No God but One: Allah or Jesus?: A Former Muslim Investigates the Evidence for Islam and Christianity

by Nabeel Qureshi

  It also does not appear that Muhammad fought only those who were attacking him. Muhammad said, “I have been ordered to fight against the people until they testify that none has the right to be worshiped but Allah and that Muhammad is Allah’s Messenger . . . then they save their lives and property from me.”20 Muhammad clarifies in another hadith, “I will expel the Jews and Christians from the Arabian Peninsula and will not leave any but Muslim.”21

  There can be no denying, based on these records, that Muhammad fought people and wished to expel them from Arabia based on their beliefs. Only if they became Muslim would they “save their lives and property from” Muhammad. How could we argue that Muhammad was so peaceful that it proved his prophetic status?

  In assessing Muhammad’s character, we have considered only two matters in any depth: the beginning of his ministry and his teachings regarding warfare. These alone are enough to question Muhammad’s character and prophethood, but in case more is needed, there is much, much more that skeptics commonly bring to the table, such as concerns about his spiritual aptitude, his teachings about women, his troubling theological teachings, his incorrect understandings of Judaism and Christianity, his unfulfilled prophecies, his commands to perform idolatrous rites, and his special allowances for himself. We will briefly touch on just the first two.22

  As far as his spiritual aptitude and authority, apart from considering suicide on several occasions, Muhammad said that he had been a victim of black magic;23 he had delusional thoughts of doing things he had not done;24 and he confused demonic inspiration with divine inspiration, saying Satan had put Quran verses into his heart which he then used in prayer.25

  Regarding his estimation and treatment of women: Muhammad allowed for prostitution through the institution of temporary marriage;26 when fifty-two years old he consummated his marriage with his nine-year-old bride Aisha, who was still playing with dolls;27 Muhammad allowed his men to have sex with female captives and slaves, unconcerned if they became pregnant or were to be sold;28 Muhammad declared women to be mentally deficient compared to men;29 and Muhammad said women will be the majority of hell’s inhabitants because they are ungrateful to their husbands.30

  The issues we have covered should suffice for our present point. Though Muhammad may have taught many good things and been a man of mercy at times, given the extensive counterevidence, we cannot conclude that his character is excellent enough to prove he is a prophet of God.

  LOOKING MORE CAREFULLY FOR MUHAMMAD IN THE BIBLE

  Though there are many suggested prophecies of Muhammad in the Bible, the ones from Deuteronomy 18 and John 16 are the ones we considered strongest and therefore the ones we most frequently advanced. A common problem with the way we handled them, though, was that we tried to make the text conform to our expectation. Instead of understanding what the words meant and what they intended to convey, we did our best to read them as prophecies about Muhammad.

  For example, while reading Deuteronomy 18, we never bothered to consider the Old Testament notion of a prophet, always just assuming the Islamic notion. In the Old Testament, a prophet is anyone who prophesies because the spirit of Yahweh rests upon him (or her!). The Old Testament speaks of prophetesses (Judg. 4:4) and whole groups of prophets at once (1 Sam. 10:5), and neither of these cases aligns with the Muslim notion of prophethood.

  Where our interpretation of words became a real problem in Deuteronomy 18, though, was the way we interpreted “from among their brethren.” This phrase cannot mean from among the Ishmaelites. Whenever the Bible uses this phrase it means “countrymen,” always referring to either close kinsmen or clansmen. It never means anything as distant as an entirely different people group related only through a distant ancestor.

  One does not need to be all that familiar with the biblical use of the term to conclude this because the previous chapter defines the term for us. In Deuteronomy 17:15, the Bible says, “You shall set over yourselves a king whom Yahweh your God chooses, from among your brethren. You shall not set a foreigner over yourselves, who is not your brother.” So the text defines the word for us: A brother from among the Hebrews is a Hebrew. He cannot be a foreigner, and the Ishmaelites were foreigners. This text cannot be about Muhammad.

  Similarly, in John 16, we used to do whatever we could to read Muhammad into the text, ignoring the counterevidence that simply did not allow it. The Greek word was parakletos and not periklutos, no matter how much we wanted Jesus to use the Greek equivalent to Muhammad. And just as brethren had been defined in the paragraphs preceding the Deuteronomy passage, parakletos had been defined earlier in the same passage of John. In 14:26, the text tells us the parakletos is the Holy Spirit. There is no room for conjecture; the prophecy was about the Holy Spirit living inside Christians. It was not about the coming of any man, let alone a prophet.

  This is why the text says about the Spirit of truth, “The world cannot accept him, because it neither sees him nor knows him. But you know him, for he lives with you and will be in you” (John 14:17 NIV). The disciples already knew the Spirit of truth because the Holy Spirit was with them and would soon be in them. How could this be Muhammad? Muhammad was not already with them, nor could he possibly be in them. In context, it is impossible to conclude that the Spirit of truth from John 14–16 is Muhammad.

  The same turns out to be the case when we consider any of the so-called “Muhammad in the Bible” prophecies. In most of them, the Bible is not prophesying the coming of anyone at all. In others, the full context brings in counterevidence that prohibits us from concluding that it is about Muhammad. There simply is no compelling prophecy about Muhammad in the Bible.

  MUHAMMAD AND SCIENCE

  Counterevidence and context have proven problematic for arguments proposing Muhammad’s prophethood, and the same is the case when we examine the argument from miraculous scientific knowledge, that Muhammad knew science so advanced it must have come from God.

  Consider the example of Quranic embryology. Before even looking at the text of the Quran, we should consider what mankind had already discovered in order to properly calibrate what might be miraculous knowledge. About a thousand years before Muhammad, Aristotle had published a treatise on embryology, On the Generation of Animals. It is far more scientific and detailed than anything Muhammad suggests, being a whole book on the topic of embryology. In section 734a, Aristotle explicitly discusses embryological development in stages.31 In section 745b, he mentions that an embryo is attached to the uterus via an umbilicus.32 Galen, a Greek scientist living about five hundred years after Aristotle and five hundred years before Muhammad, also wrote a treatment on embryology, On the Natural Faculties. Agreeing that development happens in stages, he says, “Now Nature constructs bone, cartilage, nerve, membrane, ligament, vein, and so forth, at the first stage of the animal’s genesis, employing at this task a faculty which is, in general terms, generative and alterative.”33 Both Aristotle and Galen had very carefully defined terms and concepts, positing in great detail the process of embryological development.

  Turning now to the Quran, let us quote the passage in question, 23.12–14: “And indeed we made man from an essence of clay; then we placed him as a drop in a safe lodging; Then we made the drop a hanging (thing), then we made the hanging into a chewed (thing), then we made the chewed into bones, then we clothed the bones with flesh, then we developed it into another creation, so blessed be Allah, the best of creators.”

  At the outset, we must conclude that there is no possibility of anything miraculous here. In no way can it be argued that Muhammad would not have known details of embryology when whole books had been written by Aristotle a thousand years prior and Galen five hundred years prior. In addition, the Quran uses poorly delineated terms and concepts, nowhere near the scientific precision of Galen. Many Muslim explanations of this passage assume “hanging” and “chewed” have specific embryological referents; and they may assume this if they already believe the Quran has miraculous scientific knowledge, but they can
not assume this in order to prove it has such knowledge. Such a deduction would be circular. The unrefined language makes this passage undecipherable, not miraculous.

  What can be ascertained through the rudimentary wording is the notion of development in stages, but this is certainly not miraculous as it was well-known by Muhammad’s time. Similarly, Aristotle had already described the tethering of an embryo to the uterus via an umbilical cord (i.e., a hanging thing). Regarding a chewed thing, women in Arabia suffered miscarriages as do women today, and they would have seen fetuses such as the Quran describes.

  Regarding details, we can only guess as to what was meant by that section of the passage. As far as understanding the text with clarity, the only section of this Quranic passage that makes a plain assertion is that bones are developed first and that they are then clothed with flesh. Unfortunately, this is false. Modern science has taught us that a single embryological layer, the mesoderm, differentiates into bones and flesh at the same time.

  Thus, the one section of this passage that is stated clearly is scientifically inaccurate, and the whole passage is far less sophisticated than texts that had been written a thousand years prior. This is simply not a miraculous passage whatsoever.

  Regarding the allegedly miraculous insight about mountains, that they stabilize the earth and have roots, much can be said, but it would be helpful just to point out the patterns. Here again, the scientific assertion is false. Mountains do not create stability in the earth’s crust; instead, they are a result of tectonic instability. Although the assertion that mountains have roots beneath the earth’s surface is correct in a sense, the Quran was certainly not the first book to posit this. We see that assertion made at least three times in the Bible: Job 28:9, Psalm 18:7, and Jonah 2:6.

  As a Muslim, I believed there were dozens of examples of miraculous scientific knowledge in the Quran, but when I started investigating them carefully, I found that each and every one succumbed to at least one of three critiques: First, the verses were being made to say things they did not assert (much like the “Muhammad in the Bible” prophecies); second, the science was actually well-known before Muhammad’s day (such as embryological development in stages); or third, the science was false (such as the bones developing before muscles).

  There are many examples of the third criticism, which really is the nail in the coffin for this argument. These incorrect statements are found in both the Quran and hadith. For example, just in the field of embryology, the Quran is incorrect regarding spermatogenesis, asserting that semen is produced between a man’s backbone and his ribs (86.7). In the hadith, we find a case that is very telling: A man asked Muhammad to prove that he is a prophet by correctly answering questions.34 One of the questions inquired why a child might look like his father more than his mother, or vice versa. Muhammad responded that Gabriel had informed him of the answer to his question: The first parent to have discharge during intercourse determined the appearance of the child.

  It goes without saying that this is scientifically false, because genetics determine the appearance of a child. We ought not blame a man in the seventh century for being unfamiliar with Mendelian genetics, but in this case, Muhammad actually was trying to prove that he was a prophet of God through his scientific insights, and he was very wrong. That stark reality was enough to give me pause as a Muslim.

  There were many more times when Muhammad was incorrect in his science, and examples can be found in the Quran as well as the hadith. For example, apart from what we have already seen, the Quran says that the sun sets in a pool of muddy water in the west (18.86),35 and it assumes stars are the same thing as meteorites (67.5). In the hadith, apart from what we have already seen, Muhammad teaches that flies carry diseases on one wing and antidotes on the other,36 that cumin heals all diseases,37 and that camel urine cures stomach aches.38 These are but a few examples of many of Muhammad’s scientific inaccuracies.

  CONCLUDING THE RESPONSE TO THE CASE FOR MUHAMMAD’S PROPHETHOOD

  It is worth remembering that we have not tried to disprove Muhammad’s prophethood. We have considered arguments that are used to prove Muhammad’s prophethood, and we have concluded that they are quite problematic.

  Though other Muslims and I often said that Muhammad ought to be followed because of his excellent character, I could not sustain that argument in the face of the counterevidence. Although Muhammad gave plenty of moral teachings and exhibited merciful and peaceful character at times, there are many other accounts of Muhammad’s brutality and exultation in war, his spiritual shortcomings, and his troubling treatment of women, among other concerns.

  Also, there are no prophecies regarding Muhammad in the Bible. Reading the full context of the proposed passages and considering the meaning of their words carefully demonstrates that none of these passages are prophecies.

  Similarly, there is no miraculous scientific knowledge in either the Quran or the hadith. On the contrary, historical and textual context show every example to be flawed. In addition, many counterexamples of faulty science can be found in the texts of the Quran and the hadith that prohibit us from concluding that the text is miraculous.

  CHAPTER 35

  ASSESSING THE RESPONSE

  HADITH VERSUS HISTORY

  The three reasons most commonly given by Muslims to accept Muhammad as a prophet—his character, prophecies in the Bible, and miraculous scientific insights—are all very problematic. As a result, we are left with no reason to believe that Muhammad was sent by God. This reasoning is incredibly straightforward.

  In simply setting out the arguments for Muhammad’s prophethood and considering them carefully, we have done something most Muslims never do. Generally speaking, most Muslims inherit a fulsome image of Muhammad from their parents and teachers during childhood and then assume that the stories they have always heard are true. That was the case for me, and since I had never really considered the arguments rationally, I did not respond to counterarguments rationally. Even though I had invited my friend David to study the matter with me, we often got into heated arguments while discussing Muhammad. I remember charging him with “dragging our prophet through the mud” more than once, when in actuality, I knew in my heart that I did not know how to handle what I was learning about Muhammad.

  The fact is most Muslims simply have not read the primary sources on Muhammad’s life, instead only hearing overviews that have filtered out the more problematic accounts. When they first hear these stories, they do not know how to react. When I began reading these accounts with my own eyes, I tried to resolve each one individually, searching out explanations and ways to account for or dismiss each account that challenged the image of the peaceful, noble Muhammad I knew.

  Individual problematic accounts quickly became dozens of such stories, and within a matter of months I was trying to account for over a hundred traditions of Muhammad’s life that I simply could not believe were true. This is when I began to approach the life of Muhammad more systematically. How could I know which accounts of Muhammad’s life were reliable and which were not?

  HADITH SCIENCES AND THE HISTORICAL METHOD

  As Muslims, we knew it was a long time after Muhammad died before anything substantial was written about his life, but people did not cease talking about him. For over two hundred years, stories about the Islamic prophet were passed orally from person to person, and among the true accounts proliferated many fabrications. By the time a systematic effort was made to sort through them, over five hundred thousand accounts of Muhammad’s life were in popular circulation, and it is commonly estimated that the vast majority of them were false.

  How can we know which accounts of Muhammad’s life are trustworthy?

  At first, I assumed the classical Islamic method for assessing the authenticity of hadith. In the field of uloom al-hadith, translated “the science of Muhammad’s sayings,” Muslim scholars grade individual accounts of Muhammad’s life based on criteria such as how well-known an account was and who the peopl
e relaying it were. The most trustworthy hadith are ultimately graded sahih, which means “true” or “authentic,” whereas the weakest hadith are labelled daeef (“weak”) or even maudu (“fabricated”).

  Imam Bukhari and his student Imam Muslim were two highly respected scholars in the third century after Muhammad, and they collected only those hadith which they considered sahih and beyond dispute. Most Muslims consider their collections above reproach. In using only the hadith that they approved, I hoped that we could see Muhammad was the noble and peaceful man that I had always been taught, and that there were no problematic accounts in his life.

  But this did not happen. Problematic accounts existed even amid the sahih collections; in fact, every single account in the previous chapter was either from the Quran or from the sahih collections of Imam Bukhari and Imam Muslim.

  I began asking imams to resolve these problematic accounts found in the sahih, and I also searched online to see how other Muslims responded to the criticisms. What I learned was that many were willing to accuse even the sahih collections of containing fabricated accounts, finding ways to dismiss those accounts that were considered authentic by the great Muslim scholars of old.