Category Archives: Christianity/Orientalists

Exposing WikiIslam’s FALSE claim of “mathematical error in hereditary law” of Qur’an

[By Heba E. Husseyn]

The heathens of WikiIslam site have tried a failed attempt claiming that the Qur’anic Verses 4:11-12 elucidating the laws of inheritance are mathematically wrong and do not add up. 

First let me put up the Qur’anic Verses 4:11-12 (Surah An-Nissa) concerning inheritance laws.

“Allah chargeth you concerning (the provision for) your children: to the male the equivalent of the portion of two females, and if there be women more than two, then theirs is two-thirds of the inheritance, and if there be one (only) then the half. And to each of his parents a sixth of the inheritance, if he have a son; and if he have no son and his parents are his heirs, then to his mother appertaineth the third; and if he have brethren, then to his mother appertaineth the sixth, after any legacy he may have bequeathed, or debt (hath been paid). Your parents and your children: Ye know not which of them is nearer unto you in usefulness. It is an injunction from Allah. Lo! Allah is Knower, Wise.”  4:11.

“And unto you belongeth a half of that which your wives leave, if they have no child; but if they have a child then unto you the fourth of that which they leave, after any legacy they may have bequeathed, or debt (they may have contracted, hath been paid). And unto them belongeth the fourth of that which ye leave if ye have no child, but if ye have a child then the eighth of that which ye leave, after any legacy ye may have bequeathed, or debt (ye may have contracted, hath been paid). And if a man or a woman have a distant heir (having left neither parent nor child), and he (or she) have a brother or a sister (only on the mother’s side) then to each of them twain (the brother and the sister) the sixth, and if they be more than two, then they shall be sharers in the third, after any legacy that may have been bequeathed or debt (contracted) not injuring (the heirs by willing away more than a third of the heritage) hath been paid. A commandment from Allah. Allah is Knower, Indulgent.”  4:12.

Now, I will quote below the childish criticism of the Wikislam liars which is hilarious. Even a child with half a brain would not be as dumbwit as this.  

Quoting them –

“Mathematical Error in Hereditary Laws.

    Wife: 1/8 = 3/24,
    Daughters: 2/3 = 16/24,
    Father: 1/6 = 4/24,
    Mother: 1/6 = 4/24,
    Total = 27/24=1.125 

The total does not equal to 1. This error can never be reconciled in any way.”
Unquote –

Addressing WikiIslam:  What the heck are you talking? The denomination of “1” is never taken as a presumed total for calculating any distribution, and it’s certainly never a presumed standard total for a legacy. How on earth do you expect to calculate the distribution of inheritance without knowing the total assets to be divided among the heirs. The fallacy arises because of WikiIslam’s complete lack of mathematical knowledge. How can you get the balance of the total without deducting the amount of bequest and the debt? Are you completely out of your mind? Even for a simple demonstration, you first need to pick a value for the estate prior to mathematical workings otherwise your workings are bound to be fallacious as in Wiki’s case. And Wiki is attributing its own mistakes to the Qur’an.  

So let us take a few examples demonstrating simple distributions of inheritances within families based on the figures of Quranic Verses 4:11-12 and then check the total of the break-up with the original value of the estate to verify for conformity.

EXAMPLE ONE:

A man who is a widower dies. His modest estate is worth 100,000.  He leaves behind a son, a daughter and a brother. He makes a bequest of 20,000 to his brother. His total debt of 5,000 needs to be deducted from the value of his estate. That makes the balance worth of his estate to 75,000. Daughter gets half the share of the son out of 75,000 which would be 25,000 and son gets the remaining 50,000. Now lets calculate the total and whether or not it tallies with the total worth of the estate.

Bequest       20,000
Debt             5,000
Daughter     25,000
Son               50,000

Total          100,000  –> original worth of the estate as mentioned above.

If there be 2 sons and 2 daughters with the same bequest and same debt, then from the balance of 75,000 each son would get 25,000 and each daughter would get 12,500. Let’s again check the total.

Bequest               20,000
Debt                     5,000
2 daughters         25,000   (12,500 each)
2 sons                   50,000   (25,000 each)

Total                  100,000  –>  original worth of the estate as mentioned above.

EXAMPLE TWO:

A wealthier man dies leaving an estate worth 450,000. He leaves behind a son, 2 daughters, a wife and 2 sisters. He makes a bequest of 15,000 for each of his 2 sisters making the total bequest to 30,000. His total debts amount to 8,000. Balance worth of estate after deducting the bequest and debt is 412,000. The wife is entitled to one-eighth of that total, that is 51,500. That leaves the balance of the estate at 360,500. The 2 daughters are entitled to half the share of the son. Half of 360,500 is 180,250 (total share of both daughters).  Thus, each of the 2 daughters get 90,125. Balance is the son’s share that is 360,500 minus 180,250 = 180,250 (exactly the amount shared by his 2 sisters). Now let’s total up the distribution to see if it tallies with the original worth of the estate which was 450,000.

Bequest               30,000
Debt                     8,000
Wife                     51,500
2 daughters        180,250  (90,125 each)
1 son                    180,250

Total                   450,000

Thus total solidly tallies with the original worth of the estate 450,000 as mentioned above.

If there were 3 or more sisters, then they would be sharers in two-third of the total of 360,500.  So, if there were 3 or more sisters, then we would need to calculate two-third of 360,500 which would be 240,332. Hence 3 or more sisters would share from 240,332.  The son would get the remaining 120,167. Similarly the original total value of the estate would add to 450,000. You can do that calculation yourself. 

If there be 2 sons and 2 daughters, both sons get 225,312 (out of 360,500) that is 112,656 each. Both daughters get the balance of 135,188. Therefore each daughter gets 67,594.  Check the total.

Bequest              30,000
Debt                    8,000
Wife                    51,500
2 daughters       135,188  (67,594 each)
2 sons                 225,312  (112,656 each)

Total                 450,000  –>  Total tallies completely with original worth of estate.

WikiIslam! Learn you primary school maths before you talk next time! 

And now .. some other important points to be kept in mind:

Remember, the figures mentioned in Verses 11 and 12 of Surah An-Nissa are to be taken after deducting the bequest (if any) left behind by the deceased and after the deduction of debt (if any).  The amount of bequest is not specified in the Qur’an. That depends on the will of the deceased. However it’s to be understood that a bequest shouldn’t be unfair which might completely deprive the other heirs. This would particularly apply in the cases of the wealthy who leave behind a substantial estate.   

It’s also to be understood that these figures mentioned in the Noble Qur’an are the standard principles that highlight the basic framework of Islamic inheritance laws. It’s important to know that exceptional situations can (and do) occur concerning the number of heirs and their varying situations that aren’t spelt out in Verses 4:11-12. In all such cases a Muslim is by all means allowed to make suitable decisions exercising their rationale with the help of the standard guidelines in Verses 4:11-12 and the spirit of justice/fairness as also highlighted throughout the Qur’an. For example, a man of modest means dies leaving behind two sons and an asset worth 50,000. One of his sons has a successful career having his own independent assets worth 200,000. The other son is not so fortunate. He is virtually penniless, toils with hard labor, struggles to pay his daily expenses with a meager saving that might not be enough even to pay a bill for a medical emergency. In such a case, the father may decide to give his entire asset of 50,000 as a gift to his son who is financially stretched and he is allowed to do so. It certainly sounds very acceptable in the light of Quranic principles of justice, kindness and fair play. The final Judgment is up to Allah Almighty to be dispensed in the Hereafter. One will have to wait for that with patience and silence.  

Yet there are far more complicated legacies in cases of bigger families and there are any number of excellent legal experts out there who calculate the distribution of inheritances on the lines of Qur’anic figures, accurate to the last penny.   

The very important reason why according to the Qur’anic Law of Inheritance, sons get twice the share of daughters, is because sons have plenty of financial responsibilities, unlike daughters.  These responsibilities include meeting all expenses of their marriage including dowry, supporting their wives and children, supporting elderly parents and dependent siblings.  Contrary to this, daughters have no such financial burdens. Any portion of wealth she inherits or earns is her personal possession with which she’s not obligated to support her dependents, unless she volunteers to do so. Hence, those Muslim men who have gotten deviated enough to overrule the Qur’anic dictate concerning their financial duties, must also voluntarily forgo to claim double the share of inheritance. After all, Allah Almighty has commanded to give males twice the share of females with a specific reason. If some men are not able to handle that specific reason, they cannot simply dismiss their responsibility and move on without any adjustments. That would be getting the cake and eating it too. It would disrupt the entire balance of the structure of this law established by Allah.

Refuting the Christian Barking that Ramadan Fasting has Pagan Roots

Question: If Ramadan was a pagan festival in pre-Islamic Arabia, why was it included in Islamic rituals by Allah in the Qur’an?

Answer: First things first; Ramadan is not a festival. Was never a festival. It is and traditionally was an entire month dedicated to fasting in one form or another, always aimed at spiritual purification. Earliest references to fasting in authentic tradition are from Moses (Musa alayhissalaam) and Mary (Bibi Maryam alayhissalaam) and David (Dawud alayhissalaam). This fasting was not limited to Ramadan, though.

Secondly, many Quraysh, the pre-Islamic nobles inhabitants of Makkah were known to fast during Ramadan. Many Arab tribes had similar tradition. This shows that fasting has been observed there since the time when Abraham (Ibraheem alayhissalaam) made Ishmael (Isma’eel alayhissalaam) to settle in the Arabian peninsula and it also proves that fasting is the practice of the Prophets and has nothing to do with Paganist Philosophies, its rather the pagans who had adopted the practice of fasting from the monotheistic teachings.

So, we agree that,

1. Fasting is antique and not unique to one faith or region.

2. Fasting during Ramadan was observed by Pre-Islamic Arabs and Jews and Christians.

Qur’an prescribed Ramadan as month for obligatory fasting for believers, thus giving us a time and protocol for fasting. Clear orders were revealed in Chapter 2: Verses 183

يَا أَيُّهَا الَّذِينَ آمَنُوا كُتِبَ عَلَيْكُمُ الصِّيَامُ كَمَا كُتِبَ عَلَى الَّذِينَ مِن قَبْلِكُمْ لَعَلَّكُمْ تَتَّقُونَ

O you who have believed, decreed upon you is fasting as it was decreed upon those before you that you may become righteous

The verse clearly says, Al-Lazeena – Those people before you” not people of any particular faith. This indicates that Qur’an recognized the existence of fasting before Islam. Of course, Islam gave fasting a clear goal – To Become Righteous

As an additional point, pagans; the pre-Islamic people in Makkah also observe Hajj, they prayed in their own way to the Ka’abah and did many charitable deeds. Islam did not come to abolish a culture. Islam gave humanity a clear direction for every action and deeds.

Peace!

Related Similar Posts:

RESPONSE TO THE MORONIC CLAIM THAT THE BLACK STONE IS AN IDOL & PILGRIMAGE A PAGAN RITE

How Idols found place in the Ka’aba during Pre-Islamic Era??

What was Man Created from in The Qur’an?? [Refuting the Christian rant of so-called ‘Contradiction’]

Source: http://www.answering-christianity.com/quran/ma_man_created.htm

What was man created from? A blood clot [96:1-2], water [21:30, 24:45, 25:54], “sounding” (i.e. burned) clay [15:26], dust [3:59, 30:20, 35:11], nothing [19:67] and this is then denied in 52:35, earth [11:61], a drop of thickened fluid [16:4, 75:37] 

I wonder, if three bakers were to come visit the author of this list and one were to say: “Bread is made from flour,” the next were to say “bread is made from dough” and the third were to say: “Bread is made from wheat,” if he would consider this a “contradiction” too?

If two physicists now came along and one said “bread is made from atoms” and the other said “bread is made from molecules,” would this be an even further “contradiction”? 

The blood of all living creatures is composed of 55 percent plasma, which in turn is composed of more than 90 percent water. As opposed to 1400 centuries ago when the Qur’an was first revealed by God, today it is a well known fact that the major “ingredient” in the human body is water (a matter emphasized  ONLY in the Qur’an and not in the Bible). It is further very well known that mankind is made from “dust” (when you place his body in the grave and leave it for a number of years, and the water evaporates, what form does his body revert to? Further, what is “clay”? Is it not a special form of water and dust? It is equally obvious that if God created everything then there must have been a time when everything we see was “nothing,” including humans. 

However, our current author severely dislikes all Muslims and is bent on discovering “contradictions.” The irony of the matter is that although he has no formal knowledge of these matters but manages to brand all of these statements to be “contradictory,” in spite of that, when truly objective and unbiased Christian scholars who are world renown specialist in this field are presented with the very same verses and many more, and spend over three years studying them in detail, we find these world renown Christian scholars so totally amazed at their accuracy in matters which were only scientifically proven in the last twenty years that they found no recourse but to admit that it must have come from God and even to go so far as to suggest the total replacement of current scientific terminology with that used by God in the Qur’an. But they is saying this with regard to the Muslim Qur’an and not their own Christian Bible. Who are some of these men? Among them are Prof. Keith MooreProf. E. Marshall JohnsonProf. Joe Leigh SimpsonProf. T.V.N. Persaud Dr. Maurice Bucaille, and Dr. Tejatet Tejasen to name but a few. Let us learn a little more about these men and then hear what they have to say in this regard: 

Dr. Keith L. Moore is a Professor of Anatomy and Cell Biology, University of Toronto, Toronto, Canada. He is a world renowned scientist and a distinguished researcher in the fields of anatomy and embryology, he has published more than 150 research articles, chapters and books in this field. He is the author of several medical textbooks, such as the widely used and acclaimed “The Developing Human: Clinically oriented Embryology” (now in its fifth edition, translated into eight different languages, and the standard textbook on this science in many countries),“Before We Are Born” and “Clinically Oriented Anatomy.” He has also recently co-authored “Qur’an and Modern Science, Correlation Studies.” Dr. Moore is the recipient of numerous awards and honors, including, in 1984, the J.C.B. Grant Award, which is the highest honor granted by the Canadian Association of Anatomists. He has served in many academic and administrative positions, including the President of the Canadian Association of Anatomists, 1968-1970. Let us see what Dr. Moore’s opinion is on the scientific statements regarding embryology to be found in the Qur’an:

Dr. Moore was contacted by a Muslim scholar by the name of Abdul-Majeed Azzindani. He was asked to participate in a three-year study of around twenty-five verses of the Qur’an and the Sunnah (sayings of Muhammad, pbuh) which speak about embryology, and to determine the degree of their correspondence to modern scientific discoveries. Dr. Moore’s conclusion regarding this matter was:

“For the past three years, I have worked with the Embryology Committee of King Abdulaziz University in Jeddah, Saudi Arabia, helping them to interpret the many statements in the Qur’an and the Sunnah referring to human reproduction and prenatal development. At first I was astonished by the accuracy of the statements that were recorded in the seventh century AD, before the science of embryology was established. Although I was aware of the glorious history of Muslim scientists in the 10th century AD, and of some of their contributions to Medicine, I new nothing about the religious facts and beliefs contained in the Qur’an and Sunnah. It is important for Islamic and other students to understand the meaning of these Qur’anic statements about human development, based on current scientific knowledge. The interpretations of the “verses” in the Qur’an and the Sunnah, translated by Shaikh Azzindani, are to the best of my knowledge accurate.” 

From the forward of “The Developing Human: Clinically oriented Embryology,” third edition, by Dr. Keith L. Moore. 

The author of this list and his friend Dr. Campbell have done their best to try and claim that the Qur’an contains scientifically incorrect information and to attempt to convince the reader that they know what they are talking about and should be considered authorities in this matter. They attempt to convince the reader that Al-Alaq (96):2 which mentions that one of the microscopic stages of development of the human embryo is in the form of “Alaq,” a clinging leech-like entity (4), is wrong.

Now it may indeed be possible that all of these world renown Christian scientists who are defending the Qur’an are all mistaken and that only the author of this list and his friend, Dr. Campbell, are able to see the truth. However, I shall leave it up to them to first convince these scholars of what is or is not “clearly” or “obviously” scientifically incorrect. With regard to this specific verse, it is suggested to them both to please read page 56 of the third edition of “The Developing Human” with its accompanying pictures and then to please contact Prof. Moore (or any of the other award winning, world renown, Christian Professors of embryology we shall be hearing from soon) and explain to him how they would like to show him how he is propagating such clearly incorrect and scientifically unsound information in his textbooks in his defense of the Islamic terminology and staging.

The reader is encouraged to study Fig. 4-3 of page 56 of Prof. Moore’s textbook which contains a microscopic representation of the human embryo in the stages from 15-21 days and notice the unmistakable physical similarity it bears with common leeches. Further, the reader is encouraged to note that this similarity is not only in appearance, rather it is also a similarity of function. Just as leeches attach themselves to a host organism and feed off of the blood supply of that host, so too does the human embryo mimic this exact same action. Were it not for the fact that the human embryo is many orders of magnitude smaller than a real leech and imperceptible by the naked eye, then both entities would be all but indistinguishable.

The Qur’an and the Sunnah of the prophet Muhammad (pbuh) provide a very detailed description of the microscopic development of the human embryo from a mere sperm drop up to the stage of a completely formed human being. It is well known that microscopes were not developed until the sixteenth century AD, and even at that were very crude in design. Zacharias Janssen is credited with having invented the compound microscope in about 1590. With it, remarkable scientific discoveries were made in the 17th and 18th centuries. The Dutch naturalist Anthony van Leeuwenhoek produced lenses powerful enough to prove that many tiny creatures are not spontaneously generated but come from eggs. 

Before this period, theories on human reproduction ran rampant. Some scientist believed that the menstrual blood itself developed into the fetus. Later on, a new theory was developed wherein the sperm drop was popularly believed to contain a completely developed miniature human (homunculus) which later grew to the size of a baby. The science of embryology as we know it today did not discover many of the detailed aspects of human development which are taken for granted today until only about twenty years ago, or 1972 to be precise.

Now we must ask the question: where did prophet Muhammad (pbuh) get such detailed knowledge of the microscopic development of the human embryo in the 6th century AD without a microscope, technical training, or a laboratory of any kind? The only logical conclusion is that it came from exactly where he claimed it did. From the one who created mankind, God Almighty! 

Prof. Moore has since given numerous lectures on the topic of embryology in the Qur’an. He is quoted in one of these lectures as saying:

“It is clear to me that these statements must have come to Muhammad from God, or Allah, because most of this knowledge was not discovered until many centuries later. This proves to me that Muhammad must have been a messenger of God, or Allah.” (As mentioned before, the one Christians refer to as “God the Father” is known in Islam as “Allah.”) 

Prof. Moore was so impressed with the Qur’anic classification of the stages of development of the human embryo, that he suggested the adoption of the Qur’anic system in place of the system currently in use by scientists today. Prof. Moore said: 

“Because the staging of the human embryo is complex owing to the continuous process of change during development. It is therefore suggested that a new system of classification could be developed using the terms mentioned in the Qur’an and the Sunnah. The proposed system is simple, comprehensive, and conforms with present embryological knowledge.”

When Dr. Moore first presented his findings in Toronto it caused quite a stir throughout Canada. It was on the front pages of some of the newspapers across Canada. One newspaper reporter asked Professor Moore, 

“Don’t you think That maybe the Arabs might have known about these things – the description of the embryo, its appearance and how it changes and grows? Maybe there were not scientists, but maybe they did some crude dissections on their own – carved up people and examined these things.” 

Professor Moore immediately pointed out to him, however, that he had missed a very important point. All of the slides of the embryo that Dr. Moore had based his study upon had come from pictures taken through a microscope. He said, 

“It does not matter if someone had tried to discover embryology fourteen centuries ago, they could not have seen it!.” Dr. Moore taunted, “Maybe fourteen centuries ago someone secretly had a microscope and did this research, making no mistakes anywhere. Then he somehow taught Muhammad and convinced him to put this information in his book. Then he destroyed his equipment and kept it a secret forever?. Do you believe that? You really should not unless you bring some proof because it is such a ridiculous theory.” 

When he was asked “How do you explain this information in the Qur’an?” Dr. Moore’s reply was, “It could only have been divinely revealed.”  

Prof. Keith Moore is not the only scholar who has been presented with such verses of the Qur’an. Many other scholars from all over the world have been presented with similar statements from the Qur’an in their field of expertise. Only a few of these people are: 

1) Dr. E. Marshall Johnson, Professor and Chairman of the Department of Anatomy and Developmental Biology, and the Director of the Daniel Baugh Institute, Thomas Jefferson University, Philadelphia, USA. Author of over 200 publications. Former President of the Teratology Society among other accomplishments. After studying the verses of the Qur’an he came to the following conclusion: 

“The Qur’an describes not only the development of external form but emphasizes also the internal stages – the stages inside the embryo of its creation and development, emphasizing major events recognized by contemporary science… If I was to transpose myself into that era, knowing what I do today and describing things, I could not describe the things that were described… I see no evidence to refute the concept that this individual Muhammad had to be developing this information from some place… so I see nothing in conflict with the concept that divine intervention was involved…” 

2) Dr. Joe Leigh Simpson. Professor and Chairman of the Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology at Baylor Collage of Medicine, Houston, Texas. He is the President of the American Fertility Society, and has served in many other professional, national, and international organizations. He has received numerous awards including Association of Professors of Obstetrics and Gynecology Public Recognition Award in 1992. He has published more than 400 chapters and articles in journals and books. He says: 

“… these Hadeeths (sayings of Muhammad) could not have been obtained on the basis of the scientific knowledge that was available at the time of the writer’… It follows that not only is there no conflict between genetics and religion (Islam) but in fact religion (Islam) may guide science by adding revelation to some of the traditional scientific approaches… There exist statements in the Qur’an shown centuries later to be valid which support knowledge in the Qur’an having been derived from God.”  

3) Dr. T.V.N. Persaud. Professor and Head of the Department of Anatomy, Professor of Pediatrics and Child Health, and Associate Professor of Obstetrics, Gynecology and Reproductive Sciences, University of Manitoba, Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada. He is the author and editor of 25 books, has contributed 31 chapters to publications, and has published over 180 scientific papers. In 1991 he received the most distinguished award presented in the field of anatomy in Canada, the J.C.B. Grant Award from the Canadian Association of Anatomists. He says: 

“Muhammad was a very ordinary man, he couldn’t read, didn’t know how to write, in fact he was an illiterate… were talking about 1400 years ago, you have some illiterate person making profound statements that are amazingly accurate, of a scientific nature… I personally can’t see how this could be mere chance, there are too many accuracies and like Dr. Moore, I have no difficulty in my mind reconciling that this is a divine inspiration or revelation which lead him to these statements.” 

4) After a study which lasted ten years, the famous French physician Dr. Maurice Bucaille addressed the French Academy of Medicine in 1976 and expressed the complete agreement of the Qur’an and established findings of modern science. He presented his study on the existence in the Qur’an of certain statements concerning physiology and reproduction. His reason for doing that was that 

“our knowledge of these disciplines is such, that it is impossible to explain how a text produced at the time of the Qur’an could have contained ideas that have only been discovered in modern times.”

Based upon his extensive study of these issues over many years, Dr. Bucaille later converted to Islam.

5) Dr. Tejatet Tejasen, Head of the Department of Anatomy, Faculty of Medicine, University of Chiang Mai, Thailand. After his study on the Qur’an passages dealing with embryology: 

“From my studies and what I have learnt at this conference I believe that everything that has been recorded in the Qur’an 1400 years ago must be true. That can be proved the scientific way.” 

6) Dr. Arther J. Alison. head of the Department of Electronical and Electronics Engineering in a British University after researching the field of Parapsychology and spiritual treatment of man in the light of the Qur’an and current scientific knowledge was so completely amazed at the scientific accuracy of the statements he found in the Qur’an in this regard that he converted to Islam and is now named Abdullah Alison. He urges all Western scientists to get acquainted with Islam which “addresses both intellect and sentiments at the same time.” Dr. Alison worked for six years as the chairman of the British Parapsychology and Spiritual Studies Society. This position, led him to deeply study different religions and philosophies, including Islam. Dr. Alison placed special emphasis in his study on the relationship between death and sleep, and the conformance of scientific data to the claims he later found in the Qur’an were the reason for his final conversion. Dr. Alison exclaimed “my joy knew no bounds as the results of my study were so convincing and, thus I discovered Islam.” he added. He regretted that the West is totally ignorant about the scientific approach of Islam. “During our discussion at this conference (in Cairo) , we have arrived at conclusive evidence that Islam does not contradict science, and plan to do further research on parapsychology in the light of the Qur’an.”  

The list is constantly growing. Others such non-Muslim scientists include:

7) Dr. Gerald C. Goeringer. Professor and Coordinator of Medical Embryology in the Department of Cell Biology in the Georgetown University school of Medicine. Washington, D.C. He has published numerous articles dealing mainly with the study of teratogenesis.

8) Dr. Alfred Kroner, Professor of Geology, Germany. 

9) Dr. Yoshiodi Kozan, Director of the observatory of Tokyo, Japan.

10) Dr. William Hay, Professor of Oceanography, University of Colorado, Boulder, Colorado.

11) Dr. Pete Palmer, Professor of Geology, University of Colorado, Boulder, Colorado.

12) Dr. Sayawida, Professor of Marine Geology, Japan.

13) Dr. Armstrong, Professor of Astronomy, University of Kansas, Lawrence, Kansas.

14) Dr. Draga Persaud Rauw, Professor of Marine Geology, King Abdulaziz University, Jeddah, Saudi Arabia

15) Dr. Schroeder, Professor of Oceanography, Germany.

The response of these scholars when presented with verses of the Qur’an in their field of specialization, varied. One thing however was always constant. They all confirmed the accuracy of the scientific statements made in the Qur’an, and they all could not explain how Muhammad (pbuh) could have known with such accuracy the scientific claims to be found in the Qur’an so many centuries before mankind discovered them to be scientific truths. 

So how have the apologists and the “Islam bashers” responded to such statements from so many leading world renown non-Muslim scientists? Well, to take one example, the very best that the authors of “Answering Islam” have managed to come up with is such revelations as: “..even if the Qur’an were proven to be scientifically accurate, it would not thereby make it divinely authoritative. All it would prove is that the Quran made no scientific blunders…” (p. 200)

Ahh, so here we have world renown Christian and other non-Muslim scholars publicly admitting that the words of God in the noble Qur’an are completely scientifically accurate in matters which were not found to be scientifically true until many centuries later. They go on to declare that this degree of accuracy is of such an unprecedented degree as to have been literally impossible to achieved by the people of that age even if they were the most learned specialists in these fields, since the very tools necessary of these discoveries would not be invented for many more centuries. They then go on to tell us that these descriptions are far too numerous and too detailed to have been arrived at by mere chance or stabs in the dark, especially by an unlettered Arab sheep-herder who was making these comments almost as secondary remarks in a book which was never meant to be taken as a scientific textbook. And finally, these scientists even go so far as to suggest the total replacement of current scientific terminology with the superior terminology provided by God in the Qur’an. After all of this the response is “… all it would prove is that the Qur’an made no scientific blunders.” … Problem solved. I suppose that by the same token these authors will then assert that the fact that Jesus (pbuh) raised the dead and cured diseases which to this day remain incurable, that in their words “even if this is true” then this does not prove that Jesus (pbuh) was sent by God, but it only proves that “Jesus made no errors in his medical prescriptions”? 

Allah Almighty tells us in the Qur’an:

“Allah did not create (all) that except in truth. He details the signs for people of knowledge.” The noble Qur’an, Yunus(10):5 

“And those who were given knowledge see that which was sent down upon you by your Lord is the truth and guides to the path of the ‘Exalted’ (in Might) the ‘worthy of all praise’.”  The noble Qur’an, Saba(34):6. 

“Had We sent down this Qur’an upon a mountain, you would surely have seen it humbling itself and rending asunder for fear of Allah. Such are the parables We put forth for mankind that they may reflect.”  The noble Qur’an, Al-Hashr(59):21

“Verily! this Qur’an guides to that which is most upright, and gives glad tidings to the believers who work deeds of righteousness that theirs will be a great reward”  The noble Qur’an, Al-Isra(17):9

“And We have indeed simplified [the comprehension of] this Qur’an for remembrance, so is there any that will remember and be admonished?”  The noble Qur’an, Al-Qamar(54):17

So do the examples presented in this list really contain “contradictions” or could there possibly be some other reason why matters described by God in the Muslim’s Qur’an are recognized by world renown Christian specialists to be of such unparalleled accuracy as to leave them at a loss for words and only able to attribute it to God, these very same verses appear to the author of this list to be “obvious” contradictions and “clearly” scientifically incorrect? 

Refuting the Christian Lie that Qur’an 16:106 & 40:28 Encourages “lying to Strengthen Islam”

image

In the above snap, a Christian Islamophobe misrepresents the concerned verses in this topic without any proof to spread lies about Islam, we will thoroughly expose his deceit here.

What is Taqiyyah??

The Anti-Muslim demagogues love to talk about this weird, so called, rule that permits Muslims to lie to spread Islam. I had never even heard of it until I was accused of it by someone in a discussion once. The basic idea, according to them, is that if any Muslim ever denies being a blood thirsty lunatic engaged in perpetual war against the West, they must be lying. Muslims are simply presumed guilty, and if we profess innocence that is only further evidence of our guilt. 
It should be fairly clear to any rational being that lying to spread a religion is nonsensical. If I lie to you about what Islam is and you convert I haven’t spread Islam because what you have accepted was a lie.

These constant stream of Islamophobes carping on about how Muslims are allowed to lie to non-Muslims whilst appealing to something called “taqiyyah” (also spelled, “takiya” and “taqiyya”) also end up convincing the average joe non muslim about this myth

Rather than relying on shoddy hate sites/Christian missionaries to educate us about taqiyyah we shall rely on SCHOLARLY authority – largely in the form of R. Strothmann’s relevant section in “Shorter Encyclopaedia of Islam” (by H.A.R. Gibb and J.H. Kramers) and Cyril Glasse’s Concise Encyclopedia of Islam 

What is “Taqiyyah”, “Takiya”, “Taqiyya”?

This term is spelt variously; “taqiyyah”, “takiya” or “taqiyya”. 

“Takiya (A.), caution, fear (see glossarium to Tabari S.V. T-K-A) pr kitman, “disguise” is the technical term for dispensation from the requirements of religion under compulsion or threat of injury.”

“Taqiyyah (From the root word waqa “to safeguard”; “self-protection” and hence “dissimulation [in order to protect oneself]”).”

So, taqiyyah (takiya, taqiyya) is concerning dissimulation due to force – i.e. when an individual is forced to conceal. 

Sadly, Islamophobes – in order to obtain an unchecked platform and/or demonise Muslims – have misapplied this term in their exaggerated claims of “Muslims are allowed to lie to the unbelievers”.

At what level of force is Takiya (Taqiyyah, Taqiya) justified?

“But an individual is not justified in takiya nor bound to hijra [emigration] if the compulsion remains within the endurable limits, as in the case of temporary imprisonment or flogging which does not result in death”

So, this make a mockery of the Islamophobes’ general suggestions of “Muslims are allowed to lie to the unbelievers” as even under threat of imprisonment and flogging Muslims are not justified in takiya. The level of force which justifies oneself in takiya is that of an unbearable level.

Takiya (taqiyya, taqiyyah) and the type of lies…

One may ask, what type of “disguise” is allowed under takiya (taqiyyah, taqiyya)? 

Let’s be clear about takiya (taqiyyah, taqiyya); “The principle of dissimulation of one’s religious beliefs in order to avoid persecution or imminent harm, where no useful purpose would be served by publicly affirming them.”

So takiya (taqiyyah, taqiyya) is not used to convert folk to Islam nor is it used in Islamic text books or anything of such a nature. It is simply a form of concealment used to avoid persecution!

For further clarity, we are not talking about general, everyday fibs here, thus the ethical question of dishonesty is bypassed:

“The ethical question whether such forced lies are nevertheless lies, such a forced denial of the faith nevertheless a denial, is not put at all by one “who conceal himself” as he is not in a state of confidence which would be broken by lies or denial.”

Sadly, our Islamophobic counterparts attempt to convince the gullible that takiya (taqiyyah, taqiyya) allows Muslims to lie (or conceal) about aspects of their faith (Islam) as well as lie in general. 

Famous case of Taqiyyah (Taqiyya, Takiya)

A common example of takiya (taqiyyah, taqiya) involves a Muslim (Ammar Bin Yasir, a companion of the Prophet Muhammad, sallallaahu alayhi wasallam) being forced to worship idols and insult the Prophet of Islam.

The level of force the polytheists applied on Ammar bin Yasir can be imagined by Amr bin Maymoon’s statement, “The polytheists tortured Ammar with fire”.

“Abu Ubaydah bin Muhammad bin Ammar bin Yasir said: The polytheists seized Ammar and they did not let him off until he was forced to insult the Messenger of Allah and say good things about their deities”

Ammar bin Yasir (radhiyallahu anhu) told Prophet Muhammad (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam) of what he was forced to say. 

“The Prophet (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam) said: “Say it again if they ask (i.e. force) you to do so”.”

So, in order to avoid such torture the Prophet allowed Ammar bin Yasir to use “taqiyya”

If Jesus (pbuh) had done the same, our Christian friends would have lauded it as an act of piety and mercy. Instead we see Islamophobes exaggerating this form of concealment in order to demonise Muslims. It’s a crazy old world!

Taqiyyah and the Shi’ites (Shia)

“It is, however, associated most closely with the Shi’ites who practiced taqiyyah systematically and widely during periods of Sunni domination to hide their beliefs from Sunni Muslims. ”

Obviously, if these Shi’ites felt they would have been persecuted for publicly announcing their shia beliefs, one can understand why they concealed (used taqiyya) their beliefs.

Is Taqiyyah allowed in the Qur’an?

Our Islamophobic friends jump up and down in joy whilst proclaiming taqiyyah (taqiyya, takiya) is allowed in the Quran. Let’s analyse (via scholarship) the three Verses they cite.

Quran 16:106 and taqiyyah (taqiyya, takiya)?

Whoso disbelieveth in Allah after his belief – save him who is forced thereto and whose heart is still content with the Faith – but whoso findeth ease in disbelief: On them is wrath from Allah. Theirs will be an awful doom.   [Pikthal translation of the Quran 16:106]

The reason for this verse is unanimously said to have been the case of Ammar bin Yasir (radhiyallahu anhu), whose conscience was set at rest by this revelation when he was worried about his forced worshipping of idols and objurgation of the Prophet.

The story of Ammar bin Yasir (radhiyallahu anhu) is relayed earlier (see above).

Tabari says on Surah 16:106 (Tafsir, Bulak 1323 sqq. 24.122): If any one is compelled and professes unbelief with his tongue, while his heart contradicts him, to escape his enemies, no blame falls him on him, because God takes his servants as their hearts believe”

The Quran’s (16:106) allowance of uttering disbelief whilst under extreme force is hardly justification for the outrageous smears the Islamophobes propagate and want the unwary to believe. 

Quran 3:28 and taqiyyah (taqiyya, takiya)?

Let not the believers take disbelievers for their guardians in preference to believers. Whoso doeth that hath no connection with Allah unless (it be) that ye but guard yourselves against them, taking (as it were) security. Allah biddeth you beware (only) of Himself. Unto Allah is the journeying.  [Pikthal translation of the Quran 3:28]

This Verse instructs Muslims to not take the unbelievers as patrons over the believers but does allow for this in the case of fear. Tuqatan is used here (a verbal noun of taqiyyah). Tafsir Jalalayn explains:

“unless you protect yourselves against them, as a safeguard (tuqātan, ‘as a safeguard’, is the verbal noun from taqiyyatan), that is to say, [unless] you fear something, in which case you may show patronage to them through words, but not in your hearts” [Tafsir Jalalayn – 3:28]

It is hardly something Islamophobes can latch onto as evidence for their demonization of Muslims as this Verse allows concealment (taqiyyah, taqiyya, takiya) in the case of fear (i.e. to avoid persecution). We are essentially back to where we started as initially stated on taqiyyah:

Takiya (A.), caution, fear (see glossarium to Tabari S.V. T-K-A) pr kitman, “disguise” is the technical term for dispensation from the requirements of religion under compulsion or threat of injury.

Taqiyyah (From the root word waqa “to safeguard”; “self-protection” and hence “dissimulation [in order to protect oneself]”).

Quran 40:28 and Taqiyyah?

“And a believing man from the family of Pharaoh who concealed his faith said, “Do you kill a man [merely] because he says, ‘My Lord is Allah‘ while he has brought you clear proofs from your Lord? And if he should be lying, then upon him is [the consequence of] his lie; but if he should be truthful, there will strike you some of what he promises you. Indeed, Allah does not guide one who is a transgressor and a liar.”  – [Qur’an 40:28]

The above verse has been cited by critics that the passage encourages deception. A careful reading of the verse shows that there is nothing in the verse of such encouragement. When we read the verse, it says that there was a family member of Pharaoh who was a believer who concealed his faith. How is that deception? I mean, if the case was that someone asked him what his religion was and he said contrary to what he believed inside his heart, then we can say it is deception. But there is nothing of such. Hence, no deception was used by the believer.

Commentary on Quran 40:28:

Ma’ariful-Qur’an – Maulana Muhammad Shafi

In verse 28, it was said: … (who had kept his faith secret). This tells us that a person who does not declare his Iman (faith) before people, yet remains staunch in his heart, then this person is a believer. But, it stands proved from clear textual authority (of the Qur’an and Hadith) that, for Iman to be acceptable, the simple certitude of the heart is not enough, instead, it is subject to the condition of verbal confession and declaration. Unless the person concerned declares it verbally, he or she will not as a believer. However, making this verbal declaration before people publicly is not necessary. The only reason why it is needed is that unless people come to know about the person’s iman, they would remain unable to interact with him or her in the same way as they do with Muslims. (Qurtubi)

Earlier in the verse, by saying: … (a believing man from the House of the Pharaoh), it is virtually demonstrated that the believer, in his ensuing dialogue with Pharaoh and his people, invited them toward truth and faith as well as restrained them from killing Sayyidina Musa (Moses). [Ma’ariful-Qur’an volume 7, page 602]

Lying about the Prophet Muhammad (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam)

Islamophobes, in an attempt to obtain an unchecked platform, do suggest Muslims misinform (“use taqiyya”) about the Prophet Muhammad (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam). This is an utter absurdity as it is a grave sin for a Muslim to misinform about the Prophet Muhammad as the Prophet stated:

“Whoever lies about me intentionally shall take a place for himself in hell” (al-Adhkar (y102), 510-12)

In fact, presenting misinformation about the Prophet (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam) was considered an extreme offense amongst early Muslim communities:

Habib ibn ar-Rabi’ said that it is disbelief to alter his [Prophet Muhammad’s] description and its details. The one who does that openly is an unbeliever. He is asked to repent.

So much for the Islamophobes claims of “Muslims using taqiyyah” regarding Prophet Muhammad (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam).

Conclusion

Taqiyyah (taqiya, takiya) is not something to be writing home about. To use this practice to brandish Muslims as untrustworthy (or to demonise them) is unscholarly and unjust.

If you do encounter an anti-Muslim bigot on the internet crying “taqiyya” (there are plenty about), please do send him/her to this group to be educated .

Sources: http://islamicresponse.blogspot.in/2011/05/what-is-taqiyya.html?m=1

Quran 40:28 A Believer Lying?

Refuting the ‘Divinity’ of Jesus [Analysis of John 3:16: For God so loved the World…]

Source: callingchristians.com

Christians so often quote John 3:16 to prove how Jesus is the son of God and how he died for our sins. Basically this verse sums up the entire Christian faith. The purpose of this piece is to refute such a verse and prove that there is no reason for God to make any form of sacrifice in order to pay for the sins of humankind.

1-First, let’s look at it from a logical stance: If God is all about love, how could He sacrifice His only son? This makes us wonder about the definition of love according to the Biblical God…

Moreover, this verse makes us question the fairness of the biblical God. Is it fair to kill someone innocent for sins he didn’t commit? How can the biblical God be so loving if He is unfair? Furthermore, if Jesus died for the sins of every criminal and rapist, why would they stop spreading their evil? The whole idea of retribution and punishment disappears with such a way of salvation.

2-John 3:16 also makes us ask the following: is God unable to forgive sins without killing His own son?

If it is proven that God had no problem at all in forgiving sins without blood sacrifices then why did he have to crucify His only “begotten” son Jesus” and declare to the whole world that from then onwards the only way to forgiveness is through Jesus’ death? Why would He radically change His nature when it’s stated in Malachi 3:6, ”For I am the Lord, I DO NOT CHANGE“?

Let’s read the following verses to understand more :

“As surely as I live, says the Sovereign Lord, I take no pleasure in the death of wicked people. I only want them to turn from their wicked ways so they can live. Turn! Turn from your wickedness, O people of Israel! Why should you die?”  (Ezekiel 33:11)

The word “turn” here in Hebrew is shuvu which is similar with the word teshuvah which carries the same meaning as tawbah in Arabic i.e. return/repent.

“And suppose I tell some wicked people that they will surely die, but then they turn from their sins and do what is just and right. For instance, they might give back a debtor’s security, return what they have stolen, and obey my life-giving laws, no longer doing what is evil. If they do this, then they will surely live and not die. None of their past sins will be brought up again, for they have done what is just and right, and they will surely live.”  (Ezekiel 33:14-16)

“The person who sins is the one who will die. The child will not be punished for the parent’s sins, and the parent will not be punished for the child’s sins. Righteous people will be rewarded for their own righteous behavior, and wicked people will be punished for their own wickedness. But if wicked people turn away from all their sins and begin to obey my decrees and do what is just and right, they will surely live and not die. All their past sins will be forgotten, and they will live because of the righteous things they have done.”  (Ezekiel 18: 20-22)

In the verses quoted above one can clearly see that the idea of inherited sin is totally debunked. Repentance is taught as a means for salvation and that if repentance is sought and one adheres to that which is lawful, All one’s past sins will be forgotten. This amazing show of mercy from God is again free of any blood sacrifice.

The same message is repeated again in the same chapter:

“And if wicked people turn from their wickedness, obey the law, and do what is just and right, they will save their lives. They will live because they thought it over and decided to turn from their sins. Such people will not die.”   (Ezekiel 18:27-28)

“Therefore, I will judge each of you, O people of Israel, according to your actions, says the Sovereign Lord. Repent, and turn from your sins. Don’t let them destroy you!”  (Ezekiel 18:30)

“Then if my people who are called by my name will humble themselves and pray and seek my face and turn from their wicked ways, I will hear from heaven and will forgive their sins and restore their land.”  (2 Chronicles 7:14)

“Perhaps the people of Judah will repent when they hear again all the terrible things I have planned for them. Then I will be able to forgive their sins and wrongdoings.” (Jeremiah 36:3)

“Let the wicked change their ways and banish the very thought of doing wrong. Let them turn to the Lord that he may have mercy on them. Yes, turn to our God, for he will forgive generously.”   (Isaiah 55:7)

“For I desired mercy, and not sacrifice; and the knowledge of God more than burnt offerings.”   (Hosea 6:6)

God is not required to kill anyone for atonement of your sins!

3-What is true sacrifice in God’s eyes?

“The sacrifices of God are a broken spirit, a broken and contrite heart”   (Psalm 51:17)

“Does the Lord delight in burnt offerings and sacrifices as much as in obeying the voice of the Lord ? To obey is better than sacrifice, and to heed is better than the fat of rams”  (I Samuel 15:22)

Christians as taught by Paul always say that obedience and works are worthless. Accept Jesus’ sacrifice and you will be saved! Just believe! Faith comes first, then works will ensue. Yet, in 1 Samuel 15:22 we see a different idea. The Christian point of view is apparently in reverse to that of God’s as portrayed in 1 Samuel 15:22 ! If God said once that obedience is better than sacrifice, how can He again radically change that and reverse the idea?

4- The biblical God has sons by tons. Jesus is not the only son of God and he is not even the only begotten son as well !

“…Adam, which was the son of God.” (Luke 3:38)

“That the sons of God saw the daughters of men, that they were fair….” (Genesis 6:2)

“…Israel is my son, even my firstborn”. (Exodus 4:22)

“…the LORD hath said unto me, ‘Thou art my son; this day have I begotten thee.’” (Psalms 2: 7)

“For as many as are led by the Spirit of God, they are the sons of God.” (Romans 8:14)

You may say all these are metaphorical verses but Jesus is the only begotten son of God. However, Jesus is not the only begotten son of God, David is also described as the begotten son of God

The verse which prove David was the begotten son of God:

“…the LORD hath said unto me, ‘Thou art my son; this day have I begotten thee.’” (Psalms 2: 7)

5-The Bible states that Jesus was sent only to Israel

So how can He forgive the sins of mankind?
He (Jesus) answered, “I was sent only to the lost sheep of Israel.” (Matthew 15:24)

I would like to conclude with the following biblical verse;

“To do righteousness and justice is more acceptable to the Lord than sacrifice.”   (Proverbs 21:3)

You either have to  accept that no one has to die for your sins or accept that the Bible is contradictory. Either way Christian missionaries should reconsider John 3:16 before trying to trick people with it.

Refuting the Christian Lie that Roman Catholic Vatican ‘Created’ Islam

When Christian publisher Jack T. Chick started producing his Crusader Comics in 1974 they were initially devoted to exposing the influence of the occult in the world. Their popularity increased in 1979 with the publication of number 12 in the series “Alberto”, the supposed story of how a young boy by the name of Alberto Rivera is taken and indoctrinated into the Roman Catholic Church’s religious order of the Society of Jesus (S.J.), otherwise known as the Jesuits. The “dirty tricks” of the Jesuits’ war against other denominations are exposed after Alberto realises the truth and eventually escapes the clutches of this organisation.

The comic book is a result of a man calling himself Alberto Rivera having approached Chick with his story. Rivera provides a copy of his ID and recounts what he claims to have been taught in the Vatican by Augustin Cardinal Bea S.J. Two years later, in 1981, the second of what will become a 6-part series is published by Chick Publications in which Rivera narrates the extent of the Vatican’s supposed involvement in the affairs of history. Much of the modern detail is taken from the writings of Avro Manhattan and Edmond Paris – whose books are also being published by Chick.

In 1988 the last of the “Alberto” series, part 6, is published. “The Prophet” details how the Vatican supposedly recruited a “suitable” Arab man to lead a new religion that they will create. According to Rivera this religion is created because the Roman Catholic Church “desperately” wants to gain Jerusalem “at the end of the third century” and that Augustine was involved in this plot. We then jump 300 years to the birth of Islam. Rivera recounts the traditional history of Islam which he sources from Martin Ling’s book Muhammad however with some changes. For example, Bahira, the Syrian Christian monk becomes a Roman Catholic monk and the Negus of Ethiopia becomes a Roman Catholic.

Rivera then reveals the “secret history”: that Muhammad’s wife, Khadijah, was actually a Roman Catholic nun who was ordered to find a suitable candidate to be a prophet to the Arabs. We are told that her uncle, Waraqah bin Naufal, another “devout Roman Catholic” is also part of the plot. Together, according to Rivera, they train Muhammad in the works of Augustine and prepare him to reveal a new message to the Arabs. He is taught that the Jews are the enemy and that the Roman Catholic Church is “the only true church”. Rivera tells us that the intention was to use the Arabs to conquer the non-Catholic nations and destroy the Jews and non-Catholic Christians but, according to Rivera, the Arabs rebel and develop a fanatical out-of-control religion hell-bent on conquering the world.

So begins one of the many “conspiracy theories” that abound within modern Christianity; that the religion of Islam was started by the Roman Catholic Church. This is endlessly repeated on web sites, in internet forums, blogs and YouTube videos yet when one asks for any evidence for the claims one is presented with the response of “everyone knows” and “even Muslim historians admit it” whilst no evidence is presented to actually back up these claims. This article is an attempt to discover the truth of the claim.

Their Fictional Claims

For clarity’s sake it may be worth specifying the fundamental claims that are to be addressed. There are many other errors and inconsistencies present in Rivera’s so-called account but it is the claims below on which the entire premise rests. They may be reduced to the following:

Khadija and Waraqah were Roman Catholic Christians;

Khadija was a nun;

Khadija lived in a convent;

These claims will now be explored one by one.

Christian Claim: Khadija was a Roman Catholic

In the early 7th century the Persian Empire dominated Arabia following their expulsion of the Abyssinians (Ethiopians) from Yaman. The Persian (Sassanid) Empire was also at war with the Christian Byzantine Empire and when the Persians inflicted heavy losses on the Christians in 614 AD this victory was particularly celebrated by the polytheists of Mecca [1].

The religion of the Persians was Zoroastrian however Syriac Christianity grew and emerged from that empire spreading across the Middle East and Arabia. Within the Sassanid empire the Christian church was the Holy Apostolic Catholic Assyrian Church of the East. Despite the fact that the word “catholic” appears in the name one should not mistake it for the Roman Catholic Church. The Church of the East was not under the control of any other church whether Orthodox, Roman Catholic or Protestant. In Arabia the prevalent religions were pagan idol worship as reflected by the presence of multiple idols at the Kaaba in Mecca. However, Syed Razwy in his biography of Khadija states that not all were pagans,

“These individuals, who were very few in number, were called “Hanifs,” i.e., men and women “who had turned away from idol worship.” Makka also had a sprinkling of these “hanifs,” and some of them were in the clan of Khadija herself.” [2]

Yasin Al-Jibouri, on the same topic, states,

“One particular quality in Khadija was quite interesting, probably more so than any of her other qualities mentioned above: she, unlike her people, never believed in nor worshipped idols. There was a very small number of Christians and Jews in Mecca, and a fairly large number of Jews in Medina. Waraqah ibn Nawfal, one of Khadija’s cousins, had embraced Christianity and was a pious monk who believed in the Unity of the Almighty, just as all early Christians did, that is, before the concept of the Trinity crept into the Christian faith, widening the theological differences among the believers in Christ (as). He reportedly had translated the Bible from Hebrew into Arabic.” [3]

Evidence in the Ahadith

Waraqah ibn Nawfal, Khadija’s cousin is mentioned in the ahadith, in the sahih  (authentic) collection of al-Bukhari, in relation to the events immediately after Muhammad had his first encounter in the cave:

“The Prophet returned to Khadija while his heart was beating rapidly. She took him to Waraqa bin Naufal who was a Christian convert and used to read the Gospels in Arabic…” [4]

Book 1, Hadith 3 gives more detail,

“Khadija then accompanied him to her cousin Waraqa bin Naufal bin Asad bin ‘Abdul ‘Uzza, who, during the Pre-Islamic Period became a Christian and used to write the writing with Hebrew letters. He would write from the Gospel in Hebrew as much as Allah wished him to write. He was an old man and had lost his eyesight.” [5]

“Khadija then took him to Waraqa bin Naufal, the son of Khadija’s paternal uncle. Waraqa had been converted to Christianity in the Pre-lslamic Period and used to write Arabic and write of the Gospel in Arabic as much as Allah wished him to write. He was an old man and had lost his eyesight.” [6]

Tradition confirms that both Khadija and Waraqa were both Christians but there is nothing to suggest that they followed Roman Catholicism. However, it does state that Waraqa was translating the Gospel into Arabic. Back to Razwy,

“Khadijah was strongly influenced by the ideas of Waraqa, and she shared his contempt for the idols and idolaters. She did not associate any partners with the Creator. Like Waraqa and some other members of the family; she too was a follower of the prophets Ibrahim and Ishmael. Khadijah was a Muwahhid (monotheist)!” [7]

Two important points in regard to their beliefs are given as them having contempt for idols and believing in one God as opposed to more than one. Considering the use that is made in Roman Catholicism of idols this description alone would set them apart from that denomination. Secondly, they are regarded as monotheist, or in Islamic terms, they believed in the Oneness of God. The Roman Catholics were regarded as believing in a three-god trinity. Writing about the Christians living in Mecca at the time when Islam arose Father John Hardon (S.J.) states that,

“the evidence of idolatry among the Arabs contrasted strongly with the monotheistic religion of the immigrant Jews and, mostly Nestorian, Christians” [8]

Hardon identifies the denomination or type of Christianity they practised as being Nestorian. Likewise, Griffith, having noted a continuous presence of Christianity in Arabia from the fourth century to the time of Muhammad, states the following,

“And it seems clear from these sources that the major Christian communities who made headway among the Arabs in the several centuries just prior to the rise of Islam were the so-called Melkites, Jacobites and Nestorians. Their principle ecclesiastical language was Syriac, or Christian Palestinian Aramaic among the Melkites, albeit that their ecclesial identities were largely determined by the positions they adopted in the Christological controversies of the fifth and sixth centuries.” [9]

It was during the 5th and 6th centuries AD that the Roman Catholic Church evolved as the pre-eminent church in the western Roman Empire. Following arguments over the nature of Christ large communities were declared heretics by the Roman Church. The Church of the East or the Nestorian Church was one of the first churches to distance itself from what would become the Roman Catholic Church. Mike Kuhn identifies Waraqah as a Nestorian Christian,

“Roughly six hundred years had transpired between Pentecost and Muhammad’s prophetic call. The Christian church had passed through a period of intense persecution at the hands of the Roman Empire and had risen to become a prestigious religion of Rome, whose capital was now Byzantine Constantinople (modern-day Istanbul, Turkey). The presence of Christians in the Arabian Peninsula is confirmed by Waraqa bin Naufal. Waraqa was likely an adherent of Nestorian Christianity, considered a heresy by the early church councils. He was, nonetheless, a man who evidenced desire for the things of God.” [10]

Any idea that the Nestorians were Roman Catholic Christians can be quickly dispelled by reference to Walter F. Aldeney’s description of the Nestorian Christians,

“They have no doctrine of transubstantiation, no purgatory; they do not sanction Mariolatry or image worship; nor will they even allow icons to be exhibited in their churches. Men and women take the communion in both kinds. All five orders of clergy below the bishops are permitted to marry. Dr. Layard could not find any convents either for men or for women. Thus in many respects the modern Nestorians are nearer to European Protestantism than to Roman Catholicism. While those who have succumbed to the Jesuit missions are bound to accept the full Western doctrine —if they really know what that is—the sturdy resistance of the old Nestorians to the papal pretensions throws them into an attitude which is essentially protestant.”  [11]

The description of their beliefs prohibits them from being Roman Catholics. Benjamin Wilkinson refers to the Nestorian split from Roman Catholicism when speaking of the Council of Constantinople in 553 AD. He states,

“At that council, the churches of the Roman Empire surrendered their freedom to the Papacy. Offended at the unscriptural innovations of medieval European compromises, four large communities in the East — the Armenian, the Coptic, the Jacobite, and the Church of the East (often falsely called the Nestorian Church) — separated from the western hierarchy.” [12]

Before the birth of Muhammad a schism has taken place between the Roman Catholic Church and the churches in the East. Stewart & Clark’s Nestorian Missionary Enterprise gives us the following,

“(P)rior to A.D. 547 when the great Jacobite revival began, the only form of Christian faith known in the whole independent Arabia and Hirtha was that held by the “Church of the East,” the so-called Nestorians, and it is practically certain that every presbyter and bishop in the whole of that area recognized and acknowledged allegiance to the Patriarch of Seleucia. When therefore, mention is found of Christians in Mecca and Medina and even in the tribe of Koreish, one is warranted in assuming that all such, prior to at least, the middle of the sixth century, were in communion with the same patriarchate. When the sudden rise of Islam took place it was the Nestorians who suffered most from the impact.” [13]

Samuel Zwemer, writing his foreword to Stewart & Clark’s book confirms this thought when he states that,

“There are many points of similarity between Muslim teaching and Nestorian Christianity, but the circle of ideas most prominent and characteristic, according to Tore Andre, is eschatology with its extraordinary stress on the day of Judgment.” [14]

Likewise, De Lacy O’Leary, writing in The Syriac Church and Fathers,

“To note some points of difference between the Church of the East and the Papacy, it may be observed that the first rejected the use of images, and interposed no mediator like the Virgin Mary between God and man. The Church of the East also dispensed with candles, incense, relics, and many other usages of imperial Christianity. They had a different Bible than that of Rome; for their Bible they used the Peshitta, evidently the work of the school of Lucian.” [15]

Indeed, when all the sources are assembled together, whether they be Islamic, Christian, or even Roman Catholic Jesuit, they all state that it was the Church of the East which could claim the allegiance of Waraqa bin Nawfal bin Asad and his cousin Khadija. From the very beginning of the Church of the East there were doctrines that separated them from the Church of the West, the Roman Catholic Church. They kept the seventh-day as their Sabbath not the first day, Sunday, which was championed by the Roman Catholic Church. They also rejected the idea of Mary being the mother of God. These and other theological differences between the Roman Catholic Church and the Church of the East make it hard to imagine that the Roman Church was in a position to invent Islam in Arabia.

Christian Claim: Khadija was a nun

Turning to the suggestion that Khadija (radhiyallahu anha) was a nun, tradition recounts that Khadija was a wealthy businesswoman who gained her wealth from her first husband. There is nothing to tell us when or at what age she was widowed or when she would have entered a convent. Could she have been a nun at some point? In answering the first question we saw that there is no evidence that Roman Catholicism existed in Arabia in the 7th century. However, it may be just as valid to ask, Did the Church of the East have women who renounced the world to live in seclusion? William Harmless in his book Desert Christians relates that,

“Discoveries of papyri have profoundly enriched our understanding of the social world of Roman Egypt and of ancient monasticism. The following is an example. The papyrus quoted below is a rental contract between a Jewish man and two sisters, named Theodora and Tauris. What makes this interesting is that the sisters are described as “female-monk renouncers” (monachais apotaktikais). This indicates that ascetics—including women —might live in town, remain members of the local community, own property, and carry on business.” [16]

It is important to remember that this quote refers to the practices of Roman Egypt and not the part of Arabia where Khadija (radhiyallahu anha) lived. Is there any evidence that women of the Church of the East became nuns? Messrs. Robbins, Ward & Williams, speaking of the Nestorians have this to say,

“The Nestorians… are to be found… in greater numbers than any other sect of Christians, whence they not only call themselves the Eastern Christians, as already observed, but are sometimes so called by others. They celebrate the Eucharist with leavened bread, and administer it in both kinds they do not worship images, and they allow their clergy to marry once, twice, and even thrice ; but whether this liberty extends to the regular clergy, I have not yet been able to ascertain. Their monks are habited in a black gown, tied with a leathern girdle, and wear a blue turban ; and their nuns must be forty years old before they take the monastic habit, which is much the same with that of the monks, except that they tie a kind of black veil about their heads, and about their chins.” [17]

It is of some importance that “nuns must be forty years old before they take the monastic habit”. Khadijah (radhiyallahu anha) was forty years old when she married Prophet Muhammed (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam) which means that even if the claim is that she was a Nestorian “nun” rather than a Roman Catholic one, at the very age at which she could have entered cloisters she married Prophet Muhammed instead. This naturally leads us to the next question.

Christian Claim: Khadija lived in a convent

Again we must build on the answers to the first two questions. As previously mentioned, Roman Catholicism was not present in Arabia in the 7th century. Whilst there is evidence that within the Nestorian Church there were female “monk renouncers” it was only women over the age of forty who could take the monastic habit. Remember that in answer to the first question we have read the statement by Adeney that,

“Dr. Layard could not find any convents either for men or for women. Thus in many respects the modern Nestorians are nearer to European Protestantism than to Roman Catholicism.” [18]

In his account of Khadija’s (radhiyallahu anha) life al-Jibouri relates a story about a neighbour of Prophet Muhammad who,

“lived in the same alley in Mecca where Khadija’s house stood; his wife, also Jewish, used to collect dry thorny bushes from the desert just to throw them in the Prophet’s way.” [19]

Returning to Razwy’s account of Khadija’s life, he writes of the time after the death of her first husband, Khuwayled,

“After the death of Khuwayled, Khadija took charge of the family business, and rapidly expanded it. With the profits she made, she helped the poor, the widows, the orphans, the sick and the disabled. If there were any poor girls, Khadija married them off, and gave them dowry. One of her uncles acted as her adviser in business matters, and other members of the family also assisted her in the management of business if and when she sought their assistance. She, therefore, recruited an agent whenever a caravan was outfitted to go abroad, and made him responsible for carrying her merchandize to the foreign markets and for selling it in those markets. From her home in Makka, Khadija controlled an ever-growing business which spread into the neighboring countries. ” (Chap.2)

Following the death of her husband Khadija continued her husband’s business interests which she ran from her home in Mecca, where Muhammad used to visit her before they were married. Back to Sayyed Razwy’s account, where we learn that Khadija spent some years as a rich widow, obviously not in a convent as she was being frequently courted by various noblemen.

“Khadija spent many years of her life in the single state. As noted before, she received many offers of marriage from the lords and princes of Arabia but she turned them down. They could not impress her with their wealth. If they were rich, she was immeasurably richer than the richest of them. And in such personal qualities as the qualities of head, hand and heart, all of them were like the dust of her feet.” [20]

Conclusion

The only source for the idea that Islam was created by Roman Catholicism is “Alberto Rivera”. His claim is copied across the internet and quoted, often verbatim, across the web sites and YouTube videos that promote this theory. None of them produce any primary evidence to prove Rivera’s claims but rather rely solely on his word. Such conspiracy theories are by their very definition based on “secret” – and therefore untestable – information and involve active “conspiracies”. Rebuttals have been based on the credibility of Rivera and Chick rather than the credibility of the theory. Those who question the credibility of either the story or the storyteller are themselves drawn into the conspiracy as agents of the Roman Catholic Church.

The necessity is to find parts of the theory that are testable against what is independently known and accepted – historical fact. Some of the facts that are stated by Rivera are demonstrably incorrect. Rivera refers to the king of Abyssinia as “Negus, the Roman Catholic king of Abyssinia“. The Roman Catholic Church did not have a presence in Ethiopia at that time. Religion was separate from the state and the Christian religion had grown up independent of the Roman Church. Neither had they changed their day of worship to ally themselves with Roman Christianity. They continued to hold the seventh day of the week (Saturday) as their rest day rather than the first day (Sunday) as instituted by the Roman Church. It is an historic impossibility that the Negus (king) was Roman Catholic.

Then there are parts of the story that contradict tradition. Rivera refers to Muhammad as undergoing “intensive training” and that he “devoured” the works of Augustine. He refers to some of Muhammad’s “writings” being unpublished and states that the Qur’an “contains much of Muhammad’s writings“. For this to be true it would go against some of the most fundamental Islamic traditions: that Muhammad was illiterate and; that the Qur’an  (Qur’an, an Arabic word meaning: “recitation“) was written during Muhammad’s lifetime.

Lastly there is the absence of traditional or historical evidence: in regard to the presence of Roman Catholicism in 7th century Arabia; the description in tradition of the beliefs of both Khadija and Waraqa exclude them from being Roman Catholics; the absence of any convents in Arabia precludes Khadija from being in a convent; her history of at least one marriage prior and then marrying Prophet Muhammad at the age of 40 years means that, even if we turn to the example of Roman Egypt, at the time that she became eligible to enter a convent she married Prophet Muhammad.

So we are left with a story recounted by a man claiming to have “secret” knowledge and nothing more. Is Alberto Rivera right and tradition and history wrong?? Belief in this conspiracy theory is based solely on the testimony on one man and a willingness to believe that it could be so. However, there is no evidence to support what he claimed and what he claimed does not fit in with Sunnah, tradition or history.

 

Footnotes:

[1] Life of Muhammad by Muhammad Husayn Haykal

[2] Khadija tul Kubra : A Short Story of Her Life by Syed A.A Razwy (Chap.20, unpaginated)

[3] Khadija, Daughter of Khuwaylid, Wife of Prophet Muhammad by Yasin T. al-Jibouri [art. May 12, 1994]

[4] Sahih Bukhari Book 55 Hadith 605 narrated by ‘Aisha

[5] Sahih Bukhari Book 1 Hadith 3 narrated by ‘Aisha

[6] Sahih Bukhari Book 60 Hadith 478 narrated by ‘Aisha (See also Book 87 Hadith 111)

[7] op. cit. Rawzy, Chapter 2

[8] Islam by Fr John Hardon S.J., unpaginated

[9] The Bible in Arabic: The Scriptures of the ‘People of the Book’ in the Language of Islamby Sidney Griffith, p.12

[10] Fresh Vision for the Muslim World: An Incarnational Alternative by Mike Kuhn, p.22

[11] The Greek and Eastern Churches by Walter F. Adeney, p.496/7

[12] Truth Triumphant by Benjamin Wilkinson, p.94

[13] Nestorian Missionary Enterprise by J. Stewart, T. & T. Clark, 1928, pp. 70, 71

[14] op. cit. Zwemer, p. 8

[15] The Syriac Church and Fathers by De Lacy O’Leary, p. 46.

[16] Desert Christians by William Harmless, p.24

[17] All Religions and Religious Ceremonies by Thomas Robbins, William Ward, Thomas Williams, pub. 1823, p.161

[18] The Greek and Eastern Churches by Walter F. Adeney, p.497

[19] op. cit. al-Jibouri

[20] Syed A.A Razwy: op.cit. (Chap.20, unpaginated)

Difference between Hadith Narrations & the Gospels

Some Christian apologists when trying to describe the Gospels to the Muslims, claim that the Gospels are much like the Hadiths, and the Hadith-Rejectors too hold the same opinion as the Christians in this matter and deem Ahadith barrations to be unreliable, in that the Gospels were written-collected by men, and are based on the sayings-teachings of Jesus (‘Eesa Maseeh alayhissalaam) just as the Hadiths are with the Prophet Muhammad (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam).

Now indeed there are some similarities between the two, but the similarities all come to an end after what we have already posted above, because there are also many differences between the two, and these differences are very important.

The main difference between the Hadiths and the Gospels is that in regards to the Hadiths, we know who actually collected the Hadiths, and we know who passed them on, and we know who actually made the original statement that was passed on. So for example person A said something, then person B heard it and he decided to pass it on and tell other persons C-D-E, and then they passed it on to others and so forth. Basically throughout the chain of transmission of the hadith, we know who is who, we know who is passing the story, and we know from where the original story came from, there is a complete line of transmission.

This is very crucial, because it means the reports are not anonymous, the reports are coming from people we know, names and persons we can identify, we know where they lived, when they were born, when they died and so forth. Again this is very important because if you know the person, you also know if they’re reliable or unreliable, for example someone who is reporting the Hadith, a person in the chain, could have been known as a liar, as someone unreliable, someone who would make things up, and therefore we know if he is passing or narrating a Hadith that we can question the authenticity. Vice versa the person narrating the Hadith can also be known as a truthful person, someone reliable etc, and therefore we know the Hadith he passing is reliant, or it’s highly likely that it is reliant.

In the case of the Gospels, we have none of this, we literally don’t know who was passing the stories, they’re all anonymous. Even the supposed collectors Mark, Matthew, Luke, and John, were not Mark, Matthew, Luke, and John! The Gospel accounts are all anonymous accounts written-collected by persons-authors we don’t actually know, and they are narrating stories-incidents from people we don’t know either, the entire chain of transmission in the Gospels is unknown and anonymous.

Basically in the Gospel account we have the source as Jesus, and then we have person A-B-C-D-E passing on the stories-teachings of Jesus, but we have no idea who these sources A-B-C-D-E are, whether they’re reliable people and so forth, we literally know nothing about them. The only person who we can say with some confidence who we know about was Paul, and yet he barely wrote anything about the life-sayings-teachings of Jesus, and oddly enough in his own writings we can see that he was at odds with the actual disciples of Jesus and their beliefs, in fact he abolished the Law and taught exactly the opposite of Jesus’ teachings.

So when it comes to the Gospel of Mark, and we read all these stories and sayings of Jesus (‘Eesa alayhissalaam), we are reading accounts that have been passed by people we don’t know, and they were collected in a book called Mark by an author we don’t know either, though there is much speculation about who the exact author is. On the other hand when it comes to the Hadiths, when we read a story about the Prophet Muhammad (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam), we know exactly who passed on the story and who narrated it, we have a complete line of transmission of the people who heard the saying, and who passed the saying, and who it got passed to, and we know whether these people are sound people or not.

All of this is obviously crucial, let us give an example, let’s say you heard a news story, and it’s a very big news story but there is no source, you’re not likely going to believe it are you? Especially in this day and age when there are all kind of sources-websites on the internet that sometimes report some very crazy stories, which you then find out are false, but most times you yourself know to doubt and not believe certain news stories coming from certain organizations-websites because you know they’re not reliable. And you’re also aware of organizations-websites-persons that are reliable, and so you can trust what they’re saying because you know who they are etc. So it’s very important to know your source, if you don’t know your source then as you can see you have some big issues.

Now take the same simple logic and apply it to the Gospels and Hadiths (for some strange reason people often don’t like to use this simple logic, acting like we’re dealing with some other realm), it’s important to know our sources, who we’re dealing with, who’s passing on the story, whether the person passing is it is a reliable person, or an unreliable person.

In conclusion, the Hadiths are a far more reliable and trustworthy collection of sayings-teachings than the Gospels, to put it simple, in news terms, nobody would ever accept the Gospel as a source of information because it has no sources, all of its sources comes from anonymous sources, basically people we don’t know, and that my friends is not a proper source of information you can get anything from, let alone the actual teachings of God.

ADDENDUM

There is no appropriate comparison between the Muslim’s authentic Hadith and the Christian Gospels when it comes to their authenticity. Let no Muslim be fooled by this. The only similarity that one can point out between the two is that they both speak about the lives of a certain individual. I would say that the major difference between the two is the reliability of their preservation. Muslims don’t believe that those who transmitted or collected the Hadith were inspired by God like how Christians believe for their Gospel authors. And hence there can be errors and mistakes in Hadith and we don’t rule out that. And also there are ways to solve this problem and this is in no way a threat to the reliability that we have in authentic Hadith as a whole (isnad and matn). But for the Christian Gospels we should expect to not find any errors since those who transmitted them are supposed to be directly ‘inspired’ by God. But sadly we have numerous errors in Gospels and in Bible as a whole.

Related Reading: Difference between Ahadith Narrations & Historical Reports