Alleged Mistakes in the Qur'an...
Table of Contents
Alleged Mistakes in the Qur'an... by the Learner
The following is a response to the Learner's rebuttal of my debate material against Shabir Ally. This original rebuttal was written at the request of one Faisal who made the following comment:
I would like first to thank you for your satisfying answers that you have posted for some of my questions, and thank the rest of the brothers on the team. May Allah bless you all and reward you all the best. Mr. Sam Shamoun (from the Answering Islam team) had forwarded an article to me. I know that your team and other Islamic sites - like Islamic awareness - have answered some of the claims he brought up but there are few other claims that I would like u to show us how to deal with and refute. And if possible I hope to see a complete refutation to his paper. But for now some of the issues that concerns me. Under the title "Contradictions In The Qur'an" Mr. Sam says:
Unfortunately, from what is stated above Faisal failed to mention the purpose in writing my article. My aim was not so much to attack the Quran, but rather to attack a certain methodology employed by Shabir Ally throughout his lectures and debates against the Holy Bible. Here are some relevant portions from my article highlighting this fact:
Shabir's attack on the Holy Bible falls under several different categories, some of which include:
- Textual Variants of the Bible
- Alleged Contradictions of the Bible
- False Prophecies of the Bible
- NT Misquoting the OT
Instead of dealing with specific charges made by Ally against the Holy Bible, we will employ his very own method against the Quran and see if it passes Ally's test. We would like to state that the allegations against the Holy Bible have been answered and will provide links documenting this point.
And,
Contradictions In The Quran
Before proceeding into this section, we again need to reiterate the point made earlier. We use this critical approach for the sole purpose of demonstrating the faulty methodology of Shabir Ally. As we had stated earlier, the very method of criticism employed by Shabir against the Holy Bible can be used more forcefully against the Quran. With that just said, let us proceed into the Quranic errors.
(See the full article.)
Therefore, in light of the statements above I had no intention of uncritically attacking the Quran. Rather, my intent was to show the double standards employed by Muslim apologists in dealing with the Holy Bible and the Quran. Much like Christians have provided answers to the assertions made by Shabir Ally, I had no doubt that Muslims would also be responding to my criticisms upon the Quran.
Yet, in trying to respond to some of the contradictions in my article, the Learner has actually strengthened the case against the Quran as I shall shortly document. Furthermore, in his attempt to escape the brunt of my criticisms the Learner unfortunately had to misquote the Holy Bible in order to support his case. I am not suggesting that the Learner's misapplication of biblical passages was deliberate, since I cannot speak on his motives. Rather, I only bring this out since it is an issue which needs to be dealt with. With that said, let us proceed with the alleged rebuttal to specific issues brought up in my article. I will only be dealing with those responses that I felt were weak and actually reinforced my arguments.
Reply
Let us take the stated objections one by one.
3- John the Baptist's Name
The Qur'an, in Maryam 19: 7 says:
O Zechariah, We give you glad tidings of a boy, his name shall be Yahya (John). Before this, We made no one his 'Samiyaa'.
Mr. Shamoun writes: ... All these Johns lived before John the Baptist. John was indeed a very common name.
It should be remembered that the referred verse of the Qur'an does not say that there was no one by the name of John, before John the Baptist. On the contrary, it says: "Before this, We [i.e. God] made no one his 'samiyaa' (generally interpreted as namesake)". A mistake can only be established in the Qur'an if it is proven beyond any reasonable doubt that God did name someone by the name John, before John the Baptist. Mr. Shamoun has only cited referenced to the effect that there were people by the name of John before John the Baptist. For pointing out a mistake in the Qur'an, he should also establish that any one of these 'Johns' was, in fact, given his name by God.
Although, the above paragraph should suffice as a response to Mr. Shamoun's contention, ...
RESPONSE:
The Learner thinks that this response is sufficient in rebutting my original argument but in actuality it fails to do so. The Learner begs the question by suggesting that I need to show where God named someone else John. Yet, this assumes what the Learner has yet to prove. This assumes that God is the author of the Quran and therefore entails circular reasoning on the part of the Learner. The fact is that I do not believe that the Quran is the word of God and hence do not need to show where God named someone else John since it is not God who is speaking.
Hence, in its attempt to rebut my point the Learner engages in circular reasoning, assuming what it has yet to prove.
In fact, the contention in my article is not originally mine but one endorsed by Muslim authorities as well:
Qatadah, Ibn Jurayj and Ibn Zayd said, "This means that no one had this name before him." Ibn Jarir preferred this interpretation, may Allah have mercy upon him. (Tafsir Ibn Kathir-Abridged Volume 5, Surat Al-Isra', Verse 39 To the End of Surat Al-Mu'minun, abridged by a group of scholars under the supervision of Shaykh Safiur-Rahman Al-Mubarakpuri [Darussalam, Riyadh, Houston, New York, Lahore July 2000], p. 231)
Do notice that none of the Muslims cited by Ibn Kathir make the qualification that the Learner makes, namely that the meaning of S. 19:7 is that Allah never personally named anyone John apart from Zechariah's son.
Furthermore, the above Quranic statement that no one else was named John is actually a confusion of the more accurate biblical account in Luke. There we are told:
What was originally a statement indicating that none of John's relatives was ever given that name, is now twisted by the Quran to mean that no one else at any time was ever given the name John.
Even Syed Abu Ala' Maududi implicitly acknowledges the connection between Luke 1:61 and S. 19:7:
Finally, the explanation forwarded by the Learner is not just rejected by myself, but by other Muslims as well. M.S.M. Saifullah and his staff of writers have written an article claiming that the Arabic word Yahya has no connection with the Hebrew/Aramaic Yuhannan. Instead, the writers go out of their way in seeking to establish that Yahya is a completely unique name given to John, a name first found in the writings of the Mandaeans, a group believed to be the followers of John the Baptist. (See their article found here.)
Yet, the explanation given by Saifullah and Co. introduces another major problem for Muslims, a problem that we will be demonstrating shortly in our response to Saifullah, Lord willing. But suffice it to say that for now we are left wondering which explanation should we embrace. Seeing that neither the Learner nor Saifullah are infallible interpreters of the Quran, it seems that it is left to the reader to decide which fallible explanation of the Quranic problem one should embrace. To embrace one automatically cancels out the other. Hence, both can be wrong but both can't be right. Perhaps the Learner can offer additional evidence in support of his own interpretation of the Quran over against the one endorsed by Islamic Awareness.
... yet for a better understanding of the Qur'an, we should also
see what exactly is the implication of the word 'samiyaa'. Generally,
the commentators of the Qur'an have interpreted this word to mean: 'namesake'.
Nevertheless, in my opinion, this interpretation is not correct.
The word used in the verse in the Arabic language is "
",
which has clearly been used in Maryam 19: 65 to imply "a like",
"an equal" etc. In Maryam 19: 65, the Qur'an says:
The Lord of the heavens and the earth and whatever lies between them. Thus, worship Him [alone] and remain steadfast on His worship. Do you know anyone equal to Him? [Then why should you associate partners with Him?]
The above verse, as well as the context of Maryam 19: 7, is a
clear evidence of the fact that the word ""
has been used in the verse to imply the uniqueness of John's person, not
the uniqueness of his name. The Arabic dictionary, 'Lisaan al-Arab',
while explaining the word, writes:
It is said that 'lum naj`al lahu min qablu samiyaa' implies 'an equal' or 'comparable'.
However, Mr. Shamoun is also critical of the implication of the verse, if the word 'samiyaa' is taken to imply 'an equal' or 'comparable'. He writes:
But even this won't work, since we discover that there is one exactly like John, namely Elijah. This is due to the fact that the Baptist came "in the spirit and power of Elijah," being the Elijah of Jesus' first coming. (Cf. Luke 1:17; Matthew 17:10-13)
Let us take a close look at the verses cited by Mr. Shamoun. Luke 1:16-17 says:
[Gabriel said:] And many of the children of Israel shall he (i.e. John) turn to the Lord their God. And he shall go before him in the spirit and power of Elias (or Elijah), to turn the hearts of the fathers to the children, and the disobedient to the wisdom of the just; to make ready a people prepared for the Lord.
Matthew 17:1013 says:
And his disciples asked him, saying, Why then say the scribes that Elias (or Elijah) must first come? And Jesus answered and said unto them, Elias truly shall first come, and restore all things. But I say unto you, That Elias is come already, and they knew him not, but have done unto him whatsoever they listed. Likewise shall also the Son of man suffer of them. Then the disciples understood that he spake unto them of John the Baptist.
The above verses do indeed point to the fact that John was the awaited Elijah, which also implies that he was (at least in some ways) like Elijah. Nevertheless, it may be of some interest for the readers to note that according to the same Bible, when John i.e. Yahya (pbuh) was himself asked by the Israelites whether he was the promised Elijah, he replied in the negative.
John 1: 19 23 reads as:
And this is the record of John, when the Jews sent priests and Levites from Jerusalem to ask him, Who art thou? And he confessed, and denied not; but confessed, I am not the Christ. And they asked him, What then? Art thou Elias [or Elijah]? And he saith, I am not. Art thou that prophet? And he answered, No. Then said they unto him, Who art thou? that we may give an answer to them that sent us. What sayest thou of thyself? He said, I am the voice of one crying in the wilderness, Make straight the way of the Lord, as said the prophet Esaias.
In view of the contradictory implication of the cited statements of the Gospels, Mr. Shamoun's contention (that Elijah was 'exactly' like John) requires substantiation on sounder grounds. This substantiation would become even more imperative in view of the fact that Jesus (pbuh) is himself reported in one of the Gospels to have said something quite similar in its implication to the Qur'anic statement (i.e. "Before this, we made no one comparable to him [i.e. John]"). Matthew 11: 11 reports Jesus (pbuh) as having said:
"Verily I say unto you, among them that are born of women there hath not risen a greater than John the Baptist"
I am sure, anyone can see that the implication of the above statement ascribed to Jesus (pbuh) is no different from what the Qur'an has said in the verse under consideration.
RESPONSE:
The Learner commits several fallacies here in trying to avoid the implications of my arguments. The Learner commits a categorical fallacy in trying to implicitly suggest that Jesus' statement that none born of women is greater than John somehow nullifies the fact that John and Elijah are equal or comparable. First, you can have two persons equal in one sense, but different in another sense. John and Elijah were equal in their prophetic ministry due to the fact that they both had a similar mission, having been assigned the honor of preparing the way for the Messiah. Yet, they were not equal in position. In fact, had the Learner read Jesus' statements from Matthew in context this is precisely the point Jesus goes on to make. Here is the context of this statement in Matthew 11:
Jesus could say that John was Elijah while at the same time acknowledging that no one born of women was greater than John in position. That Jesus is referring to John's position becomes evident from what immediately follows:
Further examples demonstrating that one can be equal to someone in one sense, yet inferior to him in another sense can be seen from the following biblical citations:
Jesus like Moses
Here we discover that Jesus is the Prophet like Moses.
Jesus Superior to Moses
This passage shows that although equal in one sense, Jesus is superior to Moses by virtue of his position and filial relationship, being the eternal Son appointed as the head of the household of God.
Jesus Like Melchizedek
The author of Hebrews builds upon the mysterious qualities of Melchizedek (cf. Gen. 14:17-20) and ties that with Christ. Melchizedek is pictured as an eternal figure having no recorded birth, death or human descent.
These points have been deliberately omitted in order to present Melchizedek as an Old Testament type of Christ. The word resembling is the Greek term aphomoiomenes, which comes from aphomoioo. According to the Theological Dictionary of the New Testament,
Melchizedek typifies Jesus in that he is made to resemble the eternal aspect of Christ's being, a mere shadow of the One who was to come. Jesus is the reality of what was only typified in Melchizedek. The point that Hebrews is establishing is that Jesus is an eternal being, having no beginning and ending, and continues on as an eternal priest.
Jesus Superior to Melchizedek
These examples are sufficient in demonstrating the error of the Learner's logic. You can have two parties equal in one sense, yet different in another sense.
Furthermore, Elijah is not the only one who is like John. According to other Muslim expositors, the term samiyya, "names sake", actually refers to John's unique birth. The following citations are taken from Saifullah's article mentioned above:
This also proves that Zakariyya was sterile[33] as was his wife [who was sterile from the beginning of her life] unlike Abraham and Sarah. The reason for their [Abraham and Sarah's] amazement at the glad tidings of Isaac was due to their old age and not to infertility. This is why Abraham said [in amazement]:
abashshartumn cala an massaniya al-kibaru
fabima tubashshirn,
i.e., Do ye give me glad tidings even though old age has seized me?
Of what, then, is your good news? [verse 15:54]
even though had Ismcl 13 years earlier.
Likewise, his wife said:
ya waylata a'alidu wa ana cajzun wa hadha bacl
shaykhan inna hadha lashay'un cajb.
Qal atacjabna min amrillahi rahmatullah
wa barakatuh calaykum ahla al-bayti innah
hamdun majd,
i.e., She said: "Alas for me! shall I bear a child, seeing I am an old woman,
and my husband here is an old man? That would indeed be a wonderful thing!".
They said: "Dost thou wonder at Allah's decree? The grace of Allah and His
blessings on you, o ye people of the house! For He is indeed worthy of all
praise, full of all glory! [verses 11:72-73].[34]
And,
Narrated Ahmad in Al-Zuhd and cAbd Ibn Humayd and Ibn al-Mundhir and Ibn Ab Htim that Sacd Ibn Jubayr said concerning lam najcal lah min qablu samyy: He said: [samyy means] shabhan - someone like him. cAbd Ibn Humayd narrated a similar report from the way of cAta'. Al-Bukhr narrated in his Tarkh from Yahy Ibn Khalld al-Zarq that when he [Yahy] was born, he was brought to the Prophet(P) who fed him a chewed date and said: "I shall give him a name that was never given [to anyone] before: Yahy Ibn Zakariyya" and so he called him Yahy.[36]
From the above discussion, we see that scholars hold two opinions concerning the verse lam najcal lah min qablu samyy:
2. No one prior to the birth of Yahy(P) was ever given that name by God.
Al-Tabar provides reports for both interpretations, but opines that the latter seems to be more correct. Al-Qurtub mentions both opinions but did not express a preference. And Ibn Kathr, who cites al-Tabar's opinion (see above), also does not express any preference. Finally,
Do notice that even Ibn Abbas agrees with me that S. 19:7 indicates that none was ever given the name John, not that Allah gave no one else that name.
According to Saifullah and Co. John's name implies that his birth was unlike the birth of others. Yet, we find that both the Holy Bible and the Quran agree that Isaac's birth is exactly like John's.
The Holy Bible
"Now Sarai, Abram's wife, had borne him no children. But she had an Egyptian maidservant named Hagar; so she said to Abram, 'The LORD has kept me from having children. Go, sleep with my maidservant; perhaps I can build a family through her.' Abram agreed to what Sarai said." Genesis 16:1-2
"God also said to Abraham, 'As for Sarai your wife, you are no longer to call her Sarai; her name will be Sarah. I will bless her and will surely give you a son by her. I will bless her so that she will be the mother of nations; kings of peoples will come from her.' Abraham fell facedown; he laughed and said to himself, 'Will a son be born to a man a hundred years old? Will Sarah bear a child at the age of ninety?' And Abraham said to God, 'If only Ishmael might live under your blessing!' Then God said, 'Yes, but your wife Sarah will bear you a son, and you will call him Isaac. I will establish my covenant with him as an everlasting covenant for his descendants after him. And as for Ishmael, I have heard you: I will surely bless him; I will make him fruitful and will greatly increase his numbers. He will be the father of twelve rulers, and I will make him into a great nation. But my covenant I will establish with Isaac, whom Sarah will bear to you by this time next year.'" Genesis 17:15-21
"'Where is your wife Sarah?' they asked him. 'There, in the tent,' he said. Then the LORD said, 'I will surely return to you about this time next year, and Sarah your wife will have a son.' Now Sarah was listening at the entrance to the tent, which was behind him. Abraham and Sarah were already old and well advanced in years, and Sarah was past the age of childbearing. So Sarah laughed to herself as she thought, 'After I am worn out and my master is old, will I now have this pleasure?' Then the LORD said to Abraham, 'Why did Sarah laugh and say, "Will I really have a child, now that I am old?" Is anything too hard for the LORD? I will return to you at the appointed time next year and Sarah will have a son. Sarah was afraid, so she lied and said, 'I did not laugh.' But he said, 'Yes, you did laugh.'" Genesis 18:9-15
"Without weakening in his faith, he faced the fact that his body was as good as dead - since he was about a hundred years old - and that Sarah's womb was also dead." Romans 4:19
"By faith Abraham, even though he was past age - and Sarah herself was barren - was enabled to become a father because he considered him faithful who had made the promise. And so from this one man, and he as good as dead, came descendants as numerous as the stars in the sky and as countless as the sand on the seashore." Hebrews 11:11-12
"In the time of Herod king of Judea there was a priest named Zechariah, who belonged to the priestly division of Abijah; his wife Elizabeth was also a descendant of Aaron. Both of them were upright in the sight of God, observing all the Lord's commandments and regulations blamelessly. But they had no children, because Elizabeth was barren; and they were both well along in years." Luke 1:5-7
"Even Elizabeth your relative is going to have a child in her old age, and she who was said to be barren is in her sixth month." Luke 1:36
The Quran
There did Zakariya pray to his Lord, saying: "O my Lord! Grant unto me from Thee a progeny that is pure: for Thou art He that heareth prayer!" While he was standing in prayer in the chamber, the angels called unto him: "Allah doth give thee glad tidings of Yahy, (John) witnessing the truth of a Word from Allah, and (be besides) noble, chaste, and a prophet,- of the (goodly) company of the righteous." He said: "O my Lord! How shall I have a son, seeing I am very old, and my wife is barren?" "Thus," was the answer, "Doth Allah accomplish what He willeth." He said: "O my Lord! Give me a Sign!" "Thy Sign," was the answer, "Shall be that thou shalt speak to no man for three days but with signals. Then celebrate the praises of thy Lord again and again, and glorify Him in the evening and in the morning." S. 3:38-41
(This is) a mention of the Mercy of thy Lord to His servant Zakariya. Behold! he cried to his Lord in secret, Praying: "O my Lord! infirm indeed are my bones, and the hair of my head doth glisten with gray: but never am I unblest, O my Lord, in my prayer to Thee! Now I fear (what) my relatives (and colleagues) (will do) after me: but my wife is barren: so give me an heir as from Thyself,- (One that) will (truly) inherit me, and inherit the posterity of Jacob; and make him, O my Lord! one with whom Thou art well-pleased!" (His prayer was answered): "O Zakariya! We give thee good news of a son: His name shall be Yahy: (John) on none by that name have We conferred distinction before." He said: "O my Lord! How shall I have a son, when my wife is barren and I have grown quite decrepit from old age?" He said: "So (it will be) thy Lord saith, 'That is easy for Me: I did indeed create thee before, when thou hadst been nothing!'" (Zakariya) said: "O my Lord! give me a Sign." "Thy Sign," was the answer, "Shall be that thou shalt speak to no man for three nights, although thou art not dumb." So Zakariya came out to his people from him chamber. He told them by signs to celebrate Allah's praises in the morning and in the evening. S. 19:2-11
And (remember) Zakariya, when he cried to his Lord: "O my Lord! leave me not without offspring, though Thou art the best of inheritors." So We listened to him: and We granted him John: WE CURED HIS WIFE'S (BARRENNESS) FOR HIM. These (three) were ever quick in doing in good works; they used to call on Us with yearning and awe, and humble themselves before Us. S. 21:89-90
These passages also serve to debunk the claim made by Islamic Awareness that Zechariah was sterile since nowhere does the Holy Bible or the Quran make mention of this fact. Instead, we find that it was Elizabeth who was barren and that Zechariah, much like Abraham, was past the age of having children.
Therefore, we find that there are actually two that are like John the Baptist, namely Isaac and Elijah.
The second error made by the Learner is the claim that John cannot be like Elijah since John clearly denies that he is Elijah. The dilemma here is one that the Learner must posit in order to avoid the brunt of my criticisms, since to admit that John is like Elijah proves that the Quran is in error.
What the Learner seemingly failed to understand is that John was denying that he was the same person as Elijah, a sort of Elijah reincarnated. Yet, Jesus was not claiming that John was Elijah reincarnated. Rather, Jesus was simply claiming that John is a type of Elijah, doing what Elijah is supposed to do when Christ returns. This is seen from the following citation:
Here Elijah himself appears with Moses on the mount and talks with Jesus. Jesus also affirms that this same Elijah will come and restore all things. Jesus then proceeds to identify John the Baptist as the Elijah of Christ's first coming. Hence, John is not the actual Elijah, but rather is an Elijah-type doing the exact same work that the actual Elijah will do before the Lord's return. This is precisely what the angel announced to Zechariah upon the birth of his son:
Notice the angel's words that John is coming in the spirit and power of Elijah, not that John is actually Elijah himself.
In light of the preceding factors, we must conclude that the Learner has not adequately dealt with our objections and hence the Quranic error remains.
4- Sacrifices Commanded Upon All
The Qur'an in Al-Hajj 22: 34 says: To every people did We Appoint rites (of sacrifice)...
Mr. Shamoun says: Christians have never been commanded to offer sacrifices.
If Mr. Shamoun's statement implies his acknowledgement of the fact that the Israelites were, in fact, commanded to offer sacrifices, it is enough to establish that Jesus (pbuh) commanded his followers to do so too. Matthew 5: 17 says:
Do not think that I have come to abolish the law or the prophets; I have come not to abolish but to fulfill. For truly, until heaven and earth pass away, not one letter, not one stroke of a letter, will pass from the law until all is accomplished. Therefore, whoever breaks one of the least of these commandments, and teaches others to do the same, will be called least in the kingdom of heaven; but whoever does them and teaches them will be called great in the kingdom of heaven.
RESPONSE:
We are actually disappointed to see Jesus' statements wrenched out of their immediate context since Jesus was not commenting on sacrifices as something binding upon his disciples. Here is our response to this very issue taken from another one of our articles:
The authors have actually misunderstood Jesus' point in fulfilling the Law/Prophets. Fulfillment did not just entail Christ's perfect observance to the precepts of the Law, but also included the spiritual completion and perfection that Jesus gives to it. This is precisely what Jesus goes on to do in the verses that immediately follow. (cf. Matthew 5:21-48)
God's design was that the Law/Prophets would find their true completion and perfection in the Messiah. Hence, Jesus' meaning was not that he had come to fulfill in the sense that he came to obey, which he certainly did. Rather, it entailed fulfillment in the sense of both interpreting and exegeting the Law, as well as fulfilling the predictions it made about the coming Messiah:
"You search the scriptures because you think that in them you have eternal life; and it is they that testify on my behalf. Yet you refuse to come to me to have life." John 5:39-40
"Do not think that I will accuse you before the Father; your accuser is Moses, on whom you have set your hope. If you believed Moses, you would believed me. For he wrote about me." John 5:45-46
"For being ignorant of the righteousness that God ascribes (which makes one acceptable to Him in word, thought and deed), and seeking to establish a righteousness (a means of salvation) of their own, they did not obey or submit themselves to God's righteousness. For Christ is the end of the Law - the limit at which it ceases to be, for the Law leads up to Him Who is the fulfillment of its types, and in Him the purpose in which it was designed to accomplish is fulfilled.- That is, the purpose of the Law is fulfilled in Him- as the means of righteousness (right relationship to God) for everyone who trusts in and adheres to and relies on Him." Romans 10:3-4 Amplified Bible
In fact, the OT states that it is the Law of the Messiah in which the nations shall trust:
Hence, it is the Law as interpreted by Christ that is binding on all believers. This is the sense in which Jesus fulfills the Law, in bringing it to its desired goal. In order for Christ to bring the Law to its spiritual perfection, it became necessary for him to both reinterpret and reinforce certain aspects of it, purifying it from the false interpretation that had evolved around it by the religious sects of his day.
Messianic Jew, David H. Stern, elaborates:
Therefore, the Learner's use of this passage to support the Quranic error that all believers were commanded to give sacrifices does not hold any weight.
And then, talking about offering sacrifices to God, Jesus (pbuh) is reported to have said:
So, when you are offering your gift[3] at the altar, if you remember that your brother or sister has something against you, leave your gift there before the altar and go; first be reconciled to your brother or sister, and then come and offer your gift.
It should be clear from the above references that even though "Christianity" does not ascribe to sacrifice, yet Jesus (pbuh) did not abolish it.
RESPONSE:
We have already commented on the Learner's error in using Matthew 5 as support for the mistake in the Quran.
The other error that the Learner commits is an anachronistic or chronological fallacy. Jesus' statements were made while the Old Covenant regulations were still binding. It wasn't until Jesus' death that the New Covenant was inaugurated, canceling out the Old Covenant regulations:
It wasn't until Christ's resurrection and ascension into heaven that the body of believers known as Christians came into being:
When the day of Pentecost came, they were all together in one place. Suddenly a sound like the blowing of a violent wind came from heaven and filled the whole house where they were sitting. They saw what seemed to be tongues of fire that separated and came to rest on each of them. All of them were filled with the Holy Spirit and began to speak in other tongues as the Spirit enabled them. Now there were staying in Jerusalem God-fearing Jews from every nation under heaven. When they heard this sound, a crowd came together in bewilderment, because each one heard them speaking in his own language... When the people heard this, they were cut to the heart and said to Peter and the other apostles, "Brothers, what shall we do?" Peter replied, "Repent and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins. And you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. The promise is for you and your children and for all who are far off - for all whom the Lord our God will call." With many other words he warned them; and he pleaded with them, "Save yourselves from this corrupt generation." Those who accepted his message were baptized, and about three thousand were added to their number that day. They devoted themselves to the apostles' teaching and to the fellowship, to the breaking of bread and to prayer. Everyone was filled with awe, and many wonders and miraculous signs were done by the apostles. All the believers were together and had everything in common. Selling their possessions and goods, they gave to anyone as he had need. Every day they continued to meet together in the temple courts. They broke bread in their homes and ate together with glad and sincere hearts, praising God and enjoying the favor of all the people. And the Lord added to their number daily those who were being saved. Acts 2:1-6, 37-47
The outpouring of the Holy Spirit was an indication that the Church was born since it is only through the Holy Spirit that one becomes united to Christ's body, that is the Church:
And he is the head of the body, the church; he is the beginning and the firstborn from among the dead, so that in everything he might have the supremacy. Colossians 1:18
Therefore, after the birth of the Church Gentiles who became believers were loosed from any obligation to offer animal sacrifices in order to make atonement of their sins since Jesus is the consummation of such sacrifices:
The point of what we are saying is this: We do have such a high priest, who sat down at the right hand of the throne of the Majesty in heaven, and who serves in the sanctuary, the true tabernacle set up by the Lord, not by man. Every high priest is appointed to offer both gifts and sacrifices, and so it was necessary for this one also to have something to offer. If he were on earth, he would not be a priest, for there are already men who offer the gifts prescribed by the law. They serve at a sanctuary that is a copy and shadow of what is in heaven. This is why Moses was warned when he was about to build the tabernacle: "See to it that you make everything according to the pattern shown you on the mountain." But the ministry Jesus has received is as superior to theirs as the covenant of which he is mediator is superior to the old one, and it is founded on better promises. For if there had been nothing wrong with that first covenant, no place would have been sought for another. But God found fault with the people and said: "The time is coming, declares the Lord, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah. It will not be like the covenant I made with their forefathers when I took them by the hand to lead them out of Egypt, because they did not remain faithful to my covenant, and I turned away from them, declares the Lord. This is the covenant I will make with the house of Israel after that time, declares the Lord. I will put my laws in their minds and write them on their hearts. I will be their God, and they will be my people. No longer will a man teach his neighbor, or a man his brother, saying, 'Know the Lord,' because they will all know me, from the least of them to the greatest. For I will forgive their wickedness and will remember their sins no more." By calling this covenant new, he has made the first one obsolete; and what is obsolete and aging will soon disappear. Hebrews 8:1-13
"For Christ did not enter a man-made sanctuary that was only a copy of the true one; he entered heaven itself, now to appear for us in God's presence. Nor did he enter heaven to offer himself again and again, the way the high priest enters the Most Holy Place every year with blood that is not his own. Then Christ would have had to suffer many times since the creation of the world. But now he has appeared once for all at the end of the ages to do away with sin by the sacrifice of himself. Just as man is destined to die once, and after that to face judgment, so Christ was sacrificed once to take away the sins of many people; and he will appear a second time, not to bear sin, but to bring salvation to those who are waiting for him." Hebrews 9:24-28
"The law is only a shadow of the good things that are coming - not the realities themselves. For this reason it can never, by the same sacrifices repeated endlessly year after year, make perfect those who draw near to worship. If it could, would they not have stopped being offered? For the worshipers would have been cleansed once for all, and would no longer have felt guilty for their sins. But those sacrifices are an annual reminder of sins, because it is impossible for the blood of bulls and goats to take away sins. Therefore, when Christ came into the world, he said: 'Sacrifice and offering you did not desire, but a body you prepared for me; with burnt offerings and sin offerings you were not pleased. Then I said, "Here I am - it is written about me in the scroll - I have come to do your will, O God."' First he said, 'Sacrifices and offerings, burnt offerings and sin offerings you did not desire, nor were you pleased with them" (although the law required them to be made). Then he said, 'Here I am, I have come to do your will.' He sets aside the first to establish the second. And by that will, we have been made holy through the sacrifice of the body of Jesus Christ once for all. Day after day every priest stands and performs his religious duties; again and again he offers the same sacrifices, which can never take away sins. But when this priest had offered for all time one sacrifice for sins, he sat down at the right hand of God. Since that time he waits for his enemies to be made his footstool, because by one sacrifice he has made perfect forever those who are being made holy." Hebrews 10:1-14
Hence, the sacrifice of Christians is spiritual in nature:
As you come to him, the living Stone - rejected by men but chosen by God and precious to him - you also, like living stones, are being built into a spiritual house to be a holy priesthood, offering spiritual sacrifices acceptable to God through Jesus Christ. 1 Peter 2:4-5
Jewish believers, on the other hand, would continue to observe many aspects of the Torah which Gentiles were not required to, such as offering sacrifices (cf. Acts 18:18; 21:20-26; 24:17). However, in light of the revelation of Jesus these Jewish Christians became aware that such sacrifices were not salvific, that they did not take away sins, but served as a shadow and reminder of Christ's once and for all sacrifice.
Thus, as it stands the Quran is clearly wrong that God commanded ALL people to offer sacrifices, since neither Jesus nor his Jewish followers commanded that Gentile converts should observe such sacrifices but actually freed them from that obligation.
Hence, we conclude with the Learner's own words slightly modified:
In light of the preceding factors, we find that the Quran is again in gross error.
5- Queen of Sheba and Sun Worship
The Qur'an has made reference to the sun worship of the Queen of Sheba. Mr. Shamoun contends that this reference of the Qur'an is incorrect. According to Mr. Shamoun, archeology has proven this to be incorrect, according to which, moon, not the sun, was worshipped by the referred people. In this respect, Mr. Shamoun has referred to the following URL:
http://www.scitec.auckland.ac.nz/~king/Preprints/book/orsin/orsin3.html
However, a close look at the referred URL shows that it does not support the 'error' claim of Mr. Shamoun. The archeological evidence given on the referred page only suggests that the referred people worshipped the moon. Obviously, the prevalence of moon worship does not, by itself, refute that of sun worship. We know that both the sun and the moon have generally been common objects of worship in people who worshipped celestial bodies.
RESPONSE:
No one is denying that the people of Sheba worshiped the sun. But rather, that the primary deity worshiped during that time was the moon. Hence, it would have been more accurate for the Quran to mention this fact since the impression given is that the sun was the primary deity worshiped. Yet, I agree with the Learner's assessment that this in itself does not prove conclusively that the Quran is mistaken at this point.
It may be mentioned here that not only the Qur'an but also the Jewish Encyclopedia and the Kebra Negast[4] inform us that the Queen of Sheba and her people worshipped the sun.
According to the Jewish Encyclopedia:
... Solomon, accordingly, caused a letter to be tied to the hoopoe's wing, which the bird delivered to the queen toward the evening as she was going out to make her devotions to the sun. (IX, 443)
In chapter 27 of the Kebra Negast, the Queen tells Solomon:
"We worship the sun...for he cooketh our food, and moreoever he illumineth the darkness, and removeth fear; we call him "our King," and we call him "our Creator....And there are others among our subjects.... some worship stones, and some worship trees, and some worship carved figures, and some worship images of gold and silver."[5]
RESPONSE:
The only problem with the Learner's appeal to the above Jewish references is that these sources are not primary documents. Rather, as in the case of Kebra Negest, the Jewish story is nothing more than a Talmudic fable written centuries after the fact. In fact, this introduces another problem namely that the Quranic story about the Queen of Sheba is nothing more than a rehashing of an older and yet even more unreliable Jewish fable. (See these articles: [1], [2], [3], [4].)
Hence, in attempting to circumvent one problem, the Learner inadvertently introduces another in its place.
6- Fables of History
The Qur'an has informed us that:
- Solomon's armies consisted of men as well as jinn;
- Solomon could understand the communication of animals and birds (including ants);
- God subjected the wind to Solomon; it blew according to his needs[6].
Mr. Shamoun has termed these blessings of God on Solomon to be 'Fables of History'. I really don't think this deserves a response. In fact, I think it is for Mr. Shamoun to help us understand why, in his opinion, the miracles God's special gifts ascribed to Jesus (pbuh), Moses (pbuh) etc. are not 'fables', while these ascribed to Solomon are? Is it merely because of the fact that they have been mentioned in the 'credible' Bible? Why does Mr. Shamoun think that the same God, who had the power to bless Jesus (pbuh) with bringing the dead back to life and to walk on water etc. etc. cannot bless Solomon with these as well as any other powers?
I hope this helps. In case any aspect of question remains unanswered, please feel free in writing back to me at your own convenience.
May God guidance to the path of his liking.
RESPONSE:
As I mentioned previously, my point was not to attack the Quran per se but rather to attack a certain methodology employed by Muslim apologists. For instance, in one article Shabir Ally gives the following advice to Muslim dai'ees:
The New American Bible is an official Christian Bible. Yet it contains many
points of interest and value to the Muslim caller to Islam. Every caller
who intends to use the Bible for Dawah should get a copy of this Bible.
Get especially (if you can) the St. Joseph Medium Size Edition.
The introduction to this Bible includes an article entitled: How to Read Your
Bible. This article makes a lot of valuable points. I reproduce for your
edification some of the main points offered in that introduction. Everything
listed in the points below is directly asserted in the article itself or
implied therein. I have only summarized. I did not improvise. Where I use
my own words I still represent the ideas of the authors. Often, you will
notice the presence of quotations marks. These mark off the included words
as the words actually used by the editors of the New American Bible,
St. Joseph Medium Size Edition. The article from which the points are drawn
is found on pages 17 to 35 of the introduction. Consider these points; use
them politely and wisely.
What the Scholars Confess About the Bible in General
The Bible is not necessarily the most read book or the best understood book.
The Bible was inspired by God. But "This does not mean that God dictated
His message as a businessman dictates a letter to a secretary. God takes the
author as he is and leaves him free to choose his own means of communication."
"Some authors chose existing folk tales and even beast fables to bring
out their point."
(Source: this article)
Shabir thinks that by appealing to the liberal wing of Christianity, scholars that deny inspiration and revelation as well as the supernatural, he can then build a case against Christianity.
My use of Muhammad Asad was to illustrate the fact that both Muslims and Christians have so-called scholars that attack the integrity of their respective scriptures. Therefore, the problem the Learner has is not with me but rather with a recognized Muslim authority, Muhammad Asad and his attacks on Quranic stories that he claimed were nothing more than legends and myths.
In conclusion, we would like to say that the Learner, along with the staff at Islamic Awareness and Akbarally Meherally, are perhaps the best representatives of Islam out there today. For the most part, the Learner does a tremendous job in articulating and defending Quranic concepts and passages. I for one have come to enjoy their explanations and therefore feel that they have helped enlightened me in my pursuit of an accurate understanding of Islam.
Keep up the great work Moiz Amjad and Co. You truly are a service and credit to Islam.
Your Brother in Humanity,
In the service of our Great God and Savior Jesus Christ forever and ever. Amen. Come Lord Jesus. We love you always.
here
Responses to the Learner
Articles by Sam Shamoun
Answering Islam Home Page
Answering Islam – Sam Shamoun Theology Newsletter
Join the newsletter to receive the latest updates in your inbox.
