Alleged Mistakes in the Qur’an…

I would like first to thank you for your satisfying answers that you have posted for some of my questions, and thank the rest of the brothers on the team. May Allah bless you all and reward you all the best. Mr. Sam Shamoun (from the Answering Islam team) had forwarded an article to me. I know that your team and other Islamic sites - like Islamic awareness - have answered some of the claims he brought up but there are few other claims that I would like u to show us how to deal with and refute. And if possible I hope to see a complete refutation to his paper. But for now some of the issues that concerns me. Under the title "Contradictions In The Qur’an" Mr.Sam says:

1. Geographical Errors

a) Olive Trees in Sinai

“Then We produced for you therewith gardens of palms and vines wherein are many fruits for you, and of them you eat, and a tree from the Mount of Sinai that bears oil and seasoning for all to eat.” S. 23:19-20

As the late Christian scholar ‘Abdallah ‘Abd al-Fadi rightly pointed out:

“Commentators said that the tree refers to olives, and the seasoning refers to the food eaten with bread (al-Tabari, Jami’ a-Bayan 18:13).

We ask: Wouldn’t it have been more appropriate to refer to Canaan, which is known for olives, and not Sinai, where God had to provide manna for the Israelites, owing to the barrenness of the land? In other words, the Sinai Desert is not known for its olives.” (Al-Fadi, Is the Qur’an Infallible? [Light of Life PO Box 13 A-9503, Villach Austria], p. 28)

b) Rain In Egypt

“Then thereafter there shall come a year wherein the people will be succored (yughathu) and press in season.” S. 12:49

The context of the passage deals with the famine that was to hit Egypt during the time of Joseph. Al-Fadi comments:

“Here a reference is made to the drought that Egypt suffered for seven continual years during the time of Joseph, and to the surplus that would replace this barrenness. It says that in the year of plenty they will have rain [the word succored in Arabic means ‘to be relieved by rain’]; as if Egypt’s fertility is based on rain. This contradicts reality, for rain is very scarce in Egypt, and it plays no role in that country’s irrigation, which is obtained solely from the annual flooding of the Nile. How then can the fertility of Egypt be attributed to rain?” (Al-Fadi, p. 26)

Then under this section "Historical Errors" Mr. Sam claims:

A) John the Baptist’s Name

According to S. 19:7, the name John was given to none before the Baptist:

“O Zachariah! Lo! We bring thee tidings of a son whose name is John; we have given the same name to none before (him).”

However, we read of a John (Hebrew- Johanan) in 1 Kings 25:23, 1 Chronicles 3:15, 24, 6:9, 10, Ezra 8:12, etc. In fact, there are 27 instances of the name "Johanan" mentioned in the Old Testament. The Hasmonean Dynasty ruled Palestine in the century before John the Baptist appeared on the scene. Palestine at that time was very Hellenized and Greek became the main language. One of the priest-king of the Hasmonean Dynasty was John Hyrcanus, well attested to in many historical and classical sources. Josephus talks about a John the Essene who served as a general of the rebel force in Timna (Jewish War, 2.125). 1 Maccabees 2:1 tells us of "Mattathias son of John son of Simeon". Mattathias also has a son called John (1 Maccebees 2:2). John's brother, Judas, led the Jews in rebellion against Antiochus IV Epiphanes. Simon also has a son named John (1 Maccebees 16:19). All these Johns lived before John the Baptist. John was indeed a very common name.

One Muslim apologist, Dr. Jamal Badawi, attempts to cover up this error by suggesting that the Qur’an is not emphasizing the uniqueness of the name per se, but that name here implies there would be none like John in his prophetic qualities. But even this won’t work, since we discover that there is one exactly like John, namely Elijah. This is due to the fact that the Baptist came “in the spirit and power of Elijah,” being the Elijah of Jesus’ first coming. (Cf. Luke 1:17; Matthew 17:10-13)

b) Sacrifices Commanded Upon All?

The Qur’an claims that all believers were commanded to offer animal sacrifices:

“To every people did We Appoint rites (of sacrifice), that they might celebrate the name of God over The sustenance He gave them from the animals (fit for food). But your God is One God: Submit then your wills to Him (In Islam): and give thou the good news to those who humble themselves” S. 22:34

There is only one problem, namely that Christians have never been commanded to offer sacrifices. Jesus is the Christian’s only perfect and final sacrifice, having been delivered up for our sins once, never to be repeated.

c) Queen of Sheba and Sun Worship

The Qur’an claims that the Queen of Sheba and her people were sun worshipers:

“But he was not long in coming, and he said: I have found out (a thing) that thou apprehendest not, and I come unto thee from Sheba with sure tidings. Lo! I found a woman ruling over them, and she hath been given (abundance) of all things, and hers is a mighty throne. I found her and her people worshipping the sun instead of Allah; and Satan maketh their works fairseeming unto them, and debarreth them from the way (of Truth), so that they go not aright…” S. 27:22-24

Yet, archaeology has proven this to be incorrect since moon worship was prevalent in this particular region:

“A measure of Muhammad's limited knowledge of the ancient traditions of the Arab deities is gained from the fact that the Qur'an states that the Queen of Sheba was converted to the true god from the sun-worship of her people (Pritchard 1974 14), while all the evidence at Marib suggests that the Moon God, the very source of the crescent of Islam, was always the predominant deity.” (The Lunar Passion and the Daughters of Allah: http://www.scitec.auckland.ac.nz/~king/Preprints/book/orsin/orsin3.html

Then he says under "Fables As History"

According to the Qur’an, Solomon had animals under his control and actually would have conversations with them much like the way humans do:

“And there were gathered together unto Solomon his armies of the jinn and humankind, and of the birds, and they were set in battle order; Till, when they reached the Valley of the Ants, an ant exclaimed: O ants! Enter your dwellings lest Solomon and his armies crush you, unperceiving. And (Solomon) smiled, laughing at her speech, and said: My Lord, arouse me to be thankful for Thy favour wherewith Thou hast favoured me and my parents, and to do good that shall be pleasing unto Thee, and include me in (the number of) Thy righteous slaves. And he sought among the birds and said: How is it that I see not the hoopoe, or is he among the absent? I verily will punish him with hard punishment or I verily will slay him, or he verily shall bring me a plain excuse. But he was not long in coming, and he said: I have found out (a thing) that thou apprehendest not, and I come unto thee from Sheba with sure tidings. Lo! I found a woman ruling over them, and she hath been given (abundance) of all things, and hers is a mighty throne. I found her and her people worshipping the sun instead of Allah; and Satan maketh their works fairseeming unto them, and debarreth them from the way (of Truth), so that they go not aright; So that they worship not Allah, Who bringeth forth the hidden in the heavens and the earth, and knoweth what ye hide and what ye proclaim…” S. 27:17-25

Muhammad Asad must allegorize this passage since he was seemingly aware of the difficulty in viewing this historically:

“In this instance, Solomon evidently refers to his own understanding and admiration of nature (cf. 38:31-33 and the corresponding notes) as well as to his loving compassion for the humblest of God’s creatures, as a great divine blessing: and this is the Qur’anic moral of the LEGENDARY story of the ant.” (Asad, p. 578, f. 17)

Now compare this fable with the credible historical version of the Holy Bible:

“God gave Solomon wisdom and very great insight, and a breadth of understanding as measureless as the sand on the seashore. Solomon's wisdom was greater than the wisdom of all the men of the East, and greater than all the wisdom of Egypt. He was wiser than any other man, including Ethan the Ezrahite-wiser than Heman, Calcol and Darda, the sons of Mahol. And his fame spread to all the surrounding nations. He spoke three thousand proverbs and his songs numbered a thousand and five. He described plant life, from the cedar of Lebanon to the hyssop that grows out of walls He also taught about animals and birds, reptiles and fish. Men of all nations came to listen to Solomon's wisdom, sent by all the kings of the world, who had heard of his wisdom.” 1 Kings 4:29-34

The Qur’an even claims that both the winds and jinns (demons) were subservient to Solomon:

“And to Solomon (We subjected) the wind strongly raging, running by his command towards the land which We had blessed. And of everything We are the All-Knower. And of the Shayâtin (devils) (from the jinns) were some who dived for him, and did other work besides that; and it was We Who guarded them.” S. 21:81-82

“So, We subjected to him the wind, it blew gently to his order whithersoever he willed, And also the Shayâtin (devils) from the jinns (including) every kind of builder and diver, And also others bound in fetters. [Saying of Allâh to Solomon]: ‘This is Our gift, so spend you or withhold, no account will be asked’." S. 38:36-39

Ibn Kathir in his commentary on Solomon ‘s control over the winds states that Solomon was using the wind to travel by a flying carpet!

Muslim Alhassan Albasri claimed:

Solomon was traveling on his carpet from Damascus to have lunch in "Istcher", then he moved from there to Kabel to spend the night. Between Damascus and Istcher a month traveling for the one that is traveling fast. And between Istcher and Kabel a month traveling for the one who is traveling fast.

Muhammad Asad:

“In this as well as in several other passages relating to Solomon, the Qur’an alludes to many POETIC LEGENDS which were associated with his name since early antiquity and had become part and parcel of Judeo-Christian and Arabian lore long before the advent of Islam. Although it is undoubtedly possible to interpret such passages in a ‘rationalistic’ manner, I do not think that this is really necessary. Because they were so deeply ingrained in the imagination of the people to whom the Qur’an addressed itself in the first instance, these legendary accounts of Solomon’s wisdom and magic powers had acquired a cultural reality of their own and were, therefore, eminently suited to serve as a medium for the parabolic exposition of certain ethical truths with which this book is concerned: and so, without denying or confirming their MYTHICAL character, the Qur’an uses them as a foil for the idea that God is the ultimate source of all human power and glory, and that all achievements of human ingenuity, even though they may sometimes border on the miraculous, are but an expression of His transcendental creativity.” (Asad, p. 498, f. 77)

Another Quranic fable includes S. 18:9-23, 25-26 and the Story of the Sleepers of the Cave. According to this tale, several youths and their dog fled to a cave where according to one version of the story they slept for 309 years.

Once again, here is Asad:

“… We may, therefore, safely assume that the LEGEND of the Men of the Cave- stripped of its Christian garb and the superimposed Christian background- is, substantially, of Jewish origin… But whatever the source of this LEGEND, and irrespective of whether it is of Jewish or Christian origin, the fact remains that it is used in the Qur’an IN A PURELY PARABOLIC SENSE: namely, as an illustration of God’s power to bring about death (or ‘sleep’) and resurrection (or ‘awakening’); and, secondly, as an ALLEGORY of the piety that induces men to abandon a wicked or frivolous world in order to keep their faith unsullied, and of God’s recognition of that faith by His bestowal of a spiritual awakening which transcends time and death.” (Ibid., p. 439, f. 7)

And,

“The future tense in sayaqulun points once again to the LEGENDARY character of the story as such, and implies that all speculation about its details is irrelevant to its parabolic, ethical purport.” (Ibid., p. 442, f. 31)

Need we say more?
----------------------------------

May be also giving us some methodology in how to answer some of the Christian Claims. Thank you for your time, and Jazakum Allahu Khairan.

urs islamicly,

Faisal

Reply

Let us take the stated objections one by one.

1-       Olive Trees in Sinai

The first alleged mistake in the Qur’an is one in its reference to ‘a tree from the Mount of Sinai that bears oil and seasoning for all to eat’.

In his cited criticism Mr. Shamoun has implied that what the commentators of the Qur’an have generally interpreted from these words is that they refer to ‘Olive’ trees, which Abdallah ‘Abd al-Fadi has “rightly” criticized. To begin with, let us presume that Mr. Al-Fadi’s criticism is correct. The result of this presumption, however, would not necessarily imply acknowledgment of a mistake in the Qur’an. It should be remembered that the Qur’an has not named any tree. On the contrary, it is the interpretation of the commentators of the Qur’an that the words:

‘a tree from the Mount of Sinai that bears oil and seasoning for all to eat’

refer to ‘Olive’ trees. Now, if Mr. Al-Fadi’s criticism is correct, it would only mean that the interpretation of the commentators of the Qur’an is not correct.

However, a close look at what Mr. Al-Fadi’s has “rightly” pointed out, shows that his contention is quite confusing. Mr. Shamoun has cited him as having written:

“Wouldn’t it have been more appropriate to refer to Canaan, which is known for olives, and not Sinai, where God had to provide manna for the Israelites, owing to the barrenness of the land? In other words, the Sinai Desert is not known for its olives.”

Do these words merely imply that it would have been ‘more’ appropriate to attribute olive trees to Canaan? Or do they mean that the Qur’anic reference (presuming that the Qur’an has actually referred to ‘olive’ trees) of attributing ‘olive’ trees to Mount Sinai is incorrect? In the former case, there is no ‘geographical’ error in the Qur’an, while in the latter case, the Bible itself, sufficiently, refutes the contention. There is sufficient evidence in the Bible to believe that there was a large quantity of ‘olive’ trees on the Mount Sinai (and its surrounding area). Take a look at the following verses of the Bible:

Exodus 20: 10 – 11 says:

For six years you are to sow your fields and harvest the crops, but during the seventh year let the land lie unplowed and unused. Then the poor among your people may get food from it, and the wild animals may eat what they leave. Do the same with your vineyard and your olive grove.

The reference to ‘olive groves’ in this verse would have been unnecessary, if the Israelites did not have any ‘olive groves’.

Then again in Exodus 7: 20, the Bible says:

Command the Israelites to bring you clear oil of pressed olives for the light so that the lamps may be kept burning.

In Exodus 30: 22 – 29, it says:

Then the LORD said to Moses, "Take the following fine spices: 500 shekelsC of liquid myrrh, half as much (that is, 250 shekels) of fragrant cinnamon, 250 shekels of fragrant cane, 500 shekels of cassia--all according to the sanctuary shekel--and a hin[1] of olive oil. Make these into a sacred anointing oil, a fragrant blend, the work of a perfumer. It will be the sacred anointing oil. Then use it to anoint the Tent of Meeting, the ark of the Testimony, the table and all its articles, the lampstand and its accessories, the altar of incense, the altar of burnt offering and all its utensils, and the basin with its stand. You shall consecrate them so they will be most holy, and whatever touches them will be holy.

It is important to keep in mind that the above verse stipulates the ingredients of the anointing oil. Thus, olive should be considered a part of ‘anointing oil’, wherever it has been referred to in the Bible. Moreover, the extent of the practice of the anointing ritual in the Israelites obviously requires that all its ingredients (including ‘Olive’) be in good supply. Does Mr. Shamoun, on the authority of Mr. Al-Fadi, really wants to imply that the ritual of ‘anointing’ was not in practice till the Israelites entered Canaan?

In Leviticus 24: 2, the Bible says:

The LORD said to Moses, "Command the Israelites to bring you clear oil of pressed olives for the light so that the lamps may be kept burning continually…”

Then again in Deuteronomy 24: 19 – 22, the Bible says:

When you are harvesting in your field and you overlook a sheaf, do not go back to get it. Leave it for the alien, the fatherless and the widow, so that the LORD your God may bless you in all the work of your hands. When you beat the olives from your trees, do not go over the branches a second time. Leave what remains for the alien, the fatherless and the widow. When you harvest the grapes in your vineyard, do not go over the vines again. Leave what remains for the alien, the fatherless and the widow. Remember that you were slaves in Egypt. That is why I command you to do this. (Deuteronomy 24: 19 – 22)

The “Expert Introduction to Leviticus” writes:

Exodus gave the directions for building the tabernacle, and now Leviticus gives the laws and regulations for worship there including instructions on ceremonial cleanness, moral laws, holy days, the Sabbath year and the Year of Jubilee. These laws were given, at least for the most part, during the year that Israel camped at Mount Sinai, when God directed Moses in organizing Israel's worship, government and military forces. The book of Numbers continues the history with preparations for moving on from Sinai to Canaan.[2]

Flavius Josephus (the most quoted Jewish Historian) in ‘Antiquities of the Jews’, Book III, (covering a period of two years, from the exodus out of Egypt, to the rejection of that generation) writes in Chapter 8 (Regarding the Priesthood of Aaron):

Moses now purified the tabernacle and the priests; which purification was performed after the following manner: - He commanded them to take five hundred shekels of choice myrrh, an equal quantity of cassia, and half the foregoing weight of cinnamon and calamus (this last is a sort of sweet spice); to beat them small, and wet them with an bin of oil of olives (an hin is our own country measure, and contains two Athenian choas, or congiuses); then mix them together, and boil them, and prepare them after the art of the apothecary, and make them into a very sweet ointment; and afterward to take it to anoint and to purify the priests themselves, and all the tabernacle, as also the sacrifices. There were also many, and those of various kinds, of sweet spices, that belonged to the tabernacle, and such as were of very great price, and were brought to the golden altar of incense; the nature of which I do not now describe, lest it should be troublesome to my readers; but incense was to be offered twice a-day, both before sun-rising and at sun-setting. They were also to keep oil already purified for the lamps; three of which were to give light all day long, upon the sacred candlestick, before God, and the rest were to be lighted at the evening. (William Whiston’s translation), (http://wesley.nnc.edu/josephus/ant-3.htm)

In Book IV, (covering a period of thirty-eight years, from the Rejection of that Generation to the Death of Moses),  writes in Chapter 8 (The Polity settled by Moses; and How He Disappeared From Among Mankind):

Let not those that reap, and gather in the corn that is reaped, gather in the gleanings also; but let them rather leave some handfuls for those that are in want of the necessaries of life, that it may be a support and a supply to them, in order to their subsistence. In like manner when they gather their grapes, let them leave some smaller bunches for the poor, and let them pass over some of the fruits of the olive-trees, when they gather them, and leave them to be partaken of by those that have none of their own; for the advantage arising from the exact collection of all, will not be so considerable to the owners as will arise from the gratitude of the poor. And God will provide that the land shall more willingly produce what shall be for the nourishment of its fruits, in case you do not merely take care of your own advantage, but have regard to the support of others also. (William Whiston’s translation), (http://wesley.nnc.edu/josephus/ant-4.htm)

It should be of interest to the common reader that all the above-mentioned quotes refer to the period in the Sinai. None of these quotes pertains to the post-Canaan period.

In view of the above facts, it should not be unreasonable to derive that the Mount Sinai and its surrounding area, however barren it was, did indeed have olive trees. Thus, the interpretation of the commentators of the Qur’an cannot be rejected as incorrect on an unsubstantiated basis.

2-       Rain in Egypt

While mentioning the famine that struck Egypt, in the days of Yusuf (pbuh), the Qur’an in Yusuf 12: 49 says:

The translation of these verses, as Mr. Shamoun has taken them to be, is:

Then, after these [seven] years of famine, shall come a year in which people shall be relieved by rain and shall [subsequently] press grapes.

Mr. Shamoun writes:

“… It says that in the year of plenty they will have rain [the word succored in Arabic means ‘to be relieved by rain’]; as if Egypt’s fertility is based on rain. This contradicts reality, for rain is very scarce in Egypt, and it plays no role in that country’s irrigation, which is obtained solely from the annual flooding of the Nile. How then can the fertility of Egypt be attributed to rain?” (Al-Fadi, p. 26)

It should be remembered that, in these verses, the Qur’an has not referred to the source of irrigation in Egypt. The Qur’an, as well as the Bible, has only referred to the fact that whatever the source of irrigation, Egypt and its surrounding areas shall suffer a severe famine for seven years. This, obviously, implies that whatever the source of irrigation, it shall remain dried up for seven years. The Qur’an, in contrast to the Bible, has added at the end that in the eighth year ‘the people shall be relieved with rain’. The words of the Qur’an do not necessarily imply rain in Egypt. The phrase ‘Yughathu al-naas’ does not necessarily mean that ‘Egypt shall be irrigated with rain’, it can also simply mean that the famine-hit people shall be relieved with wide-spread rain, which subsequently would also restore Egypt’s source of irrigation. I really do not understand what could be a “geographical error in such a statement. Does Mr. Shamoun, on the authority of Mr. Al-Fadi, intend to propose that there has never been any rain in the surroundings of Egypt? Or that rain does not play any role in flooding of Nile?

However, the important thing to remember is that the Arabic word “ ” (yughath) does not necessarily mean, “To be relieved by rain”, as Mr. Al-Fadi has so emphatically stressed in his cited paragraph. Almost all the major commentators of the Qur’an (including Al-Zamakhshariy, Al-Raziy, Al-Qurtabiy, Abu Hayyaan, and Al-Tabariy, for instance) have categorically stated that the word “ ” (Yughath) could be either from the root “ ” (Ghayth) or from “ ” (Ghauth). If, interpreted from the former root, the word would mean ‘would get rain’, while if interpreted from the latter, it would mean ‘shall be heard’ (as in ‘their prayers shall be heard’) or ‘relieved’ (as in ‘relieved from famine’). In fact, the translation preferred by Mr. Al-Fadi (i.e. “relieved by rain”) is actually based on interpreting the word “ ” from the latter root (i.e. “ ” – ghauth). It is important to understand that interpreted from this root (ghauth), the word only means ‘relieved’, ‘helped’ or that ‘their prayers shall be answered’. The word does not mean ‘relieved by rain’. In fact, the words ‘by rain’ are an explanatory addition to the translation. If this addition is inaccurate, it is obviously the translator’s mistake, not a “geographical error” in the Qur’an. The verse should either be translated as:

Then, after these [seven] years of famine, shall come a year in which the prayers of the people [for water] shall be heard and they shall [subsequently] press grapes.

Or as:

Then, after these [seven] years of famine, shall come a year in which the people shall be relieved [of the great famine] and they shall [subsequently] press grapes.

3-       John the Baptist’s Name

The Qur’an, in Maryam 19: 7 says:

O Zechariah, We give you glad tidings of a boy, his name shall be Yahya (John). Before this, We made no one his ‘Samiyaa’.

Mr. Shamoun writes:

… All these Johns lived before John the Baptist. John was indeed a very common name.

It should be remembered that the referred verse of the Qur’an does not say that there was no one by the name of John, before John the Baptist. On the contrary, it says: “Before this, We [i.e. God] made no one his ‘samiyaa’ (generally interpreted as namesake)”. A mistake can only be established in the Qur’an if it is proven beyond any reasonable doubt that God did name someone by the name John, before John the Baptist. Mr. Shamoun has only cited referenced to the effect that there were people by the name of John before John the Baptist. For pointing out a mistake in the Qur’an, he should also establish that any one of these ‘Johns’ was, in fact, given his name by God.

Although, the above paragraph should suffice as a response to Mr. Shamoun’s contention, yet for a better understanding of the Qur’an, we should also see what exactly is the implication of the word ‘samiyaa’. Generally, the commentators of the Qur’an have interpreted this word to mean: ‘namesake’. Nevertheless, in my opinion, this interpretation is not correct. The word used in the verse in the Arabic language is “ ”, which has clearly been used in Maryam 19: 65 to imply “a like”, “an equal” etc. In Maryam 19: 65, the Qur’an says:

The Lord of the heavens and the earth and whatever lies between them. Thus, worship Him [alone] and remain steadfast on His worship. Do you know anyone equal to Him? [Then why should you associate partners with Him?]

The above verse, as well as the context of Maryam 19: 7, is a clear evidence of the fact that the word “ ” has been used in the verse to imply the uniqueness of John’s person, not the uniqueness of his name. The Arabic dictionary, ‘Lisaan al-Arab’, while explaining the word, writes:

It is said that ‘lum naj`al lahu min qablu samiyaa’ implies ‘an equal’ or ‘comparable’.

However, Mr. Shamoun is also critical of the implication of the verse, if the word ‘samiyaa’ is taken to imply ‘an equal’ or ‘comparable’. He writes:

But even this won’t work, since we discover that there is one exactly like John, namely Elijah. This is due to the fact that the Baptist came “in the spirit and power of Elijah,” being the Elijah of Jesus’ first coming. (Cf. Luke 1:17; Matthew 17:10-13)

Let us take a close look at the verses cited by Mr. Shamoun. Luke 1: 16 - 17 says:

[Gabriel said:] And many of the children of Israel shall he (i.e. John) turn to the Lord their God. And he shall go before him in the spirit and power of Elias (or Elijah), to turn the hearts of the fathers to the children, and the disobedient to the wisdom of the just; to make ready a people prepared for the Lord.

Matthew 17: 10 – 13 says:

And his disciples asked him, saying, Why then say the scribes that Elias (or Elijah) must first come? And Jesus answered and said unto them, Elias truly shall first come, and restore all things. But I say unto you, That Elias is come already, and they knew him not, but have done unto him whatsoever they listed. Likewise shall also the Son of man suffer of them. Then the disciples understood that he spake unto them of John the Baptist.

The above verses do indeed point to the fact that John was the awaited Elijah, which also implies that he was (at least in some ways) like Elijah. Nevertheless, it may be of some interest for the readers to note that according to the same Bible, when John – i.e. Yahya (pbuh) – was himself asked by the Israelites whether he was the promised Elijah, he replied in the negative.

John 1: 19 – 23 reads as:

And this is the record of John, when the Jews sent priests and Levites from Jerusalem to ask him, Who art thou? And he confessed, and denied not; but confessed, I am not the Christ. And they asked him, What then? Art thou Elias [or Elijah]? And he saith, I am not. Art thou that prophet? And he answered, No. Then said they unto him, Who art thou? that we may give an answer to them that sent us. What sayest thou of thyself? He said, I am the voice of one crying in the wilderness, Make straight the way of the Lord, as said the prophet Esaias.

In view of the contradictory implication of the cited statements of the Gospels, Mr. Shamoun’s contention (that Elijah was ‘exactly’ like John) requires substantiation on sounder grounds. This substantiation would become even more imperative in view of the fact that Jesus (pbuh) is himself reported in one of the Gospels to have said something quite similar in its implication to the Qur’anic statement (i.e. “Before this, we made no one comparable to him [i.e. John]”). Matthew 11: 11 reports Jesus (pbuh) as having said:

“Verily I say unto you, among them that are born of women there hath not risen a greater than John the Baptist”

I am sure, anyone can see that the implication of the above statement ascribed to Jesus (pbuh) is no different from what the Qur’an has said in the verse under consideration.

4-       Sacrifices Commanded Upon All

The Qur’an in Al-Hajj 22: 34 says:

To every people did We Appoint rites (of sacrifice)…

Mr. Shamoun says:

Christians have never been commanded to offer sacrifices.

If Mr. Shamoun’s statement implies his acknowledgement of the fact that the Israelites were, in fact, commanded to offer sacrifices, it is enough to establish that Jesus (pbuh) commanded his followers to do so too. Matthew 5: 17 says:

Do not think that I have come to abolish the law or the prophets; I have come not to abolish but to fulfill. For truly, until heaven and earth pass away, not one letter, not one stroke of a letter, will pass from the law until all is accomplished. Therefore, whoever breaks one of the least of these commandments, and teaches others to do the same, will be called least in the kingdom of heaven; but whoever does them and teaches them will be called great in the kingdom of heaven.

And then, talking about offering sacrifices to God, Jesus (pbuh) is reported to have said:

So, when you are offering your gift[3] at the altar, if you remember that your brother or sister has something against you, leave your gift there before the altar and go; first be reconciled to your brother or sister, and then come and offer your gift.

It should be clear from the above references that even though “Christianity” does not ascribe to sacrifice, yet Jesus (pbuh) did not abolish it.

5-       Queen of Sheba and Sun Worship

The Qur’an has made reference to the sun worship of the Queen of Sheba. Mr. Shamoun contends that this reference of the Qur’an is incorrect. According to Mr. Shamoun, archeology has proven this to be incorrect, according to which, moon, not the sun, was worshipped by the referred people. In this respect, Mr. Shamoun has referred to the following URL:

http://www.scitec.auckland.ac.nz/~king/Preprints/book/orsin/orsin3.html

However, a close look at the referred URL shows that it does not support the ‘error’ claim of Mr. Shamoun. The archeological evidence given on the referred page only suggests that the referred people worshipped the moon. Obviously, the prevalence of moon worship does not, by itself, refute that of sun worship. We know that both the sun and the moon have generally been common objects of worship in people who worshipped celestial bodies.

It may be mentioned here that not only the Qur’an but also the Jewish Encyclopedia and the Kebra Negast[4] inform us that the Queen of Sheba and her people worshipped the sun.

According to the Jewish Encyclopedia:

… Solomon, accordingly, caused a letter to be tied to the hoopoe’s wing, which the bird delivered to the queen toward the evening as she was going out to make her devotions to the sun. (IX, 443)

In chapter 27 of the Kebra Negast, the Queen tells Solomon:

"We worship the sun...for he cooketh our food, and moreoever he illumineth the darkness, and removeth fear; we call him "our King," and we call him "our Creator....And there are others among our subjects.... some worship stones, and some worship trees, and some worship carved figures, and some worship images of gold and silver."[5]

6-       Fables of History

The Qur’an has informed us that:

• Solomon’s armies consisted of men as well as jinn;

• Solomon could understand the communication of animals and birds (including ants);

• God subjected the wind to Solomon; it blew according to his needs[6].

Mr. Shamoun has termed these blessings of God on Solomon to be ‘Fables of History’. I really don’t think this deserves a response. In fact, I think it is for Mr. Shamoun to help us understand why, in his opinion, the miracles – God’s special gifts – ascribed to Jesus (pbuh), Moses (pbuh) etc. are not ‘fables’, while these ascribed to Solomon are? Is it merely because of the fact that they have been mentioned in the ‘credible’ Bible? Why does Mr. Shamoun think that the same God, who had the power to bless Jesus (pbuh) with bringing the dead back to life and to walk on water etc. etc. cannot bless Solomon with these – as well as any other – powers?

I hope this helps. In case any aspect of question remains unanswered, please feel free in writing back to me at your own convenience.

May God guidance to the path of his liking.

Regards,

Home Page

Use this "Home Page" link only if you have opened this page by following an external link