Islam - Part 22: Religion of Peace (DEI?)

[Joh 16:2b LSB]  ... but an hour is coming for everyone who kills you to think that he is offering service to God.

Islamic extremists believe they are offering a service to Allah... not only that, but they're known for beheading the infidel:

[Rev 20:4 LSB]  Then I saw thrones, and they sat on them, and judgment was given to them. And I saw the souls of those who had been beheaded because of their witness of Jesus and because of the word of God, and who also had not worshiped the beast or his image, and had not received the mark on their forehead and on their hand. And they came to life and reigned with Christ for a thousand years.

The verses below are just scratching the surface... this "diversity, equity, and inclusion" is found everywhere in the Quran.

Slay unbelievers wherever you find them:
Quran 2:190-193: Fight in the cause of Allah those who fight you, but do not transgress limits; Allah does not love transgressors. [191] And slay them wherever you find them, and drive them out from where they drove you out, for persecution (fitnah) is worse than slaughter. Do not fight them at the Sacred Mosque unless they fight you there; if they do, then slay them. [192] But if they desist, Allah is Oft-Forgiving, Most Merciful.[193] And fight them until there is no more persecution/mischief (fitnah) and religion is for Allah. If they desist, there is no hostility except against the wrongdoers.

No infidels as friends:
Quran 3:28 “Let not the believers Take for friends or helpers Unbelievers rather than believers: if any do that, in nothing will there be help from Allah: except by way of precaution, that ye may Guard yourselves from them. But Allah cautions you (To remember) Himself; for the final goal is to Allah.”

No other religion but Islam is acceptable:
Quran 3:85 “And whoever desires other than Islam as religion - never will it be accepted from him, and he, in the Hereafter, will be among the losers.”

Maim and Crucify infidels if they criticize Islam:
Quran 5:33 “Indeed, the penalty for those who wage war against Allah and His Messenger and strive upon earth [to cause] corruption is none but that they be killed or crucified or that their hands and feet be cut off from opposite sides or that they be exiled from the land. That is for them a disgrace in this world; and for them in the Hereafter is a great punishment.”

Behead those who believe in Scriptures other than the Quran: Quran 8:12 “[Remember] when your Lord inspired to the angels, ‘I am with you, so strengthen those who have believed. I will cast terror into the hearts of those who disbelieved, so strike [them] upon the necks and strike from them every fingertip.’”

Muster all weapons to terrorize infidels: Quran 8:60 “And prepare against them whatever you are able of power and of steeds of war by which you may terrify the enemy of Allah and your enemy and others besides them whom you do not know [but] whom Allah knows. And whatever you spend in the cause of Allah will be fully repaid to you, and you will not be wronged.”

Unbelievers are stupid: Quran 8:65 “O Prophet! Exhort the believers to fight. If there be of you twenty steadfast they shall overcome two hundred, and if there be of you a hundred (steadfast) they shall overcome a thousand of those who disbelieve, because they (the disbelievers) are a folk without intelligence.”

Kill infidels wherever you find them: Quran 9:5 “Then, when the sacred months have passed, slay the idolaters wherever ye find them, and take them (captive), and besiege them, and prepare for them each ambush. But if they repent and establish worship and pay the poor-due, then leave their way free. Lo! Allah is Forgiving, Merciful.”

Jews and Christians are perverts - fight them: Quran 9:30 “And the Jews say: Ezra is the son of Allah, and the Christians say: The Messiah is the son of Allah. That is their saying with their mouths. They imitate the saying of those who disbelieved of old. Allah (Himself) fighteth against them. How perverse are they!”

Make war on infidels in your neighborhood: Quran 9:123 “O ye who believe! Fight those of the disbelievers who are near to you, and let them find harshness in you, and know that Allah is with those who keep their duty (unto Him).”

Infidels - clothes on fire and boiling fluid: Quran 22:19 “These twain (the believers and the disbelievers) are two opponents who contend concerning their Lord. But as for those who disbelieve, garments of fire will be cut out for them; boiling fluid will be poured down on their heads.”

Do not seek peace with infidels - behead them: Quran 47:4 “Now when ye meet in battle those who disbelieve, then it is smiting of the necks until, when ye have routed them, then making fast of bonds; and afterward either grace or ransom till the war lay down its burdens. That (is the ordinance). And if Allah willed He could have punished them (without you) but (thus it is ordained) that He may try some of you by means of others. And those who are slain in the way of Allah, He rendereth not their actions vain.”

Let the record state: I AM AN INFIDEL!

Islam - Part 21c: Character of Muhammad (suicidal)

Muhammad was suicidal.

Few people are aware of Muhammad's suicide attempts. Following his initial visitation by a spirit, that he claimed to be Gabriel, Muhammad was frantic with fear and attempted suicide. He walked up to the top of a mountain and intended to throw himself off a cliff. This same being that caused his fear then intervened. Later, over the course of up to the next three years, the visitations by this spirit became rare, and Muhammad would then again attempt suicide in a like manner. Again, it was only due to the intervention of this being that Muhammad did not kill himself.

This report below is worth reading:

Sahih al-Bukhari 3 (Book of Revelation; old USC-MSA numbering: Vol. 1, Book 1, Hadith 3)

The same report also appears as Sahih al-Bukhari 6982 (old USC-MSA: Vol. 9, Book 87, Hadith 111).

Narrated 'Aisha (the mother of the faithful believers):

The commencement of the Divine Inspiration to Allah’s Apostle was in the form of good dreams which came true like bright daylight, and then the love of seclusion was bestowed upon him. He used to go in seclusion in the cave of Hira where he used to worship (Allah alone) continuously for many days before his desire to see his family. He used to take with him the journey food for the stay and then come back to (his wife) Khadija to take his food likewise again till suddenly the Truth descended upon him while he was in the cave of Hira. The angel came to him and asked him to read. The Prophet replied, “I do not know how to read.”

The Prophet added, “The angel caught me (forcefully) and pressed me so hard that I could not bear it any more. He then released me and again asked me to read and I replied, ‘I do not know how to read.’ Thereupon he caught me again and pressed me a second time till I could not bear it any more. He then released me and again asked me to read but again I replied, ‘I do not know how to read (or what shall I read)?’ Thereupon he caught me for the third time and pressed me, and then released me and said, ‘Read in the name of your Lord, who has created (all that exists), created man from a clot. Read! And your Lord is the Most Generous.’” (96:1–3)

Then Allah’s Apostle returned with the Inspiration and with his heart beating severely. Then he went to Khadija bint Khuwailid and said, “Cover me! Cover me!” They covered him till his fear was over and after that he told her everything that had happened and said, “I fear that something may happen to me.” Khadija replied, “Never! By Allah, Allah will never disgrace you. You keep good relations with your kith and kin, help the poor and the destitute, serve your guests generously and assist the deserving calamity-afflicted ones.”

Muhammad believed Gabriel violently attacked him and attempted to force him to read.  Gabriel looks nothing like this in the Bible.  Nonetheless, Muhammad was frightened by this spirit.

The Islamic sources state Muhammad had an encounter with a spirit, believed he was demon possessed, became deeply depressed, and attempted suicide many times.

As far as demon possessed, that's another conversation... He claims it was Gabriel that met him in the cave and physically abused him.  It was not Gabriel, or any other Angel from Yahweh as represented in our Bibles.  If not Gabriel, then who?  Perhaps an "angel of light"?

[2Co 11:14 LSB]  And no wonder, for even Satan disguises himself as an angel of light.

There are early reports that Muhammad experienced severe distress during the initial period of revelation (especially during the pause known as fatrat al-wahy) and, according to some accounts, thought of throwing himself from a mountain. 

The reports:

Ibn Ishaq’s Sirat Rasul Allah (early biography, later edited by Ibn Hisham) contains material describing Muhammad’s fear and distress after the first revelation, including versions in which he considered ending his life.

Sahih al-Bukhari 6982 (and parallel versions) includes an addition after Aisha’s narration of the beginning of revelation. The narrator al-Zuhri adds (prefaced with “as we have heard” / fi ma balaghana): the Prophet became so sad that he intended several times to throw himself from high mountains; each time Gabriel appeared and said “O Muhammad, you are truly the Messenger of Allah,” after which he calmed down.

Authentic material does confirm that Muhammad was deeply distressed by the pause in revelation and sought reassurance - linked in traditional sources to the later revelation of: 

Surah al-Duha, 93:1–3: “Your Lord has not forsaken you, nor is He displeased”.

The specific claim that he repeatedly went to mountain peaks intending to kill himself is not regarded as reliably established in the hadith literature.

In short: early biographical and hadith sources record accounts of suicidal thoughts during extreme distress at the start of the prophetic mission, but the chains and wording of those particular details are classified as weak by the majority of traditional hadith scholars.

Of course they're considered weak arguments by today's hadith scholars. Muhammad's history was written hundreds of years after his death and we've already shown that history was rewritten in Muhammad's favor.

Few Islamic leaders will teach this to their fellow Muslims because it casts a stain upon Muhammad; it brings doubt to his credibility and the credibility of his assumed "prophetic" experience. Some Muslims deny the sources of the story. Other, more intelligent Muslims, knowledgeable about the sources, respond by saying that the shock of the experience caused him to attempt suicide.

Islam - Part 21b: Character of Muhammad (history rewritten)

It is not uncommon to hear many Muslim dawahists asserting that long before Muhammad’s prophetic career began he was known among his people as a man of utmost integrity and as having an impeccable character.  One will often find these Muslim propagandists claiming that Muhammad’s contemporaries knew that he was an honest man, one in whom there was no falsehood.  In fact, they even gave him the moniker Al-Amin, or "The Trustworthy" (or so the story goes).

The problem with all of these assertions is that they are not based on contemporary eyewitness accounts but on sources which were written centuries after Muhammad’s death.  And they were also written at a time when Muslims had the upper hand and could basically rewrite history to their liking.  The Muslims were pretty much free to read back into the life of Muhammad their specific theological views and beliefs concerning their prophet.

More importantly, the Muslim scripture itself is a witness against the assertions made by these Muslim apologists.  When we analyze the Quran we find that the people around Muhammad did not believe that he was the beacon of truth or that he was a completely honest man.  Their testimony is rather unflattering, to say the least, and demonstrates that the later stories of Muhammad’s enemies praising his character are nothing more than legend, clear examples of myth-making at its best.

Muhammad the Liar

Muhammad was distressed because the people thought him to be a liar.

Quran 10:41 Shakir: And if they call you a liar, say: My work is for me and your work for you; you are clear of what I do and I am clear of what you do. 

And if they call you a liar, truly apostles before you were called liars, and to Allah are all affairs returned. Quran 35:4 Shakir; cf. Quran 34:8; 42:24

A Forger/Plagiarizer

And when it is said to them, 'What has your Lord sent down?' they say, 'Fairy-tales of the ancients.' S. 16:24 Arberry

And when We change a Verse [of the Qur'an, i.e. cancel (abrogate) its order] in place of another, and Allah knows the best of what He sends down, they (the disbelievers) say: "You (O Muhammad) are but a Muftari! (forger, liar)." Nay, but most of them know not. S. 16:101 Hilali-Khan

Nay, they say: "These (revelations of the Qur'an which are inspired to Muhammad) are mixed up false dreams! Nay, he has invented it! Nay, he is a poet! Let him then bring us an Ayah (sign as a proof) like the ones (Prophets) that were sent before (with signs)!" S. 21:5 Hilali-Khan

But the misbelievers say: "Naught is this but a lie which he has forged, and others have helped him at it." In truth it is they who have put forward an iniquity and a falsehood. And they say: "Tales of the ancients, which he has caused to be written: and they are dictated before him morning and evening." Say: "The (Qur'an) was sent down by Him who knows the mystery (that is) in the heavens and the earth: verily He is Oft-Forgiving, Most Merciful." S. 25:4-6 Y. Ali; cf. Q. 6:25; 8:31; 10:38; 11:13, 35; 16:24; 83; 27:68; 46:8-9, 17; 52:33; 68:15; 83:13

A Sorcerer/Magician

Was it a wonder to the people that We revealed to a man from among them: 'Warn the people, and give thou good tidings to the believers that they have a sure footing with their Lord'? The unbelievers say, 'This is a manifest sorcerer.' S. 10:2 Arberry

When Our Clear Signs are rehearsed to them, they say, "This is only a man who wishes to hinder you from the (worship) which your fathers practised." And they say, "This is only a falsehood invented!" and the Unbelievers say of the Truth when it comes to them, "This is nothing but evident magic!" S. 34:43 Y. Ali

And they (Arab pagans) wonder that a warner (Prophet Muhammad) has come to them from among themselves! And the disbelievers say: "This (Prophet Muhammad) is a sorcerer, a liar. S. 38:4 Hilali-Khan

A Soothsayer and Poet

And (they) said: "Are we going to abandon our aliha (gods) for the sake of a mad poet? S. 37:36 Hilali-Khan

Therefore remind! by thy Lord's blessing thou art not a soothsayer neither possessed. S. 52:29 Arberry

Nor is it the word of a soothsayer: little admonition it is ye receive. S. 69:42 Y. Ali

A Madman (Majnun – lit., "jinn [demon] -possessed")

And they say: "O you (Muhammad) to whom the Dhikr (the Qur'an) has been sent down! Verily, you are a mad man. Why do you not bring angels to us if you are of the truthful ones?" S. 15:6 Hilali-Khan

Or do they say, 'He is possessed by a ginn?' Nay, he came to them with the truth, and most of them are averse from the truth. S. 23:70 Palmer

Then they had turned away from him (Messenger Muhammad) and said: "One (Muhammad) taught (by a human being), a madman!" S. 44:14 Hilali-Khan; cf. Q. 34:46; 37:36; 68:2, 51

So, as you can see - from the Quran and other Islamic sources... history has been re-written in the case of Muhammad's character.  Rewritten to suit the needs of a religion that needs to justify a "true" prophet of God with impeccable character.

Islam - Part 21: Character of Muhammad (pedophile & women)

Most Muslims are shocked when they hear about the true character of Muhammad.  They're raised to believe that he was a perfect prophet of God and morally perfect.  Go into any mosque today and wait to see if any Imam will preach on any of the topics below... you better pack a big lunch because you'll be waiting for quite a while.

For starters, Muhammad married Aisha when she was 6 years old.  Muhammad consummated this marriage when she was 9 years old.  Muhammad was ~54 years of age when this occurred.

Sahih al-Bukhari 5133 (and similar: 5134, 3894, 3896, 5158)

Narrated Aisha: “The Prophet married me when I was six years old and consummated the marriage with me when I was nine years old, and then I remained with him for nine years (i.e., until his death).”

Sahih Muslim 1422  “Allah’s Messenger married me when I was six years old, and I was admitted to his house when I was nine years old.” (Some variants mention seven for the contract.)

The Imams of today will try to play this off and claim it was a common 7th century practice.  No... it wasn't.

Seventh century Roman law was 12 years of age (minimum) for females and 14 for males.

In Jewish law, a girl reaches legal majority at 12 years and one day, provided she also shows signs of puberty (specifically two pubic hairs). From that point she is a na’arah for the next six months, then a bogeret (adult woman). In short: marriage near puberty was widespread in pre-modern agrarian societies across regions but even the Romans and Jews didn't condone 6 year old marriage and 9 year old pedophilia. Science now tells us that in pre-modern populations with poorer nutrition, average menarche (first menstrual period) was later—often around 13–15 or older. The secular trend toward earlier puberty is a modern phenomenon linked mainly to improved childhood nutrition and higher BMI. I have two daughters and I vividly remember their sweet little angel baby faces at both 6 and 9 years old. Muhammad was ~54 years old, having sex with a prepubescent 9 year old who was still playing with her dolls. I don't care how you try to explain it... Muhammad was a pedophile.

Sunan an-Nasa’i 3378: “The Messenger of Allah married me when I was six, and consummated the marriage with me when I was nine, and I used to play with dolls.”

Sahih al-Bukhari 6130: Narrated Aisha: I used to play with the dolls in the presence of the Prophet, and my girl friends also used to play with me. When Allah's Messenger (ﷺ) used to enter (my dwelling place) they used to hide themselves, but the Prophet would call them to join and play with me. (The playing with the dolls and similar images is forbidden, but it was allowed for Aisha at that time, as she was a little girl, not yet reached the age of puberty.) (Fath-ul-Bari page 143, Vol.13)

What else did young Aisha do for Muhammad?

Sahih al-Bukhari 229 Narrated `Aisha: I used to wash the traces of Janaba (semen) from the clothes of the Prophet and he used to go for prayers while traces of water were still on it (water spots were still visible).

Sahih al-Bukhari 230 (and nearby 229, 231–233): Narrated Sulaiman bin Yasar:  I asked `Aisha about the clothes soiled with semen.  She replied, “I used to wash it off the clothes of Allah’s Messenger (ﷺ) and he would go for the prayer while water spots were still visible.”

Sunan Ibn Majah 537:  It was narrated that `Aishah said: "I often scraped it (semen) from the garment of the Messenger of Allah with my hand."

How about divorce rules for prepubescent wives?

Surah 65 (At-Talaq) 65:4 And those who no longer expect menstruation among your women [post menopausal] —if you doubt, then their period is three months, and [also for] those who have not menstruated [prepubescent]. And for those who are pregnant, their term is until they give birth. And whoever fears Allah—He will make for him of his matter ease.

Above, we see how Muhammad treated prepubescent women. 

How did Muhammad treat other women?

According to the Quran, the hadith collections, and the early biographical sources, Muhammad and his companions took female captives from military campaigns as slaves (ma malakat aymanukum — “those whom your right hands possess”).

Owners had the legal right to sexual relations (RAPE, in other words) with these female captives without a marriage contract (concubinage).

Quran 4:24: Married women are forbidden [veiled attempt at morality before stating:] “EXCEPT those your right hands possess” (i.e., female captives taken in war). 

Classical tafsir (Ibn Kathir and others) and the accompanying hadith explain the exception (“except those your right hands possess”) as referring to female captives taken in war, with whom sexual relations (RAPE) were permitted without a marriage contract once the waiting period (istibra) was observed.

Quran 23:5–6 and 70:29–30: Believers are to guard their chastity “except from their wives or those their right hands possess.”

Quran 33:50: Explicitly makes lawful to the Prophet “those your right hand possesses from what Allah has returned to you [of captives].”

Women were nothing more than property to them. The owner could use them sexually. Intercourse was forbidden until one menstrual period had passed (to confirm the woman was not pregnant by her previous husband — istibra). The purpose given is to confirm the womb is empty so that any subsequent child is known to be his. This established clear paternity of any child and avoided confusion over lineage and inheritance rights.

Nothing has changed... look at the way Islamic women are treated today.

Islam: Conversation with a Muslim

Why do you hate Islam when we love Jesus as well and are the only religion besides Christianity to love Jesus?

Let me give you an example.  Do you love your mother?

Yes, of course.

Let's say, you were introducing your mother to me.  And you say, "hey Glen - this is a good friend of mine.  She does a lot of good things in her community.  She's a very religious person and she's righteous.  But, she's just a good friend of mine... she's not my mother."  Would that be you showing love to your mother?

If you, introduce your mother to me, but you deny that she's your mother - is that showing love to your mother?

No... she's my mother, and she's done so many great things for me.

Exactly - it's the exact same thing with Yeshua.  Yeshua, the Divine Son of God, humbled Himself and came in the flesh to die for your sin.  But you, and other Muslims, explicitly deny His salvific work, deny Him being the Son of God, who loves you enough to sacrifice Himself for your sin.  You say, "He's just a good prophet".  You say, "He's the Messiah", but you deny Who He is and what He did.

So... you don't truly love Yeshua.

Why do you claim the religion of Islam is Satanic?

The religion of Islam is Satanic because the Bible says it is Satanic.

[1 John 2:18]  Children, it is the last hour, and as you have heard that antichrist is coming, so now many antichrists have come. Therefore we know that it is the last hour.

[1 John 2:22]  Who is the liar but he who denies that Yeshua is the Christ? This is the antichrist, he who denies the Father and the Son.

[1Jn 4:2-3 LSB]  By this you know the Spirit of God: every spirit that confesses that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is from God, [3]  and every spirit that does not confess Jesus is not from God. This is the spirit of the antichrist, of which you have heard that it is coming, and now it is already in the world.

[2 John 1:7]  For many deceivers have gone out into the world, those who do not confess the coming of Yeshua Christ in the flesh. Such a one is the deceiver and the antichrist.

Yeah, but... we believe in Jesus and we love Him a lot...

No - you don't "believe in" Yeshua and we already covered whether you really love Him.  Is he the Son of God?

No... we believe He was a prophet...

Then you deny Him - you do not believe in Him.  For example, I believe Muhammad actually existed.  I believe he was NOT a prophet of God... I believe he was an EVIL man.  Would you say that I "believe in" Muhammad?

Not the way Muslims do...

Right... so, I don't "believe in" Muhammad even though I believe he existed.  I don't believe in him as a prophet.  I don't believe in him as a messenger of God.  I don't believe in him as a righteous servant of God.  I don't believe that.  I can't say that I "believe in" Muhammad.

In the same manner that you deny Yeshua, you can't say that you believe in Yeshua.

But, we believe in Jesus.  If we don't believe in Jesus - we're not Muslim.

If you "believe in" Yeshua then you're not a Muslim... you're a Christian. 

Muslims do not believe in Yeshua... they do not believe in His Deity, or even His crucifixion - let alone His resurrection.  They don't believe Allah is a father, nor do they believe Allah has a son.  Yeshua of the Quran is not the same Yeshua of the Bible.

But... we do.

You don't.  You deny Who is He is.

Can you say that you believe in Muhammad while rejecting his teachings and who he claims to be?

No... I accept Muhammad as the final prophet and I accept his teachings.

Exactly... so you can't say you believe in Yeshua while rejecting His teachings.  You can't say that you believe in Yeshua while rejecting Who He claims to be.

What brought you to accept the conclusion that Jesus is Who He says He is?

The Resurrection.  The resurrection proves that Yeshua is Who He said He was.

Even atheists will not deny that Yeshua was crucified by Pontius Pilate... it is historically accurate and they will not deny it.  

A man named Yeshua walked the earth and was crucified as the Bible claims.  This is even supported in extra-Biblical literature of the time.  Atheists accept this as an historical truth that cannot be denied.

After His resurrection was the explosion of the early Church which is also historically confirmed.  The Disciples were proclaiming His resurrection and we're told that more than 500 other people saw Yeshua as risen.  This accounts for the literal explosion of early Christianity which only continued to grow to this day.

Paul, an enemy of early Christians, says that He personally saw the risen Messiah and was miraculously transformed.  He was changed from an early Christian persecutor and executioner to one of it's biggest testifiers.  He saw the resurrected Yeshua and Yeshua changed him. 

The same is true of Yeshua's sibling, James who was an unbeliever. 

The Disciples and 500+ other witnessed the resurrected Messiah.

The tomb was empty and Yeshua's enemies tried to hide this fact.

The Disciples all went to their death for this belief.  Their transformation from fear (prior to the crucifixion) to be willing to die (post resurrection) is very telling.  A man may die for what he believes to be true, but no man will die for what he knows to be a lie.

This is only some of the evidence that leads me to believe that Yeshua was resurrected from the dead and proves to me that He was the Son of God.

If the Father is all-loving why would He let His own Son die and suffer on the Cross when He could just forgive my sins?

Because God is Holy and Just.  Sin demands justice and righteousness from a Holy God.  If He is Just, He can't just write sin off and ignore it.  There's no justice in that.

A Holy and Just God declared the penalty long ago:

[Deu 21:22] And if a man has committed a sin, the judgment of which is death, and he is put to death, and you hang him on a tree,

The manner of death was part of what the death accomplished. His death satisfied the letter of the law and was purifying.

[Gal 3:13] Christ redeemed us from the curse of the Law, having become a curse for us—for it is written, “CURSED IS EVERYONE WHO HANGS ON A TREE”—

Rather than holding us accountable for our sin, God satisfied His Law's requirement Himself. Justice was served, on our behalf, by Yeshua... God Himself. The blood was necessary.

[Heb 9:22] And according to the Law, one may almost say, all things are cleansed with blood, and without shedding of blood there is no forgiveness.

Why does an innocent person have to die for someone else's sin?

Well, for one reason - He didn't have to... He chose to.

Because Yahweh loves us, and Yeshua loves us, the Son volunteered to satisfy our debt for us.  He bore the wrath for the punishment that we deserve.  Justice and love were served in one action.

[Joh 15:13 LSB]  Greater love has no one than this, that one lay down his life for his friends.

God loves His children (us) so much that He gave up His Son for us:

[Joh 3:16-17 LSB]  For God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him shall not perish, but have eternal life. [17]  For God did not send the Son into the world to judge the world, but that the world might be saved through Him.

The Bible Says What?

The claim that the Bible is absolute Truth is a faith commitment held by many Christians. 

The fact that people who affirm that claim still disagree about what it means does not automatically disprove the claim, but it does show that interpretation is not automatic or uniform. Several factors explain the differences:

The nature of the text

The Bible is a collection of writings spanning centuries, written in Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek, in multiple genres (narrative, law, poetry, prophecy, epistle, apocalyptic). Some passages are straightforward; others are dense, allusive, or use symbolic language. 2 Peter 3:16 itself notes that some of Paul’s writings contain things that are "hard to understand", which the unstable and untaught distort.

Hermeneutics (methods of interpretation)

People bring different rules to the text:

- Literal vs. figurative readings
- How much weight to give historical-grammatical context versus theological systems
- Whether prophecy is primarily predictive, typological, or already fulfilled
- How to relate the Old and New Testaments

These methodological choices produce different conclusions even when people start with the same books. The pre-tribulation rapture debate is one clear example: the same passages (1 Thessalonians 4, Matthew 24, Revelation) are read differently depending on whether one assumes a sharp distinction between Israel and the church.

Authority structures

Not everyone who treats the Bible as authoritative treats it as the sole authority in the same way. Some hold to Sola Scriptura (Scripture alone as the final norm).
Others place Scripture alongside tradition, magisterial teaching, or confessional standards. Different confessions and denominations prioritize different texts or organize doctrine differently.

Human factors

Language barriers, translation choices, cultural background, education, prior theological commitments, and even personality affect what a reader notices and emphasizes. Two people can read the same English translation and still reach different conclusions because they weigh evidence differently or start with different assumptions about what the text is trying to do.

The limits of the claim

If the Bible is absolute Truth, that truth still has to be understood by finite readers. The text does not interpret itself in a way that eliminates all disagreement. Disagreement can result from the complexity of the material, from error on the part of interpreters, or from both. The existence of multiple readings is therefore expected on any view that takes both the text and human readers seriously; it does not, by itself, settle whether the underlying claim about the Bible’s truth is correct.

In short, affirming that the Bible is absolute truth does not require that every reader will extract the same meaning from every passage. The differences arise from the character of the writings, the methods used to read them, the broader authorities people accept, and the ordinary limitations of human interpretation.

Myself, I tend to take the Bible for what it says... not what it doesn't say.  I don't accept arguments from silence.  

I also tend to look for original text definitions, or the way in which the original text was used in cultural context -- in that time period.  Many Scriptural statements can be answered by studying Jewish history and tradition.  I try to find the authors intent based on the time in which he wrote it and what it was meant to convey.  

Another rule of thumb is to typically let Scripture answer Scripture.  For example, the Revelation is heavily symbolic and claims to be symbolic (signified - see my other blogs on this).  The symbols are typically defined elsewhere in Scripture.  

When I'm unable to answer a question I'm searching for... I keep digging - in Scripture.

I also have learned much from the shoulders of giants of the faith.  Many different authors in my ever-increasing library have helped along the way.  I even give thanks for heretics and those I disagree with!  You can often learn the Truth from sorting out a lie.

I've found, over the many decades of studying, that the more I learn - the more I realize just how little I know!

I believe Scripture to be the living, breathing, Word of God - Yeshua, our parakletos, leads us into understanding and without His help, you'll learn nothing of value.  This means that you have either prayed and asked for understanding or He is helping you without you realizing it.  No matter how many times you read a passage, you can go back and read it again and learn something new.  Yeshua is always teaching us in bite-size chunks... and always, milk before meat in my experience.

[1Co 3:1-3 LSB]  And I, brothers, was not able to speak to you as to spiritual men, but as to fleshly men, as to infants in Christ. [2]  I gave you milk to drink, not solid food, for you were not yet able to receive it. Indeed, even now you are still not able, [3]  for you are still fleshly. For since there is jealousy and strife among you, are you not fleshly, and are you not walking like mere men?

[Heb 5:11-14 LSB]  Concerning him we have much to say, and it is hard to explain, since you have become dull of hearing. [12]  For though by this time you ought to be teachers, you have need again for someone to teach you the elementary principles of the oracles of God, and you have come to need milk and not solid food. [13]  For everyone who partakes only of milk is not accustomed to the word of righteousness, for he is an infant. [14]  But solid food is for the mature, who because of practice have their senses trained to discern both good and evil.

[1Pe 2:1-3 LSB]  Therefore, laying aside all malice and all deceit and hypocrisy and envy and all slander, [2]  like newborn babies, long for the pure milk of the word, so that by it you may grow in respect to salvation, [3]  if you have TASTED THE KINDNESS OF THE LORD.

Islam - Part 20: Shouldn't Eat Pork?

From a familiar Islamic preacher Doctor Zakir Naik (and I quote):

"The Bible says in the Book of Leviticus, chapter number 11, verse number seven and eight, that thou shalt not eat the flesh of swine nor touch it's carcass.  A similar message is given us in the book of Deuteronomy, chapter number fourteen, verse number eight, though the swine has cloven foot, and it chews not the cud, it is unclean for you."

For reference here are the verses:

[Lev 11:7-8 LSB]  and the pig, for though it divides the hoof, thus making a split hoof, it does not chew cud; it is unclean to you. [8]  ‘You shall not eat of their flesh, and you shall not touch their carcasses; they are unclean to you.

[Deu 14:8 LSB]  “And the pig, because it divides the hoof but does not chew the cud, it is unclean for you. You shall not eat any of their flesh nor touch their carcasses.

Dr. Naik continues:

"And Jesus Christ said in the Gospel of Matthew, chapter number five, verses number seventeen thru twenty.  "That think not that I have come to destroy the Law or the Prophets.  I've come not to destroy, but to fulfill.  For anyone who breaks one of the least commandments shall be called least in the Kingdom of Heaven."  That means if you break one law, one jot or tittle from the old testament, you shall not enter Jannah [Arabic word for paradise]."

Again, for reference:

[Mat 5:17 LSB]  “Do not think that I came to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I did not come to abolish but to fulfill. [18]  “For truly I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not the smallest letter or stroke shall pass from the Law until all is accomplished. [19]  “Whoever then annuls one of the least of these commandments, and teaches others to do the same, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven; but whoever does and teaches them, he shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven. [20]  “For I say to you that unless your righteousness surpasses that of the scribes and Pharisees, you will not enter the kingdom of heaven.

Here's the problem for Dr. Naik... apparently, he didn't read thoroughly.

The same passages that he so vehemently preaches on swine, that tell him to not eat pig meat, because it's unclean, also say do not eat camel meat, it's unclean.

[Lev 11:4 LSB]  ‘Nevertheless, you shall not eat of these, among those which chew the cud or among those which divide the hoof: the camel, for though it chews cud, it does not divide the hoof; it is unclean to you.

This is where every Muslim apologist should pay attention...

Sahih al-Bukhari 2485: “We used to offer the `Asr prayer with the Prophet and slaughter a camel, the meat of which would be divided in ten parts. We would eat the cooked meat before sunset.”

Muhammad and his companions were eating unclean camel meat.  The Quran allows Muslims to eat unclean camel meat and lists it as cattle.

Quran 22:36 [Sahih International]: “And the camels and cattle We have appointed for you as among the symbols of Allah; for you therein is good. So mention the name of Allah upon them when lined up [for sacrifice]; and when they are [lifeless] on their sides, then eat from them and feed the needy and the beggar.”

Dr. Naik claims that Yeshua confirmed the Old Testament dietary restrictions which is why Muslims are not allowed to eat pork or touch the carcass.

Dr. Naik also confirmed that anyone who violates Old Testament diet restrictions will not enter Jannah.

What does this mean? 

I guess... Muhammad, their perfect prophet, is permanently bound in hell and will never enter Jannah.

Thanks for clearing that up Dr. Naik!

Islam - Part 19: Infamous Satanic Verses

There’s an old story in the early Muslim records about something that happened while Muhammad was still in Mecca.  It’s called the Satanic Verses incident.  A lot of modern Muslims reject it, but it shows up in the classical histories, so it’s worth knowing what those early sources actually say.

Here’s the plain version.

Muhammad was reciting what we now know as Surah 53 (An-Najm). When he got to the part about the three main goddesses the Meccans worshiped — al-Lat, al-Uzza, and Manat — the early reports say he added these lines:

“These are the exalted cranes
Whose intercession is to be hoped for.”

The Meccan polytheists liked what they heard. They thought Muhammad had finally given their goddesses a place. According to the accounts, they even joined him in prostration at the end of the recitation.

Later, the story goes, Muhammad received a new revelation that those lines were not from Allah. They were from Satan. He took them back. The verses that stand in the Quran today are the ones that reject the three goddesses:

Quran 53:19–23 [Sahih International]: “So have you considered al-Lat and al-Uzza, [20] And Manat, the third, the other one?  [21] Is the male for you and for Him the female?  [22] That, then, is an unjust division.  [23] They are not but [mere] names you have named them — you and your forefathers — for which Allah has sent down no authority.  They follow not except assumption and what [their] souls desire, and there has already come to them from their Lord guidance.”

The classical sources (al-Tabari’s History, al-Waqidi, and others) say Gabriel then made it clear that the earlier "exalted cranes" lines had been slipped in by Satan and were to be removed.

That’s the incident. The early Muslim historians recorded it. Most Muslims today say it never happened, because a true prophet couldn’t have recited Satan’s words, even temporarily. The sources themselves, though, still contain the story.
Click Here! to see why this blog is important.

Islam - Part 18: The Islamic Dilemma

There’s a problem in the Quran that a lot of people have never heard about. It’s called the Islamic Dilemma. It’s not something Christians made up. It comes straight out of what the Quran itself says about the earlier books — the Torah and the Gospel.

Here’s the short version. The Quran tells the Jews and Christians of Muhammad’s day that the books they already have are the real revelation from Allah. It calls them guidance and light. It tells them to judge by those books. At the same time, the Quran turns around and denies the main things those books teach about Yeshua. You can’t have it both ways. That’s the dilemma.

Let me break it down.

The Quran affirms the Torah and the Gospel as real, trustworthy revelation.

The Quran doesn’t treat the earlier Scriptures as lost or already corrupted. It speaks about them as books the people still have in their hands.

Quran 3:3–4 says:

“He has sent down upon you, [O Muhammad], the Book in truth, confirming what was before it. And He revealed the Torah and the Gospel before, as guidance for the people. And He revealed the Criterion. Indeed, those who disbelieve in the verses of Allah will have a severe punishment. And Allah is Exalted in Might, the Owner of Retribution.”

Quran 5:44 says about the Torah:

“Indeed, We sent down the Torah, in which was guidance and light. The prophets who submitted [to Allah] judged by it for the Jews, as did the rabbis and scholars by that with which they were entrusted of the Scripture of Allah, and they were witnesses thereto.”

Quran 5:46–47 says about Yeshua and the Gospel:

“And We sent, following in their footsteps, Jesus, the son of Mary, confirming that which came before him in the Torah; and We gave him the Gospel, in which was guidance and light and confirming that which preceded it of the Torah as guidance and instruction for the righteous. And let the People of the Gospel judge by what Allah has revealed therein. And whoever does not judge by what Allah has revealed — then it is those who are the defiantly disobedient.”

Quran 5:68 pushes it further:

“Say, ‘O People of the Scripture, you are [standing] on nothing until you uphold [the law of] the Torah, the Gospel, and what has been revealed to you from your Lord.’”

And if Muhammad himself was unsure, Quran 10:94 told him:

“So if you are in doubt, [O Muhammad], about that which We have revealed to you, then ask those who have been reading the Scripture before you .”

These verses are speaking to people living in the seventh century. The Quran is telling them the books they already possess are from Allah, contain guidance and light, and should be used to judge. That only makes sense if those books were still reliable when Muhammad showed up.

The books the Quran affirms teach things the Quran denies.

We know what the Torah and the Gospel said in Muhammad’s day because we still have them. Manuscripts of the New Testament from centuries before Muhammad show the same message we have today. Yeshua is the Son of God. He was crucified. He rose from the dead. He is worthy of worship.

The Bible says:

“In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God… And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us” [John 1:1, 14].

“For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life” [John 3:16].

“And Thomas answered him, ‘My Lord and my God!’” [John 20:28].

“Christ died for our sins in accordance with the Scriptures, that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day in accordance with the Scriptures” [1 Corinthians 15:3–4].

The Quran rejects these things. It says God has no Son (Quran 112:3; 19:35). It says Yeshua was not crucified (Quran 4:157). It says those who say “Allah is the Messiah” have disbelieved (Quran 5:72).

So the same books the Quran calls "guidance and light" and tells people to judge by are the books that teach the opposite of what the Quran teaches about Yeshua.

That leaves only two options.

Option one: The Torah and Gospel that the Jews and Christians had in Muhammad’s day were true and reliable.
If that’s the case, then what they teach about Yeshua is true. He is the Divine Son who died and rose. The Quran contradicts those books. Therefore the Quran is wrong.

Option two: The Torah and Gospel were already corrupted before Muhammad arrived.
If that’s the case, then the Quran is wrong for calling them guidance and light, for telling people to judge by them, and for telling Muhammad to check with the people who were reading them. Why would Allah affirm corrupted books and command people to follow them?

Either way, the Quran’s own statements about the earlier scriptures create a contradiction. That’s the Islamic Dilemma. It doesn’t start by assuming the Bible is true. It starts with what the Quran itself claims, then follows it to the end.

Islam - Part 17c: Yeshua, the Legend (myth variant)

Skeptics will claim that Yeshua's resurrection is just a variant of other resurrection accounts.

Reported miracles abound in other religions, including stories of risen saviors. Skeptics frequently cite Osiris, Tammuz, Adonis, Attis, and Marduk as examples of dying and rising gods.  Did Christians copy or get inspiration from these pagan accounts? 

Why is Yeshua's resurrection more credible?

First, most of these other resurrection accounts seem to be incredibly unclear.  There is very little data to examine and when there is any data, there is usually more than one version of it.  These other accounts look nothing like the account of Yeshua's resurrection.  If we were to consider them parallel accounts we would have to look at every ghost story out there.

Next, any written evidence we have dates to after the resurrection account of the disciples.  The disciples couldn't possibly have been influenced by these accounts.

Do accounts such as those mentioned by Justin Martyr merit the conclusion that Christians copied, or were influenced by, them?  The majority of critical scholars today say no.  While some skeptics like to celebrate these vague similarities, they fail to recognize the great chasm of differences that exist in these accounts.

We can note that the ancient Egyptian cult of Osiris is the only account of a god who survived death that predates Christianity.

According to one version of the story (and there are several) Osiris was killed by his brother, chopped up into fourteen pieces and scattered throughout Egypt.  The goddess Isis collected and reassembled his parts and brought him back to life.  Unfortunately, she was only able to find thirteen pieces.  Moreover, it is questionable whether Osiris was brought back to life on earth or seen by others as Yeshua was.  He was given status as god of the gloomy underworld. So the picture we get of Osiris is that of a guy who does not have all of his parts and who maintains a shadowy existence as god of the mummies.

This story is nothing like that of the account of Yeshua's resurrection.  If anything Osiris should not be compared to Yeshua, but held responsible for all the zombie shows we have to deal with now.

Accounts of miracles and rising gods in other religions lack evidence and can easily be accounted for by opposing theories.  For example, the first miracle accounts of Muhammad do not appear until approximately seventy-five years after his death and are found in sources that many Islamic scholars regard as untrustworthy.  These rank in the file of "likely influenced by developing legend".

Miracle reports from other religions are usually not multiply attested, and the first manuscript that reports the miraculous event is usually far removed in time from when the event allegedly took place.

Unlike the New Testament writers, these stories were not written and circulated at a time when eye-witnesses were alive to discern the truth in the claims.  Not only the eye-witnesses, but their audience would have been able to examine the claims.

With the "other resurrections" we have lack of evidence, late reports of the alleged events, and the fact that opposing theories against the alleged event can otherwise explain the event in question.

In the case of Yeshua - we have exactly the opposite.  In previous blogs we've discussed a plethora of evidence, reports within an extremely close time range.  Paul's writings came first and most scholars date his first letter to less than 20 years of Yeshua's resurrection.  Last, where is the evidence proving that Yeshua did not rise from the dead?  What other opposing theories stand up to the test?

Furthermore, if the New Testament faithfully reports Yeshua's words, He predicted that false christs and false prophets would come and deceive others.  Based on His words, competing resurrection claims in non-Christian religions should not be a surprise.

Islam - Part 17b: Yeshua, the Legend (nonhistoric literature)

A genre is simply a category or kind of writing. Music has genres like classical, pop, jazz, and rock. Literature has genres too, such as romance, fable, history, science, or philosophy.

Saying the disciples wrote in a non-historical genre means they did not intend their accounts to be taken as literal history. Instead, the claim is that they made up a story about Yeshua rising from the dead, gave Him Divine qualities, and used that fable to honor Him and get a message across.
Consider Aesop's Fables... did animals really talk in ancient Greece? No - that is not the point the author was trying to impress. He used that as a method to communicate various character traits in a creative literary manner.
Skeptic Example: Accounts of dying and rising gods are prevalent throughout the Greco-Roman world. The authors of that time never intended for their readers to believe that someone really rose from the dead but were simply honoring the heroes of their stories by ascribing traits of divinity to them. Therefore, when we read the New Testament accounts of Jesus' resurrection, we must recognize that the disciples never intended for their readers to believe that Jesus actually rose from the dead, either. Rather they were attempting to communicate a deeper message. This seems even more obvious when one considers the parabolic rhetoric frequently employed by Jesus. Most, if not all, of his parables include a fictitious story. If we focused on whether the story in the parable was an actual historical event, we would miss the message Jesus was trying to tell us. Jesus' resurrection is, likewise, a fictitious account that was never intended to be regarded as historical. To focus on whether it was a real event is to miss the message that the disciples were attempting to communicate; that Jesus was a great man who changed the world and that his teachings will live on forever. To anyone readying this blog, the above may seem very reasonable, right? It has several problems to deal with though.

It doesn't explain the issues surrounding the empty tomb which have been established in previous blogs and exampled even in extra-Biblical literature. What is the real message the disciples were trying to convey by adding that to their account?
In order to account for the empty tomb, an additional theory must be employed; for example, someone stole the body. However, as we will observe later, this theory is exceptionally weak. Also, combination theories inevitably produce a weak argument. Next, a nice fable or story would not have convinced an enemy of Yeshua that He had risen from the dead. How does the above explain Paul? Paul was a hostile Jew among Jews committed to squashing this Christian movement. If this were a fabricated fable, Paul would have thrashed this story to pieces and the Christian movement would have been dead in its tracks before it even got off the ground. Paul was also a well educated scholar and would've recognized non-historical genre literature. He was strong in his Jewish faith and would not have jeopardized his soul by following a fable about a man he considered to be a false Messiah. Non-historical genre is not the reason for his transformation. Paul saw the risen Messiah with his own eyes. Again... the same applies to Yeshua's sibling, James, who was also known to be a devout Jew. He was extremely pious towards Jewish law and would not have been swayed to jeopardize his soul simply because he believed a story dreamed up by the disciples. No... James also witnessed his risen Messiah. Those who claim the disciples wrote in a non-historical genre... where is your proof? Where is your supporting evidence that this is the case? If the people knew of non-historical genres then they also knew of historical genres. This assertion is the same as claiming that simply because fiction writings exist, historical writers must also write fiction. Back up your assertion, show us the evidence that proves the disciples wrote in a non-historical genre... go ahead... we're all waiting.

On the other hand, we have evidence that the New Testament writers were writing historical literature.
Consider the two sermon summaries of Peter and Paul, recorded in Acts, that contrast King David's buried body with Yeshua's resurrected body.

They claimed that Yeshua's body did not decay in the grave as David's did, but rather was raised up by God. It is difficult to imagine how Peter and Paul could have been any clearer if they meant to communicate a literal, physical resurrection. If a mythical genre was being employed, Peter and Paul could have easily said, "David died, was buried, his body decayed, but his spirit has ascended to be with God. Yeshua likewise died, was buried, and his body now decays. But as with David, his spirit has ascended to be with God where he is now seated at the right hand of God."

The responses of early critics imply that the early church understood the resurrection of Yeshua to be historical.

The Jewish leaders accused the disciples of stealing Yeshua's body. Although later, the second century critic Celsus (c. A.D. 170) responded to claims of Yeshua's resurrection by suggesting he and/or his disciples performed magic or deception. 

These arguments indicate that these critics thought they needed to respond to a historical claim of a literal, bodily, and historical resurrection. Without a historical resurrection of Yeshua, there is nothing to account for the early Church's explosion of power. It was not the explosion of power in the early Church that led to the resurrection account... it was Yeshua's resurrection that led to the explosion of power in the early Church. I'm pretty sure a jury of peers would agree... the disciples were not writing in the form of non-historical genre.

Islam - Part 17: Yeshua, the Legend

Getting back to the resurrection we'll now discuss the critics who claim the resurrection originated as a LEGEND.

There are at least three types of legend theory: [1] embellishments, [2] a non-historical literary style, and [3] myths in other religions. 

Legend theories assume the story grew.

Embellishment theories state that Yeshua's disciples never claimed that He rose from the dead.  Rather, as the story of Yeshua and His teachings spread, they were embellished with supernatural details. 

Think of the game telephone where one person makes a statement and whispers it to the next person.  On and on it goes from one person to the next until the final statement, with the last person's recital of the statement... which no longer represents the original statement.

Buddhism is a prime example of embellishment.  Siddhartha Gautama (c. 563–483 B.C.) founded Buddhism, but he left only oral traditions of his teachings.  Buddhist scripture today comes from two traditions differentiated by the languages they were written in:  Pali manuscripts (dated to first century BC) and later Sanskrit from the beginning of the Christian era.

The original writings didn't appear until nearly 400 years after Gautama's death which left plenty of time for legend to creep into the texts.  This is noticeable in that nearly all mention of any miracles appear almost exclusively in the later Sanskrit texts. 

It's well known that modern scholarship holds the Buddhist scriptures highly suspect of embellishment.

We don't have that issue with the textual purity of the New Testament.  It is well established by nearly all modern scholarship that the ancient texts are virtually the same as what was originally written.

The question becomes: Did legend creep into Christian tradition before they were written?

Several problems plague the embellishment view of Yeshua's resurrection and much of this has been discussed in previous blogs.

First, the resurrection story can be traced to the real experiences of the original apostles.  If embellishments added details over time so that the ending of the story became the resurrection of Yeshua, then the original story told by the disciples most likely would not have included Yeshua's resurrection.

In short, the evidence from the disciples contradicts the embellishment explanation. 

Second, Paul came to Christ through an experience in which he thought he encountered the risen Yeshua.  This account also dates very early.  We need reasons for his conversion from unbelief, since his conversion was based on a personal appearance of Yeshua and counts very heavily against embellishment.

Third, the same applies to James.

Fourth, the mere mentioning of an assertion is not evidence that it is true.

While embellishments may be introduced into a text or oral tradition causing legend to accumulate over time, this certainly has not occurred with all ancient accounts. 

The key question is whether such legend is sufficient to account for the reports of Yeshua's resurrection.  Each case must be considered separately and in the case of His resurrection the accounts were written incredibly close in time to the actual event itself by those who claimed to be eye-witnesses.

Also, consider this...

The resurrection was preached, shortly after the resurrection, before a single Gospel account had even been written.  I've discussed this elsewhere but it bears repeating.

The first letter to the Corinthians was written by Paul around AD 53-57.  Most commonly dated to the spring of AD 55.

In this letter, Paul cites a known creed:

[1Co 15:3-8 LSB]  For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received, that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, [4]  and that He was buried, and that He was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures, [5]  and that He appeared to Cephas, then to the twelve. [6]  After that He appeared to more than five hundred brothers at one time, most of whom remain until now, but some have fallen asleep. [7]  After that, He appeared to James, then to all the apostles, [8]  and last of all, as to one untimely born, He appeared to me also.

This creed dates to AD 30-33, originating with days, weeks, or at most a few years after the crucifixion of Yeshua.  This creed details the death, burial, resurrection, and post-resurrection appearances of Yeshua.

How did Paul know this creed?  He got it from early Christian leaders (likely Peter and James) during his trip to Jerusalem approximately three years after his conversion on the road to Damascus.

Even atheist New Testament scholar Gerd Ludemann concluded that the early creed and tradition, found in Paul's letter, dates to 1-3 years after the crucifixion of Yeshua.  

How does such an all-encompassing statement such as this creed become suspect of legend, or embellishment, in such a short timeframe from the actual event? 

It doesn't.

Islam - Part 16d: Quran - Word of God (preservation)?

Perhaps the most essential claim by Muslims is that their Quran has been perfectly protected and preserved by Allah.  Every single pen stroke, letter, word, and sentence has been perfectly preserved as Allah had delivered to Muhammad and it remains perfectly preserved to this day.
Quran 15:9 [Sahih International]: Indeed, it is We who sent down the Qur'an and indeed, We will be its guardian.

When Uthman (third caliph) produced an official, edited copy of the Quran and destroyed all the other copies, he left no means for future historians to determine whether today’s Quran actually goes back to Muhammad.

While perfect preservation cannot be proven... it definitely can be disproven.

For starters, the Quranic text was not always written - it was often quoted from memory.  This is the reason that Umar (second caliph) convinced Abu Bakr (first caliph) to collect a copy of the Quran in the first place.

A Qurra is a reciter of the Quran and they were dropping like flies on the battlefield.  This is the reason that Umar feared the Quran may be lost forever.  If the Quran had been written down, the loss of the Qurra would not have been so troublesome.

The fact is that portions of the Quran were not in writing, and it had to be collected from people’s memories.  This is said explicitly in Sahih Bukhari: The Quran was collected from “palmed stalks, thin white stones and also from the men who knew it by heart.”

The same hadith tells us that at least two verses were known by only one person: “I started searching for the Qur’an till I found the last two Verses of Surat at-Tauba with Abi Khuza’ima Al-Ansari and I could not find these Verses with anybody other than him.”   

In other words, two verses of the Quran have been included on the testimony of just one individual.  Had he not remembered those verses, they would have been lost, and we would all have been none the wiser.

Sahih Bukhari mentions that a verse was missed the first time the Quran was written, and it had to be found later: “A verse from Surat Ahzab was missed by me when we copied the Qur’an and I used to hear Allah’s Messenger reciting it. So we searched for it and found it with Khuza’ima bin Thabit Al-Ansari.”   

It appears that verses kept being forgotten and lost, just barely being recovered.

Muhammad himself used to say that Muslims tended to forget Quranic verses very easily. “Keep on reciting the Qur’an because it escapes from the hearts of men faster than camel do.”   

He was not exaggerating, as even he forgot verses of the Quran. Upon hearing a man reciting the Quran at night he said, “May Allah bestow His Mercy on him, as he has reminded me of verses which I forgot.”   

If, according to the most trustworthy traditions, parts of the Quran were known by only one person, and other parts were missed, and indeed Muslims forgot verses, could it not be that some parts of the Quran were left out altogether? 

Can we really say such a precarious text has been perfectly preserved?

Sahih Bukhari puts the nail in the coffin by recording this hadith: “Umar said, Ubay was the best of us in the recitation of the Qur’an yet we leave out some of what he recites.’ Ubay says, ‘I have taken it from the mouth of Allah’s Messenger and will not leave it out for anything whatever.’ ”   

So the very best reciter of the Quran was adamant that verses of the Quran have been left out.   Muhammad himself chose Ubay as one of the best teachers of the Quran, and yet he disagreed with today’s Quran.

During the time of Muhammad the text was fluid... Muhammad claimed to be able to recite the same verse in seven different ways.  If at any point the verse needed to be canceled it could just be abrogated and replaced with another text.

This was recognized as an issue... afterall, none of this had been written down at that time.  They just had to stop reciting certain verses and what had been revealed from Allah would simply be forgotten... no big deal!

Obviously, written text has clear boundaries.

After having said all of this, you can imagine the issues they ran into when attempting to combine all known oral traditions, from several different men, who all differed on what was true and what was not, into one collaborative source of truth... the Quran.  And yes, the confusing collaboration is documented... perhaps better than the Quran itself.

300 years after the death of Muhammad, Ibn Mujahid (d. 324 AH / 936 CE) wrote Kitab al-Sab‘a and selected seven readings of the Quran as the ones he treated as reliable. All others were declared illegal.

His choice was not a formal government decree, but his scholarly standing and the book he produced effectively limited which readings were treated as acceptable. A couple of reciters who continued using other variants (Ibn Miqsam and Ibn Shannabudh) were pressured to stop. Later scholars built on his selection; some expanded the list to ten, but the seven he named became the core of the recognized readings to this day.

Islam - Part 16c - Quran - Word of God (mathematical)?

Muslims will claim the Quran to be word of god because of it's mathematical marvels.

For example the Quran mentions: the word month - 12 times; the word day - 365 times; the words man and woman an equal number of times; the words angels and Satan an equal number of times; the words this world and the hereafter an equal number of times.

Only the divine mind behind the scenes could come up with such exact numerical parallels in the Quranic text.

All sorts of amazing patterns can be found in the world around us if we simply look for them. This is true of the natural world, as anyone who has considered the golden ratio will attest, and it is true of manmade products as well.

Searching for patterns in Moby Dick, for example, one can find predictions of the future, including the assassinations of Leon Trotsky, Martin Luther King Jr., John F. Kennedy, Abraham Lincoln, and Princess Diana.  If you look hard enough, and if you can fudge the parameters, you will find patterns.

Another Quranic mathematical wonder is referred to as the Pattern of Nineteen by Rashad Khalifa.  He linked them to:

Quran 74:30 [Sahih International]: Over it are nineteen [angels].

Critics (including some Muslim scholars) note that the counts often depend on selective rules: which forms of a word are included, which orthography is used, or which verses are counted. When the rules are applied consistently, many of the claimed patterns do not hold. Similar numerical patterns can also be forced onto other long texts. Traditional Muslim scholarship generally does not treat these numerical claims as established miracles. In what way are we to define a mathematical marvel? Are these to be our golden standard by which we measure?

Islam - Part 16b: Quran - Word of God (prophecy)?

We, as Christians, offer evidence of Biblical authority through proven prophecy. 

Perhaps the Quran can offer the same?

Muslims will refer to this as an example:

Quran 41:19–21 [Sahih International]: And [mention, O Muhammad], the Day when the enemies of Allah will be gathered to the Fire while they are [driven], assembled in rows, [20] Until, when they reach it, their hearing and their eyes and their skins will testify against them of what they used to do. [21] And they will say to their skins, “Why have you testified against us?” They will say, “We were made to speak by Allah, who has made everything speak; and He created you the first time, and to Him you are returned.”

Reading the verse, one would wonder how skin can testify against a man.  Muhammad could never have known about fingerprint analysis, that people’s skin could testify against them.  This verse is therefore a prophecy that has come true in modern times.

In reality, the Quran is actually speaking about the day of judgment, that skin will speak with a voice, along with eyes and ears. It is not a prophecy of something that will happen on earth but an apocalyptic description of judgment in the afterlife.

What about the Roman victory often offered as a clear example of prophecy?
Quran 30:2–4 [Sahih International]: The Byzantines have been defeated [3] In the nearest land. But they, after their defeat, will overcome. [4] Within three to nine years. To Allah belongs the command before and after. And that day the believers will rejoice.

This is exactly what happened.  The Persians defeated the Romans in 614, but Emperor Heraclius ultimately defeated the Persians in 622.

There are problems with considering this a fulfilled prophecy.

First, it's not really much of a prediction.  Anyone who lived during that time could have easily predicted a Byzantine victory at some point given the current atmosphere and known conflict.

"The Kansas City Chiefs just beat the Broncos, but one day the Broncos will be vistorious!"

There are two much more significant problems with using this as prophetic fulfillment.

First, Quranic verses were regularly abrogated, and the Byzantine victory came during Muhammad’s lifetime.  Had it looked as if it were not going to happen, the text could easily have been abrogated. 

Second, and along the same vein, the Quran was not collected in a book until even later so how do we know this was even a prophetic writing to start with?  Even if it had been, had this prophecy failed, it could have been left out of the final collection of the text, as other verses had.

In reality, there is not one single prophetic statement that can be proven from the Quran... not even one.