Seven Lesson Sunday Morning Sermon Series on Islam
"The Books" Sermon Series
The fairy tales of the Qur'an.
The moment the Muslim accepts that Christ died on the cross, he is no longer a Muslim and he must reject the Koran. The moment the Christian accepts the Koran as the word of God, he must give up Christ Jesus as his savior and down grade him to a mere prophet whose true record of teachings can only be found in the Koran. There is no condition under which the Christian could ever accept the Koran as anything other than a book of human origin. The conviction of the Christian, forces him to reject the Koran as the word of God in the same way that the conviction of the Muslim, forces him to reject the crucifixion of Christ. Now it seems to me, that Muslims are under the impression that Christianity and Islam are compatible religions so I ask all Muslims, can you as a Muslim, accept as a principal of faith, that Christ died on the Cross for your sins? Will you preach such in your Mosque at Friday prayers?
There is nothing in the Koran that says that parts of the Bible have been lost altered and corrupted. In fact the Koran admonishes the Christians to follow the New Testament!
I. Miracle of the Koran:
Islam his had a difficult time explaining how both Moses and Christ performed miracles, but Muhammad never performed any miracles. Instead, what Muslims came up with is what they call, "the miracle of the Koran".
Muslim's believe that before the creation of the world, God had the exact words of the Arabic Koran inscribed in what is called the "mother of the book" or the "master tablet".
Muslim's also believe that the Arabic text of the Koran, that we hold in our hands today is absolutely identical with this mother preserved master tablet right down to the very syllables and individual letters of the text.
But Compare this with what scholars say about the Koran:
II. The earliest complete Koran manuscript in existence:
The Muslim claim:
"In other words: two of the copies of the Qur'an which were originally prepared in the time of Caliph `Uthman, are still available to us today and their texts and arrangement can be compared, by anyone who cares to, with any other copy of the Qur'an, be it in print or handwriting, from any place or period of time. They will be found to be identical." (Von Denffer, Ulum al-Qur'an, p 64)
Although Muslims proclaim they have a Koran that dates to the time of Muhammad, the Reality is different.
Two ancient copies of Koran that are in existence are the Samarqand MSS is in Tashkent, and the MSS housed in the Topkapi Museum in Istanbul. What many Muslim's do not know, is that because these two manuscripts were written in a script style called "Kufic", practicing Muslim scholars generally date these manuscripts no earlier than 200 years after Muhammad died. Had these two manuscripts been compiled any earlier, they would have been written in either the Ma'il or Mashq script style. John Gilchrist, in his book, "Jam' Al-Qur'an" came to this same conclusion. (John Gilchrist, Jam' Al-Qur'an, Jesus to the Muslims, 1989)
Now we do have one ancient copy of the Koran written in the Ma'il style of script, that is housed in the British Museum in London(Lings & Safadi 1976:17,20; Gilchrist 1989:16,144). But scholar Martin Lings, who was not only a practicing Muslim, but also a former curator for the manuscripts of the British Museum, dates this manuscript at 790 AD, making it the earliest. On the other hand Yasir Qadhi notes one Islamic Masters/PhD scholar who believes the Samarqand MSS is the 'most likely candidate for the original'.
It is unknown, even by Muslims that authorities will not release photographs of the ancient Topkapi manuscript in Istanbul and so there are no known studies on it. This is why the Muslim apologist, M. Saifullah had to state "Concerning the Topkapi manuscript we are not aware of studies done it." (Who's Afraid Of Textual Criticism?, M. S. M. Saifullah, 'Abd ar-Rahman Squires & Muhammad Ghoniem) What is in this manuscript that Muslims are afraid to let the world see? After all in Qur'an 2:111 it says "Produce your proof if you are truthful."
Even the earliest fragmentary manuscripts of the Koran are all dated no earlier than 100 years after Muhammad died.
Add to this the fact that there is no archeological evidence dated at the time when Muhammad was alive, by way of artifact, manuscript or inscription has ever been found were Muhammad is actually referred to as "a prophet".
If you don't believe me, listen to faithful Muslim, Ahmad Von Denffer, in his book, Ulum al Quran, in a chapter called, Old Manuscripts Of The Qur'an, "Most of the early original Qur'an manuscripts, complete or in sizeable fragments, that are still available to us now, are not earlier than the second century after the Hijra. [or 800 AD] The earliest copy, which was exhibited in the British Museum during the 1976 World of Islam Festival, dated from the late second century.' However, there are also a number of odd fragments of Qur'anic papyri available, which date from the first century." (Grohmann, A.: Die Entstehung des Koran und die altesten Koran- Handschriften', in: Bustan, 1961, pp. 33-8)
III. Textual variations in the different versions of the Koran:
IV. The Compilation Of The Qur'an As Recorded In the Bukhari Hadith:
Ney Reiber made this summary of the compilation of the Qur'an based upon the Bukhari Hadith, which is considered one of the most accurate in existence by Muslims.
Pre-Islamic Poetry was invented to explain Grammatical errors in the Koran: .75m
The Koran contains many grammatical errors. Most Muslim's today will defend the Koran's grammatical errors, by finding similar grammatical errors in Pre-Islamic poetry. What most Muslim's do not know is that much of this Pre-Islamic poetry is a forgery that was actually fabricated for the specific purpose of defending the alleged miracle of the Koran. For those Muslim's who are who are clucking in angry disbelief at me, listen to what Egyptian Muslim scholar Taha Hussein, said, "The vast quantity of what is called pre-Islamic poetry has nothing to do with the pre-Islamic literature, but it is fabricated after Islam. ... Thus our research will lead us to a very strange conclusion; that this poetry can not be used in interpreting the Qur'an." (Fil-Adab al-Jaheli, Taha Hussein, Dar al-Ma'aref, 16th edition, p. 65, 67)
In addition to this it is well documented that Muslims have actually invented new grammar rules and foreign words in order to maintain the myth of the perfect Koran.
V. Many Hadith are forgeries.
The Koran is to the Bible, what the Hadith is to the uninspired writings of the early church fathers. Most Muslims are completely unaware that Muslim scholars admit that large portions of the Hadith were fabricated by godly pious Muslim leaders in the past. These Hadith, were manufactured to spread the teaching of Islam.
Many Hadith are forgeries, but don't take my word for it, Muslim scholar, Mahmood Abu Rayyah Adwa' 'Ala As-Sunnah Al-Muhammadeya, said, in a chapter in his book called, The Godly Fabricators, "good pious Muslims fabricated hadiths thinking that they were doing a good deed and when they were asked, "How do you lie to the Prophet of Allah", they replied, "We do not lie against him but for him."" ... "Alhafez Ibn Hagar said "Some ignorant people, being puffed up have fabricated threatening and wooing Hadith". To defend themselves they said, "We did not lie against the Prophet we did what we did to support his tradition."" (Mahmood Abu Rayyah, Adwa' 'Ala As-Sunnah Al-Muhammadeya, Dar al-Ma'aref, Cairo, 1980, pp. 111-112)
There is no set Hadith, but Shiites and Sunnis have different sets of Hadiths. The result is a difference in religious power and control, practice of Islamic civil laws, and ritual. (the passion play during the month of Muharram, part of the festival of Ashura - a commemoration of the martyrdom of Husayn)
Moral content of the Hadith:
What about the content of the Koran?
Now let's assume for a moment that I'm a prophet and I want to tell you about a revelation I got from God last night. It's about a beautiful young Christian girl whose mother made her do all the housework while her other two sisters did nothing. One night her local church was having an all night prayer meeting, but she was not allowed to go. But after her sisters had left, an angel came and changed her dirty work clothes into a dazzling white dress. The angel also changed her bus pass into a beautiful red sports car. But the angel warned her make sure she was home by her midnight curfew or the sports car would be turned back into a bus pass. When she arrived at the prayer meeting, she met a handsome preacher's son. But then the angel called her on her cell phone and told her it was 5 minutes to midnight. As she ran down the outside stairs the church building, one of her shoes fell off, which the handsome preacher's son picked up and kissed. As she drove her sports car home midnight struck, and she found herself sitting in the middle-of-the-road in her dirty work clothes with a bus pass in her hand. That's my revelation from God.
Now raise your hand if you recognized the Cinderella story. That's like the content of the Qur'an. Fairy tales and myths retold as if they are real history. But don't take my word for it, here are 10 examples noted by Yusuf Ali, who translated the most recommended English version of the Koran.
Examples of where the Koran makes fairy tales real!
17 up to this point.
VI. Historical errors
1. Mary, Mother of Jesus
Koran 5:116, represents Christians as worshipping Mary as the third member of the Trinity, when in fact the only ones worshiping Mary, based upon the record of history, were the pagan Arabs who worship her idol in the Kaba.
"The passage of the Qur'an which suggests that the Trinity consists of Father, Son, and Virgin Mary is doubtless a criticism of some nominally Christian Arabs who held this view." (Muhammad at Mecca, W. Montgomery Watt, 1953, p 23-29)
When Mohammed first cleansed the Kaba of the 360 pagan idols, both Jesus and the mother of Mary were worshiped as deities. The Koran strongly denies that Jesus or the mother of Mary are to be worshiped. What is interesting is that the Koran actually appears to represent Christians as worshipping Mary as the third member of the Trinity in Koran 5:116, "Allah will say, "O Jesus, son of Mary, did you say to the people, `Make me and my mother idols beside Allah?' Yusuf Ali, in footnote 829 commenting on this verse says, "The worship of Mary, though repudiated by the Protestants, was widely spread in the earlier Churches, both in the East and the West." (The holy Qur'an, text, translation and commentary by Abdullah Yusuf Ali. 1872-1952, First published in 1938, 1973 ed., p. 280, footnote 829, commenting on 5:116)
Ali is historically inaccurate. The record of history is clear. Although some Christians at the time of Mohammed began to exalt and adore Mary, in the same way Muslim's venerate and adore the Black stone, they did not worship her any more than Muslims worship the black stone. Although they called her mother of God, for being the human mother of the divine Jesus, Mary was not worshiped. It was not until the seventeenth century that Alphonsus Liguori, (1696-1787) wrote his book "The Glories of Mary" which promoted Mary to her present-day status of being worshipped in the Catholic Church. Mohammed mistakenly thought Christians were worshiping Mary because the pagan Arabs considered her a pagan deity in the Kaba, and for proof Mohammed noted that some Christians called Mary mother of God. It seems more likely that the picture of Mary in the Kaba, worshipped by the pagan Arabs, is the likely source of Mohammed's confusion. The pagan Arabs began to worship Mary because some Christians were calling her mother of God, thinking her to be another pagan deity. In fact Christians were not worshiping Mary and claims to the contrary are historically unfounded.
2. Immaculate conception.
Muslim's reject the doctrine of inherited sin of Adam but teach the Immaculate Conception of Mary. It hasn't dawned upon them, that if you reject inherited sin, the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception is not needed because all men are born without sin.
Muslim's are correct in rejecting a false doctrine of inherited sin of Adam, But, Mohammed was evidently unaware of the inter relationship between the doctrines out the deity of Christ, the inherited sin of Adam and the Immaculate Conception of Mary. Neither inherited sin nor the Immaculate Conception of Mary is taught in Scripture. The doctrine of the immaculate conception of Mary was invented to explain how the divine and sinless Jesus could escape the inherited sin of Adam with Mary as his human mother.
What makes this story so strange is that Muslim's reject inherited sin and the deity of Christ but teach the Immaculate Conception of Mary and the sinless nature of Jesus in Hadith Bukhari 4.641. Muslims quote the Koran in 35:18, just as Christians quote Ezek 18:20 to prove inherited sin is a false teaching. Mohammed and his and his followers today have not yet comprehended that if you reject the doctrine of inherited sin the you don't need the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception, because all men are born without sin, including Mary. Muslim's today also confuse the fact that the Immaculate Conception has reference to the conception of Mary and not the virgin birth of Christ. The inter relationship between these four doctrines was simply beyond Mohammed's ability to comprehend and if ever there is a proof that the Koran is fabrication this one is virtually irrefutable. To summarize, if you reject inherited sin, the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception is unnecessary because all men experience the Immaculate Conception, being born without the sin of Adam. Muslim's also wrongly confused the Immaculate Conception with the virgin birth thinking they're the same thing.
3. Samaritans 800 years before they existed.
The Qur'an makes a huge historical error in saying the Samaritans were the ones who enticed Israel to make the golden calf when Moses was receiving the ten commandments on Mt. Sinai. The Samaritans didn't come into existence as a nation until 800 years later.
The Koran in 20:85,87,95, is clearly in error when it accuses the Samaritans of enticing Israel to make the golden calf when Moses was receiving the ten commandments on Mt. Sinai. The city of Samaria in was founded by King Omri in about 875 BC and the Samaritans did not become a nation of people until after the 10 tribes of Israel were forever dispersed at the Assyrian captivity in 722 BC., in 1 Kings 16:29.
Yusuf Ali, in his footnotes, "jumps hoops" to show that the word Samaria, sounds similar to the Arabic word "Samara", which means "a stranger". So he translates the passage "Samiri". Yet several other versions of the Koran actually use the word Samaritan, implying once again that history is wrong because "history was written by the victors".
But here we can be fairly certain where the Koran's confusion with Samaria and the golden calf idol at the foot of Sinai. Hosea 8:5-6 addressing a problem in 750 B.C., said some 800 years after Sinai, "He has rejected your calf, O Samaria, saying,"My anger burns against them!"... "A craftsman made it, so it is not God; Surely the calf of Samaria will be broken to pieces." (Hosea 8:5-6) Mohammed mistakenly thought Hosea 8:5-6, was a reference to the golden calf about Sinai.
4. Crucifixion 1400 years too soon!
Encyclopedia Britannica reports that crucifixion did not exist any earlier that about 500 BC, yet the Koran has passages that speak of crucifixion as early as 1900 BC. Muslim scholar Malik Farid, in his translation of the Koran, says in footnote 1033, "Incidentally, the verse shows that even as early as in the time of Moses the punishment of death by crucifixion was in vogue"(The Holy Qur'an, Arabic Text And English Translation With Commentary, Edited by Malik Ghulam Farid, Comment on 7:125, footnote 1033) Rather than admit that the perfect Koran makes a huge historical blunder, Muslim's merely re-write history and in spite of the universal record of history and archeology, say the Egyptians practiced crucifixion.
Although crucifixion did not exist any earlier that about 500 BC, the Koran has passages that speak of crucifixion as early as 1900 BC. First, in 1500 B.C. when Moses turned Aaron's rod into a snake before Pharaoh of Egypt in Ex 7, the Koran says in 7:124; 26:49, that Pharaoh's magicians believed in the God of Moses. Pharaoh angrily responds by threatening to crucify these magicians. The Koran 12:41, in a different story 400 years earlier, that echoes Gen 40, Joseph interpreted the baker's dream to mean that Pharaoh would crucify him, whereas scripture say he was hung.
Britannica reports that the first historical record of Crucifixion was about 519 BC when "Darius I, king of Persia, crucified 3,000 political opponents in Babylon" (Encyclopaedia Britannica, crucifixion)
Muslim scholarMalik Farid, in his translation of the Koran, says in footnote 1033, "Incidentally, the verse shows that even as early as in the time of Moses the punishment of death by crucifixion was in vogue" (The Holy Qur'an, Arabic Text And English Translation With Commentary, Edited by Malik Ghulam Farid, Comment on 7:125, footnote 1033)
Rather than admit that the perfect Koran makes a huge historical blunder Muslim's merely re-write history and say in spite of the universal record of history and archeology the Egyptians practiced crucifixion. Crucifixion in Egypt is one of the paramount examples of a historical error in the Koran. Although Muslim apologists attempted to talk their way out of Mary being called a brother of Aaron, or Samaritans at the time of Moses, here they just throw with towel without a fight and in proclaim world history wrong. Therefore crucifixion in Egypt represents a spectacular challenge for any honest Muslim to research for himself.
5. Was Mary, the Sister of Aaron, Daughter of Amram?
Another interesting point where the Koran makes an error is in calling Mary the sister of Aaron in Koran 19:28, and the daughter of Amram, Koran 66:12 (Exodus 6:20) evidently the confusion set in over the fact that Miriam and Mary are the same name although they live 1500 years apart. To hear Muslims explain away the spectacular coincidence that both Mary and Miriam had a brother named Aaron and a father named Amram, sounds identical to the way Catholics perform etymological gymnastics, to explain away the 14 Bible passages that clearly state Mary had other children proving Jesus had brothers and sisters through Mary.
I remind you that there are no known historical inaccuracies in the Bible if there were Muslim's would be quick to point them out.
VII. Scientific errors and the claim of embryology in the Koran:
In an effort to show the scientific accuracy of the Koran, Muslim's are quick to bring up the claim of embryology revealed in stunning accuracy, before man discovered for himself. Muslims love to tell the story of how professor Keith L. Moore, the former anatomist at the University of Toronto, was impressed with the Koran's embryological information.
However many Muslim are completely unaware that all of the information in the Qur'an about embryology had already been revealed many different times, centuries before hand. Furthermore, some of the information is scientifically inaccurate.
But don't take my word for it, early Muslim doctors, like Ibn-Qayyim, were first to blow the whistle when they saw the Koranic material, mirrored a Greek doctor named Galen, who lived of 150 AD. In 1983 Basim Musallam, Director of the Centre of Middle Eastern Studies at the University of Cambridge concluded, "The stages of development which the Qur'an and Hadith established for believers agreed perfectly with Galen's scientific account....There is no doubt that medieval thought appreciated this agreement between the Qur'an and Galen, for Arabic science employed the same Qur'anic terms to describe the Galenic stages"(B. Musallam (Cambridge, 1983) Sex and Society in Islam. p. 54) In other words when it comes to embryology the Qur'an merely echoes the scientific knowledge man had already discovered 450 years earlier.
Samuel ha-Yehudi was a 2nd century Jewish physician, and one of many with an interest in embryology . The embryo was called peri habbetten (fruit of the body) and develops as golem (formless, rolled-up thing); shefir meruqqam (embroidered foetus - shefir means amniotic sac); 'ubbar (something carried); v'alad (child); v'alad shel qayama (noble or viable child) and ben she-kallu chadashav (child whose months have been completed). (J. Needham (Cambridge, 2nd edition 1959) A History of Embryology, p. 77)
J. Needham spent almost 60 pages in his book "A history of embryology", discussing ancient Greek, Indian and Egyptian embryology, than in less than 1 page he dismisses the entire Arabic tradition by concluding that "Arabic science ... was not of great help to embryology". After listing some of the verses in the Qur'an about embryology he dismisses them as "a seventh-century echo of Aristotle and the Ayer-veda" . (J. Needham (Cambridge, 2nd edition 1959) A History of Embryology, p. 82), in other words a mixture of Greek and ancient Indian teachings.
And what about professor Keith L. Moore, once at the University of Toronto, who Muslims love to quote as a scientist who saw the light of the Koran? If you buy Moore's latest sixth edition University textbook called "The developing human", he actually directs his readers to read an essay by Basim Musallam, who we just quoted. who shows that the Koran merely echoes what Greek doctor "Galen" wrote 450 years earlier. It seems Dr. Moore is not as impressed today. (B. Musallam, The human embryo in Arabic scientific and religious thought, in, G. R. Dunstan (ed.) (University of Exeter Press, 1990) The human embryo: Aristotle and the Arabic and European traditions, pp. 32-46)
An extraordinary passage from the writings of the medieval philosopher Ibn Qayyim al-Jawziyya shows how heavily the later Arabic writers depended upon the Greek doctors; in one continuous discourse (Ibn Qayyin (Damascus, 1971) Tuhfat: Tuhfat al mawdud bi ahkam al-mawlud, pp. 254-291) the words of Hippocrates explain the Qur'an and Hadith, and the latter are used to explain Hippocrates:
"Here is someone writing a medical account who includes Hippocrates (bold type), the Qur'an and Hadith (bold italics), commentaries on them (italics) and his own thoughts (normal type) in one and the same paragraph. Of course the intelligentsia of Muhammed's time would have been familiar with both Greek and Indian medicine: "Hippocrates said ... 'some membranes are formed at the beginning, others after the second month, and others in the third month ...' That is why God says, 'He creates you in the wombs of your mothers, by one formation after another in three darknesses'. Since each of these membranes has its own darkness, when God mentioned the stages of creation and transformation from one state to another, He also mentioned the darknesses of the membranes. Most commentators explain: 'it is the darkness of the belly, and the darkness of the womb, and the darkness of the placenta' ... Hippocrates said, 'The ears are opened, and the eyes, which are filled with a clear liquid.' The Prophet used to say, 'I worship Him Who made my face and formed it, and opened my hearing and eyesight' etc. etc"" (B. Musallam (Cambridge, 1983) Sex and Society in Islam. p. 56).
The Koran says in16:4 "He has created man from a sperm-drop", but this was understood about 2000 years before the Koran, for the Bible says, "Onan knew that the offspring would not be his; so when he went in to his brother's wife, he wasted his seed on the ground in order not to give offspring to his brother." (Genesis 38:9) That man was created from dust is recorded in Gen 2.
Scientific errors related to embryology are contained in the Koran. In 86:6-7 the Koran says, "He is created from a drop emitted- Proceeding from between the backbone and the ribs". This echoes the scientific error of Hippocrates who believe semen originates from all the fluid in the body, starting from the brain down the spinal chord, before passing through the kidneys and finally the testicles into the penis. (Hippocratic Writings, Penguin Classics, 1983, p. 317)
VIII. Scientific errors in the Hadith:
The baby is almost fully formed at 40 days, not mere blood:
Appearance of child based upon performance in bed?
Sex of the child not determined at conception but 40 days later according to Muhammad.
Thank you for your patience.
Written by Brother Andrew
Go To Start: WWW.BIBLE.CA