]. This would make it some 40 years after the alleged crucifixion of Jesus that we have any Gospel writings that mention him! Elaine Pagels writes that "the first Christian gospel was probably written during the last year of the war, or the year it ended. Where it was written and by whom we do not know; the work is anonymous, although tradition attributes it to Mark..." [Pagels, 1995]
We know virtually nothing about the persons who wrote the gospels we call Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John.
-Elaine Pagels, Professor of Religion at
Interestingly the Quran as I’ve discussed before also states that the New Testament is corrupt and changed (Quran 4:157). So we can say that the Quran is correct about the corruption of the New Testament (More on this on a latter chapter). Getting back to the existence of Jesus, we have four Jewish historians who all claim that Jesus existed: Josephus Flavius, Pliny the Younger, Tacitus and Suetonius. Although their evidence for Jesus is flimsy there is still evidence that Jesus did exist. All other sources (Christian and non-Christian), some of which include: Mara Bar-Serapion (cira 73 C.E.), Ignatius (50 - 98? C.E.), Polycarp (69 - 155 C.E.), Clement of Rome (? - cira 160 C.E.), Justin Martyr (100 - 165 C.E.), Lucian (circa 125 - 180 C.E.), Tertullian (160 - ? C.E.), Clement of
There is more information on this subject. The reader is encouraged to read my book Jesus and Christianity the truth we never knew for more on the evidence for the Islamic/Historical Jesus.
The Authenticity of the Hadith
The hadith are carefully recorded and stated. Warraq states that early Christians attributed words and sayings of Jesus that in reality only reflected the experiences, convictions and hopes of the Christian community. I don’t disagree. But heres the funny thing. Both Warraq and Ali Sina ( I’ll refute his lies in the Answering Ali Sina section) use hadith of Prophet Mohammed to prove negative things about him! So Warraq is now a hypocrite. First he claims Goldzhier states that the hadith are not historical evidence yet Warraq and Sina are both using hadith to prove their lies against Islam. Funny indeed. Anywyas lets look more into the authenticity of the hadith.
So one can see that the hadith are clearly valid and accurate historical accounts of Prophet Mohammed’s life. Warraq then says that Islam came from Talmudic Judaic, Syrian Christian and indirectly Greco-Roman ideals. However he hopelessly fails to prove any of those allegations. There were no books that Prophet Mohammed could’ve copied off of as I stated above and will repeat now in the following hadith:
Volume 3, Book 31, Number 137:
Narrated Ibn 'Umar:
The Prophet said, "We are an illiterate nation; we neither write, nor know accounts. The month is like this and this, i.e. sometimes of 29 days and sometimes of thirty days."
There were no Bibles for Prophet Mohammed peace be upon him to copy off of neither any Talmuds. Plus the Quran is very different from parts of the Bible. Warraq also claims that Prophet Mohammed copied off of Syrian Christianity in the views of the judgement day. Yet he fails to show evidence. Plus I could say that Christiantiy copied off of Judasims views of heaven and hell. The point is that all Abrahamic religions have their own view of heaven and hell and they are different from one another.
Islam on human rights:
Warraq states that Islam is not capable with human rights. That’s not true. Islam does hold human rights and treats both men and women equally. Its only the punishments that Warraq states that he considers inhuman. Lets go furter into this.
Islam teaches people self discipline along with honor, respect, etc. Islam also teaches that Life is a test for the believers in the world.
Since God is the absolute and sole master of men and the universe, He is the Sovereign Lord, the Sustainer, and Nourisher, the Merciful, whose mercy enshrines all beings; and since He has given each man human dignity and honor, and breathed into him of His own spirit, it follows that, united in Him and through Him, and apart from their other human attributes, men are substantially the same and no tangible and actual distinction can be made among them, on account of their accidental differences such as nationality, color or race. Every human-being is thereby related to all others and all become one community of brotherhood in their honorable and pleasant servitude to the most compassionate Lord of the Universe. In such a heavenly atmosphere the Islamic confession of the oneness of God stands dominant and central, and necessarily entails the concept of the oneness of humanity and the brotherhood of mankind.
Although an Islamic state may be set up in any part of the earth, Islam does not seek to restrict human rights or privileges to the geographical limits of its own state. Islam has laid down some universal fundamental rights for humanity as a whole, which are to be observed and respected under all circumstances whether such a person is resident within the territory of the Islamic state or outside it, whether he is at peace with the state or at war. The Qur'an very clearly states:
O believers, be you securers of justice, witness for God. Let not detestation for a people move you not to be equitable; be equitable - that is nearer to the god-fearing. (5:8)
Human blood is sacred in any case and cannot be spilled without justification. And if anyone violates this sanctity of human blood by killing a soul without justification, the Qur'an equates it to the killing of entire mankind.
...Whoso slays a soul not to retaliate for a soul slain, nor for corruption done in the land, should be as if he had slain mankind altogether. (
It is not permissible to oppress women, children, old people, the sick or the wounded. Women's honor and chastity are to be respected under all circumstances. The hungry person must be fed, the naked clothed, and the wounded or diseased treated medically, irrespective of whether they belong to the Islamic community or are from among its enemies.
When we speak of human rights in Islam we really mean that these rights have been granted by God; they have not been granted by any king or by any legislative assembly. The rights granted by the kings or legislative assemblies can also be withdrawn in the same manner in which they are conferred. The same in the case with the rights accepted and recognized by the dictators. They can confer them when they please and withdraw them when they wish; and they can openly violate them when they like. But since in Islam human rights have been conferred by God, no one on earth has the right or authority to make any amendment or change in the rights given by Him. No one has the right to abrogate them or withdraw them. Nor are these basic human rights which are conferred on paper for the sake of show and exhibition and denied in actual life when the show is over. Nor are they like philosophical concepts which have no sanctions behind them.
The charter and the proclamations and the resolutions of the United Nations cannot be compared with the rights sanctioned by God, because the former is not applicable on anybody while the latter is applicable on every believer. They are a part of the Islamic Faith. Every Muslim, or administrators who claims to be Muslim, will have to accept, recognize and enforce them. If they fail to enforce them, and start denying the rights that have been guaranteed by God, or make amendments and changes in them, or practically violate them while paying lip service to them, the verdict of the Qur'an for such government is clear and unequivocal:
Those who do not judge by what God has sent down are the disbelievers. (
Human Rights in an Islamic State
1. The Security of Life and Property: In the address which the Prophet delivered on the occasion of the Farewell Hajj, he said: "Your lives and properties are forbidden to one another until you meet your Lord on the Day of Resurrection." The Prophet has also said about the dhimmis (non-Muslim citizens of the Muslim state): "One who kills a man under covenant (i.e. Dhimmi) will not even smell the fragrance of
2. The Protection of Honor: The Qur'an states:
You who believe,
i) do not let one make fun of another
ii) do not defame one another
iii) do not insult by using nicknames
iv) do not backbite or speak ill of one another
(49:11-12)
3. Sanctity and Security of Private Life: The Qur'an has laid down the injunction:
i) Do not spy on one another. (49:12)
ii) Do not enter any houses unless you are sure of the occupant's consent. (24:27)
4. The Security of Personal Freedom: Islam has laid down the principle that no citizen can be imprisoned unless his guilt has been proven in an open court. To arrest a man only on the basis of suspicion and to throw him into a prison without proper mcouurt proceedings and without providing him a reasonable opportunity to produce his defense is not permissible in Islam.
5. The Right to Protest Against Tyranny: Among the rights that Islam has conferred on human beings is the right to protest against a government's tyranny. Referring to this, the Qur'an says: God does not love evil talk in public unless it is by someone who has been injured thereby." (4:148)
In Islam, as has been argued earlier, all power and authority belongs to God, and with man there is only delegated power which becomes a trust; everyone who becomes a recipient of such a power has to stand in awful reverence before his people towards whom and for whose sake he will be called upon to use these powers. This was acknowledged by Abu Bakr, who said in his very first address as Caliph: "Cooperate with me when I am right, but correct me when I commit error; obey me so long as I follow the commandments of Allah and His Prophet; but turn away from me when I deviate."
6. Freedom of Expression: Islam gives the right of freedom of thought and expression to all citizens of the Islamic state on the condition that it should be used for the propagation of virtue and truth and not for spreading evil and wickedness. The Islamic concept of freedom is much superior to the concept prevalent in the West. Under no circumstances would Islam allow evil and wickedness to be propagated. It also does not give anybody the right to use abusive or offensive language in the name of criticism. It was the practice of the Muslims to enquire from the Prophet whether a divine injunction had been revealed to him on any given matter. If he said that he had received no divine injunction, the Muslims freely expressed their opinions on the matter.
7. Freedom of Association: Islam has also given people the right to freedom of association and formation of parties or organizations. This right is also subject to certain general rules.
- Freedom of Conscience and Conviction: Islam has laid down the injunction: There should be no coercion in the matter of faith. (2:256)
On the contrary, totalitarian societies totally deprive the individuals of their freedom. Indeed, this undue exaltation of the state authority, curiously enough, postulates a sort of servitude, of slavishness on the part of man. At one time, slavery meant total control over man - now that type of slavery has been legally abolished, but in its place, totalitarian societies impose a similar sort of control over individuals.
9. Protection of Religious Sentiments: Along with the freedom of conviction and freedom of conscience, Islam has given the right to the individual that his religious sentiments will be given due respect and nothing will be said or done which may encroach upon his right.
10. Protection from Arbitrary Imprisonment: Islam also recognizes the right of the individuals not to be arrested or imprisoned for the offences of others. The Qur'an states clearly: No bearer of burdens shall be made to bear the burden of another. (35:18)
11. The Right to Basic Necessities of Life: Islam has recognized the right of the needy people for help and assistance to be provided to them: And in their wealth there is acknowledged right for the needy and destitute. (51:19)
12. Equality Before the Law: Islam gives its citizens the right to absolute and complete equality in the eyes of the law.
13. Accountability of Rulers to the Law: A woman belonging to a high and noble family was arrested in connection with theft. The case was brought to the Prophet, and it was recommended that she might be spared the punishment of theft. The Prophet replied, "The nations that lived before you were destroyed by God because they punished the common-man for their offences, and let their dignitaries go unpunished for their crimes. I swear by Him Who holds my life in His hand that even if Fatimah, daughter of Muhammad, had committed this crime, I would have amputated her hand."
14. The Right to Participate in the Affairs of State: And their business is (conducted) through consultation among themselves. (42:38)
The Shura or the legislative assembly has no other meaning other than that: the executive head of the government and the members of the assembly should be elected by free and independent choice of the people.
Lastly, it is to be made clear that Islam tries to achieve the above-mentioned human rights and many others not only by providing certain legal safeguards, but mainly by inviting mankind to transcend the lower level of animal life to be able to go beyond the mere ties fostered by the dinship of blood, racial superiority, linguistic arrogance, and economic privileges. It invites mankind to move on to a plane of existence where, by reason of his inner excellence, man can realize the ideal of the Brotherhood of man.
In Islam the punishments are strict so that the person will not do it again and so others are warned not to do it again. This is why Muslim countries have the lowest crime rates.
Alleged Historical Errors in the Quran addressed:
sura 40:38 states that Haman was a minister of the Pharoah at the time of Moses. Well this is true. HAMAN" AND
The Qur'an relates the life of the Prophet Musa (as) with great clarity. As it tells of the conflict with the Pharaoh and his dealings with the Children of Israel, the Qur'an reveals a wealth of information about ancient
One such example of this wisdom can be found in the Qur'anic references to Haman: a character whose name is mentioned in the Qur'an, along with the Pharaoh. He is mentioned in six different places in the Qur'an, in which it informs us that he was one of Pharaoh's closest allies.
Surprisingly, the name "Haman" is never mentioned in those sections of the Torah pertaining to the life of the Prophet Musa (as). However, the mention of Haman can be found in the last chapters of the Old Testament as the helper of a Babylonian king who inflicted many cruelties on the Israelites approximately 1,100 years after the Prophet Musa (as).The Qur'an, far more in tune with recent archaeological discoveries, does indeed contain the word "Haman" in reference to the life of the Prophet Musa (as).
The criticisms thrown at the book of Islam by some non-Muslims have disappeared by the wayside as an Egyptian hieroglyphic script had been deciphered, approximately 200 years ago, and the name "Haman" discovered in the ancient scripts. Until the 18th century, the writings and inscriptions of ancient
In 1799, much to the delight of historians and other learned people, the mystery of ancient Egyptian hieroglyphics was solved by the discovery of a tablet called the "Rosetta Stone." This amazing find dated back to 196 B.C. The importance of this inscription was that it was written in three different forms of writing: hieroglyphics, demotic (a simplified form of ancient Egyptian hieratic writing) and Greek. With the help of the Greek script, the ancient Egyptian writings were decoded. The translation of the inscription was completed by a Frenchman named Jean-Françoise Champollion. Hence, a forgotten language and the events related in it were brought to light. In this way, a great deal of knowledge about the civilization, religion and social life of ancient Egypt became available to mankind and this opened the way to greater knowledge about this important era in human history.
Through the decoding of hieroglyph, an important piece of knowledge was revealed: The name "Haman" was indeed mentioned in Egyptian inscriptions. This name was referred to in a monument in the
In the dictionary of People in the New Kingdom, that was prepared based on the entire collection of inscriptions, Haman is said to be "the head of stone quarry workers."201
The result revealed a very important truth: Unlike the false assertion of the opponents of the Qur'an, Haman was a person who lived in
Pharaoh said, "Council, I do not know of any other god for you apart from Me. Haman, kindle a fire for me over the clay and build me a lofty tower so that perhaps I may be able to climb up to Musa's god! I consider him a blatant liar." (Qur'an, 28:38)
The verse in the Qur'an describing the event where the Pharaoh asked Haman to build a tower is in perfect agreement with this archaeological finding. Through this brilliant discovery, the irrational claims of the opponents of the Qur'an were demonstrated to be false and intellectually worthless.
In a miraculous way, the Qur'an conveys to us historical information that could not have been possessed or understood at the time of the Prophet (saas). Hieroglyphics could not be deciphered until the late 1700s so the information could not have been ascertained from Egyptian sources. When the name "Haman" was discovered in the ancient scripts, it was further proof of the infallibility of Allah's Word.
200. Walter Wreszinski, Aegyptische Inschriften aus dem 
201. Hermann Ranke, Die Ägyptischen Personennamen, Verzeichnis der Namen (The Egyptian Family Names, Listing of the Names), Verlag Von J J Augustin in Glückstadt, Band I,1935, Band II, 1952.
Mary and Aaron:
Warraq states that there is an error when getting to Mary and Aaron in sura 19:28. However this is just how people used to address one another back then. Answer
1. IN THE SEMITIC LANGUAGES SISTER ALSO MEANS DESCENDANT
The Qur’an mentions in Surah Maryam, Chapter 19 verses 27-28
"At length she brought the (babe) to her people, carrying him (in her arms). They said: ‘O Mary! Truly an amazing thing hast thou brought!
O sister of Aaron! Thy father was not a man of evil, nor thy mother a woman unchaste!’"
[Al-Qur’an 19:27-28]
Christian missionaries along with the ever foolish Ibn Warraq say that Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) did not know the difference between Mary the mother of Jesus (pbuh) and Miriam the sister of Aaron (pbuh). The time span between both was more than a thousand years.
In the Arabic construction of the sentence, sister is also considered as a descendant. Thus, when the people said to Mary, Ukhta Haroon i.e. ‘sister of Aaron’ it actually means descendant of Aaron (pbuh). The verse may also be implying that Mary was a Levti Jew from the same tribe of Aaron.
2. SON ALSO MEANS DESCENDANT
It is mentioned in the Gospel of Mathew, Chapter 1 verse 1
"Jesus Christ, the son of David,....".
[Mathew 1:1]
Gospel of Luke Chapter 3, verse 23
"And Jesus himself began to be about thirty years of age, being (as was supposed) the son of Joseph, ....."
[Luke 3:23]
What do you call a person who has two fathers? The explanation of the phrase that Jesus (pbuh) was the son of David (pbuh), is that Jesus (pbuh) was a descendant of David (pbuh). ‘Son’, here means a descendant.
Other points to be pointed:
The Gospel of Luke Chapter 1 verse 5 states that
The Quran may be stating that Mary is a Levite,which finds support in the Gospel of the birth of Mary, part of the New Testament Apocrypha which was preversed by Bishop of Reiz in
So in any case, the Quran is right.
Is Zul-Qarnain really Alexander The Great?
Warraq then says that the Quran refers to Alexander the Great in sura 18: 83. However Warraq is wrong as Alexander the Great is clearly not mentioned there. Instead its some other leader probably Cyrus the Great who was a leader for the Jews. More evidence that the Quran is not talking about Alexander the Great:
There is a great myth which is circulating on the Internet at present. Christian missionaries are spreading the false information that Zul-Qarnain, a prophet of Islam, is none other than Alexander The Great. There are a few Muslims who agree with them, but this is only because they have never been educated about the character Alexander. Others who subscribe to atheistic or humanist beliefs are propagating the same lies even further. From where they have deduced this absurd estimation we will show below. We will attempt to expose this flawed judgment by using history, the Bible and basic Islamic knowledge.
Alexander was born in 356 BC, and died in 323 BC. He was a deceitful man, who himself claimed to be a god at one point and demanded that others worship him. Is this Islamic? In his 33 years of existence he did not once preach peace, bring justice or enlighten the people. He possessed absolutely no traits of a true prophet whatsoever. All the prophets between Moses and Christ are named explicitly within the Quran and the name of Zul-Qarnain does not show up amongst them.
Most Muslims are silent as to whom Zul-Qarnain really is, and rightly so because not enough clues and pointers exist for them to make the assumption which is better than jumping the gun and making rash conclusions unlike our Christian missionary friends. After much thought and consideration we would like to put forward the possibility that Zul-Qarnain is really King Prophet Atlas who existed during the time of Prophet Abraham and features in the myths and legends (if they are that) of Atlantis, the lost continent. The Quran mentions Gog and Magog were among the people visited by Zul-Qarnain. According to Biblical scholars, Gog and Magog are a community of people (savages and barbarians) who reside in the North Eastern part of the world (
Zul-Qarnain’s name literally means 'two-horned one'. Zul or Dhul was a common suffix given to the ancient Kings of Yemen. He is termed so simply because part of his outfit was a horned helmet. The Missionaries wild conclusion is derived from the simple coincidence that Alexander also possessed a horned helmet and was also bit of a traveller.
Whose waters are murky?
The following claim is taken from Mr Sina's website and can be found copied and pasted on almost every anti-Islamic site. They make the claim……..
Koran teaches us that the Sun sets in a muddy spring:
"Till, when he (the traveller Zul-qarnain) reached the setting-place of the Sun, he found it going down into a muddy spring…"(18:86)
"Till, when he reached the rising-place of the Sun, he found it rising on a people for whom We had appointed no shelter from it..."(18:90)
“Serious scientific errors here! Firstly, it is scientifically accepted fact that, the Sun never go down in a muddy spring.”
They say laughter is good for you, but this is becoming extremely unhealthy. These people go to such lengths in their attempts at highlighting the alleged contradictions or scientific fallacies in the Quran, it's shocking to witness how desperate some people have become. They will twist translations, invent false ideas and inject them into the mind of the new reader in the most rapid way possible.
They try to make the claim that the author of the Quran was scientifically challenged, that he was oblivious to the fact that the sun never actually sets. They also make the savage claim that the same set of verses "prove" that the Earth is flat!
Here is the story of Zul-Qarnain from the Holy Quran verse 18:83-101
They ask thee concerning Zul-Qarnain. Say, "I will rehearse to you something of his story." Verily We established his power on earth, and We gave him the ways and the means to all ends. One (such) way he followed, Until, when he reached the setting of the sun, he found it set in a spring of murky water: Near it he found a People: We said: "O Zul-Qarnain! (thou hast authority,) either to punish them, or to treat them with kindness." He said: "Whoever doth wrong, him shall we punish; then shall he be sent back to his Lord; and He will punish him with a punishment unheard-of (before). "But whoever believes, and works righteousness,- he shall have a goodly reward, and easy will be his task as We order it by our Command."
Then followed he (another) way, Until, when he came to the rising of the sun, he found it rising on a people for whom We had provided no covering protection against the sun. He left them as they were: We completely understood what was before him. Then followed he (another) way, Until, when he reached (a tract) between two mountains, he found, beneath them, a people who scarcely understood a word. They said: "O Zul-Qarnain! the Gog and Magog (People) do great mischief on earth: shall we then render thee tribute in order that thou mightest erect a barrier between us and them? He said: "(The power) in which my Lord has established me is better (than tribute): Help me therefore with strength (and labour): I will erect a strong barrier between you and them: "Bring me blocks of iron." At length, when he had filled up the space between the two steep mountain-sides, He said, "Blow (with your bellows)" Then, when he had made it (red) as fire, he said: "Bring me, that I may pour over it, molten lead."
Thus were they made powerless to scale it or to dig through it. He said: "This is a mercy from my Lord: But when the promise of my Lord comes to pass, He will make it into dust; and the promise of my Lord is true." On that day We shall leave them to surge like waves on one another: the trumpet will be blown, and We shall collect them all together. And We shall present Hell that day for Unbelievers to see, all spread out,- (Unbelievers) whose eyes had been under a veil from remembrance of Me, and who had been unable even to hear.
Lets analyse the two verses put forward:
Until, when he reached the setting of the sun, he found it set in a spring of murky water: Near it he found a People: We said: "O Zul-Qarnain! (thou hast authority,) either to punish them, or to treat them with kindness". [18:86]
Until, when he came to the rising of the sun, he found it rising on a people for whom We had provided no covering protection against the sun. [18:90]
The verses narrate part of the story of Zul-Qarnain. Being a great traveller Prophet Zul-Qarnain eventually, at sun set, arrived at a place where there were springs of vast murky waters. He found around it tribes of people, some righteous and some malign. The narration goes on to describe how Zul-Qarnain was given authority to rule over them as a just king. It narrates the version of events as he, Zul-Qarnain saw them – he saw the sun set in a murky water, nothing wrong with that. The second verse narrates that Zul-Qarnain turned another direction and travelled on until he saw the sun rise and it just so happens that he saw it rise on a people who were without shade. Again, a very simple narration, no claim of being scientific fact.
The idiotic critics who raise this issue and claim that the God of the Quran does not know the simple scientific that the sun never actually sets are barking up the wrong tree. The above verses in no way make the claim of being scientific fact as God sees it. We don’t see God making the claim that the sun sets into murky waters! Or rises on a certain group of people. We simply see God describing things as witnessed by Zul-Qarnain - "They ask thee concerning Zul-Qarnain. Say, "I will rehearse to you something of his story". The sun sets wherever you see it set. If you are on a beach you will see it set into the ocean. If you are on a hill, you will see it set behind the hill.
“Secondly, this seems to presuppose a FLAT Earth, otherwise how can there be an extreme point in the West or in the East? A sunrise there would be basically just the same as at any other place on this earth, at land or sea. It would still look as if it is setting “far away”. It does say, that he reached THE PLACE where the Sun sets and in his second Journey the place where it rises.”
This is classical anti-Islam rhetoric; putting words into verses in order to support other claims. The gentlemen writes “this seems to presuppose a flat Earth, otherwise how can there be an extreme point in the West or in the East?”. The only translation which narrowly supports his conjecture is the one by Yusuf Ali. The other two main translations are pasted alongside below.
| | Pickthall | Yusufali | Shakir |
| 18:85 | And he followed a road | One (such) way he followed, | So he followed a course. |
| 18:89 | Then he followed a road | Then followed he (another) way, | Then he followed (another) course. |
| 18:92 | Then he followed a road | Then followed he (another) way, | Then he followed (another) course. |
Figurative reading was never designed for our Atheistic friends, therefore we should pardon them for their ignorance. The narration is pasted above for all to see, nowhere within it is their a reference to an extreme East or West. How these people come to such conclusions really baffles me! It seems that the decision to ridicule Islam is made up long before they go into the Quran looking for supposed incongruities, or do they leave their atheistic tendencies behind? Who knows. They hasten to find something they can please the masses with. The above claim is simply fruitless.
Did the Quran copy off the Greeks?
Ibn Warraq alleges that the Quran copied off the Greeks yet fails to show evidence.
This is the first article in a series of articles which proposes to examine the Christian missionary paper Embryology in the Qur'ân. The Christian author is described as a "practising medical doctor in the
However, the most convincing explanation, and the most worrying for those who maintain that the Qur'an is God's eternal Word, untampered with and free from any human interference, is that the Qur'an is using the enormously influential Greek physician Galen's teachings that the second stage of foetal development is a vascular mass, in which case not only is the Qur'an wrong, but it also plagiarises ancient Greek literature!
According to the missionary, the Qur'ân plagiarises ancient Greek Literature, and as a result, it should be rejected as a divinely revealed or inspired scripture. This short paper proposes to examine the Christian charge of plagiarism, and using their own methodology apply their argument to the Bible.
To plagiarise something is to commit literary theft by appropriating and passing off the ideas or words of another as one's own. The missionary accuses the Prophet Muhammad(P)[1] of plagiarism and charges him with stealing and passing off the ideas of Galen as his own :
the Qur'an is using the enormously influential Greek physician Galen's teachings... it also plagiarises ancient Greek literature!
This is a serious charge and one would expect the missionary to have provided sufficient evidence in order to "prove beyond reasonable doubt" that Muhammad(P) is indeed the plagiariser and liar that Christian missionaries consider him to be. [2]
Yet the missionary provides no evidence, no proof whatsoever to substantiate this claim of plagiarism. The missionary cites neither the original Greek text of Galen nor the Arabic of the Qur'ân; nor does he provide a sufficiently thorough analysis of the two accounts in order to substantiate his claim. And neither does the missionary cite any hadith or eye-witnesses accounts to prove that the Prophet(P) plagiarised ancient Greek literature. Where then is the proof that Muhammad(P) plagiarised the Galenic stages of development?
We are not asking the missionary to provide evidence of Greek influence on the Qur'ân (a subject of a forth coming paper), but proof that the Prophet Muhammad(P) consciously and knowingly stole and passed off the ideas of Galen (notably Galen's second stage of foetal development) as his own. If the missionary is unable to prove "beyond reasonable doubt" that Muhammad(P) plagiarised the Galenic stages of development then why make such an accusation in the first place?! If the missionary is unable to prove his case "beyond reasonable doubt" then this material should be removed and an apology printed. It is very easy for Christian missionaries to make such accusations, and it is even easier to make them while hiding behind fictitious e-mail accounts and aliases. It seems that this missionary wishes to remain anonymous so that he may continue to befriend (attempt to convert) Muslims in public, while slandering their religion and Prophet(P) in private.
The Bible Plagiarises Ancient Greek Literature
To summarise, the Christian Missionary says that:
- the Qur'ân is using the enormously influential teachings of the Greek physician Galen.
- the Qur'ân is plagiarising ancient Greek Literature.
and as a result, it should be rejected as a divinely revealed or inspired scripture. Furthermore, by implication, the Prophet Muhammad(P) could not be a true Prophet of God as he plagiarised ancient Greek literature by consciously and knowingly stealing the ideas of Galen and claiming them to be his own.
What if we were to apply this method of reasoning to the Bible itself? What if we were to apply the same standards against the Bible? If we were to find the Bible plagiarising ancient Greek Literature, then it too should also be rejected as a divinely revealed or inspired scripture -- according to the missionary's own testimony, according to his own standards of reasoning and evidence.
So, what does the Bible say concerning Embryology? In this section we cite embryological references to be found in Bible using the same source as used by the missionary, A History of Embryology[3] by Joseph Needham. It would seem that the missionary has deliberately failed to cite some vital pieces of information concerning Embryology in Antiquity which we aim to supply here.
Embryology in Antiquity
During the period when the biological
"Remember, I beseech thee, that thou hast fashioned me as clay; and wilt thou bring me into the dust again! Hast thou not poured me out as milk, and curdled me like cheese? Thou hast clothed me with skin and flesh, and knit me together with bones and sinews."
This comparison of embryogeny with the making of cheese is interesting in view of the fact that precisely the same comparison occurs in Aristotle's book On the Generation of Animals, as we have already seen.[4]
We now discover that:
- the Bible is using the enormously influential teachings of the Greek philosopher Aristotle
- the Bible is plagiarising ancient Greek Literature
and as a result, the Bible should be rejected as a divinely revealed or inspired scripture -- according to the missionary's own testimony, according to his own standards of reasoning and evidence!
Another embryological reference occurs in the Wisdom of Solomon which also copies (plagiarises) an Aristotelian theory:
Still more extraordinary, the only other embryological reference in the Wisdom Literature, which occurs in the Wisdom of Solomon (vii. 2), also copies an Aristotelian theory, namely, that the embryo is formed from (menstrual) blood. There the speaker says,
"In the womb of a mother was I moulded into flesh in the time of ten months, being compacted with blood of the seed of man and the pleasure that accompanieth sleep."
Perhaps it is no coincidence that both these citations can be referred back to Aristotle, and in the second case even to Hippocrates; perhaps the Alexandrian Jews of the third century B.C. were studying Aristotle as attentively as Philo Judaeus studied Plato a couple of hundred years later.[5]
The Christian missionary is now left with several difficulties. The missionary needs to explain to the Muslim:
- Why the Bible uses the enormously influential teachings of the Greek philosopher Aristotle?
- Why the Bible plagiarises ancient Greek Literature?
- Why other non-Christian scriptures (e.g. the Qur'ân) would be rejected as a divinely revealed or inspired scripture if they used (or were influenced by) the writings of ancient Greek scientists - but the Bible would not?
- Why other non-Christian scriptures (e.g. the Qur'ân) would be charged with plagiarism if they used (or were influenced by) the writings of ancient Greek scientists - but the Bible would not?
- Why the Prophet Muhammad(P) is charged with plagiarism but the authors of Job and the Wisdom of Solomon are not?[6]
- Why Christian missionaries continue to charge the Prophet Muhammad(P) with plagiarism of the Galenic stages of development even though they have failed to prove their case?
And more controversially, - Why do these missionaries reject the Wisdom of Solomon as a divinely inspired scripture when majority of the world's Christians accept it as the word of God?
Concerning the Wisdom of Solomon the Encyclopaedia Britannica informs us that it is:
... an example of the "wisdom" genre of religious literature, which commends a life of introspection and reflection on human existence, especially from an ethical perspective. It is an apocryphal work (noncanonical for Jews and Protestants) but is included in the Septuagint (Greek translation of the Old Testament) and was accepted into the Roman canon.[7]
Thus the Wisdom of Solomon is accepted as a divinely inspired book by Roman Catholics and is included in Roman Catholic Bibles.
The Roman Catholics in the world outnumber all other Christians combined.[8]
The Protestants however, have rejected the book and only include it as part of the Apocrypha even though fragments of it were discovered in the Essene library, at
For a discussion concerning the Biblical Canon see Church Tradition & The Textual Integrity Of The Bible and Textual Reliability Of The New Testament.
Modifying the Missionary's own words we conclude:
However, the most convincing explanation, and the most worrying for those who maintain that the Bible is God's eternal Word, untampered with and free from any human interference, is that the Bible is using the enormously influential Greek philosopher Aristotle's teachings for the stages of foetal development, in which case not only is the Bible wrong, but it also plagiarises ancient Greek literature!
Women’s rights in Islam
Islam elevated the rights of women. In pre Islamic Arabia, women were treated very poorly and could not do things other Arabs could. So Prophet Mohammed peace be upon him had elevated them to a higher status.
Ibn Warraq rips things out of context in page 302 of his worthless book. For example he quotes sura 3.36 as the following:
When she was delivered, she said: "O my Lord! Behold! I am delivered of a female child!"- and Allah knew best what she brought forth- "And no wise is the male Like the female. I have named her Mary, and I commend her and her offspring to Thy protection from the Evil One, the Rejected."
He then states that this is used to degrade women. However in context it goes:
“Behold! a woman of 'Imran said: "O my Lord! I do dedicate unto Thee what is in my womb for Thy special service: So accept this of me: For Thou hearest and knowest all things." When she was delivered, she said: "O my Lord! Behold! I am delivered of a female child!"- and Allah knew best what she brought forth- "And no wise is the male Like the female. I have named her Mary, and I commend her and her offspring to Thy protection from the Evil One, the Rejected." 3:35-36.
So this is speaking about Mary’s mothers prayer to keep her daughter safe from Satanic suggestions. That’s all.
Another ripped out of context verse would be:
Is then one brought up among trinkets, and unable to give a clear account in a dispute (to be associated with Allah)? And they make into females angels who themselves serve Allah. Did they witness their creation? Their evidence will be recorded, and they will be called to account! ("Ah!") they say, "If it had been the will of (Allah) Most Gracious, we should not have worshipped such (deities)!" Of that they have no knowledge! they do nothing but lie! (43: 18-20)
Islam also tells to treat women with care and affection and not to beat them as various hadith testify to this:
Narrated Mu'awiyah al-Qushayri: "I went to the Apostle of Allah (peace_be_upon_him) and asked him: What do you say (command) about our wives? He replied: Give them food what you have for yourself, and clothe them by which you clothe yourself, and do not beat them, and do not revile them. (Sunan Abu-Dawud, Book 11, Marriage (Kitab Al-Nikah), Number 2139)"
Narrated Mu'awiyah ibn Haydah: "I said: Apostle of Allah, how should we approach our wives and how should we leave them? He replied: Approach your tilth when or how you will, give her (your wife) food when you take food, clothe when you clothe yourself, do not revile her face, and do not beat her. (Sunan Abu-Dawud, Book 11, Marriage (Kitab Al-Nikah), Number 2138)"
Abu Huraira (Allah be pleased with him) reported Allah's Apostle (may peace be upon him) as saying: "He who believes in Allah and the Hereafter, if he witnesses any matter he should talk in good terms about it or keep quiet. Act kindly towards woman, for woman is created from a rib, and the most crooked part of the rib is its top. If you attempt to straighten it, you will break it, and if you leave it, its crookedness will remain there. So act kindly towards women. (Translation of Sahih Muslim, The Book of Marriage (Kitab Al-Nikah), Book 008, Number 3468)"
As a matter of fact, Prophet Mohammed never beat a woman or a servant as this hadith indicates:
'A'isha reported that Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him) never beat anyone with his hand, neither a woman nor a servant, but only, in the case when he had been fighting in the cause of Allah and he never took revenge for anything unless the things made inviolable by Allah were made violable; he then took revenge for Allah, the Exalted and Glorious.
Muslim Book 11, Number 2137:
Narrated Mu'awiyah al-Qushayri:
Mu'awiyah asked: Apostle of Allah, what is the right of the wife of one of us over him? He replied: That you should give her food when you eat, clothe her when you clothe yourself, do not strike her on the face, do not revile her or separate yourself from her except in the house.
Narrated Sa'd bin Abi Waqqas:
Allah's Apostle said, "You will be rewarded for whatever you spend for Allah's sake even if it were a morsel which you put in your wife's mouth."
Islam also states that a woman has to be asked her permission before she is married:
Narrated Abu Huraira:
The Prophet said, "A matron should not be given in marriage except after consulting her; and a virgin should not be given in marriage except after her permission." The people asked, "O Allah's Apostle! How can we know her permission?" He said, "Her silence (indicates her permission)."
Volume 7, Book 62, Number 69:
Narrated Khansa bint Khidam Al-Ansariya:
that her father gave her in marriage when she was a matron and she disliked that marriage. So she went to Allah's Apostle and he declared that marriage invalid.
Women in Islam are also allowed to leave the house whenever they want. Warraq refuses to put the hadith which clearly allow women to leave whenever they need to.
…….."You (women) have been allowed to go out for your needs." Bukhari Volume 6, Book 60, Number 318
The reason why the Prophet’s wives were ordered to be inside the house was to avoid harrasement from others. Plus the Prophet had always allowed them to leave whenever they wanted.
If Warraq is going to say that Islam puts down women because of a few quotes then he also needs to quote the Bibles verses which say the same. Another thing is that Warraq takes the example of Adam and Eve and then applies it to Islam. The story of Adam and Eve is very different from that of the Old Testament. While the Bible places the blame on Eve, The Quran blames both of them. Warraq also claims that there is a saying of Prophet Mohammed that leave a whip where your wife can see it. This is a flatout lie as the real saying is that leave a whip so YOUR CHILDREN can see it not WIFE. Ibn Warraq is a liar and a good one too.
Islam does not allow man woman touching relationships outside of marriage in fear that they may do something not allowed for them to do. Islam is the only religion in the world that makes this discintion between men and women no other religion states this. In Christiantiy the only thing that is prohibited is sexual intercourse in (Col 3:5, 1 Thessalonians 4:3, Mark 7:20-23, Galatians 5:19-21,1 Corinthians 7:2, Matthew 15:19-20, 1 Corinthians 5:1-2, 1 Corinthians 6:9-11, 1 Corinthians 6:16 - 20, Ephesians 5:3-5, Colossians 3:5-6, REV 14:4). The New Testament does not forbid any other kind of intimate contact between man and woman. But its that kind of intimate contact that leds to sexually intercourse in the first place!
Islam is a pro marriage pro sex religion that allows marriage between a man and a woman. That’s it. Women have rights over their husbands, as Prophet Mohammed said that the husband must be kind to his family and that a husband should not beat his wife. A husband also has rights over his wife, because he is the man of the house, the provider and the supporter. A woman also cannot be beaten without a just cause as the Holy Quran states:
Men are the protectors and maintainers of women, because Allah has given the one more (strength) than the other, and because they support them from their means. Therefore the righteous women are devoutly obedient, and guard in (the husband's) absence what Allah would have them guard. As to those women on whose part ye fear disloyalty and ill-conduct, admonish them (first), (Next), refuse to share their beds, (And last) beat them (lightly); but if they return to obedience, seek not against them Means (of annoyance): For Allah is Most High, great (above you all). (sura 4:34)
So when a woman should be beaten lightly when it comes to her disobedience, and if she listens and does what she is told, you cant do anything to her. About sexual relations a woman can chose not to have sex with her husband if she doesn’t want to.
So why did Aisha say to Prophet Mohammed that “Your lord hastens to satisfy your desire?” Because he was spending too much time with his new wife a former slave whom he freed and married. That’s all.
Nudity
Islam also forbids nudity in many respects. Even a husband and a wife cant see one anothers private parts:
“ When one of you goes to his wife, he should
mind his shameful parts. They should not both
strip their clothes off their bodies and become naked
like donkeys” (Ibn Majah)
444.Hazrat Aisha (Allah be pleased with her) said: "I never looked at (or, I never saw) Allah's Messenger's private parts."
(Ibn Majah).
Sex is seen as something natural and good in Islam:
443.Abu Dharr reported that the Messenger of Allah told his companions that "...in man's sexual intercourse (with his wife) there is Sadqa (charity)." They (the companions) said: Messenger of Allah, is there a reward for him who satisfied his sexual passion among us? He said: Tell me, if he were to devote it to something forbidden, would it not be a sin on his part? Similarly, if he were to devote it to something lawful, he should have a reward."
(Muslim).
So Islam says yes go ahead and Have sex, but both parties have to agree otherwise in Islam it is not valid. And it is punishable to serve as a warning for others not to get involved in illegal intercourse. Another thing is that sex outside of marriage can lead to diseases, warts, etc to both people engaged in it. So Islam is interested in keeping both men and women safe from that. Prophet Mohammed also stated that men should marry women who are capable of giving birth. And like I said before a husband cant force his wife into bed, she must come on her own and a husband cannot beat his wife unless she has done something wrong, adultery, forination, stealing, lying, abusing the kids, etc.
Islams view on Homosexuality, pigs and wine
Warraq states that Islams view on pigs, wine and homosexuality is wrong and uncalled for. Well Islam has a good reason to do so.
Pigs:
Warraq states that there are other animals that are dirtier than pigs. Yes we know, Warraq. Whats your point? Anyways, pork is mostly consumed by the West. Observant Muslims do not eat pork. The Bible also prohibits the consumption of pork, in Leviticus 11:7-8, Deuteronomy 14:8 & Isaiah 65:2-5.
The consumption of pork causes several diseases. A person can have various helminthes like roundworm, pinworm, hookworm, etc. Pork has fat building material which gets deposited in the vessels and can cause hypertension and heart attack. And also because pig is a filthy & shameless animal.Yes its true, its not the only one, but it is a filthy animal. So that’s why Islam prohibits eating one.
Wine:
Warraq states that wine should be consumed because there is no real harm to it. False claim. alcohol has been the scourge of human society since time immemorial.Alcohol is the root cause of several problems facing society. The Bible also prohibits the consumption of alcohol in Proverbs 20:1, & Ephesians 5:18
In the hadith also its stated:
Narrated Abdullah Ibn Abbas:
The Apostle of Allah (peace_be_upon_him) said: Every intoxicant is khamr (wine) and every intoxicant is forbidden. If anyone drinks wine, Allah will not accept prayer from him for forty days, but if he repents, Allah will accept his repentance. If he repeats it a fourth time, it is binding on Allah that He will give him tinat al-khabal to drink.
He was asked: What is tinat al-khabal, Apostle of Allah? He replied: Discharge of wounds, flowing from the inhabitants of Hell. If anyone serves it to a minor who does not distinguish between the lawful and the unlawful, it is binding on Allah that He will give him to drink the discharge of wounds, flowing from the inhabitants of Hell.
He says it is prohibited because alcohol inhibits the inhibitory centre in human brain , which makes human being behave in an abusive manner & also becaus it causes several diseases. The Quran strictly says not to drink wine in sura 5:90. This made many Arabs hostile to Islam because of the prohibition of wine, but as we can see there is a good reason for that.
Homosexuality:
Homosexuality is a great sin in Islam. As a matter of fact in the Quran Lot’s people were destroyed because of that (The Old Testament Genesis 19:24).My view is that Allah created man and women for one another and that man and woman should do naturally what they are meant to do. But is homosexuality a trait that one is born with? Lets see.
No comments:
Post a Comment