James
Arlandson, Ph.D., is recognized in academic circles as an expert in
philosophy and world religions, especially the religion of Islam and the
history of its founder, Muhammad. While we may not agree with Dr.
Arlandson's application of certain New Testament passages or his
interpretation of some of the teaching of Jesus, this article provides a
thorough study of the fundamental differences between Christianity and
Islam, and thought-provoking evidence every Muslim should consider.
Why I
Don't Convert to Islam (3)
By
James Arlandson
[Part
One may be read
here.
And Part Two
here.]
(18)
The Quran orders warfare on Christians and Jews during Muhammad's first
Crusade (long before the European ones).
Sura 9:29
says:
Fight
against those who believe not in Allah, nor in the Last Day, nor forbid
that which has been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger (Muhammad) and
those who acknowledge not the religion of truth (i.e. Islam) among
people of the Scripture (Jews and Christians) until they pay the Jizyah
with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued (Hilali and Khan,
insertions in parentheses are theirs)
This
verse that commands battle against Christians is all about theology and
belief. It says nothing explicit about a real and physical harm done to
Islam. Muhammad launched his Tabuk Crusade in late AD 630 against the
Byzantine Christians. He had heard a rumor that an army was mobilizing
to invade Arabia, but the rumor was false, so his 30,000 jihadists
returned home, but not before imposing a jizya tax on northern
Christians and Jews. They had three options: (1) fight and die; (2)
convert; (3) or submit and pay the second—class—citizen jizya tax for
the 'privilege' of living under Islam.
For more
information, see:
Timeline
of the Islamic Crusades and
the
Muslim
Crusades.
(19) The
Quran orders warfare and death for polytheists who refuse to convert.
Sura 9:5
says:
Then,
when the months made unlawful for fighting expire, kill the mushriks
[polytheists] wherever you find them, and seize them, and besiege them,
and lie in wait for them at every place of ambush. But if they repent,
establish Salat [prayer five times a day] and pay the Zakat dues
[charity tax], then let them go their way. (Maududi, vol. 2, p. 175;
insertions mine)
This
hadith leaves no doubt about Muhammad's mission in Arabia and his known
world:
Narrated
Ibn 'Umar:
Allah's
Apostle said: "I have been ordered (by Allah) to fight against the
people until they testify that none has the right to be worshipped but
Allah and that Muhammad is Allah's Apostle, and offer the prayers
perfectly and give the obligatory charity, so if they perform a that,
then they save their lives an property from me except for Islamic laws
and then their reckoning (accounts) will be done by Allah." (Bukhari;
see a parallel hadith
here)
This
article
gives some reasons for Muslim armies storming out of the Arabian
Peninsula. And this
one
tackles the subject from a slightly different angle.
Dear
Muslim emailer, this action by your prophet is intolerant, six hundred
years after Jesus came and showed us acceptance. If people did not want
to convert, then my Lord did not wage war on them.
(20) The
Quran testifies against its own reliability and incorruptibility.
This holy
book does this in at least three ways.
(A)
Someone changed some 'Satanic verses' to polemical verses. Living in
Mecca, Muhammad was discouraged because many in his tribe did not
believe his message. He was heavily burdened for them and desired (note
the key word) their acceptance of his monotheism.
Tabari
the historian and commentator (d. 923) records the verses from Sura 53,
which encourages the Meccans to receive intercession from their three
main goddesses. He writes:
And when
he [Muhammad] came to the words:
Have you
thought upon al-Lat and al—- and Manat, the third, the other? [Sura
53:19-20]
Satan
cast on his tongue, because of his inner debates and what he desired to
bring upon his people, the words:
These
are the high-flying cranes, verily their intercession is accepted with
approval. (Tabari, ibid.)
This (no
longer existing) verse says that appealing to these three deities for
intercession is approved by Allah, the high god. This last verse is not
found in the Quran today (Arberry's translation, Sura 53, note 7), but
it was replaced with a polemical verse:
Are you
[polytheists] to have the male and He [Allah] the female? [53:21]
Here the
interpolator argues that human polytheists prefer the male child,
whereas they consign to Allah female children. The interpolator uses the
beliefs of the polytheists against them because they worshipped the
daughters of the higher god. Why should only humans get sons? In
seventh-century Arab culture, this was unfair to the deity.
Dear
Muslim emailer who wants me to convert, though your fellow Muslim
polemicists explain away this story based on the 'unreliability' of the
sources, the truth of this incident, for me, cannot be doubted for the
reason that prominent Islamologist W. M. Watt, who often defends
Muhammad, offers:
The truth
of the story cannot be doubted, since it is inconceivable that any
Muslim would invent such a story, and it is inconceivable that a Muslim
scholar would accept such a story from a non-Muslim. (Tabari,
Muhammad at Mecca, trans. Watt and M. V. McDonald, Introduction,
vol. 6, p. xxxiv)
(B) The
Quran asserts that Satan cast words into every prophet while under
inspiration. Allah is speaking and uses 'We' in Sura 22:52:
We have
never sent any messenger or prophet before you [Muhammad] into whose
wishes Satan did not insinuate something, but removes what Satan
insinuates and then God affirms His message . . . (Haleem)
Haleem
uses the word 'removes' instead of 'abrogates' or 'cancels,' but this
does not help matters. Allah still has to change and correct his
revelations. Remember, the Quran was revealed over a short period of
time. So what is it about these revelations that Allah has to remove so
quickly? The historian Tabari connects this verse with the Satanic
verses. Muhammad 'wished' for the Meccans to convert, so he spoke the
wrong verses in Sura 53. They were changed to 53:21 that is found in the
Quran of today.
Further,
what about Muhammad's insinuation that all prophets were influenced (at
least once) by Satan while they spoke or wrote their revelations? Though
I cannot speak for every religious tradition in the world that claims
prophets, it is impossible to find these egregious falsehoods in great
Biblical prophets like Isaiah, Jeremiah, and Ezekiel while they were
speaking under divine guidance. Though the last three prophets are not
sinless (no human is), they do not speak out of inspiration from Satan
while prophesying by the Spirit of God—not even once. If they did, they
would be false prophets, and there were plenty of them walking around
ancient Israel.
Allah
through the Quran says that every prophet was inspired by Satan. Was
Muhammad the prophet who channeled the Quran? This Satanic inspiration
calls into doubt other revelations in the Quran, especially when he
reveals the 'truth' about Biblical characters that differs so widely
from the Bible, the true source (see no. 1).
(C) The
Quran itself speaks of Allah abrogating verses, sometimes in the same
sura or chapter and often in a short time.
Sura
2:106 says:
Whatever
Verse (revelation) do We abrogate or cause to be forgotten, We bring a
better one or similar to it . . . (Hilali and Khan)
In the
next passage Muhammad has to defend himself against accusations of
forgery and lying. His defense does not say that Allah never changes a
verse, but that the deity can do what he likes.
Sura
16:101 says:
And when
We change a Verse (in the Quran) in place of another – and Allah knows
best what He sends down – they (the disbelievers) say: 'You (O Muhammad)
are but a Maftari! (forger or liar)' Nay, but most of them know not.
(Hilali and Khan; insertions are theirs)
Dear
Muslim missionary, personally, I'm willing to give a sacred book some
room for development, but these Quranic verses and traditions about
Satanic verses (Sura 53:19-21), Satan's influence (Sura 22:52), and
Allah's abrogations (Suras 2:106 and 16:101) are strange and excessively
confusing, at least to me they are.
These
back-up articles explain this confusion more fully. Which verses have
been abrogated? Here is a partial
list
compiled from the hadith. This brief
article
explains the differences between the Bible's promise and fulfillment and
the Quran's abrogation. This longer
article
also explains the differences. This
article
explains how Christ fulfills the Old Testament. See this
page
and look for 'Abrogation in the Quran.'
For more
articles on the Quran's self-corruption, please see this
page
and click on any of the articles. Even the hadith says that the Quran
has missing suras and verses.
For more
information on the Satanic verses and the larger implications, see this
article.
Though discussing the Prophet's inconsistent stance on poetry, this
article
answers thoroughly the Muslim charge against the unreliability of
non-hadith sources.
(21) The
Quran shows Muhammad nervously taking refuge in Allah from dark powers
and magic.
In light
of this Satanic inspiration in reason no. 20, above, this aspect of
Muhammad's life is troubling.
Sura 113,
a short one, revealed in Mecca, says in its entirety:
1 Say
[Prophet], 'I seek refuge with the Lord of daybreak 2 against the evil
in what He has created, 3 the evil in the night when darkness gathers, 4
the evil in witches when they blow on knots, 5 the evil in the envier
when he envies.' (Haleem) (cf. Suras 7:200-201; 16:98; 41:36; and Sura
114, a short one, in its entirety)
The
following hadith indicates that Muhammad believes that some sort of
knots on the head is the result of Satan and witchcraft.
Allah's
Apostle said, "Satan puts three knots at the back of the head of any of
you if he is asleep. On every knot he reads and exhales the following
words, 'The night is long, so stay asleep.' When one wakes up and
remembers Allah, one knot is undone; and when one performs ablution, the
second knot is undone, and when one prays the third knot is undone and
one gets up energetic with a good heart in the morning; otherwise one
gets up lazy and with a mischievous heart." (Bukhari;
see a parallel hadith
here)
This
hadith demonstrates that Muhammad was so deeply influenced by magic that
he believed that he was having sex with his wives, but in reality he was
not.
Narrated
Aisha:
Magic was worked on Allah's Apostle so that he used to think that he had
sexual relations with his wives while he actually had not. (Bukhari,
and read the hadith below this linked one.)
The
highly respected conservative commentator, Sayyid Maududi, says that the
hadiths on Muhammad's bewitchment are sound.
'As far
as the historical aspect is concerned, the incident of the Holy
Prophet's being affected by magic is absolutely confirmed' . . . (Maududi
and scroll down to 'Question of Holy Prophet being affected by magic')
Dear
Muslim emailer, it seems to me that I cannot reasonably disagree with
Maududi on his prophet. He is right. Muhammad was bewitched. And this is
not part of true Prophethood.
This
article
contrasts Muhammad's fears and bewitchment with Christ's commanding
authority over Satan and dark powers. This short
article
cites many hadiths and a modern commentator. This mid-length
article
analyzes Muhammad's psychological instability. This
article
refutes some recent explanations or denials of Muhammad's bewitchment.
Finally, this
index
page
references several articles and rebuttals and replies.
(22) The
Quran recycles events in young Mary's life that really come from
apocryphal gospels, even though Muhammad claims that he received this
information only by revelation.
First,
Sura 3:44 says this about Muhammad's revelations concerning young Mary,
describing men arguing over her:
This is
an account of things beyond your knowledge that We [Allah] reveal to you
[Muhammad]: you were not present among them when they cast lots to see
which of them should take charge of Mary, you were not present when they
argued [about her]. (Haleem; the first insertion in brackets is mine;
the last two are Haleem's)
The
following passage from the apocryphal gospel says that divining rods
were used to decide on the custody of young Mary. The passage describes
some tumult among the candidates as well.
The
apocryphal gospel says:
8.3 And
the heralds went forth and spread out through all the surrounding
country of Judaea; the trumpet of the Lord sounded and all [the
widowers] ran to it. [The widowers give their rods to the high priest]
9.1 When he took the rods, and went out (again) [from the Temple] and
gave them to them: but there was no sign on them . . . [Joseph got a
divine sign of a dove]. And the priest said to Joseph: 'Joseph, to you
has fallen the good fortune to receive the virgin of the Lord; take her
under your care. (New Testament Apocrypha, vol. 1, rev. ed. by W.
Schneemelcher, trans. R. McL. Wilson, Westminster / John Knox, 1991, pp.
429—430)
In both
accounts, divination or divine signs (rods or lots) are used to
determine who should take care of young Mary. Also, it is not difficult
to imagine in both the Quran and the pseudo—gospel that a small crowd of
men gathered, wondering who would win guardianship and then marry her.
Both versions say or imply that they 'argued' over her. Muhammad simply
changed some elements or received an altered version, as the story grew
and evolved in the telling, from one century to the next. But the
borrowing is unmistakable.
The
second example is found in Sura 19 that is even named after Mary.
According to verses 16-26, Mary traveled to the east and secluded
herself. An angel came and promised her a son. She conceived
miraculously, and during the pains of childbirth she cries out.
Sura
19:23-26 says:
23 . . .
[A]nd, when the pain of childbirth drove her to cling to the trunk of
the palm tree, she exclaimed, 'I wish I had been long dead and forgotten
before all this!' 24 but a voice cried to her from below, 'Do not worry:
your Lord has provided a stream at your feet 25 and, if you shake the
trunk of the palm tree towards you, it will deliver fresh ripe dates for
you, 26 so eat, drink, be glad . . . . (Haleem)
This
story of miraculous deliverance through a palm tree from above and a
stream of water from below comes from Gospel of Pseudo-Matthew, or more
fully, The Book About the Origin of the Blessed Mary and the Childhood
of the Savior.
The
apocryphal gospel says:
Then the
child Jesus, who was sitting with a happy countenance in his mother's
lap, said to the palm: 'Bend down your branches, O tree, and refresh my
mother with your fruit.' And immediately at this command [voice] the
palm bent down to the feet of the blessed Mary, and they gathered from
its fruit and they all refreshed themselves . . . [Addressing the palm,
Jesus says:] 'And open beneath your roots a vein of water . . . and let
the waters flow' . . . And when they saw the fountain of water, they
greatly rejoiced and quenched their thirst . . . (The New Testament
Apocrypha, vol. 1, p. 463)
Though
the small details differ, the broad outline of the pseudo—gospel and the
Quran match up well. First, both share the same context: a nativity and
infancy narrative – the beginning of the Messiah's life. Second, the
Quran has Mary traveling; in the pseudo-gospel Mary (and Joseph and
Jesus) also travel. Third, the Quran says that Mary heard a voice or
command; the pseudo-gospel adds that the voice or command belonged to
baby Jesus. Fourth, the apocryphal gospel says that a palm tree provided
food from above, and a stream of water provided refreshment from below;
the Quran says the same. Finally, both books recount this fiction as a
miracle, when Mary (and Joseph) needed it most. Clearly, Muhammad did
not learn this fiction from a manuscript in front of him. He was not a
scholar, after all. But some borrowing is undeniable – for objective
readers and seekers.
Dear
Muslim emailer, did Muhammad really get this information about Mary from
revelations? The same question could be asked about his source of
information concerning young Jesus. The answer to both: Muhammad got
this information from apocryphal gospels, not revelations. So what does
his claim in Sura 3:44 imply?
This
article
serves as the back up. And so does this
chapter
written by highly qualified Islamologist William St. Clair-Tisdall of an
earlier generation, who knew Islam and Arabic thoroughly. He provides
details that demonstrate that the ultimate source of this Quranic
fiction is Buddhist (scroll down to "Story of the Virgin Mary"). By the
seventh century, Buddhism had impacted Persia and other points farther
west.
(23) The
Quran confuses the doctrine of the Spirit.
Islam
borrows the language and vocabulary of Christianity, but the later
religion alters them in small and big ways. This is true of the Quran's
pneumatology (doctrine of the Spirit). The references to the Spirit are
far, far fewer than those in the New Testament. In fact, the references
in the Quran, below, are complete (or nearly so).
The
Spirit in the Quran has similar functions as those in the Bible, but the
Quranic Spirit's role is weaker and less defined. Specifically, the
Quranic Spirit seems to be involved in creation (Suras 15:98; 32:7-9;
38:71-72). He helped Mary conceive Jesus (Suras 19:18-19; 21:91; 66:12).
The Spirit appeared in the form of a man to Mary (Sura 19:18-19). He
strengthened Jesus (Suras 2:87; 2:253; 5:110), and the believers (Sura
58:22). Jesus is called a 'spirit from God' (Sura 4:171; cf. 2:253). He
inspired and revealed the Quran (Sura 16:102; 17:85; 26:192-193; 97:4).
Finally, he is a witness or participates in some way in the Last Day
(Suras 70:4; 78:38), warning of impending judgment (Sura 40:15).
Thus, the
Quran's view of the Spirit overlaps somewhat with the Bible's (creation,
conception of Jesus, and inspiration), but in other ways the Quran is
confused and deficient (Jesus is a spirit; the Spirit appears as a man;
his helping of believers is mentioned only once). But none of this
confusion and deficiency matters, because traditional Islam erroneously
reduces the Spirit to the archangel Gabriel. Why? A fully developed
pneumatology wreaks havoc on a strict Unitarian doctrine of God.
Dear
Muslim missionary, the Spirit lives in the Christian's heart, and this
gift is too precious to give up.
This long
article
(the readers may scroll down to 'Who is the Spirit?') argues
convincingly that the Spirit cannot be Gabriel without damaging other
aspects of Islamic theology. This
article
briefly discusses the Spirit in the Old Testament, the New Testament,
and the Quran (scroll down to 'Holy Spirit'). This
one
replies to Muslim polemics.
(24) The
Quran says that Muhammad is only a human and mortal messenger.
Sura
39:30 was received in Mecca, and Muhammad is verbally separating off the
true believers from the untrue. When Judgment Day comes, each side will
see the truth because death will reveal it, even his own death:
You
[Prophet] will surely die, and so will they [disbelieving Meccan
polytheists] (Haleem; the first insertion is his, the second mine.
Sura 41:6
was received in Mecca and uses similar heated rhetoric against the
Meccan polytheists. Allah tells his prophet to 'say' these words to
them:
Say
[Prophet], 'I am only a mortal like you' . . . (Haleem)
He goes
on to say that God revealed to him that God is One. The implication is
that the polytheists must change their religion and beliefs.
Sura
3:144 was revealed after the Battle of Uhud in AD 625, three years after
Muhammad's Hijrah or Emigration from Mecca to Medina. His army lost the
battle in theory, but in practice he did not lose much materially, so he
quickly recovered. But he asks his followers this question, predicated
on his mortality.
Muhammad
is only a messenger before whom many messengers have been and gone. If
he died or were killed, would you revert to your old ways? (Haleem)
Muhammad
dies of a fever in AD 632. 'Narrated 'Aisha: The Prophet died while he
was between my chest and chin' . . . (Bukhari).
(25) The
Quran denies the divine and eternal Sonship of Jesus Christ.
One verse
is sufficient as an example. Sura 9 is one of the last chapters to be
revealed, if not the last one, and Muhammad's rhetoric heats up against
Christians (and Jews). Recall that reason no. 18 cites Sura 9:29, which
commands Muhammad to fight Christians. In the next verse he curses
Christians who say that Allah has a son (verse 30):
. . .
Christians say: Messiah is the son of Allah . . . Allah's curse be on
them, how deluded away from the truth! (Hilali and Khan) (cf. Suras
2:116; 6:101; 10:68; 18:1, 4-5; 19:35, 88-93; 21:17, 26-27; 23:91;
43:81-82)
As a
reply to this curse, perhaps it is not unreasonable to quote some verses
from the Apostle John, who lived and talked with Jesus for three years.
John lived longer than the other apostles. In his days many years after
the resurrection, he warned Christians of teachers who would arise and
deny the Sonship of Jesus Christ.
22 Who is
the liar? It is the man who denies that Jesus is the Christ. Such a man
is the antichrist – he denies the Father and the Son. 23 No one who
denies the Son has the Father; whoever acknowledges the Son has the
Father. (1 John 2:22-23)
Christians are to test doctrines by Christ's and the Apostles'
standards. Based on this New Testament passage, what are Christians
supposed to conclude about Muhammad's denial that Jesus is the Son of
God? Muhammad's denial makes him look bad, standing in the light of
these Biblical verses.
These
verses are strong, to be sure. But the difference between Sura 9:30 and
1 John 2:22-23 is the context. In verse 29 Muhammad is commanded to
fight Christians in real battles with real weapons. In contrast, with
words alone John warns Christians about false teachers. He did not call
Christians to arm themselves and to chop off heads.
Personally, I choose the Son of God (or he chose me) who was called to
die for my and your sins, over and above a human and mortal messenger. I
could never give Jesus Christ up by demoting him to a mere prophet or
human messenger or watered down, distorted Islamic Messiah, who will
return and
break the
cross.
Dear
Muslim emailer and missionary, this is certainly one of the very
strongest reasons in this entire list that I do not convert to Islam. I
simply won't trade in the eternal Son of God for a human messenger who
would drag all of society backwards.
For more
Quranic confusion about Christ, go directly to the
Conclusion
of a long article that has a list of misinterpretations.
Conclusion
Dear
Muslim emailer,
This list
could continue (e.g. Muhammad's marriage with his 'ex' daughter-in-law
Zainab). But at least you have an idea – many ideas – why I don't
convert to Islam.
Though I
do not wish to hurt your feelings, I have studied Islam long enough and
deeply enough to have earned the right make these two statements:
(1) I do
not believe that God sent down this book, the Quran. (2) I do not
believe that Muhammad was a prophet of the God of the Bible, though the
last half of your shahadah (confession of faith or First of Five
Pillars) seems to demand this from me. I'm not sure where Muhammad got
his 'revelations,' but I don't accept them.
However,
you and your fellow polemicists are unwilling to give up trying to
convert me and others. You and they follow two overarching strategies in
order to counter a list like this one.
First,
you and they quote the Old Testament and declare that it orders the
execution of such sinners as adulterers. So who are Christians to
complain? In reply, however, we Christians believe that God through
Jesus Christ has
fulfilled
this inspired book which was relevant and advanced during its own time
and culture. And we still read it for its timeless truths. (This
article
explains how Christians benefit from it.) But not every aspect is
authoritative for us today, such as animal sacrifices and harsh
punishments. Christ came to change the sinner from the inside out.
Second, with regard to prosecuting criminals like thieves (see no. 9),
promoters of Islamic law try to show the "horrible" life and crime rates
in the US (and the whole West) because western freedoms (supposedly) do
not work. Then the promoters assert that sharia (Islamic law) is the
best solution. But is this angle the best, and does it account for all
of the facts?
This
line
graph
on this short page at the Bureau of Justice Statistics shows that
violent crimes (e.g. homicide, rape, assaults, robbery) in America have
decreased dramatically from 1994 to 2003. This
line
graph
on another short page at BJS also depicts a dramatic drop in property
crime (burglary, theft, and car theft) from 1994, though the rate has
leveled off since 2002.
But what
is the point of placing these two line graphs in this long list? To
boast that America has reached moral perfection and has no room for
improvement? Maybe the crime rate will increase (God forbid) in the next
decade (or go down). The point is this: though many factors contribute
to a drop in crime rates (or their rise), it is possible to see such a
decrease without Islamic law. Sharia has nothing to do with the positive
factors at work. Further, this means, therefore, that Islamic law is not
needed to improve any society. Other, less brutal, means can be followed
in order to lower crime and enhance the quality of life.
I hope
that the reasons are now clear why I don't convert to Allah's religion.
But will you stop sending me emails that ask me to convert? Probably
not. At least I can reply to you with this long list.
Dear
Muslim missionaries, it would be wonderful if you expended your energy
on reforming your religion, instead of trying to convert me and others
to it in its present form—though many theological reasons in this list
say that I would not convert to Allah's religion even if it underwent
massive, practical reform. But at least average citizens in Islamic
countries would feel the warmth and glow of peace and love and freedom
and tolerance, and at least they would not have to live under the
tyranny of sharia and radical Mullahs and Sheikhs.
Sincerely,
James M.
Arlandson
James M.
Arlandson can be reached at
jamesmarlandson@hotmail.com.
Note on
translations:
If you
want to see the verses in other translations, three sites are available
with alternatives.
This one
has multiple translations;
this one
has three; and
this
translation
is subsidized by the Saudi royal family. I sometimes use it here,
calling it Hilali and Khan, the two translators.
James M.
Arlandson may be reached at
jamesmarlandson@hotmail.com
Jim
Arlandson (Ph.D.) teaches introductory philosophy and world religions at
a college in southern California. He has published a book, Women,
Class, and Society in Early Christianity (Hendrickson, 1997)
From:
http://www.americanthinker.com/2006/02/why_i_dont_convert_to_islam_3.html
|