A Christian missionary Dr. Anis Shorrosh says that the prophet's wives
were virtually captives in the prophet's houses. This he says because
they were not to be spoken to except from behind a curtain, and because
they could not remarry after Muhammad's death (see Dr. Anis Shorrosh,
Islam Revealed. US: Thomas Nelson, 1988. p. 64).
Dr. Shorrosh is mistaken. First, the wives of the prophet (pbuh) were
allowed to go out for their needs as specifically stated in the authentic
hadiths although it is true that they were also directed to stay at home
except when such need arose.
they were allowed to speak to other women face to face. The curtain applied
only in speaking to men. This was not to keep the wives of the prophet
captive but, as the Qur'an specifically said, so as to keep purity in
their hearts and the hearts of the men who spoke to them. They were not
captives but teachers. Men had to continually come to learn from them
about the prophet's example. The curtain rule was only to make sure that
the wrong type of attraction did not develop between teacher and student.
the fact that the wives of the prophet could not remarry after his death
has to be understood in its fuller context. The Qur'an declared them to
be the mothers of the believers. It was more of an honour to those women
to have billions of spiritual children than to have temporary husbands.
while the prophet (pbuh) was alive he offered them to opt for a separation
so that they can go their separate ways. They had shown some discontent
over the prophet's self-imposed poverty. But when the offer was made they
refused to leave the prophet and his poverty. What would they choose after
a mother in Islam is more honourable than a wife. After they are already
promoted to the respectable position as mother of all the believers why
would they want to demote themselves to become wives of their spiritual
sons? Dr. Shorrosh needs to look at this broader context in order to properly
understand the honourable position of the wives of the prophet (pbuh).
Is it true that the prophet (pbuh) had fallen in love with Zainab due
to her beauty?
If that were true it would not detract from the veracity of the prophet.
Muslims admit that he was a human being. It is not unnatural for a man
to fall in love. The fact that he is a prophet does not rob him of his
natural human emotions. In fact it is true that he loved his wives.
it is not true that he fell in love with Zainab in the way that is claimed
by some critics. They say that once the prophet visited Zaid, the husband
of Zainab. Zaid was out at the time, and Zainab was combing her hair.
The prophet was struck by her beauty and immediately left saying something
to the effect that God changes the hearts of people. When Zaid learnt
about this incident he offered the prophet that he would divorce Zainab
in order that the prophet may marry her. Accordingly, he divorced her
and the prophet married her.
things point to the lack of truth in this story. First, it is unlikely
that the prophet (pbuh) was suddenly struck by Zainab's beauty. Zainab
was his cousin. He had known her since childhood. Why would she suddenly
appear striking after she was already married to another?
the prophet had arranged for her to get married to Zaid. If there was
to be an attraction why did the prophet (pbuh) not encourage her to marry
none but himself?
the fact of the matter was that Zaid's marriage proved to be an unhappy
one. Zaid was a former slave and as such was held in low esteem in the
eyes of Zainab. He mentioned to the prophet that he intended to divorce
his wife. But the prophet advised him to keep his wife and avoid divorce.
the meantime, Zaid intended to divorce his wife, Allah intended to marry
her to the prophet. Eventually Zaid could maintain his marriage no longer.
He divorced Zainab and Allah declared in his Glorious Book that he has
wedded her to the prophet after the proper waiting period was over.
marriage served more than one purpose. First, the prophet was responsible
for arranging Zainab's marriage to Zaid. In a sense, then, he was also
indirectly responsible for the unhappiness she felt in her marriage. Her
marriage to the prophet now provided her the honour she felt she deserved,
and exonerated the prophet.
Zaid had been adopted as the prophet's son. Eventually, however, the Qur'an
prohibited the practice of changing the parental identity of adopted persons.
Zaid, then, was to no longer be called "son of Muhammad" but
rather "a close friend." The prophet's marriage to the divorced
wife of Zaid was a practical demonstration that the adopted relationship
was not equal to a real blood-relationship. A man cannot marry the divorced
wife of his real son but he can marry the divorced wife of his adopted
abolishment of the age-old practice was a positive improvement for the
adopted persons. People outside of Islam still continue this practice
for their own benefit. They adopt children and rob them of their real
identify, making them believe they are real children of the household
in which they grow up. When such children realize the truth they suffer
much disappointment and grief. The adoptive process continues for the
selfish gain of the adoptive parents.
is it not true that children sometimes need adoptive parents? Yes. But
they also need to preserve their real identify. This is what Islam ensures.
It is the responsibility of the entire community to help children in need.
They should be taken in and nurtured but not confused with one's own children.
prophet's marriage to Zainab was a bold measure to forever engrave in
the minds of his followers that as much as people would resist change,
some changes are worth the effort. Adoptive children should no longer
be robbed of their real identities.
Was Muhammad (pbuh) literate?
Muslims only claim that Muhammad was illiterate because they do not wish
to admit that he wrote the Qur'an. They want to substantiate the miraculous
nature of the Qur'an by claiming that Muhammad could not write.
The prophet Muhammad (pbuh) was indeed illiterate. This fact of history
will not change even if Muslims or non-Muslims wish it were otherwise.
The Qur'an is a source contemporary with the Prophet. This book acknowledges
that the prophet could neither read nor write. Even Dr. Anis Shorrosh,
admits that biological references in the Qur'an are invaluable because
they are contemporary with Muhammad (Islam Revealed, p. 47).
are some Qur'anic references to the illiteracy of the prophet: 7:157;
Muhammad were indeed literate Muslims would not need to hide it. The fact
that God revealed the Qur'an would not change even if Muhammad were literate.
When his contemporaries heard the Qur'an many remarked: "This is
no less than divine speech." Those who believed saw it not as the
speech of a literate man but as the speech of no man whether literate
proving the literacy of the prophet?
When the peace treaty of Hudaybiyah was to be signed, the nonbelievers
objected because the treaty said "Muhammad the Messenger of Allah."
They wanted the words "Messenger of Allah" struck out. Muhammad
struck out the words and instead wrote "son of Abdullah."
Because of the variations in the reports which describe this incident
one cannot be sure that the prophet himself wrote "son of Abdullah."
But if for the sake of discussion we grant that he did, this does not
detract from the fact that he was illiterate.
do we find a person who is so illiterate that he could not write his own
name. Yet, if there is no evidence that a person wrote more than his name
we do not have sufficient evidence to describe such a person as literate.
title "son of Abdullah" would function as an identifying element
in the prophet's name. Hence this would be roughly equivalent to someone
writing Mark, son of John, or usually Mark Johnson. Writing this much
not proof enough of a person's literacy. A man's ability to write his
full name does not prove that he could write a book.
When Muhammad was on his death bed he called for writing instruments so
that he could write some final instructions. If he could not write, why
did he ask for such materials?
Most officials write through secretaries. When such an official calls
for writing instruments he intends for his secretaries to write. When
he says, "I will write to you" he means, "I will dictate
a letter to you; my secretaries will write it, or type it." The fact
that the prophet called for writing instruments does not prove that he
Q. The prophet was
a successful trader. Surely he knew how to read and write.
Being a successful trader is not proof enough that a person is literate.
Many merchants are unable to compose a paragraph. As an example, my mother
was a successful merchant. In all her trading years she affixed her thumbprint
for a signature because she could not write her own name. In her retirement
years she learnt how to write her name and a few simple words. But then
she was known to be a registered student in a formal study program. This
fact could not be hidden from her friends and relatives. How did Muhammad
(pbuh) compose the most remarkable book of all time and yet his schooling
remains a mystery?
Dr. Anis Shorrosh says he saw a copy of a letter signed by Muhammad. Does
this not prove that he could write?
If the letter is genuine it can only prove that the prophet could sign
his own name. It does not prove that he could write a letter, much less
a book. Notice that even Dr. Shorrosh does not claim that the prophet
wrote the letter?only that he signed it.
The prophet lived among eloquent bedouins. Surely he picked up beautiful
7th century Arabic from them.
Those people admitted that their beautiful 7th century Arabic was no match
for the beauty and eloquence of the Qur'an and the excellence of its teachings.
They had to confess that the Qur'an is no less than divine speech.
Dr. Shorrosh says that when Gabriel commanded Muhammad to read, this implies
that he could also write.
The logic in that statement is fuzzy. Just because a person can read is
not proof enough that he can write. Many readers have never handled a
Dr. Shorrosh (p. 53) says that the Qur'an refers to Muhammad as "one
who taught by the pen" in surah 96:1-5.
On the contrary, the surah refers to Muhammad's Lord as the one who taught
by the pen.
Why did Muhammad consider suicide when he was troubled about the revelation?
He had no idea what to make of the experience. He grew up in a tradition
in which angels did not visit people. A common interpretation in his culture
would have been that he was seeing visions as a result of being jinn-possessed.
This indeed is the accusation his people eventually levelled against him.
Fearing that this interpretation was true, the prophet preferred to die
rather than mislead his people. But before he could do anything, the angel
Gabriel called out to him and assured him that he was indeed the messenger
Dr. Shorrosh (p. 54) concludes that at the moment of inspiration the prophet
fell to the ground according to a tradition.
Notice that he did not say which tradition because there is no such tradition.
the Satanic Verses?
Why were Muslims so angry with Salman Rushdie?
His book "The Satanic Verses" is a mockery of everything that
Muslims hold sacred. It is a parody of the prophet Muhammad, his noble
family, the book of God, and the prophets of God.
book is a work of fiction in which the characters are made to represent
the most noble characters of Islam. Yet the characters in the novel are
made to indulge in sexual promiscuity. This to Muslims is more distasteful
than if their own mothers were depicted in those scenes.
Are people other than Muslims also upset over that publication?
Yes. Many non-Muslims thinkers and writers have also condemned the publication
as being insensitive and knowingly provocative. On the other hand, many
others argue in the name of freedom of speech that anyone should be free
to express his ideas. But even those people must agree that freedom has
its limits. One person should not be so free as to harm others and get
away with it.
persons do not see why Muslims should be so upset over religion. Most
people today think that religion is not important enough to get excited
about. This may be their own conclusions about their own religions. But
where they extend their conclusion to apply to Islam they are quite wrong.
Muslims are still convinced that Islam is the truth to live for and die
for. All the rational evidence is in favour of the Muslim position.
Why does the book use the name "Satanic Verses"?
The title refers to a passage which was said to once form part of the
Qur'an and was later obliterated from the sacred scripture. The claim
goes that when the Qur'an was being handed down to the prophet a piece
at a time, a piece came down to recognise the Gods of the prophet's opponents.
The claim continues to assert that after a while the prophet declared
these verses to be of satanic origin and that they are to be replaced
by other verses of divine origin.
this claim is true it does not affect the truth of Islam or the veracity
of the Qur'an. In sum, the claim is that the devil threw something into
the Qur'anic revelation but God blotted out what the devil threw and God
established his own pure revelation. This is perhaps why some early Muslim
sources did not shy away from recording this claim.
a full analysis of the story would prove the claim to be at best doubtful
and at worst fictitious. It is most unlikely that the Qur'an ever contained
anything to honour or affirm the validity of any but the one true God
Allah. If this was ever done it is difficult to see how anyone would not
be utterly confused by such a passage. The call of Islam has always been
known from the beginning to admit of only one God who has no partners,
relatives, or intercessors.
choice of the name "The Satanic Verses," therefore, was highly
inappropriate?unless one was trying to be deliberately provocative.
It would have been a different matter if someone had presented the idea
of the claim about satanic verses for the sake of academic discussion.
This indeed is often done in many writings. Muslims do not raise a cry
against such writings because their claims are made in a style which can
be responded to in likewise academic format. When, however, a claim is
made within the framework of fiction, one is unable to respond. If one
attempts, he is told, "C'mon, man, can't you take a joke? It's only
fiction. The author didn't mean it."
key in talking to Atheists is to bring them back always to the fundamental
questions. If they ask questions to raise objections to the details of
Islam you can spend all day arguing and end up nowhere. What you need
to do is to remind them of the hopeless position of an Atheist.
Atheist position is indeed hopeless. The believer has hope. If there is
a God and there is life after death then the believer wins. If there is
no God or no life after death the believer loses nothing. On the other
hand, the Atheist loses badly if he wakes up to discover himself in the
afterlife. In sum, if there is no afterlife both the believer and the
Atheist are safe. But if there is an afterlife then the Atheist loses.
The only one who can possibly lose is the Atheist.
the Atheist can argue that if there is no afterlife then the believer
has wasted his life in false hope. We can reply that Islam gives our lives
order, meaning, balance, purpose, and direction. We have hope founded
on clear facts and dependable revelation from Allah.
the other hand, it is the Atheist who is wasting his life. His life has
no purpose but temporary enjoyment. But such enjoyment is always tempered
by nagging doubts about whether or not life is heading in the right direction.
It is the believer who lives in quiet confidence that God's promise is
key, then, is to remind the Atheist that he is the only one who stands
to lose. Sure he may have questions, doubts, and objections to some of
the details of Islam. But rather than waste a lot of time trying to answer
for the details, bring the discussion back to the fundamentals. Is there
a God? Is there an afterlife? Is the Atheist secure?
if the Atheist has doubts it is still reasonable for him to embrace Islam.
To illustrate this fact, consider this situation. You are told that there
is a speed-trap set by police to catch speeders on a certain road. Even
if you doubt the information you must still act as though you believe
it. You will slow down just to be on the safe side. You feel no need to
start arguing that the police would never do a thing like that, or that
you drove there before and never got caught speeding. In a similar sense
the Atheist can simply submit in Islam although he still has doubts. Rather
than argue about what he doubts he should first get on the safe side and
then investigate further.
reasonable thing, then, is for the Atheist to accept Islam right away.
If he will not take this reasonable position, then why should you argue
with an unreasonable person? Just remind him that even if Islam is wrong
you are still safe. But if Islam is right he is in deep trouble. To use
an expression, the Atheist may well be up the creek without a paddle.
to Jews and Christians
Jews and Christians believe in that part of the Bible which Christians
call the Old Testament. The Old Testament contains references to the prophet
Muhammad, on whom be peace and blessings. That Book declared him to be
a true prophet. So it is necessary for the Jew and Christian to believe
that Islam is true. You therefore do not need to argue over the details
of Islam with a Jew or Christian. If he thinks Islam is wrong on any point
he has to answer for himself why his Bible recommends Muhammad if he taught
a false religion. If he wants to reject the prophet Muhammad (pbuh) then
he has to also reject his Bible. But then if he rejects his Bible he is
no longer a Jew or a Christian and you have won the debate.
what remains is for us to specify where in the Bible to find mention of
our prophet. In the Old Testament there are many references. The most
significant is Song of Solomon, chapter 5, verse 16. This verse mentions
our prophet by name. It says in the Hebrew language Bibles "He is
Muhammad." But English translation have "He is altogether lovely"
instead of the real truth. You need to insist that, since it says our
prophet's name in the Hebrew, the "altogether lovely" translation
is nothing more than a camouflage hiding our prophet's name. Tell every
Bible reader whether Jew or Christian to ask any Hebrew scholar to read
the Hebrew word which appears as "altogether lovely" in the
translation. You will hear that word pronounced "Muhammad."
Why then hide what you should believe?
the Jew or Christian may feel backed into a corner and attempt to escape
by throwing you this punch. They may say that if you refer to the Bible
you should believe in everything it says. You should reply that you do
not believe in everything the Bible says. And that is alright for you
because you never claimed that the Bible is, in its present form, entirely
the word of God. On the other hand both the Christian and the Jew say
that the Song of Solomon is the word of God. How can they refuse what
important distinction is as follows. You are asking them to recognise
the man whom their Bible speaks about not because you believe in
their Bible but because they do. You are simply using a valid form
of argument to establish a proof. What they accept as their
authority is proof against them, not against you. You are
simply turning their proof back on them. What they say is the Word of
God is telling them to believe in Muhammad (pbuh). How can they escape
sum, no matter what objection they raise against Islam, remember that
in reply you can always argue as follows. If there is something wrong
with Islam why does the Bible recommend the prophet who taught us this
religion? If they cannot answer this then you also do not need to answer
all this seems too easy it is just because the truth is on your side.
It wins with flying colours. Allah says that when the truth is hurled
against falsehood it smashes its core.
Talking to Hindus
believe in many gods. These gods are described as having human form. Often
they are couples, a male god and his female consort. Hindus make visual
representations, images, and idols of these gods and worship before these.
When you understand this you immediately realise that no Hindu should
raise objections to Islam. If they feel that one of the minor items of
Islam is wrong you should concentrate on showing them that at the fundamental
level Hinduism is wrong.
you have to do is remind them in a polite way about the nature of the
gods they worship. Tell them that the problem they see or the objection
they have against Islam is really only about one of the branches of Islam.
The main trunk is the idea of God. So discussions about religion need
to begin with the main trunk. First, we should discuss whether or not
God exists. If we agree that God exists we must ask who is He, whether
he is one or many, and whether he has wives and sons.
they agree to this reasonable framework for discussion, proceed to state
your belief in the one
creator of the heavens and the earth. Then ask the Hindu to tell you about
his gods. If he is not fully aware you can help him to understand a few
facts about his gods. Then the choice of God should become clear. Once
you understand what Hindus believe about their gods you will see that
the only reasonable choice for a rational Hindu is to accept Allah alone.
are a few quick facts about the Hindu gods. They believe that there are
three principal gods: Brahma, Shiva and Vishnu. Brahma creates; Shiva
destroys; and Vishnu preserves. One makes, another breaks, and another
of these three have consorts. Brahma's wife is Saraswati. Shiva's wife
is Parbatti. And Vishnu's wife is Lakshmi. As is already obvious, these
gods are described as having very human characteristics. How can one of
these or the three together create, govern and preserve the universe?
gods also have human limitations and needs. For example, Shiva is known
for his attachment to his wife. The religious books of the Hindus describe
how Shiva was once busy with his wife when a saint came to see him. He
did not pay proper respect to the saint, since he was occupied with his
wife. The saint therefore put a curse on him with the result that today
Shiva is worshipped in a representation as a male phallic symbol, called
the lingam. His wife Parbatti is likewise worshipped in the representation
of a female sexual part, called the yoni. Hindus look for stones
that resemble these shapes and set them up for worship. They also deliberately
carve such shapes to bow down before them. In some temples of Shiva you
will find in the courtyard the two shapes together, one inserted in the
other. Just open up this subject with any Hindu who objects to anything
in Islam. Remember to be polite. Your aim is never to offend anyone. You
simply need to deflect the objection by reminding the Hindu about his
own religion. Being polite even works better.
What About Claimed
Contradictions in the Qur'an?
How many days did it take God to create the heavens and the earth? Some
surahs say six. One surah says eight. Which is right?
Six is right. No surah says eight. Critics who are eager to find a contradiction
in the Qur'an try to make surah 41 say eight days. But they cannot prove
their case. Actually, surah 41 agrees with the six day span mentioned
in surahs 7:54; 10:3; 11:7; and 25:59.
critics go about their business in a strange fashion. They notice in surah
41 verses 9-12 that Allah created the earth in two days and measured out
its sustenance in four days. This comes to obviously six days altogether.
But then the Qur'an makes a further reference to the first two days. Critics
want to add these two days to the already established total of six. But
how can they? Do the critics wish to double-count? Or are they so over-zealous
to find a contradiction that they would use any unreasonable means?
bottom line is that this is not a contradiction in the Qur'an. Despite
the efforts of the critics building on the work of previous generations
of critics not a single contradiction has been proven in the Qur'an.
Is the Qur'an
the Word of God?
The Qur'an speaks about the past, revealing details that were unknown
to Muhammad and his countrymen. Yet independent research confirms the
truth of what the Qur'an revealed. The Qur'an cannot be shown to have
a single historical error.
Qur'an also speaks about the future. And the future unfolds exactly as
the Qur'an said it will. Not a single Qur'anic prediction has ever failed.
Qur'an also reveals details about the natural sciences which were not
discovered by scientists until a few decades ago. These facts were unknown
to man, but revealed in the Qur'an. Who revealed those facts if not God
most people would trace back in history to the point when Muhammad was
the first man to make the Qur'an public. Then they would want to conclude
that Muhammad must have written the book. But wait.
facts indicate that Muhammad did not write the book. First, Muhammad could
not write except his own name. And even that is doubtful.
Muhammad claimed over a period of 23 years that the Qur'an was from God
alone and that he himself was only a conduit though whom the book was
made public. God revealed it, he said.
he have been lying? No. Even his enemies knew him to be an honest and
trustworthy individual. How could he tell such a big lie involving God?
And how could he maintain that lie for such a long time?
there opportunities for him to modify his claim? Yes. Did he? No. His
opponents offered to buy him off with money, power, and women. He refused.
What then could be his motive for maintaining his position? It could not
have been money, power, or women.
opponents offered to accept a modified version of the Qur'an. This was
an easy way out for him. Or was it? He said he dares not change a single
thing in the Qur'an lest Allah strikes him with a severe punishment.
Muhammad bore all kinds of persecution from his enemies just because he
will not stop preaching. He watched his close friends and followers being
beaten, tortured, and killed. He himself was insulted, beaten, spat upon,
choked, stoned, and almost killed. Did he give up? No. Why? This demonstrates
his sincerity. When he said that the Qur'an was from Allah he really believed
he have been deluded? No. The Qur'an speaks to Muhammad, commands him,
corrects him, and instructs him. If Muhammad wrote this book he would
have been a madman. But then if he was a madman he could not have written
such a book.
Qur'an is such a complete and comprehensive constitution for life that
it could not have been written by a madman. The book itself challenges
its opponents to come up with one better. The intelligentsia of the world
could not write a better book. Then why do they insist that a madman wrote
it? Is it because they do not want to accept it as a revelation from their
God and creator?
we have already seen that the Qur'an contains information about the past
and the future. How could such information come from the brain of any
man? More so, how could it come from the brain of a deluded man? It couldn't.
Qur'an contains a further challenge to the world. It claims itself to
be an inimitable masterpiece the like of which could never be produced
by man. Not to speak of the whole book, the like of any one surah could
not be man-made. Now all critics have to do is produce a surah of literary
beauty and eloquence similar to the Qur'an. Many have tried, all have
failed. It simply cannot be done. Why? Allah said it and none will ever
be able to contradict Allah.
non- Arabic speaker may wonder whether he is disadvantaged to meet this
challenge. Is there any way for such persons to appreciate the significance
of this challenge? Yes. In every field of knowledge we rely on experts
to share with us their findings. The experts in the field of Arabic linguistics
have nothing but admiration and appreciation for the wisdom and beauty
of the Qur'an and the eloquence of its expressions. The non-Arabic speaker
should ask such experts why they are unable to meet the Qur'anic challenges.
Then they can make up their own minds about what to believe.
is one more exercise to recommend for the skeptic. The Qur'an claims to
be free from error. Which other book claims this? None! No, not even the
Bible. Why only the Qur'an? Because all other books are authored in whole
or in part by fallible humans. Only the Qur'an is revealed entirely from
the infallible Wise Allah. Can the skeptic disprove this claim by finding
a single error in the Qur'an? Again, many skeptics have tried. All have
failed. No real error in the Qur'an has ever been established although
many imaginary errors have been claimed. The Qur'an remains demonstrably
true in its entirety.
What about the Surahs on the Internet?
Recently some Christian missionaries posted on the internet four surahs
in answer to the Qur'anic challenge. However, none of the four surahs
can be a match for the surahs of the Qur'an for the following reasons.
the missionary surahs are lacking in reason. They mimic some of the rhyme
of the Qur'an, but nothing of the reasonableness of the Qur'anic teachings.
The missionaries attempted to teach Christianity by means of their surahs.
But Christianity is inherently self-contradictory. It makes no sense that
Jesus is both man and God, that God is both one and three, or that an
innocent man is crucified so that the guilty can go free. If such beliefs
are expressed in eloquent language the expression will not match the Qur'an
which is the right combination of rhyme, rhythm and reason.
further explain this inadequacy of the missionary surahs, consider the
case of an evil person having lovely appearance. One who can see past
the outward beauty will find the core repugnant. Likewise patently false
teachings cannot be improved by expressing them in eloquent writings.
Of course one can always use such a gimmick to fool those who look only
at the surface. But for those who look deeper it just will not work.
to meet the challenge one has to invent something new, not copy something
existing. By mimicking the Qur'an the missionaries fail in meeting the
challenge. The Qur'an calls for an invention, not a plagiarization.
point of the challenge is this. Skeptics claim that Muhammad invented
the Qur'an on his own; that he did not get it from God. Allah's reply
is that Muhammad could not have invented it. But those who think he did
should likewise try to invent a surah like it. If they say Muhammad did
it why can't they likewise do it? But notice what Muhammad did not do.
He did not plagiarize. He did not mimic the existing styles of writing.
What he recited to the people did not fit any of the existing styles.
The recitations was completely new. Let the skeptics likewise produce
something new. This the missionaries have failed to do.
failure in this respect is remarkably pronounced. They have borrowed so
much from the Qur'an that whole phrases from the Qur'an (and even the
hadith) appear in the missionary surahs. In one of their surahs they even
reproduced the phrase "Bismillah Ar-Rahman Ar-Raheem" having
plagiarized it wholesale from the Book of Allah. Sorry, guys, this is
not what the Qur'an asked for. Please try again. Or, have you considered
surrendering yourselves to your maker?
Why does the Qur'an speak highly of the Torah and the Injeel if they are
The Qur'an declares that Muslims must believe in the original Torah and
Injeel, not the present day changed versions. When Torah or Injeel is
mentioned in the Qur'an a reader must establish from the context which
versions are referred to ? the real or the corrupt. Careful readers
will notice that whereas many Qur'anic passages praise the Torah and injeel,
some other passages candidly chastise the scribes who made changes or
writers who wrote without authority.
is true that the Qur'an does not use the terms "real Torah"
or "corrupt Torah." But usually this is quite clear from the
context. The mere fat that the name Torah refers to both the real thing
and its altered version should come as no surprise. There are many different
Bibles. Yet each is called a Bible. But in a given context one can usually
tell whether one is speaking of a Jewish Bible, a Catholic Bible or a
Protestant Bible. When, for example, a Protestant uses the term he certainly
does not mean the Catholic version unless he speaks of it in derision.
Similarly, when the Qur'an praises the Bible it is referring to the Bible
which is unchanged.
the other hand, the Qur'an in 2:79, and 9:30 make it clear that not the
entire Bible is from God.