The Qur’an, Muhammad and Modern Science: Scientific Miracles or Blunders?

Anyone who has had even a mild exposure to Islamic apologetics will have encountered the argument for the Qur’an’s divine origin based on its purported scientific miracles — that is, scientific assertions contained within the Qur’an which have only been validated by modern science. Out of all of the arguments for the Islamic religion, this is the one which, in my judgment, comes closest to being a real argument. Indeed, this is probably the best they’ve got, and it is frequently a lead argument by Muslim polemicists. Nonetheless, the argument has always appeared very strange to me. If the Qur’an is unrivaled at anything, assuredly it is only in its ability to conceive of a Universe so wildly disconnected from reality.

One problem with the positive Islamic argument is that it can only be falsified if one allows both correct and incorrect scientific statements to potentially validate or refute the Qur’an’s divine origin. If correct scientific statements provide evidence for the Qur’an’s divine origin, then surely incorrect scientific statements provide support for the opposite conclusion. For the argument to work, therefore, one must demonstrate not only that the Qur’an contains specific scientific information that could not have been known by a seventh century Arab, but also that the Qur’an does not contain demonstrable scientific errors that we might expect from a seventh century Arab. Unfortunately, it is usually the case that only the passages that are believed by Muslims to comport with modern science are presented in Muslim polemical literature.

A Simple Reason Why The Qur’an Cannot Be The Word of God

The Islamic religion claims that the Qur’an, revealed allegedly by the angel Gabriel to the prophet Muhammad beginning in 610 A.D., is the inspired and inerrant word of God. Such an assertion, however, is highly problematic, and many, many arguments could be given to convincingly refute it. In this article, I am going to offer one of those reasons, which I perceive to be the most damning. In future articles, we will consider some other serious difficulties with the idea that the Qur’an represents the revealed words of God. My argument here can be summarized in syllogistic form as follows:

Premise 1: Either the Bible is the Word of God or it is not.

Premise 2: If the Bible is the Word of God, the Qur’an is not.

Premise 3: If the Bible is not the Word of God, the Qur’an is not.

Conclusion: Therefore, the Qur’an is not the Word of God.

A Minority among Minorities: Christian & Muslim Responses to Criticism

(This is an article I first wrote for What You Think Matters: http://whatyouthinkmatters.org/blog/article/a-minority-among-other-minorities)

A few weeks ago I was invited to an event hosted by the local mosque where the renowned Yusha Evans was to teach the umma (Muslim community) of Brighton and Hove Da’wah. That is, to teach his fellow Muslims how to invite people to Allah. 

The flurry of excitement within the Muslim community was evidenced by the number of emails I received inviting me, more than once, to talks and training sessions Yusha was to give in Brighton. In addition I was even updated on his tour of the UK, in case I wanted to travel to Cardiff to hear him, which it seems my Muslim friends were intending to do.

I decided to go to one of his talks in Brighton, not only because of his fame, but because Yusha Evans is known for his conversion from Christianity to Islam. I was not at all convinced by his message, and I still strongly believe in the truthfulness of the Bible as opposed to the Qur'an.
 

Is Muhammed Prophesied in the Bible? James White vs Zakir Hussain

How to Beat Women's Rights into Submission

'Pakistan is failing to live up to one of the tenets of Islam which guarantees rights to all women...' - Sayeeda Warsi

First off I completely applaud Sayeeda Warsi and her work trying to stand up for minorities in nations like Pakistan. I'm only picking on her reference to Islamic women's rights that I feel are inherently in conflict with her work and are ideologically opposed to the Christian and Western understanding of women's rights.   

It's interesting though that where-ever you see a majority Islamic state the rights of women or more accurately the western concept of women's rights are almost non-existent. I would be surprised to know of many non-Muslims in the west who would understand Islam and more specifically the Qur'an to be an advocate for women rights. Perhaps by examining the Qur'an itself we will be able to pick up some tips on how to treat women better? 

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). (Yusuf Ali Translation - Surah 4:34)

What is the Gospel of Barnabas?

The Gospel of Barnabas is a best seller in predominantly Muslim countries all over the world which may come as a surprise to many Christians who don't have a clue what it is [1]. There are several reasons why Muslims are fascinated by it and if it were accurate would have dramatic consequences for Christians all over the world. You can actually get it for your Kindle here. However as I will go on to demonstrate, the Gospel of Barnabas is an apocryphal fraud probably written sometime in the fourteenth or fifteenth century. Thankfully some Muslims have acknowledged its dodgy origins and  have admitted that its a fraud that should be ignored, sadly though its popularity means it is commonly brought up in conversations between Christians and Muslims. Hopefully this short article will help Christians to know a little more about the Gospel of Barnabas and will encourage Muslims to do a little more research before they make such extraordinary false claims about Jesus. The gospels we have in the New Testament are the most historically accurate and must be taken seriously by those wanting to know Jesus.

What have Muslims said about the Gospel of Barnabas?

Muhammad Ata ur-Rahim, insists that "The Gospel of Barnabas is the only known surviving Gospel written by a disciple of Jesus.... [and] was accepted as a Canonical Gospel in the churches of Alexandria up until 325 A.D." [2].

M. A. Yusseff, asserts that "in antiquity and authenticity, no other gospel can come close to The Gospel of Barnabas." [3].

Just those two quotes demonstrate just why so many Muslims around the world believe that the Gospel of Barnabas proves that what is taught as Christianity today is wholly false and that 'real' Christianity was preserved only in the true Injil (Gospel) of Barnabas.

The Truth about the Council of Nicaea

Why Did Jesus Say, "The Father Is Greater Than I" (John 14:28)?

What Really Happened at Nicea?

For many years, the council of Nicea has been the subject of much confusion among laypeople. The misapprehensions which have come to be associated with the council of Nicea have, in part, been fuelled by popular fictional novels such as Dan Brown's notorious The Da vinci Code. No matter what group you are dealing with in your apologetic exploits (including atheists, Muslims, Jehovah's witnesses and unitarians), you are almost guaranteed to encounter some of these misconcepts. For this reason, it is important for Christians to study and learn church history, so that they might correct common myths and falsehoods.

The council of Nicea was famously convened on May 20, 325 AD, at the request of Emperor Constantine (pictured above). What did the council of bishops meet to discuss? Contrary to common misconception (popularised particularly in Muslim circles) that has been widely circulated via the internet, the council of Nicea did not meet to discuss the canon of Scripture -- that is, the decision about which books should make up the New Testament. In fact, there is not a shred of evidence that the canon of Scripture was even brought up at Nicea. Another misconception is that the council of Nicea, at the encouraging of Constantine, "invented" the deity of Christ or, at the very least, that the bishops in attendance at Nicea were significantly divided on the issue, the matter being decided with a vote. This too, however, is completely inaccurate. In 325 AD, when the bishops convened at Nicea, the deity of Christ had been affirmed almost unanimously by the Christian movement for close to three hundred years!

Do Islamic Arguments Against the Deity of Jesus Hold Water? James White Responds To Joshua Evans

Part 1:



Part 2:



Part 3:

Does the Qur'an Misrepresent the Trinity? James White vs. Bassam Zawadi

Part 1:



Part 2:

Cataloguing the Historical Anachronisms in the Qur'an

Muslim apologists often contend that the Qur'an is free, in its entirity, from contradiction, inconsistency or historical inaccuracy. I have seen many Muslims assert that the historical and scientific accuracy of the Qur'an was what impressed them about this book and convinced them that Islam is true. Previously on this blog, I have addressed Muhammad's wildly inaccurate understanding of the Christian doctrine of the Trinity, and have also posted this video regarding the claims of the Qur'an concerning the historicity of Jesus' crucifixion (see this link for articles already published on this site concerning Islam generally).

In this article, I am going to focus specifically on the historical accuracy of the Qur'an. As we shall see, the claim that the Qur'an is historically accurate -- particularly when it describes events hundreds of years removed from its writing -- is not a tenable position.

Dirham Coins in Joseph's Day?

According to Surah 12:20,

"[Joseph's] brethren sold him for a miserable price, for a few dirhams counted out: in such low estimation did they hold him!"

The problem with this claim is that dirham (derivative of the Greek drachma) didn't exist prior to the twelfth century B.C. This means that the Qur'an makes the claim that Joseph was sold into slavery using a currency that had not yet been invented -- and would not be invented until seven centuries later.

Did David Produce Chain Mail?

According to Surah 34:10-11,

"We bestowed Grace aforetime on David from ourselves: 'O ye Mountains! Sing ye back the Praises of Allah with him! and ye birds also! And We made the iron soft for him;- Commanding, 'Make thou coats of mail, balancing well the rings of chain armour, and work ye righteousness; for be sure I see clearly all that ye do.'"

The problem is that chain mail was first invented by the Celts in the fifth century B.C. But David lived in the tenth century B.C.

Was Crucifixion Practiced in Ancient Egypt?

According to Surah 12:41 and Surah 20:71, the method of execution by crucifixion was practiced, during the time of Joseph and Moses respectively, by the Egyptians. The former lived during the nineteenth century B.C., and the latter lived during the fifteenth century B.C. Unfortunately, however, this mode of execution was first invented by the Persians in the sixth century B.C., well after the time of both Moses and Joseph.

Moses and the Samaritans

We read in Surah 20:35-88, 95 that a Samaritan led the people of Israel to create the golden calf during the time of Moses, shortly following the Exodus out of Egypt. The problem is that the city of Samaria did not exist until several centuries following the Exodus. Furthermore, the people group who became known as the "Samaritans" did not come into existence until an even later stage when the Northern Kingdom was invaded by Assyria.

Confusing Mary and Miriam

In Surah 19:28, Mary, the mother of Jesus, is spoken of as being the sister of Moses and Aaron. Furthermore, Surah 66:12 states that the mother of Mary is Amram. It is abundantly clear from this that Muhammad is confusing Mary the mother of Jesus with Miriam (Moses's sister), who lived centuries earlier.

Moses and Haman

According to Surah 28:5-8,

"And We wished to be gracious to those who were being depressed in the land, to make them leaders in faith and make them heirs, to establish a firm place for them in the land, and to show Pharaoh, Haman, and their hosts, at their hands, the very things against which they were taking precautions. So We sent this inspiration to the mother of Moses: 'Suckle thy child, but when thou hast fears about him, cast him into the river, but fear not nor grieve: for We shall restore him to thee, and We shall make him one of Our apostles.' Then the people of Pharaoh picked him up from the river: It was intended that Moses should be to them an adversary and a cause of sorrow: for Pharaoh and Haman and all their hosts were men of sin."

The problem is that Haman lived approximately during the sixth century B.C. in Persia (not Egypt). He is a key character in the book of Esther. Why is it, then, that the Qur'an refers to Haman as having opposed Moses in Pharaoh's court -- nine centuries earlier?

Conclusion

I could continue in this vein for considerable time -- and believe me I could. But the cumulative force of the above arguments combined seems to render implausible the Islamic view that the Qur'an is historically accurate in every respect. Even if there is wiggle room with respect to one or two of those cases (which I don't think there is), there are enough instances of such historical anachronisms to render it immensely implausible that all of them will be shown to have plausible resolutions.

40 Arabic Words

Did Jesus Deny His Deity When He Said He Didn't Know The Day or Hour of the Second Coming?

Did Jesus Deny His Deity in His Conversation with the Rich Ruler?

In Luke 18:18-29 (and the parallel account in Mark 10:17-31), we read the narrative of the rich young ruler coming to Jesus and asking, "Good teacher, what must I do to inherit eternal life?" Jesus responds by saying "Why do you call me good? No one is good -- except God alone."

Jesus continues, "You know the commandments: ‘You shall not commit adultery, you shall not murder, you shall not steal, you shall not give false testimony, honour your father and mother." The young man replies, “All these I have kept since I was a boy.” Jesus, however, knowing that he valued his wealth and riches more than God, instructs the man to sell all his possessions and give the money to the poor, and then to come and follow Jesus. At this, the man walks away greatly saddened because he has no interest in giving up his wealth.

Many of those who seek to deny the deity of Christ (such as Muslims) will often appeal to this passage as an example of Jesus allegedly renouncing his deity. Is this the case, however? Was Jesus really denying that He is God in stating, "Why do you call me good? No one is good -- except God alone."The first important thing to notice is that Jesus Himself claims not only to be "good" but also to be perfect and completely without sin. Consider, for example, John 10:11 ("I am the good shepherd") or John 8:46 ("Can any of you prove me guilty of sin?"). We are also told by Paul that Jesus was without sin, for example in 2 Corinthians 5:21 ("God made him who had no sin to be sin for us, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God"). Thus, this situation with the rich young ruler is actually an affirmation of Jesus' deity. The argument may be summarised in syllogistic form as follows:

Premise 1: According to Jesus, God alone is good.

Premise 2: According to Jesus, Jesus is good.

Conclusion: Therefore, according to Jesus, Jesus is God.

So what is going on in this incident with the rich young ruler? Jesus, I believe, is teasing out the implications of the young man's statement. It is a rhetorical question designed to make the man think long and hard about Jesus' true identity.

Those who use this example as a proof text for justifying their denial of the deity of Jesus need to allow all of Scripture speak, and read the passages they quote in the context within which they appear. When one handles the text of Scripture honestly and responsibly in this regard, the true identity of Jesus becomes very clear: He is the eternal Son of God, and the second person of the Trinity.

The Jesus of the Bible vs. the Jesus of the Qur'an: James White

Did Muhammad Properly Understand the Trinity?

In a recent post, I explained and defended the historical Christian concept of the Trinity. In this blog post, I want to consider the conception of the Trinity held by the writer of the Qur'an -- whom I presume to be Muhammad -- and examine whether this individual properly understood the view he so strongly repudiated.

Firstly, let's briefly recap. What is the historic definition of the Trinity? In a nutshell, the doctrine states that within the one being or essence that is God, there exists three co-equal and co-eternal (yet distinct) divine persons -- namely the Father, Son and Holy Spirit -- who share that essence fully and completely.

Let's turn our attention to the Qur'an to find out whether its author properly understood this doctrine which is central to the Christian faith. If he did not, then it may be concluded that the Qur'an's author was not (as Muslim's allege) the infallible Allah. Rather, it is demonstrably a work of fallible human authorship.

The doctrine of the Trinity is relatively frequently repudiated in the Qur'an, either directly or indirectly. In what follows, I will list the main instances and examine whether they manifest clues in regard to Muhammad's understanding of what the Christian concept of the Trinity entails.

Surah 2:116 - "They say: 'God hath begotten a son': Glory be to Him, Nay, to Him belongs all that is in the heavens and on earth: everything renders worship to Him.

Surah 6:101 - "To Him is due the primal origin of the heavens and the earth: How can He have a son when He hath no consort? He created all things, and He hath full knowledge of all things."

Surah 19:35 - "It is not befitting to (the majesty of) God that He should beget a son. Glory be to Him! When He determines a matter, He only says to it, 'Be', and it is."

Surah 19:88 - "They say, '(God) Most Gracious Has begotten a son!'"

Surah 37:151-152 - Is it not that they say, from their own invention, 'God has begotten children'? But they are liars!"

Surah 39:4 - Had God wished to take to Himself a son, He would have chosen whom he pleased out of those whom He doth create: but Glory be to Him! (He is above such things.) He is God, the One, the Irresistable.

Surah 16:51 - "God has said: 'Take not (for worship) two gods: For He is just One God: Then fear Me (and Me alone)."

Surah 9:30 - "Then Jews call Uzair a son of God, and the Christians call Christ the Son of God. That is a saying from their mouth; (in this) they but imitate what the Unbelievers of old used to say. God's curse be on them: how they are deluded away from the Truth!"

Surah 23:91 - "No son did God beget, nor is there any god along with Him: (if there were many gods),

From the examples given above, we can clearly see two things. Firstly, Muhammad misunderstood the relationship of the Son with respect to the Father. The Sonship of Christ is not like earthly human relationships. The Son never came into being. In fact, he is co-eternal with the Father. Moreover, the Son is not the offspring of the Father in the sense that the latter took to Himself a consort and physically impregnated her. No Christian has ever claimed this. Second, it appears that Muhammad misunderstood the Trinity as encompassing multiple gods. Again, however, this is not what the Christians now -- or of Muhammad's day -- believed. Rather, they believe that there is one divine essence and three distinct divine persons.

However, I saved the best bit for last. Consider Surah 5:72-76:

"They surely disbelieve who say: Lo! Allah is the Messiah, son of Mary. The Messiah (himself) said: O Children of Israel, worship Allah, my Lord and your Lord. Lo! whoso ascribeth partners unto Allah, for him Allah hath forbidden paradise. His abode is the Fire. For evil-doers there will be no helpers. They surely disbelieve who say: Lo! Allah is the third of three; when there is no God save the One God. If they desist not from so saying a painful doom will fall on those of them who disbelieve. The Messiah, son of Mary, was no other than a messenger, messengers (the like of whom) had passed away before him. And his mother was a saintly woman. And they both used to eat (earthly) food. See how We make the revelations clear for them, and see how they are turned away! Will they not rather turn unto Allah and seek forgiveness of Him? For Allah is Forgiving, Merciful. Say: Serve ye in place of Allah (min dooni Allahi) that which possesseth for you neither hurt nor use? Allah it is Who is the Hearer, the Knower." [emphasis added]

There are two interesting things to notice about this passage. Firstly, there is the statement that Christians claim that "Allah is the third of three; when there is no God save the One God." This is especially telling since -- as I stated previously -- Christians believe in one God and only one God! Christians believe that there is one God but that He is complex in His unity: That is, within the one divine essence there exists three co-equal divine persons. This is not the same as claiming that there are three gods.

The second curious thing about this passage is its statement that "The Messiah, son of Mary, was no other than a messenger, messengers (the like of whom) had passed away before him. And his mother was a saintly woman. And they both used to eat (earthly) food." Why would the Qur'an state that Jesus and Mary "both used to eat earthly food"? Could it be that Muhammad believed that the Christians were proclaiming Mary to be part of the Trinity and thus elevating her to the status of deity?

We are given an important clue in this regard when we turn to Surah 5:116, in which we read,

"And behold! God will say: 'O Jesus the son of Mary! Didst thou say unto men, worship me and my mother as gods in derogation of Allah?' He will say: 'Glory to Thee! Never could I say what I had no right (to say). Had I said such a thing, Thou wouldst indeed have known it. Thou knowest what is in my heart, thou I know not what is in Thine. For thou knowest in full all that is hidden."

From this, we can deduce that Muhammad not only misunderstood what Christians meant by the Trinity, but He believed Mary to be a part of it! By the time the Qur'an was written, the Triune concept of God as understood by the Christians was well known. If the Qur'an really is the inspired word of God, why was it unable to correctly represent this view?

Why I Love Jesus But Reject Islam: Ivey Conerly

Note: If you are unfamiliar with the background to this, please watch:

Why I Hate Religion But Love Jesus

Why I Hate Religion But Love Jesus (Muslim Version)

A Christian Response to Kamal Saleh's Islamic Video

The Trinity Defended

The doctrine of the Trinity has come under increasing attack over recent years from a variety of groups. Some of these groups (such as Muslims and Jehovah's witnesses) deny that this doctrine is even found in Scripture. They are often quick to point out that the word "trinity" is to be found nowhere in the Bible. This is correct. While the phraseology is not found in Scripture, however, the concept most certainly is.

In this article, I want to provide a definition of this important doctrine, explaining what exactly the Trinity is, as well as what is isn't. I shall then examine the Scriptures to see whether they provide adequate substantiation of this concept.

So, what exactly do we mean when we talk about the Trinity? Writing in the early third century, in his Against Praxeas, Tertullian is credited with first employing the words "Trinity", "person" and "substance" to convey the idea of the Father, Son and Spirit being "one in essence -- but not one in person". Indeed, Tertullian writes,

"Thus the connection of the Father in the Son, and of the Son in the Paraclete, produces three coherent Persons, who are yet distinct One from Another. These Three are, one essence, not one Person, as it is said, "I and my Father are One," in respect of unity of substance not singularity of number."

This concept was established as church orthodoxy at the famous Council of Nicaea in A.D. 325. The Nicene Creed speaks of Christ as "God of God, Light of Light, very God of very God, begotten not made, being of one substance with the Father."

It is this definition that I am going to assume in the discussion that follows. Succinctly, then, the doctrine of the Trinity may be defined thusly: Within the one being or essence that is God, there exists three co-equal and co-divine distinct persons -- namely the Father, Son and Holy Spirit -- who share that essence fully and completely. This concept is not to be confused with polytheism, which maintains that there are multiple gods. While orthodox Christianity emphatically holds there to be only one God, we nonetheless understand God to be complex in his unity. The concept is also not to be confused with the ancient heresy of modalism, which maintains that God exists in three different modes. The Son has never been the Father and the Holy Spirit has never been the Son or the Father. Modalism is refuted by the picture given to us in all four gospels (Matthew 3:16-17; Mark 1:9-11; Luke 3:21-22; John 1:32-34) in which the Holy Spirit descends on Jesus in the form of a dove and a voice is heard from Heaven "This is my beloved Son. With him I am well pleased." Similarly, it should be noted that the Father, Son and Spirit do not each make up merely a third of the Godhead. Rather, each of the three persons is God in the full and complete sense of the word.

Having shown that Scripture emphatically rejects the notion that the Father, Son and Spirit are synonymous persons, only five propositions remain to be demonstrated in order to provide Biblical substantiation for the concept of the Trinity. Those propositions are:

1. There is only one eternal God.
   
2. The Father is the eternal God.
3. The Son is the eternal God.
4. The Holy Spirit is the eternal God.
5. Although the Father, Son and Holy Spirit are non-synonymous persons, the concept of the Trinity does not violate the law of non-contradiction.

Let's take a look at each of these in turn.

The Gospel for Muslims: Dr. James White