Answering Islam - A Christian-Muslim dialog

Revisiting the Issue of the Quran and the Falsification Test

Sam Shamoun

This is a brief reply to another one of Bassam Zawadi’s attempts of defending the indefensible. Zawadi tries to take a stab at refuting my article which details how the Quran fails a Muslim falsification test.

Zawadi writes:

First of all, there is a big difference between Surah 111 which specifically states by name that Abu Lahab and his wife will be in hell and Surah 6:93, which makes a general statement about polytheists (without naming Abdullah ibn Abi Sarh) being tormented in the afterlife! I have already explained before that passages like Surah 16:106 cannot be read in isolation and that one could still repent before he dies.

Zawadi’s assertion that Q. 111 specifically mentions Abu Lahab by name along with his wife, whereas Q. 6:93 doesn’t do so, is a distinction without a difference for a couple of reasons. First, how does Zawadi know who Abu Lahab is? In fact, how does he know that Abu Lahab is even a proper name as opposed to a description of his character, or perhaps an insulting way of referring to some unknown antagonist that Muhammad was really upset with? After all, Abu Lahab means “father of the flames,” and may be describing the fact that he had a fiery temper which he was incapable of controlling, and therefore prone to fits of rage.

Moreover, can Zawadi point out what the sin of Abu Lahab and his wife was which caused Muhammad to curse them to hell in a fit of unbridled rage?

The only way that Zawadi can even answer these questions is by consulting sources such as the hadith, sirah and/or the commentaries, which brings me to my second point.

The same sources which tell us the who, what, why, when, where and how of Q. 111 are the very same ones which inform us that Q. 6:93 and 16:106 have at least one specific person in view, namely Abdullah ibn Sad ibn Abi Sarh. Therefore, Zawadi cannot simply take the explanation of the hadith, sirah etc. when it comes to Q. 111, while then brushing aside what these same sources say concerning the reason and meaning of Q. 6:93 and 16:106. In other words, Zawadi needs to stop trying to have his cake and eat it too since this only exposes his inconsistency, dishonesty and deception.

This now leads me to my third problem with Zawadi’s assertion. Zawadi knows full well that, according to his own scholars and sources, the verse of Q. 16:106 was also “revealed” in connection to Ammar ibn Yasar who was forced to recant and deny his faith due to the torture he underwent at the hands of the disbelievers:

(Whoso disbelieveth in Allah after his belief) in Him, deserves Allah's wrath (save him who is forced thereto) except the person who is coerced into disbelief (and whose heart is still content with Faith). This verse was revealed about 'Ammar Ibn Yasir (but whoso findeth ease in disbelief) whosoever utters words of disbelief willingly: (On them is wrath from Allah. Theirs will be an awful doom) the most awful torment in this worldly life. This verse was revealed about 'Abdullah Ibn Sa'd Ibn Abi Sarh. (Tanwir al-Miqbas min Tafsir Ibn 'Abbas)


(Whoso disbelieveth in Allah after his belief…) [16:106]. Said Ibn 'Abbas: “This verse was revealed about 'Ammar ibn Yasir. The idolaters had taken him away along with his father Yasir, his mother Sumayyah, Suhayb [al-Rumi], Bilal [ibn Rabah], Khabbab [ibn al-Aratt] and Salim [the client of Hudhayfah] and tortured them. As for Sumayyah, she was tied up between two camels and stabbed with a spear in her female organ. She was told: 'You embraced Islam for the men', and was then killed. Her husband Yasir was also killed. They were the first two persons who were killed in Islam. As for 'Ammar, he was coerced to let them hear what they wanted to hear. The Messenger of Allah was told that 'Ammar has renounced faith, but he said: 'Never, 'Ammar is filled with faith from his head to his toes; faith is admixed with his flesh and blood!' 'Ammar then went to see the Messenger of Allah, crying. The Messenger of Allah, Allah wiped his tears with his own hand and said: 'if they return to you, let them hear again what you told them'. Then, Allah, exalted is He, revealed this verse”. Mujahid said: “This verse was revealed about some Meccans who accepted faith. The Muslims of Medina wrote to them urging them to migrate and told them that they did not consider them part of them unless they migrated. And so they left Mecca intending to migrate to Medina. The Quraysh caught up with them on the way and coerced them to renounce their faith. It is about them that this verse was revealed”. ('Alī ibn Ahmad al-Wahidi, Asbab al-Nuzul)

However, the text itself does not mention Yasar by name but speaks in generalities, much like the verse of Q. 6:93 supposedly does. Yet despite the fact that the former verse speaks in general terms this doesn’t mean that it doesn’t have a specific person or event in view. By the same token, just because Q. 6:93 is alleged to be making a general statement this doesn’t mean that it didn’t have a particular person or group of individuals in mind when it was initially “revealed” to Muhammad.

Zawadi continues:

Secondly, if the Prophet thought that Abdullah ibn Abi Sarh’s conversion would falsify the Qur’an and if the Prophet was a fraud, he would have ordered Abdullah ibn Abi Sarh to have been killed. Instead of saying “It is not advisable for a Prophet to play deceptive tricks with the eyes”, the Prophet could have easily said “Allah in the Qur’an doomed this person to hell, hence his conversion isn’t sincere and he must be killed” and the Muslims would have easily complied. However, the Prophet did not because this is not what the Qur’an teaches and for this same reason none of the companions ever raised the issue as to why Abdullah ibn Abi Sarh was allowed to live as a Muslim if the Qur’an doomed him to hell by name.

A couple of replies are in order to expose this rather feeble and desperate attempt of salvaging Muhammad’s gross mistake. First, it is irrelevant as to what Muhammad thought. What is important is what the Quranic texts say will be the fate of the person who turned away from the “faith” and who claimed to be just as inspired as Zawadi’s false prophet. The Quran is quite clear that the person(s) in question is(are) doomed to destruction for what s/he/they have done.

Secondly, the very fact that Muhammad did want Ibn Abi Sarh murdered for running around telling people how he manipulated Zawadi’s false prophet into including the uninspired statements of his scribe is simply further confirmation that the Quran failed the Muslim falsification text. It shows that Allah and his messenger were unable to bring about the predicted destruction upon an apostate even though this is what Muhammad’s deity said he would do. The fact is that both Uthman ibn Affan and Ibn Abi Sarh were able to successfully thwart the purposes of Allah and Muhammad, thereby turning the Quran into a lie!

Third, that Muhammad’s companions supposedly never raised this issue against Muhammad is also irrelevant, and a classic example of a red herring, and simply proves that, much like Zawadi, they were brainwashed into believing whatever Muhammad and his god told them, no matter how absurd or illogical their instructions may have been.

For instance, just ask any non-Muslim whether s/he believes that:

  • Satan stays in the upper part of a person’s nose and needs to be flushed out with water.
  • Satan passes wind and urinates in people’s ears.
  • Stars are missiles which Allah hurls at jinn (Q. 15:16-18; 37:6-10; 67:5; 72:8-9).
  • The sun sets in a muddy spring (Q. 18:83-86).
  • Adam was originally 90 feet tall.
  • Moses chased a stone which ran off with his clothes while he was taking a bath.
  • A group of Jews were transformed into rats and that these rats refused to drink the milk of camels.
  • A group of monkeys stoned a she-monkey for committing illegal sexual intercourse.
  • A person should dip a house fly that has fallen into his/her drink since one wing has the disease whereas the other has its cure.
  • Food would talk and glorify Allah right before Muhammad would consume it.
  • Food wasn't the only thing that spoke. Muhammad claimed that both stones and trees would converse with him! In fact, on one occasion he even heard a date-palm tree crying like a child!

These are some of the teachings of Muhammad which Muslims such as Zawadi believe are divinely revealed truths!

Any rational person that hasn’t been brainwashed would see these absurdities for what they truly are, but a mind that has been taken captive by Satan will find ways of defending and justifying such nonsense.

It is obvious that Zawadi underestimates just how powerful satanic deception and mind-control are, and the effects that brainwashing can have, on individuals.

Sadly, Zawadi himself is a victim of such deception and manipulation, and perfectly illustrates the lengths that those who have been spiritually deceived will go to in order to defend the lies which they have been duped into believing are revelations from God.

For instance, instead of focusing his energies on trying to defend the Quran for failing a test employed by Muslim dawagandists to prove its alleged divine origin, Zawadi should have spent his time pondering over the implications of the Ibn Abi Sarh story.

According to the Muslim expositors like al-Qurtubi, the reason Ibn Abi Sarah apostatized is because Muhammad took his uninspired exclamations and incorporated them into a book which he claimed was sent down by the lord of the worlds. This led Ibn Abi Sarh to reason that if Muhammad was inspired then so was he, since the former took the words of his scribe and claimed that they were revelations from God. Ibn Abi Sarh further concluded that if Muhammad was lying that the Quran is divine in origin then this means that the words of an uninspired scribe were just as eloquent as Muhammad’s, there being no difference between them. As one expositor explains the story:

(Who is guilty of more wrong than he who forgeth a lie against Allah, or saith: I am inspired…) [6:93]. This was revealed about the liar, Musaylimah al-Hanafi. This man was a soothsayer who composed rhymed speech and claimed prophethood. He claimed that he was inspired by Allah. (… and who saith: I will reveal the like of that which Allah hath revealed?) [6:93]. This verse was revealed about 'Abd Allah ibn Sa'd ibn Abi Sarh. This man had declared his faith in Islam and so the Messenger of Allah called him one day to write something for him. When the verses regarding the believers were revealed (Verily, We created man from a product of wet earth…) [23:12-14], the Prophet dictated them to him. When he reached up to (and then produced it as another creation), 'Abd Allah expressed his amazement at the precision of man's creation by saying (So blessed be Allah, the Best of Creators!). The Messenger of Allah said: “This ['Abd Allah's last expression] is how it was revealed to me”. At that point, doubt crept into 'Abd Allah. He said: “If Muhammad is truthful, then I was inspired just as he was; and if he is lying, I have uttered exactly what he did utter”. Hence Allah's words (and who saith: I will reveal the like of that which Allah hath revealed). The man renounced Islam. This is also the opinion of Ibn 'Abbas according to the report of al-Kalbi. 'Abd al-Rahman ibn 'Abdan informed us> Muhammad ibn 'Abd Allah ibn Nu'aym> Muhammad ibn Ya'qub al-Umawi> Ahmad ibn 'Abd al-Jabbar> Yunus ibn Bukayr> Muhammad ibn Ishaq> Shurahbil ibn Sa'd who said: “This verse was revealed about 'Abd Allah ibn Sa'd ibn Abi Sarh. The latter said: 'I will reveal the like of that which Allah has revealed', and renounced Islam. When the Messenger of Allah entered Mecca, this man fled to 'Uthman [ibn 'Affan] who was his milk brother. 'Uthman hid him until the people of Mecca felt safe. He then took him to the Messenger of Allah and secured an amnesty for him”. ('Alī ibn Ahmad al-Wahidi, Asbab al-Nuzul; bold emphasis ours)

Now to folks who haven’t been blinded by the deception of Islam this story would convince them that Ibn Abi Sarh was right and that Muhammad was a fraud and a plagiarist. Yet to those who have been deceived by Satan and have bought into the lie that the Quran is miraculous, such evidence will never be sufficient enough to cause them to see Islam for what it truly is.

Sadly, Zawadi happens to be one of those who would rather remain blind and oblivious to the truth. This is why he tries so desperately to refute all of the insurmountable problems with his Islamic faith, but to no avail.

It is time for Zawadi to come to grips with the evidence and accept the fact that the Allah of the Quran is a false god, that Muhammad was a false prophet, and that the Quran is an incoherent, unintelligible book of deception used by Satan to keep people away from the true God and his Gospel. Zawadi needs to awaken to reality and see the Quran for what it truly is, namely, a book which is easily exposed and refuted for the lie that it is.

For more on the topic of Ibn Abi Sarh manipulating Muhammad to change the so-called revelations and the implication this has on Muhammad’s credibility we recommend the article How Allah killed his prophet.

So much for Zawadi’s “rebuttal.”