Blog Archive

Subscribe via email

Enter your email To BE a member:



Wednesday, 21 April 2010

A Historical View of the Hadeeth Collections

A Historical View of the Hadith Collections

The traditions (Hadiths) are held to be authentic and acceptable by Muslims if they are found to be in accordance with the laws and regulations that we shall soon discuss.

The following is a standing commandment of the Holy Prophet:

Be careful in reporting a hadith from me unless you have learnt (from me) abstain from reporting other things. Anyone reporting a falsehood in my name knowingly shall have his abode in fire

The above tradition is mutawatir (having a large number of reporters in every period right from the time of the Holy Prophet) having been reported by not less than sixty-two Companions of the Holy Prophet. The above warning coming from the Holy Prophet was enough for the companions to be extremely careful in reporting traditions from the Holy Prophet.

History has recorded unique examples of the extreme scrupulousness of the Muslims and their being highly prudent in maintaining the highest standard of accuracy in reporting the traditions, something that is certainly not present in case of Christian tradition. For certain positive reasons the Companions of the Holy Prophet did not collect the traditions in the form of books. One of the reasons was that the revelation of the Holy Qu’ran was in progress and being written down by the Companions. To avoid any possible mixing of the Qur’anic text with the tradition they did not collect the traditions in book form.9[9]

However, they were collected later by the disciples of the Companions like Imam Zuhri, Rabi‘ ibn Sabih and Sa’id etc. Still they did not arrange their collections according to the standard arrangement of the jurisprudents. Later, all the subsequent scholars adopted a standard arrangement in their great works. In Madina, the great Imam Malik compiled his collection known as Muwatta’. Imam Malik was born in 95 AH. In Makka a collection was compiled by Abu Muhammad ‘Abdul-Malik ibn ‘Abdul-‘Aziz Ibn Jurayj. In Kufa, Sufyan ath-Thawri compiled his work while in Basra, Hammad ibn Salma also compiled his collection.

Then Bukhari and Muslim made their collections for their books, including only sahih hadiths of the Prophet and did not allow any tradition that was not qualified as sahih. Muslim hadith scholars invested great labour and took great pains in maintaining the accuracy of the prophetic traditions. A new branch of knowledge was initiated known as Asma’ ur-Rijal, that is the biographies of each and every reporter of hadith right from the Companion to the present time. It helped them know everything about a particular reporter in the chain of reporters of any single tradition. All the collections known as Sihah (the books containing only sahih hadiths) were so compiled by their authors that each and every statement is prefixed with complete chain of reporters starting from the author to the Holy Prophet himself. There are some hadiths reported by Bukhari that have only three names between him and the Holy Prophet.

Three Kinds of Hadith

The sahih hadiths are further divided into three kinds

(1) Mutawatir:

A mutawatir hadith is a hadith that is reported by such a large number of people at every stage of transmission so that their agreement on a false statement is denied by human reason. Examples of these are the hadith describing the number of rak’ats (genuflexion) in salat or specifying the amount to be paid in zakat.

(2) Mash-hur:

This kind of tradition is the one that was reported by a single Companion of the Holy Prophet but at later stages, that is, in the time of the followers of the Companions or in the time of their disciples, it became famous and was generally accepted by the Ummah. Now from this stage onward it was reported by a large number of people, so attaining the status of mutawatir. For example, the injunction describing the punishment of fomication through stoning to death.

(3) Khabar al-wahid:

This kind of hadith is the one that is reported by a single reporter to an individual or to a group of people, or a group of people reported it to an individual.

Now the knowledge imparted through a mutawatir hadith is always undeniable and certain. Denial of this kind of hadith constitutes unbelief. The mashhur hadith satisfies all the doubts and creates satisfaction. Anyone denying this kind of hadith is not an unbeliever but a heretic and a sinner.

Khabar al-wahid does not impart knowledge as certain as in the above two examples. Though it cannot be a source of beliefs and basic doctrines it is acceptable in practical injunctions. If it happens to run counter to a stronger source, effort must be made to reconcile the two. If this effort fails then this kind of hadith should be abandoned.

Distinction between Qur’an and Hadith

There are three kinds of distinctions between the Holy Qur’an and hadith:

Firstly, the whole of the Qur’anic text is a mutawatir report. It has been reported verbatim and exactly as it was revealed to the Holy Prophet, without the alteration of a single word or replacing any word by a synonym. Whereas the sahih hadith was allowed to be reported by an expert and qualified reporter in his own words. 10[10]

Secondly, since the whole of the Qur’anic text is mutawatir, the denial of a single sentence of the Qur’an is an act of infidelity while the denial of hadith, mutawatir excepted, is not an act of infidelity.11[11]

Thirdly, there are many injunctions that are directly related to the words of the Qur’anic text, like salat or the miraculous nature of the Qur’anic words, whereas the words of the hadith are not directly related to any injunctions they might contain.

In view of the above, it should be sufficiently clear that it is in no way against logic or human reason to rely upon the traditions, specially when they are reported through a constant chain of reliable reporter.

9[9]In spite of the above reservations there were many collections of traditions written down by the Companions of the Holy Prophet. According to Abu Dawud, the companion ‘Abdullah ibn ‘Amr ibn ‘As wrote down traditions with the permission of the Holy Prophet himself (Jam’ al-Fawa’id vol 1, page 26). It is stated that this collection was named As-Sahiha Al-Sadiqa. A collection of traditions compiled by Humam Ibn Munabbih has been recently discovered which was dictated to him by the Companion Abu Hurayra which proves that the traditions were written down in the time of the Companions. For more details see Tadveen-e-Hadith by Sheikh Munazir Ahsan Geelani. (Taqi).

10[10]This implies that the actual words spoken by the Holy Prophet are not reported, but the message is transmitted faithfully in the reporter’s own words.

11[11]It may be noted that the denial of mashhur and khabar al-wahid is not an act of infidelity, but any one denying the hadith altogether as a source of knowledge is declared an infidel by all the schools of thought. In the same way a Christian is not excommunicated for claiming that a particular verse of the Bible is a later addition, but he will be declared infidel if he disbelieves the Bible as a whole. (Taqi).

What Protestant Scholars Say

What Protestant Scholars Say

Some Protestant scholars have honestly admitted that the oral traditions are as authentic as the sacred books. The Catholic Herald vol. 2 page 63 has:

Dr. Bright, a distinguished Protestant scholar, said on page 63 of his book that it is evident from the sacred book that the Christian faith was transmitted to the followers of the disciples and the early bishops through oral tradition, and they were asked to preserve it and convey it to the succeeding generations.

We do not find any evidence in the books, be it from Paul or any other disciple, that they had individually or collectively written all the things related to our salvation. There is no indication that every essential doctrine necessary for salvation is confined only to the written law.

 On pages 32 and 33, he tells you that you already know that Paul and other disciples have transmitted the tradition to us not only in writing but also as verbal statements. So those are lost who do not preserve both of them. The oral tradition concerning the Christian faith is equally trustworthy and acceptable.

The Bishop Munich. 6[6] said that the oral traditions of the disciples are as acceptable as are their epistles and other writings. No Protestant can deny the fact that the oral traditions of the disciples are superior to their writings. Chilingworth has said that the dispute about which Gospel is canon and which is not, can be decided through oral tradition which is a reasonable source to resolve any dispute.

The bishop Thomas Inglis in his book Miraatu-Sidq printed in 1851 said on pages 180 and 181:

Bishop Maniseek, a Protestant scholar, observed that there are six hundred precepts, ordained by God and followed by the Church that are not stated in the sacred books.

This proves that six hundred precepts are based on oral tradition and they are followed by the Protestants.

It is human nature that an extraordinary or unusual event leaves a lasting impression on human mind while usual and routine events are not permanently stored in memory. For example a rare event like the appearance of a comet will be remembered by those who saw it. On the other hand they would not be able to say exactly what food they had eaten three or four days ago.

Since the memorization of the Holy Qur’an has been a matter of the greatest significance in every age for the Muslims, there has always been a large number of people who have learnt the whole of the Qur’anic text by heart. They are called hafiz.

More than one hundred thousand such hafiz are present in our time in the Muslim countries, in spite of the fact that Islam does not rule over those countries. There are always more than one thousand hafiz in the University of Al-Azhar, Egypt alone, not to speak of Egyptian villages, where even cart drivers and loaders are frequently fully qualified hafiz who have memorised the whole of the Qur’anic text.7[7]These ordinary men are certainly superior in this respect to the bishops of the Christian world. We are sure that even ten such hafiz of the Bible cannot be found throughout the Christian world.

It is a fact that anything important and of significance is imprinted and preserved easily in a way which is not affected by the passage of time. The Holy Qur’an alone fulfils the requirement of being completely unaltered and miraculously genuine. Throughout these twelve hundred and eighty years,8[8] the Holy Qur’an was not only preserved in writing but also in human hearts. Besides, the recitation of the Qur’anic text is in itself a part of Islamic worship and a usual practice of the Muslims, while the recitation of the Bible is not a ritual practice among Christians.

One of the Protestant scholars, Michael Mechaka, observed on page 316 of his book, Kitab-ad-Dalil of 1849:

One day I asked a Catholic priest to tell me honestly how many times he had read the sacred book in full in his life. He said that in his early age he had read it many times in full but for the last twelve years he could not spare any time for reading it as he was busy serving the Christian brethren.

6[6] I doubt the spelling of this name as the Arabic and Urdu equivalents are incompatible. (Raazi).

7[7] .There must be more than a hundred thousand hafiz in the Indo-Pak subcontinent in our time, that is 1988 (Raazi)

8[8] Now 1409 years. (Raazi)

The Gospels and Oral Tradition

The Gospels and Oral Tradition

The Gospel of Mark 4:34 contains the follo’wing:

But without a parable spake he not unto them: and when they were alone, he expounded all things to his disciples

It is unthinkable that none of these were transmitted by them to the people. It is all the more impossible to suggest that the disciples should depend on those traditions while the people of our time should not.

The Gospel of John 21:25 says:

And there are also many other things which Jesus did, the which, if they should be written every one, I suppose that even the world itself could not contain the books that should be written.

Though the above statement is an exaggeration, there is no doubt that there must be many things that Jesus did in his life, be they miracles or other acts that might have not been written down by the disciples.

We read in II Thessalonians 2:15:

Therefore, brethren, stand fast and hold the traditions which ye have been taught, whether by word or by our epistle.

The last sentence is clear in implying that part of Christ’s teachings were communicated orally and another in writing, both of them equally valuable according to Chrysostom.

I Corinthians 11:34 (Arabic version 1844) has:

And the rest will I set in order when I come.

It is obvious that, since the commands promised by Paul in the above statement are not found in writing, they must have been communicated orally

II Timothy 1:13 says:

Hold fast the form of sound words, which thou hadst heard of me, in faith and love which is in Christ Jesus.

The phrase, “Which thou hadst heard of me, ”clearly indicates that some teachings were communicated orally by him. The same letter contains the following in 2:2:

And the things that thou hadst heard of me among many witnesses, the same commit thou to faithful men, who shall be able to teach others also.

II John also says at the end:

Having many things to write unto you, I would not write with paper and ink: I trust to come unto you, and speak face to face, that our joy be full. 4[4]

And at the end of the Third Epistle of John we find:

I had many things to write, but I will not with ink and pen write unto thee: But I trust I shall shortly see thee, and we shall speak face to face. 5[5]

The above two verses give us to understand that John taught many things orally as he promised. Now those things can only have been passed on orally.

In view of the above, it is clearly sheer ignorance for any Protestant to deny the status and value of the oral tradition. Any such claim would be a claim against the sacred books and the decisions of the ancient Christians, and according to some of them such a claimant should be considered a heretic. Besides, Protestants owe many doctrines invented by their elders to oral tradition, for example their belief that the Son is equal to the Father in his essence; that the Holy Ghost’s existence is through the Son and the Father; that Christ is one person possessing two natures at the same time; that he has two wills, human and divine; and that he entered hell after his death. In fact none of these absurdities can be found in the New Testament. The inclusion of all such concepts in their faith comes only through oral tradition.

This denial of oral tradition also entails the denial of some parts of the sacred books. For example, the Gospels of Mark and Luke and nineteen chapters of the book of Acts were written through oral tradition. They were not written through revelation or through vision, as we have discussed in an earlier volume. Similarly five chapters (5 to 9) of the Book of Proverbs would also be denied because they were collected through those oral traditions that were current in the time of Hezekiah. The compilation of these chapters are separated by two hundred and seventy years from the death of the Prophet Solomon. We read in the Book of Proverbs 25:1:

These are also proverbs of Solomon, which the men of Hezekiah, King of Judah copied out.

The following are the comments of Adam Clarke on the above verse as found in his commentary printed in 1801:

It seems that the Proverbs referred to above were collected under the orders of Hezekiah from the oral traditions that were current among them from the time of Solomon. Afterwards they were added as a supplement to this book. Probably Hezekiah’s friends were Isaiah and Sophanias who were among the Prophets of those times. In that case this supplement would also acquire the status of the other books, otherwise it would have not been included in the sacred books.

The above provides sufficient proof that oral traditions were collected under the orders of the King Hezekiah. His presumption that those copiers were also Prophets cannot be accepted unless it is sup- ported by some reliable authority or convincing arguments which the author has not provided.

Again his premise that their inclusion in the sacred books should be a proof that the copiers were Prophets is obviously a wrong conclusion because the oral traditions are held in respect by the Jews than the Torah itself. The present Torah was collected nearly 1700 years after the collection of the oral tradition, which is acknowledged by the Jews as the word of God. Similarly they accept the Babylonian Gemara as an authentic book, though the traditions it contains were collected 200 years later. There was nothing to stop them from including these five chapters in the sacred books.

4[4] . II John 12.

5[5] . III John 13-14.

Chapter Three :Authenticity of The Holy Traditions

The Authenticity of the Holy Traditions (Hadith)

  • The Status of Oral Tradition in the Bible
  • The Gospels and Oral Tradition
  • What Protestant Scholars say
  • A Historical View of the Hadeeth Collections.
We intend to discuss in this section the authenticity of the Holy traditions that are included in Sihah (the six collections of the Traditions that are proved to be Sahih or authenticated).

The Status of Oral Tradition in the Bible

Oral tradition was held in high esteem by the People of the Book, both Jews and Christians, of all times. It was held by them to be as authentic and reliable as the written law. The Jews give even more reverence to oral tradition than they do to their written law. The Catholics hold both of them as equal in status while the Protestants disbelieve and deny oral tradition like the Sadducees, a Jewish sect. The Protestants deny it because they have to deny it, otherwise it would be quite difficult for them to prove their innovations in Christianity. In spite of this, the Protestants too find themselves in grave need of oral tradition on certain occasions, which is evident from the examples found in their sacred books, and which will shortly be made clear.

The Talmud and the Mishnah

Adam Clarke said in the introduction to the Book of Ezra in his commentary printed in 1751 that the Hebrew canon was of two kinds: the written canon which was called Torah and the other which was unwritten and called the oral tradition. This oral tradition was transmitted orally by the ancients to later generations. They claim that both of these canons were revealed by God to Moses on Mount Sinai. The Pentateuch reached them by means of writing while the other was handed down to them orally through the generations. The Jews believe that both of them are equal in status, preferring, in fact, oral tradition to the written law of Moses, the Torah. They think that written law is often more complicated than the oral tradition, and it cannot be made the basis of faith without the oral traditions. These traditions, in their opinion, are simpler and clearer and elucidate the written canon. This is why Jews disregard any commentary that is found to be in disagreement with the oral tradition. It is commonly believed by the Jews that the covenant, that the Children of Israel were made to enter into, was for the oral law and not for the Torah. 1[1]

Through this claim they have disregarded the written law and the oral tradition was given the status of being the source of their faith. Similarly the Roman Catholics also chose the same path and defined and explained the word of God through oral traditions, with no consideration of its being against many verses of the word of God. In the time of Jesus, they had gone so far that. he rebuked them for distorting the word of God, saying:

Thus have ye made the commandment of God of none effect by your tradition. 2[2]

They also transgressed God’s covenant and made the oral tradition superior to the written law. It is stated in their books that the sayings of their elders are dearer to them than the words of the Pentateuch. Some words of the Torah are good hut some others are absurd and useless while all the sayings of their elders are desirable and praiseworthy, far better even than the sayings of the Prophets.

The Jewish writings also say that the written law is like water, while the traditions contained by the Talmud and Mishnah are like aromatic herbs. Also their writings state that the written law is like salt while the Talmud and Mishnah are like pepper. There are many other similar expressions preferring the oral tradition to the written canon. The word of God is defined and understood by them through oral traditions. The written law is regarded by them as a dead body and the oral tradition to them is like the soul in the body.

This oral tradition is supported by them with the argument, that at the time the Torah was revealed by God to Moses, God also elucidated the text of the Torah to Moses, and commanded him to write down the Torah and to remember the explanation without putting it into writing. He was also commanded to convey this elucidation orally to the people, so that it could be transmitted orally from generation to generation. They use the term “written canon” for the Torah and “oral canon” for the tradition. The judgments and religious decrees which are in accordance with the oral tradition are termed as ”the canon of Moses”.

They also claim that just as the Torah was revealed to Moses in forty days, being a direct dialogue between God and Moses, the oral tradition was also revealed to him in the same way. He brought both of them from Mount Sinai and conveyed them to the Israelites. It is stated that on his return from Mount Sinai, Moses first called Aaron to his tent and taught him the written canon then he taught him the oral tradition that was the elucidation of the Torah given to him by God. After acquiring the knowledge, Aaron came and sat at the right-hand side of Moses. Then came the two sons of Aaron, Eleazar and Ithamar. They were also taught the canons in the same way and after learning them they got up and one of them sat at the left hand of Moses and the other at the right hand of Aaron.

Then came seventy elders. They also learnt the canons and then they took their seats in the tent. They were followed by some other people who were intent upon leaming the canons. The Moses stood up and Aaron recited what had been imparted to him and then got up, then Eleazer and Ithamar also recited the canops and so did the others who had learnt them. In this way every one who was present heard it four times and remembered it well.

On their return people communicated the written iaw through writing and its elucidation was conveyed orally to the Israelites. In this way the canons were handed down to other generations. The number of the written commandments in the Torah was six hundred and thirteen which were later divided into parts.

They also claim that Moses gathered them into a great assembly in the eleventh month of the fortieth year after their exodus from Egypt, in which he also informed them of his death, and commanded them to learn any part of the Law they had forgotten. He also invited people to satisfy their doubts, if any, with regard to any commandment or statements of the Law. Thereafter he remained busy teaching the Torah until his death (that is, from the first day of the eleventh month up to the sixth day of the twelfth month). He taught both of them, the written and the unwritten canon. He also prepared thirteen copies of the written law in his own hand and gave one copy to each tribe so that it might remain safe through the generations. One copy of this law was also given to the children of Levi for preservation in the temple. The verbal traditions were conveyed to Joshua. Then on the seventh day of this month he climbed up Mount Nebo where he died.

After his death Joshua communicated the verbal traditions to the elders of the Israelites, they, in turn passed them to the Prophets. Every Prophet conveyed it to his people, until Jeremiah handed it down to Baruch who passed it to Ezra, and Ezra communicated it to the scholars of whom Simon the just was last. Simon handed it down to Antigonus who gave it to Jose, the son of Johanan. He passed it to Jose, the son of Joezer. He conveyed it to Nathan the Aurelite and Joshua, the son of Berechiah. These two passed it to Joshua’s son Judah and Simon son of Shetah. They passed it to Shemaiah and Abtalion, these two to Hillel, and he to his son Simon. This Simon is supposed to be the one who took Jesus in his arms when Mary had brought him to the temple after her confinement. This Simon then passed it to his son Gamaliel. He is the one from whom Paul leamt it. Then he passed it to Simon, who in turn passed it to Rabbi Judah haNasi. This Judah then collected them into a book which he called the Mishnah.

Adam Clarke has observed that the Jews hold this book in great reverence and believe that its contents are divine and a revelation from God, revealed to Moses along with the Torah. It is also established that the teaching of this book has been a common practice among the Jews right from the time it came into existence. Scholars and great theologians have written commentaries on this book, two of which occupy pride of place with them. The first exegetical work was written in Jerusalem in the third century AD, while the second commentary was written in Babylon around the beginning of the sixth century AD. Both of them are named “Gemara” i.e. the Perfection.

They believe that the two commentaries have fully elucidated the text of the Mishnah. These two commentaries and the text of the Mishnah together are called the Talmud. To distinguish between the two commentaries, one is called the Palestinian or Jerusalem Talmud and the other the Babylonian Talmud. The complete teachings and instructions of modern Judaism are contained by these two books, which are separate and distinct from the books of the Prophets. Since the Jerusalem Talmud is comparatively more complicated, the Babylonian Talmud is more commonly read and followed.

Horne said in chapter 7 of the second volume of his commentary printed in 1822 that the Mishnah is a book comprising the Jewish traditions and commentary on the texts of the sacred books. They believe that these traditions were also given by God to Moses along with the Torah. Moses passed them down to Aaron. From Aaron they were communicated to Joshua and Eleazer and other elders and then they were handed down from generation to generation until they found their way to Simon. This Simon was the same who took Jesus in his arms. He gave it to Gamaliel who passed them to Juda haNasi. With great pain and labour he took about forty years to collect them in the form of a book in the second century. Since that time it has been in vogue among the Jews. This book is very often more venerated than the written Law itself.

He further added that there are two commqntaries on the Mishnah both of which are known as Gemara, one of them being the Jerusalem Gemara, supposed by some scholars to have been written in Jerusalem in the third century, and according to Father Insoue in the fifth century, while the other is known as the Babylonian Gemara written in Babylon in the sixth century. This Gemara is full of fabulous legends and stories, but it is more respected by the Jews than the other. It is more emphatically taught and followed by them. They turn to it with great certitude to seek guidance when they find themselves in trouble. The name ’Gemara’ signifies Perfection. They think that this book is the perfection of the Torah, and that it is not possible for any other commentary to be better than this, and it satisfies all possible demands of the faith. When the Jerusalem Gemara is added to the text together they are called the Jerusalem Talmud. 3[3]

The above sufficiently proves the following four points:

1) Verbal tradition is venerated among the Jews as much as the Pentateuch; rather they sometimes prefer the oral tradition to the Torah. They believe that the oral tradition is like the spirit while the written law is like the body. This being the status of the Pentateuch, one can guess the status of other books among them.

(2) Secondly, we understand from the above that the oral tradition was first collected and written by Judah ha-Nasi in the second century, implying that for 1700 years it was conveyed through human memory. During this period the Jews had to undergo the great calamities of their history. That is to say, the invasions of Nebuchadnezzar, Antiochus and Titus all belong to this period. It is already known historically that the sacred books were destroyed and the continuity of the traditions was badly affected as we discussed earlier in this book. Despite all that, they are still held in more veneration than the Pentateuch.

(3) Thirdly these oral traditions have been reported from generation to generation by single reporters. For example Gamaliel I and II and Simon I, II and III. They were not even Prophets according to the Jews, and were the worst kind of infidels and deniers of Christ as claimed by the Christians. These traditions, though transmitted through single reporters, are supposed to be the basis of their faith, while according to the Islamic science of traditions, any tradition transmitted through a single reporter termed as Khabar al-Wahid is not allowed to be used as a source of any article of faith.

(4) Fourthly, we understand that the Babylonian Gemara was written in the sixth century, and according to Home “this collection of absurd legends and stories” remained purely in the form of oral tradition for two thousand years, being transmitted through the generations purely by memory.

Eusebius, whose historical work is considered authentic equally by the Catholics and the Protestants, said in chapter 9 of the second volume of his book printed in 1848 under the description of Jacob:

In writing about Jacob, Clement cited an anecdote in book seven that is worth remembering. Clement reported this from the oral tradition that was transmitted to him from his forefathers.

He also cited a statement of Irenaeus on page 123 of the third chapter of his third book:

The council of Ephesus, erected by Paul and in which the apostle John stayed until the rule of Trajan, is a strong wit- ness to the traditions of the apostles.

He cited the following statement of Clement on the same page:

Attend to the tradition of the disciple John which is beyond doubt and true and has been preserved orally throughout

He again said on page 124 of chapter 24 of the third book:

The number of Christ’s disciples, like his apostles, is twelve, then there are seventy Prophets, and many others who were not ignorant of the events referred to (that is, the events recorded by the evangelists), but out of them only John and Matthew have included them. It is known through oral traditions that their inclusion of these events was out of necessity.

On page 132 of chapter 28 of his third book he again says:

Irenaeus has included a story in his third book which is worth recording. He received this story from Polycarp through oral tradition.

Again he says on page 147, chapter 5 of the fourth book:

I have not read about the bishops of Jerusalem in any book but it is established through oral tradition that they stayed there for some time.

He also says on page 138 of chapter 36 of the third book:

We came to know through oral tradition that Ignatius, being a Christian, was carried to Greece to be offered to carnivorous animals. He was conveyed under army protcction. The people of all the churches that were on his way sought strength through his sermons and admonishments. He preached to them against the heresy that was common in that time and told them to hold firmly to the oral tradition. He wrote down the oral tradition for preservation and stamped it with his name.

Again he says on page 142, chapter 39 of his third book:

Papias said in the introduction to his work, “I write for your benefit all the things that I received from the elders which I preserved after thorough inquiry into their authenticity, so that my testimony may be an additional proof of their truth. Usually I do not like to accept the tradition from those who frequently relate absurd stories. I have received the tradition only from those who know nothing except what has been reported truthfully from our Lord. Whenever I met any of the disciples of the elders, I necessarily asked them what had been said by Andrew, Peter, Philip, Thomas, Jacob, Matthew or any other disciple of our Lord because I was benefited more by oral tradition than by the sacred books.

Further he said in chapter 8 of his fourth book on page 151:

Hegesippus is a renowned name among Church historians. I have cited many passages from his books that he reported from the disciples through oral tradition. This author collected, in five books, laws of the disciples transmitted to him through oral tradition.

In chapter 14, page 158 of the same book he reported a statement of Irenaeus about Polycarp:

Polycarp has always preached the doctrines that he received orally from the disciples or from the Church.

Again on page 201, chapter 6 of book 5 he said, listing the bishops of Rome:

This chain of bishops extends up to Bishop Antherus, who is nineteenth in this sequence. We received it through reliable and true sources from the disciples, transmitted to us through oral tradition.

He again cites the statement of Clement on page 206, chapter 8 of the fifth book:

I have not written these books to project myself or to show off my knowledge, rather, it is in consideration of my old age and to correct my shortcomings. I have collected them as elaboration of the texts. They may be considered as commentary on the inspired books. Among those who raised me to this high position and greatness and placed me among the truthful and the blessed was Janicus of Greece and another was in Magna Graecia. Some others were from the East, while one was from Syria, one was a Hebrew from Palestine, and the master that I reached last was in Egypt living an ascetic life. He was superior to all the other teachers. I did not feel like seeing other masters after him, as no teacher better than him existed on earth. These elders had preserved the traditions orally communicated from Paul, James, and John through the generations.

He also reports the following statement of Irenaeus on page 219, chapter 20, of the fifth book:

By the grace of God I have listened to those traditions attentively and imprinted them on my memory instead of writing them on paper. For a long period it has been my practice to recite them faithfully for the sake of preserving them.

Again on page 222, chapter 24 of the fifth book he said:

Bishop Polycrates wrote an oral tradition in his epistle to the church of Rome and to Victor. This tradition was transmitted to him orally.

He also said on page 226, chapter 25 of the fifth book:

The Bishops of Palestine like Narcotius, Theophilius and Cassius, and bishops Ptolemy and Clarus and other bishops that accompanied them presented many things with regard to the tradition related to the Passover, transmitted to them orally from the disciples through generations. All of them wrote at the end of the book that the copies of this book be sent to all churches, so that the book might help the churches save the renegades.

He again said on page 246, chapter 13 of the sixth book under the account of Clement of Alexandria, who was the follower of the disciples of Christ:

Africanus wrote a booklet which still exists in which he tried to explain away the inconsistencies found in the genealogical descriptions given by Matthew and Luke through the oral traditions received by him from his forefathers.

The above seventeen statements sufficiently prove that the ancient Christians had great trust in oral tradition. John Milner, who was a Catholic, said in the tenth letter of his book printed in Derby:

I have already said that the basis of the Catholic faith is not only the written word of God. The word of God is general, written or not written. That is to say, the sacred books and the oral tradition as interpreted by Catholic Church.

Further in the same letter he says:

Irenaeus observed in part three and chapter five of his book that simplest way for the seekers of the truth is to search for the oral traditions of the apostles and preach them in the world.

Again in the same letter he says:

Irenaeus said in part one chapter three of his book that in spite of the difference of people’s languages, the essence and reality of the traditions is always the same at all places. The teachings and doctrines of the Church of Germany are not different from the teachings of the Churches of France, Spain, the East, Egypt and Libya

Further he said in the same letter:

Irenaeus observed in chapter two of part three of his book, “Prolixity does not allow me to give a detailed account of all the Churches. Catholicism, however, will be considered as the standard faith which is the oldest of all and the most popular, and was founded by Peter and Paul. All the other Churches also follow it, because all the oral traditions reported by the disciples through generations are preserved in Catholic Church.

The same letter also contains the following:

Even if we take it as granted for a moment that the disciples left no writing after them, we are bound to follow the doctrines transmitted to us through oral traditions of the disciples who handed them down to the people to be conveyed to the Church. There are the traditions that are followed by the illiterate people who believed in Christ without the help of ink and letters.

Again he said in the same letter:

Tertullian said on pages 36 and 37 of his book written by him against the heretics: it is usual for heretics to derive their arguments only from the sacred books, and claim that nothing else other than the sacred books can provide the basis for faith. They deceive people through this approach. We, therefore, insist that they should not be allowed to seek their arguments from the sacred books. Because through this kind of approach we cannot expect any good other than racking our brains. It is therefore wrong to rely on the sacred books, as no definite conclusion can be achieved through them, anything derived from them will be defective. Besides, the correct approach demands that first it should be decided to whom these books should be attributed? We must know about the books that decide our being Christians as to who transmitted them to whom and when? Because the truth of the evangels and the doctrines of Christianity are found only in the form of oral traditions.

Again in the same letter he said:

Origen said that it was not proper to rely on the people who cite from the sacred books and say that the word of God is before you to read and probe into, or that we should believe in something else other than communicated to us by the Church through consistent oral tradition.

Further in the same letter he said:

Basilides said that there are many Christian doctrines preserved by the Church and often presented in sermons. Some of them have been borrowed from the sacred books, while others are based on oral tradition. Both of them are equal in value. There can be no objection against this from any one having a little knowledge of Christian faith.

Further he said in the same letter:

Epiphanius said in his book written against the heretics that it was necessary to rely on the oral tradition as the sacred books do not contain everything.

He also said in the same letter:

Under his comments on II Thessalonians 2:14, John Chrysostom said, “This proves that the disciples did not convey to us everything through writing, but they had transmitted to us many things orally. Both are of equal value. It is therefore our opinion that the tradition of the Church is only the basis of faith. When we find anything proved by oral tradition, we need not seek anything else to prove it.

Further he says in the same letter:

Augustine, favouring a man baptised by heretics, said that although no written authority could be presented in its favour, it should be noted that this custom was started through oral tradition. Because there are many things that are acknowledged by the Church as being suggested by the disciples, though they are not in writing.

He also said in the same letter:

The bishop Vincentius observed that heretics should explain the sacred books according to the general tradition of the Church.

The above statements sufficiently prove that the oral traditions are considered to be the basis of faith by the Catholics as well as by the ancients. We find the following statement on page 63 of volume 3 of the Catholic Herald:

Rabbi Dosi cited many observations to prove that the text of the sacred books cannot be comprehended without the help of oral tradition. The elders of the Catholics have followed it in all times. Tertullian said that it was necessary to follow the Churches founded by the disciples for understanding the teachings of Christ. They transmit.ted them to the Churches through oral tradition.

The above statements are enough to establish that the traditions are more respected by the Jews than the Torah. Similarly it is confirmed that all the ancient Christians like Clement, Irenaeus, Hegesippus, Polycarp, Polycrates, Arksius, Theophilus, Cassius, Clarus, Alexandrius, Africanus, Tertullian, Origen, Basilides, Epiphanius, Chrysostom, Augustine and bishop Vincentius attached great respect to the oral traditions. Ignatius insisted before his death on holding fast to the oral traditions. Similarly Clement wrote in his history of the elders:

They memorised the true traditions that were transmitted through generations from Peter, James, John and Paul.

Epiphanius observed that he benefitted more from the oral traditions than the sacred books.

We have already cited the opinions of Irenaeus, Origen and Tertullian etc. to establish that the oral traditions and the sacred books are held by them to be equal in value. Basilides declared that the doctrines derived by oral tradition have a value equal to that derived by the sacred books. He said that the oral tradition was the basis of Christian faith.

Augustine also confirms that there are many doctrines that are acknowledged by the Church as being ordained by the disciples while they are not found in any texts. It is therefore not justified to reject all the traditions. The Gospels themselves uphold oral tradition.

1[1]This covenant is been described in Deuteronomy 29:1 according to which the Israelites were bound to follow the laws given by God. (Taqi)

2[2] Matthew 15:6.

3[3] The Jerusalem Talmud and the Babylonian Talmud, are both further divided into two parts. The first part consists of 613 commandments while the second part is a collection of traditions and stories. (Taqi)

Fifth Objection

Fifth Objection

The fifth objection raised by the Christians against the Holy Qur’an is that certain passages of the Holy Qur’an disagree with certain others. For example the following verses of the Holy Qur’an are said to contradict those verses that proclaim the doctrine of jihad.

(1) “There is no compulsion in religion.”1[1]

(2) “Your duty is only to warn them; you are not their keeper.” 2[2]

(3) “Say, Obey Allah and obey His messenger. If you turn away, he is still bound to bear his burden, and you are bound to bear your own burden. If you obey him you shall be on the right Path. The duty of the messenger is nothing but to convey the message clearly.” 3[3]

They claim that the above verses are contradictory to the verses that enjoin the duty of jihad (war) against the disbelievers.

Similarly, it is claimed by the Christians that the Holy Qur’an speaks in some places of Jesus as being purely human and the Messenger of God while other verses speak of his being superior to human beings. For example at one place the Holy Qur’an says:

Al Masih Isa (Jesus), the son of Mariam, was no more than Allah’s messenger and His word which He cast of Mariam: a spirit from Him. 4[4]

The following verse is cited, as contradicting the above verse:

And Mary the daughter of Imran, who guarded her chastity and we breathed into ( her body) of our spirit.5[5]

The above two objections are forwarded by the Christians with great force. As far as the first objection is concemed, the verses quoted above denying compulsion etc. are verses that were revealed prior to the verses of jihad.

They were abrogated by the later verses that enjoined jihad. Abrogation, as we have discussed earlier in detail, is not in any way a discrepancy or contradiction.

Otherwise it would require that all the abrogated injunctions of the Pentateuch and the Gospels be considered as real contradictions. It may be added here that the verse 2:256 is not included in the abrogated verses. 6[6]

The answer to the second objection has already been discussed in this book where we proved that the above verses do not and cannot imply that Jesus, the son of Mary, does not belong to mankind or that he was superior to human beings.

This kind of deduction from these verses is nothing but sheer ignorance. We are surprised to note how they ignore the plain contradictions present in their own books of which we have cited so many specific examples earlier in this book. 7[7]

1[1] Qur’an 2:256.

2[2] Qur’an 88:21.

3[3] Qur’an 24:54.

4[4]Qur’an 4:171

5[5]. Qur’an 66:12

6[6] 3. This verse has nothing to do with the verses of jihad and it is not in any way against those verses as will be shown later in its proper context.

7[7]Their objections with regard to these verses are so imbecile and ungrounded that it does not require any serious consideration. Students of the Qur’an will have no difficulty in realising the poverty of reason behind them. (Raazi)

Fourth Objection

Fourth Objection

Another objection which is often forwarded by Christians against the divine origin of the Holy Qur’an is that the Holy Qur’an, according to them, does not speak of the motives and requirements of the human spirit.

There are only two things that can be said to be the motives and requirements of the human spirit.

Firm belief and good deeds. The Holy Qur’an is full of descriptions with regard to the above spiritual desires and requirements. Elaborate descriptions are found in almost all the chapters of the Holy Qur’an.

The absence of other things that are assumed by the Protestants to be the motives and requirements of the spirit does not prove any defect in the Holy Qur’an.

The Bible and Qur’an are not considered to be defective for not preventing people from eating meat, something which is considered by the Hindu Pandits to be against the motives and requirerrients of the human spirit, because, in their opinion, slaughtering animals only for eating and physical pleasure is not liked by the spirit.

According to Hindu theologians such an act cannot have divine sanction. They contend that any book containing such ideas cannot be the word of God.

The Blessings of Paradise

The Blessings of Paradise

As for their second point of contention regarding the presence of palaces, damsels and other material delights in Paradise, this too is not a valid objection.

In any case the Muslims do not claim that the blessings and delights of Paradise are only physical, as is very often misstated by the Protestant theologians, but the Muslims believe - and this belief is strongly supported by Qur’anic verses and other authentic arguments - that the blessings and pleasures of Paradise are both, physical and spiritual, the latter being stronger and more prominent than the former.

The Holy Qur’an says:7[7]

7[7] Qur’an 9:72.

Allah has promised to the believers, men and women, gardens under which rivers flow, in which they shall dwell for ever; and beautiful mansions in the Gardens of Eden, but the greatest bliss is the pleasure of Allah. That is the supreme felicity.

The “pleasure of Allah” in the above verse has been described as being the greatest of all the blessings of Paradise, qualitatively as well as quantitively. That is to say, this spiritual blessing of having the pleasure of Allah exceeds all the physical delights such as mansions, gardens and damsels etc. The same is alsa indicated by the last phrase, “That is the supreme felicity.”

Man has been created of two elements: spirit and matter. The supreme felicity of man or his ultimate success lies in the achievement of both physical and spiritual delights. He cannot be said to have achieved his ultimate salvation if he is denied either of the two felicities.

The Christian Concept of Paradise

It has already been elucidated earlier 8[8] that to the Muslims the Evangel strictly means the book that was originally revealed to the Prophet Jesus. Now if any of the statements of Jesus is found to be in contradiction with any Qur’anic injunction, effort should be made to explain away the discrepancy. According to the Christian scriptures, the comparison of the dwellers of Paradise with the angels does not negate their eating and drinking there. Have they not read in Genesis chapter 18 that the angels who visited Abraham were presented with “dressed calf, butter and milk, which they did eat”? 9[9] Similarly the angels who appeared to Lot ate the bread and other food that Lot prepared for them, which is clearly written in chapter 19 of the book of Genesis.

It is surprising that the Christians believe in the physical resurrection of human beings on the Day of Judgment and yet insist on denying physical delights for them in Paradise! It would have been less objectionable if they totally denied the resurrection of man as did the associators of Arabia, or believed only in spiritual resurrection as was believed by the followers of Aristotle.

Physical attributes, like eating and drinking, are ascribed to God by the Christians because they believe that Jesus was God incarnate. On the other hand we are made to understand that Jesus was not as abstinent and ascetic as was John the Baptist. Christ’s opponents even accuse him of being, “gluttonous and winebibber”,10[10] though we Muslims totally deny this accusation and firmly believe that he was totally free from such defects.

We unhesitatingly claim that the Prophet Jesus was purely human. Now, when physical pleasures like eating and drinking could not pre- vent him experiencing spiritual delights and as he enjoyed the spiritual blessings more than the physical ones in this life, so the physical pleasures in Paradise will not deprive people of their spiritual delights.

In fact, the Protestant claim that there will be no physical pleasure in Paradise is clearly denied by innumerable statements appearing in the Bible. We produce a few examples of such statements below:

And the Lord God commanded the man (Adam) saying, Of every tree of the Garden thou mayest freely eat.” 11[11]

This clearly indicates that there are many trees in Paradise bearing fruit to eat. In this context they contend that Adam’s Paradise was on the earth while the Paradise of the Hereafter is in the heavens and that the former was different from the latter. Firstly, their claim of Adam’s Paradise being on earth is not supported by any statement of their sacred books; secondly, if we assume it to be true, they have no argument to support that this Paradise was different from the one in heavens. On the contrary the Gospels make us believe that there will be physical pleasures in the Paradise of the Hereafter. The Prophet Jesus is reported to have said itto his apostles:

But I say unto you, I will not drink henceforth of this fruit of the vine, until that day when I drink it new with you in my Father’s kingdom. 12[12]

Also see Mark 14:25, Luke 22:18. Similarly we read the following under the description of the Hereafter in Luke 13:29:

And they shall come from the east, and from the west, and from the north, and from the south, and shall sit down in the kingdom of God.

It is on the basis of such statements that the ancient Christians believed in both physical and spiritual pleasures in Paradise. Saint Augustine also said that he liked the opinion that Paradise consisted of physical as well as spiritual pleasures. Saint Thomas Aquinas has also refuted those who deny physical pleasures in Paradise.

The third contention with regard to Jihad (Religious War) will be discussed later in this book. This is regarded by the Christians as their strongest point against the Holy Prophet and we intend to discuss it in depth.

8[8] Before proceeding further into this discussion it should be remembered that the Christians totally deny physical blessings and pleasures in Paradise. They believe only in spiritual delights in Paradise for which they seek justifying arguments from some verses of the Bible.

9[9] The Qur’an also describes the event of the angels appearing to the Prophet Ibrahim with the difference that it clearly states that the angels did not even touch the dressed calf prepared by the Prophet Ibrahim (See chapter 51 of the Holy Qur’an). Our author is answering the Christians according to their own belief.

10[10] Matthew 11:19

11[11] Genesis 2:16.

12[12] Matt. 26:29



  • Guidance and Misguidance from Allah.

  • The Blessings of Paradise.

  • The Christian Concept of Paradise.
The third objection often raised by Christians against the truth of the Holy Qur’an is centred around three concepts contained in the Holy Qur’an. The first is the Qur’anic claim that Allah is not only the Creator of guidance but that misguidance is also created by Him. The second is the fact that the Holy Qur’an contains descriptions of Paradise which include the presence of houris, rivers and buildings. The third is that the Holy Qur’an contains the commandment to wage war (jihad) against the disbelievers.

Their main contention with regard to these things is that the word of God should be free from such unseemly concepts. This objection is considered by them to be the most convincing argument against the divine nature of the Qur’an. There is hardly any book written by the Christians on the subject that does not contain their strange elaborations on this aspect of the Holy Qur’an.

We should, therefore, examine the validity of the above objection with regard to each of the above three aspects separately.

Guidance and Misguidance from Allah

One of the many answers to this aspect of the objection is that the holy books of the Christians also say the same thing in many places. According to this view the presence of such passages in them should be an argument against their being the word of God. We reproduce below some specific examples of such passages from their books

(1) Exodus 4:21 says:

And the Lord said unto Moses, When thou goest to return into Egypt, see that thou do all those wonders before Pharaoh, which I have put in thy hand: but I will harden his heart, that he shall not let the people go.

(2) Exodus 7:3 also contains:

And I will harden Pharaoh’s heart, and multiply my signs and my wonders in the land of Egypt.

(3) The same book contains the following in 10:1:

And the Lord said unto Moses, Go in unto Pharaoh: for I have hardened his heart, and the hearts of his servants, that I might shew these my signs before him.

(4) Exodus 10:20 says:

But the Lord hardened Pharaoh’s heart, so that he would not let the Children of Israel go.

(5) Also verse 27 of the same chapter has:

But the Lord hardened Pharaoh’s heart, and he would not let them go.

(6) Exodus 11:10 has:

And Moses and Aaron did all these wonders before Pharaoh: and the Lord hardened Pharaoh’s heart, so that he would not let the children of Israel go out of his land.

(7) Deuteronomy 29:4 says:

Yet the Lord hath not given you an heart to perceive, and eyes to see, and ears to hear, unto this day.

(8) Isaiah 6:10 contains

Make the heart of this people fat, and make their ears heavy, and shut their eyes; lest they see with their hearts... and convert, and be healed.

(9) Epistle to the Romans 11:8 says:

God hath given them the spirit of slumber, eyes that they should not see, and ears that they should not hear; unto this day.

(10) The Gospel of John, chapter 12, 1[1] says:

Therefore they could not believe, because that Esaias said again, He hath blinded their eyes, and hardened their heart; that they should not see with their eyes, nor understand with their heart, and be converted.

The above quotes from the Pentateuch, the book of Isaiah and the New Testament are explicit in implying that God blinded the eyes, stamped the ears and hardened the hearts of the Israelites so that they might not be converted to the truth and should not be healed from their disease of perversion. They are therefore unable to see the truth, to hear it or to understand it. The following Qur’anic description is in no way different from what we have read above:

God hath set a seal (stamped) on their hearts and on their hearing, and on their eyes is a veil; And for them is great pun- ishment. 2[2]

(11) The Arabic translations of Isaiah printed 1671, 1831 and 1844 contain the following at 63:17:

O Lord, why hast thou made us to err from thy ways, and hardened our heart from thy fear? Return for thy servants’ sake, the tribes of thine inheritance. 3[3]

The Book of Ezekiel contains the following statement at 14:9:

And if the prophet be deceived when he hath spoken a thing, I the Lord have deceived that prophet, and I will stretch out my hand upon him, and will destroy him from the midst of my people Israel.

The book of Ezekiel ascribes the act of deceiving and the Book of Isaiah attributes the act of misguiding to God.

(13) I Kings 22:19-23 contains the following passage:

“And he 4[4] said, Hear thou therefore the word of the Lord: I saw the Lord sitting on his throne, and all the host of heaven standing by him on his right hand and on his left. And the Lord said, Who shall persuade Ahab, that he may go up and fall at Ramoth-gilead? And one said on this manner, and another said on that manner. And there came forth a spirit, and stood before the Lord, and said, I will persuade him. And the Lord said unto him, Wherewith? And he said, I will go forth, and I will be a lying spirit in the mouth of all his prophets. And he said, Thou shalt persuade him, and prevail also: go forth, and do so. Now therefore, behold, the Lord hath put a lying spirit in the mouth of all these thy prophets, and the Lord hath spoken evil concerning thee.

It is not difficult to see that the above description gives us to believe that God sits on His throne meeting with the host of heaven to seek their counsel for deceiving and misguiding people, then a lying spirit is deputed to misguide them.

(14) The Second Epistle to Thessalonians 2:11-12 says:

And for this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie: That they all might be damned who believed not the truth, but had pleasure in unrighteousness.

The above statement of Paul is unambiguous in implying that God deludes people to prevent them from believing in truth.

(15) The Gospel of Matthew 5[5] reports Jesus as saying the following after his crying woe to the unrepentant cities:

I thank thee, 0 Father, Lord of heaven and earth, because thou hast hid these things from the wise and prudent, and hast revealed them unto babes. Even so, Father: for so it seemed good in thy sight.

(16) The book of Isaiah 45:7 says:

I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the Lord do all these things.

(17) The Lamentations of Jeremiah 3:38 contains:

Out of the mouth of the most High proceedeth not evil and good?

The above question implies nothing if not that God is the creator of both good and evil.

(18) The book of Micah 1:12 contains:

But evil came down from the Lord unto the gate of Jerusalem.

The above is plain affirmation to the fact that just as God is the creator of good, so He is the creator of evil.

(19) The Epistle to the Romans 8:29 has:

For whom he did foreknow, he also did predestinate to be conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brethren.

(20) Also we read in 9:11-21 of the same Epistle:

(For the children being not yet born, neither having done any good or evil, that the purpose of God, according to election might stand, not of works but of him that calleth;) It was said unto her, the elder shall serve the younger. As it is written, Jacob have I loved, but Esau have I hated.

What shall we say then? Is there unrighteousness with God? God forbid. For he saith to Moses, I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I will have compassion. So then it is not of him that willeth, not of him that runneth, but of God that sheweth mercy. For the scripture saith unto Pharaoh, Even for this same purpose have I raised thee up, that I might show my power in thee, and that my name might be declared throughout all the earth. Therefore hath he mercy on whom he will have mercy, and whom he will he hardeneth.

Thou wilt say then unto me, Why doth he yet find fault? For who hath resisted his will? Nay but, 0 man, who art thou that repliest against God? Shall the thing formed say to him that formed it, Why hast thou made me thus? Hath not the potter power over clay, of the same lump to make one vessel unto honour and another unto dishonour?

The above statement of Paul is a clear affirmation of the belief in destiny and also an explicit indication that guidance and misguidance are both from God.

The following statement of the Prophet Isaiah, 45:9:

Woe unto him that striveth with his Maker! Let the potsherd strive with the potsherds of the earth. Shall the clay say to him that fashioneth it, What makest thou or thy work, He hath no hands? 6[6]

It was on the basis of such verses that Luther, the founder of the Protestant faith, was conspicuously inclined towards belief in the predestination of human fate. There are many statements of Luther that bring out his views on this concept. We produce two such statements from the Catholic Herald vol. 9 page 277:

Man and horse have been created alike. They obey their rider. If God rides man he obeys His commands and if Satan rides him he goes the way he is commanded by Satan. He does not possess free will to choose between the two riders, both the riders are always striving to get hold of him.

The following statement has also appeared in the Catholic Herald:

Whenever you find a commandment in the holy books to do a certain act, be sure that this book is not asking you to do it, because you are not capable of doing it of your own will.

The famous Catholic priest Thomas Inglis said in his book Mira’atus Sidk printed 1851 on page 33:

Their early ecclesiastics taught them the following absurd dogmas:

(1) God is the Creator of sin.

(2) Man has no power or free will to abstain from sins.

(3) It is not possible to observe the Ten Commandments.

(4) Sins, no matter how great and grave, do not demean a man in the eyes of God.

(5) Only belief in God is enough for eternal salvation, because it is only on the basis of belief that man will be awarded or punished. This doctrine is very comforting and useful.

Luther, the father of the Reformation said:

Only believe and you will be redeemed. There is no necessity to bear the hardships of good acts like fasting, abstinence from sins, and humility of confession, be sure that without them and only for your true faith in Christ, you shall certainly get salvation equal to the salvation of Christ. No matter if you get involved in fornication and murder a thousand times a day, you are destined to reach salvation only for your true belief. I repeat only your belief will get you redeemed.

The above is enough to show that the first contention of the Protestants that the divinity of the Holy Qur’an was dubious because it attributed the creation of evil to God is totally irrational and against reason. The creation of evil does not in any way require the evilness of the Creator, just as the creation of white and black does not mean that the Creator has to be black or white. The creation of Satan by God is a part of His divine wisdom; the same wisdom is present in the creation of evil.

Similarly God has created evil desires, jealousy and other negative forces in human nature, although it was in His eternal knowledge that negative forces would produce negative results. Everything created, good or bad, therefore, owes its existence to God.

1[1]John 12:39-40.

2[2] Qur’an 2:7

3[3]The King James Version is identical to the Arabic, I have quoted the above verse from it. (Raazi).

4[4] That is, Micaiah

5[5] Matt: 11:25-26.

6[6] Our author has so far produced 21 specific examples to prove that God is the creator of evil also, and that guidance and misguidance are both from God. The Bible is replete with such statements. For more of such statements see Jeremiah 30:6, Romans 28:1, II Timothy 8:3, Titus 1:16, II Corinthians 5:13.

Contradictions Between The Quran And The Bible

First Discrepancy To Twenty-Fifth Discrepancy.

First Discrepancy

The period from Adam to the Flood of Noah is described differently in all the three versions.

1.The Hebrew version: 1656 years

2.The Greek version: 2262 years

. 3.The Samaritan version 1307 years

Second Discrepancy

The period from the Flood to the birth of the prophet Abraham is described as follows in the above three versions.

1 The Hebrew version: 292 years

2. The Greek version: 1072 years

3. The Samaritan version 942 years

Third Discrepancy

Arphaxad and Shelah are described by the Greek version as being separated by only one generation from Canaan who is not mentioned in the Hebrew and Samaritan versions. Similarly I Chronicles7[7] and the history of Josephus do not mention the name of Canaan. It may be noted that Luke has followed the Greek version and has added the name of Canaan in the genealogy of Jesus. This requires that the Christians should believe the truth of the Greek 8[8] version and reject the other two as being false in order to save the Gospel of Luke from containing a falsehood.

Fourth Discrepancy

The appointed place of the temple, as described by the Hebrew version, is mount Ebal, while according to the Samaritan version it is mount Gerezim. We have discussed this in great detail earlier and so no more comments are needed here.

Fifth Discrepancy

The period from Adam to Christ is differently described by the different versions.

1. The Hebrew version: 4004 years

2. The Greek version: 5872 years

3. The Samaritan version 4700 years:

The following statement conceming this is found in the first vol- ume of Henry and Scott’s commentary:

Hales having made corrections to the errors found in the history of Josephus and in the Greek version has concluded as follows: the period from the beginning of the creation to the birth of Christ is 5411 years, while the period from the Flood to the birth of the Christ comes to 3155 years.

Charles Rogers has presented in his book a comparison of various English translations, providing us with no less than fifty-five conflicting statements from the historians with regard to the period from the Creation to the birth of Christ.

Names Years

1. Marianus Scotus: 9[9] 4192

2. Larntios Codemus: 4141

3. Thoms Lithet. 4103

4. Michaelus Mastlinus 4079

5. G.Baptist Rickulus 4062

6. Jacob Salianus 4053

7. Henry Kus pemdens 10[10] 4051

8. William Link 4041

9. Erasmus Reinholt 4021

10. Jacobus Kipalus 4005

11. Archbishop Ussher 4003

12. Dionicius Petavius 3983

13. Bishop Burke (Book) 3974

14. Kirogian 3971

15. Ellius Rusnileus 3970

16. Johnias Cleverius 3968

17. Christanis Logomentenas 3966

18. Philip Malla Nagtuj 3964

19. Jacobin Lins 3963

20. Alphonso Salmeron 3958

21. Johi Liker11[11] 394

22. Matthews Burundius 3927

23. Andrians Hull 3836

24. The Jewish view 3760

25. The Christian view 4004

None of the above statements seems to be the same as any other. This great variety of views on the matter is highly confusing. The main reason for the great inconsistency found in historical descriptions is the indifferent and neglectful attitude of the historians towards the systematic preservation of their history. It makes it absolutely impossible for anyone now to arrive at the correct number of years from Adam to Christ. Charles Roger has admitted that the number of years estimated by the ancient historians are based on nothing but their conjectures and inferences from defective documentation. Moreover we find that the period commonly acknowledgcd by the Jews is different from the common belief of the Christians.

Now resuming our course of discussion, we should state that the deliberate opposition of the Qur’an to any or some descriptions of the Bible, especially in the presence of such a profusion of contradictions and inconsistencies, is certainly no reason to cast doubt on the Qur’anic revelation. We must repeat our claim that the elders of the Christians included in their books erroneous, and sometimes unbelievable, material that seemed to suit their whims at the time. This is why the periods described by the Bible are not considered to have any historical value.

The great scholar Taqiuddin al-Maqrizi quoted Ibn Hazm in the first volume of his book:

We Muslims do not believe in any definite number of years. Those who have claimed it to be around seven thousand years, have claimed something about which we find no indication made by the Holy Prophet in his traditions. We believe that the definite period of the creation of the universe is known to none but Allah. Allah, our Lord, says in the Holy Qur’an:12[12]

I did not make them witness to the creation of the heavens and the earth, nor to their own creation.

The Holy Prophet said that in comparison with the past people we are not more than a single white fibre on the body of a white ox, or a black fibre on the body of a white ox. The above and all other circumstantial evidence point to the fact that the definite period since the Creation is known to none but Allah.

Sixth Discrepancy

In addition to the ten commandments of Moses an eleventh commandment is present in the Samaritan version which does not exist in the Hebrew version.

Seventh Discrepancy

Genesis 4:8 of the Hebrew version has:

And Cain talked with Abel his brother: and it came to pass, when they were in the field.....

The same statement appears differently in the Greek and Samaritan version in these words:

Cain spoke to his brother Abel, let us go to the field; and it came to pass when they were in the field.

The theologians have preferred the Greek and the Samaritan versions.

Eighth Discrepancy

Genesis 7:17 of the Hebrew version says, “And the flood was forty days upon the earth.” The Greek version has, “The flood was forty days and nights upon the earth.”

The Greek version is obviously correct.

Ninth Discrepancy

Genesis 29:8 of the Hebrew version contains:

Until all the flocks be gathered together.

The Greek and the Samaritan versions and the Arabic translation of Houbigant and Kennicott contain a different statement:

Until all the herdsmen gather together.

Tenth Discrepancy

Genesis 35:22 of the Hebrew version says:

That Reuben went and lay with Bilhah his father’s concubine: and Israel heard it.

The Greek version has:

He went and lay with Bilhah, his father’s concubine and Israel heard it and he fell low in his estimation.

The Greek version seems to be correct.

Eleventh Discrepancy

The Greek version of Genesis 44:5 has this sentence:

Why did you steal my measures?

This sentence does not exist in the Hebrew.version.The Greek text is correct.

Twelfth Discrepancy

The Hebrew version of Genesis 50:25 says:

And ye shall carry up my bones from hence. 13[13]

The Greek and Samaritan versions have:

Ye shall carry up my bones from hence with you. 14[14]

Thirteenth Discrepancy

The Greek version of the Book of Exodus contains the following statement at 2:22:

Second time she bore a son and called his name Eleazer and said, For this reason that the Lord of my father assisted me and protected me from the sword of Pharaoh.

The verse is not found in the Hebrew text. 15[15]The Greek version seems to be correct as the Arabic translators have included it in their translation.

Fourteenth Discrepancy

The Hebrew version of Exodus 6:20 says:

And she 16[16] bare him Aaron and Moses.

The Greek and Samaritan versions have:

And she bare him Aaron and Moses and their sister Miriam.

The Greek and Samaritan versions are correct. 17[17]

Fifteenth Discrepancy

The Book of Numbers in the Greek version contains the following verse at 10:6:

And on the third sound the western camp, and on the fourth the northern camps shall be raised for a march. 18[18]

The above verse is also not found in the Hebrew version, and the Greek version is correct.

Sixteenth Discrepancy

The Book of Numbers in the Samaritan version contains the following passage between verses 10 and 11 of chapter 10:

The Lord our God spake unto Moses, ye have dwelt long enough in this mount, turn you and take your journey, and go to the mount of the Amorites and unto all places nigh thereunto in the plain, in the hills and in the vales, and unto the south; and by the sea side, to the land of the Canaanites. Behold, I have given the land to you, go and possess the land which the Lord sware unto your fathers, Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, to give unto them and to their seed after them.

The above passage does not exist in the Hebrew version. Horsley said in his commentary, vol. 1, page 161:

The description that is found in Numbers between verses 10 and 11 of the Samaritan version can be found in Deuteronomy 1:6,7 and 8.19[19] It was discovered in the time of Procobius.

Seventeenth Discrepancy

We find the following verses in Deuteronomy 10:6-8 of the Hebrew version:

And the children of Israel took their journey from Beeroth of the children of Jaakan to Mosera: there Aaron died, and there he was buried; and Eleazar, his son ministered in the priest’s office in his stead. From thence they journeyed unto Gudgodah; and from Gudgodah to Jotbath, a land of rivers and waters. At that time the Lord separated the tribe of Levi, to bear the ark of the covenant of the Lord, to stand before the Lord to minister unto him, and to bless in his name, unto this day.

The above passage is different from the description of Numbers 33:30-42, where the route of their journey is described very differently. It is there described as follows:

And they departed from Hashmonah, and encamped at Moseroth. And they departed from Moseroth and pitched in Bene-jaakan. And they removed from Bene-jaakan and encamped at Hor-hagidgad. And they went from Hor-hagidgad and pitched in Jotbathah. And they removed from Jothathah and encamped at Ebronah. And they departed from Ebronah and encamped at Ezion-gaber. And they removed from Ezion-gaber, and pitched in the wilderness of Zin, which is Kadesh. And they removed ’from Kadesh and pitched in mount Hor, in the edge of the land of Edom.

And Aaron the priest went up into mount Hor at the commandment of the Lord, and died there, in the fortieth year after the children of Israel were come out of the land of Egypt, in the first day of the fifth month. And Aaron was a hundred and twenty and three years old when he died in mount Hor.

And king Arad the Canaanite, which dwelt in the south in the land of Canaan, heard of the coming of the children of Israel.

And they departed from Mount Hor, and pitched in Zalmonah. And they departed from Zalmonah and pitched in Punon.

Adam Clarke quoted a long passage by Kennicott under his comments on the tenth chapter of Deuteronomy in the first volume of his book on pages 779 and 780. The sum and substance of what he says is that the Samaritan text in this respect is correct while the text of the Hebrew version is erroneous. He also concluded that four verses, that is from 6 to 9, are strange and irrelevant at this place. Their exclusion from the text does not in any way lessen the text. The copier seems to have inserted these verses here by mistake. Further he suggested that this proposition should not be rejected in a hurry.20[20] He said that these verses originally belonged to the second chapter of Deuteronomy. We may add here that the sentence which is found at the end of versc 8 is enough evidence of the fact that these verses are a later addition. 21[21]

Eighteenth Discrepancy

Deuteronomy 32:5 in the Hebrew version contains:

They have corrupted themselves, their spot is not the spot of his children; they are a perverse and crooked generation.

This verse appears differently in the Greek and Samaritan versions. It reads:

They have corrupted themselves, it was not proper for them: they are children illegitimate and with spot.

Henry and Scott’s commentary remarks that this version seems to be closer to the original. Horsley says on page 215 of vol. 1 of his commentary:

This verse should be read according to the Greek and Samaritan versions. 22[22]

Contrary to the above, the translations of Houbigant and Kennicott and the Arabic translations have distorted this verse. The Arabic translations of 1844 and 1848 contain this verse in these words:

Take measures against them. They are distinct from the children of evil. O perverse and crooked generation! 23[23]

Nineteenth Discrepancy

The Hebrew version of the Book of Genesis 20:2 has:

And Abraham said of Sarah, his wife, She is my sister: And Abimelech king of Gerar sent, and took Sarah.

According to the commentary of Henry and Scott, the above verse appears in the Greek version in the following words:

And he said of his wife Sarah, she is my sister; for he was afraid to call her his wife, fearing lest the citizens might kill him for her; for, Abimelech, king of Palestine sent his men and took Sarah.

The sentence, “...he was afraid to call her his wife fearing lest the citizens might kill him for her,” is not present in the Hebrew version.

Twentieth Discrepancy

Genesis 30:36 in the Samaritan version contains:

The messenger of the Lord cried, Jacob, he replied, Yes, I am here; the messenger said, Raise up thy eyes and behold the goats and sheep going to she-goats and ewes. Again they are white spotted, and moteley. For what Laban has done to you, is witnessed by you. I am the God of Beth-el, in where you erected the stone and poured oil and took a vow.

The above passage is not found in the Hebrew version.

Twenty-first Discrepancy

The following description, found after the first sentence of Exodus 11:3 of the Samaritan version, is not found in the Hebrew version:

And Moses told Pharaoh, The Lord said, Israel is my first-born. I said to you release my children that they may worship me, you refused to set them free. Know that I will kill your first-born son.

Twenty-second Discrepancy

The Book of Numbers, 24:7 in the Hebrew version has: 24[24]

He shall pour the water out of his buckets, and his seed shall be in many waters, and his king shall be higher than Agag, and his kingdom shall be exalted.

The Greek version contains this description in these words:

And a man will be born of him who will govern many tribes, his kingdom shall be greater than Agag, and his kingdom shall be exalted. 25[25]

Twenty-third Discrepancy

Leviticus 9:21 in the Hebrew version contains:

As Moses commanded.

The Greek and Samaritan versions have the following words instead:

As the Lord commanded Moses

Twenty-fourth Discrepancy

The Book of Numbers 26:10 in the Hebrew’ version has:

And the earth opened her mouth, and swallowed them up together with Korah, when that company died, what time the fire devoured two hundred and fifty men: and they became a sign.

The Samaritan version contains:

And the earth opened her mouth, and swallowed them up together with Korah, when that company died, what time the fire devoured two hundred and fifty men, and they became a sign. 26[26]

The commentary of Henry and Scott have said 1hat the above verse is closely related to the context and is in accordance with Psalm No. 106:17.

Twenty-fifth Discrepancy

The celebrated Christian theologian Leclerc divided all the differences found between the Hebrew and the Samaritan versions into six categories:

(1) The passages of the Samaritan version that are more correct than the Hebrew version. There are eleven such passages.

(2) The passages in the Hebrew version that seem to be more correct by their context. Such differences are seven.

(3) The passages of the Samaritan version that contain later additions which are thirteen.

(4) The passages of the Samaritan version that have been distorted which are seventeen.

(5) The passages of the Samaritan version which look more reasonable than the Hebrew version are ten.

(6) The passages that are defective in the Samaritan version are two.

The references to all the above passages are as follows according to the numbers given above

(1) GENESIS: 4:2, 7:3, 19:19, 20:2, 23:16, 34:14, 49:10,11, 50:26. (9)

EXODUS: 1:2, 4:2 (2)

(2) GENESIS: 31:49, 35:17,35, 41:34,37,41, 47:3 (6)


(3) GENESIS: 29:15, 30:36, 14:16 (3)

EXODUS: 7:18, 8:23, 9:5, 21:20, 22:5, 23:10, 32:9 (7)

LEVITICUS: 1:10, 17:4 (2)


(4) GENESIS: 2:2, 4:10, 9:5, 10:19, 11:21, 18:3, 19:12, 20:16 24:55, 35:7, 36:6, 41:50 (13)

EXODUS: 1:5, 13:6, 15:5 (3)

NUMBERS: 22:36 (1)

(5) GENESIS: 8:5, 31:11, 9:19, 34:37, 4:39, 25:43 (6)

EXODUS: 40:12, 17:14 (2)

NUMBERS: 14:4 (1)

DEUTERONOMY: 16:20 (1)

(6) GENESIS: 14:25, 16:20 (2)

The renowned scholar Home says in vol. 2 of his commentary printed in 1822:

The renowned theologian Leclerc, with the greatest pain and labour, has sorted out the differences of the Hebrew and Samaritan versions, and has concluded that the Samaritan version is comparatively more correct.

Such differences between the Hebrew and the Samaritan versions are not limited to the sixty pointed out by Leclerc. There are many more such dissimilarities found in the two versions. Leclerc has confined himself to the differences that were of serious nature. If we add twenty-four of the twenty-five discrepancies cited above to the sixty discovered by Leclerc, the total number of discrepancies comes to eighty-four. This is not counting all the differences and discrepancies that exist between the Hebrew and the Latin versions of the Pentateuch; and also those found between many other books of the Old Testament.

The above sufficiently proves our point that the objection raised by the Christians against the truth of the Qur’anic revelation based on Qur’anic disagreement with some of the descriptions of the Old and the New Testaments is not valid and does not serve the intended purpose.

This refers to the oral communication of Moses with God on Mount Sinai described in Exodus.

7[7] ”And Arphaxad begat Shelah.” I Chronicles 1:18.

8[8] All quotations from Greek and Samaritan versions have been reproduced from the old English translation. (Raazi)

9[9]All the spellings of the proper names have been reproduced from the English translation of the Gujrati version of Izharul Haqq. (Raazi)

10[10] . The spelling of all the above names as given in the English translation of the Gujrati version mostly seem to be different from what can be understood through the transliteration of the Urdu version. For instance this name, as given by transliteration should be something like “Henry Kospondanus” (Raazi)

11[11] It may be notified that in the absence of the original book it is always almost impossible to obtain the correct spelling of proper names. The names may be very different in spelling from the one given in both, the text and the margin. (Raazi)

12[12] Qur’an 18:51. Even up to 1988 modern scientific resources have been completely unable to provide a definite estimate in this regard. (Raazi)

13[13]This was said by the prophet Joseph to his brethren just before his death. (Raazi)

14[14]I do not see any discrepancy in the above two statements except that the latter statement has additional phrase ’with you’. (Raazi

15[15]Verse 22 of the Hebrew version ends with the following statement: ”And she bare him a son, and he called his name Gershom: for he said, I have a stranger in a strange land. (Taqi)

16[16]That is, Amran’s wife Jochebed

17[17] I Chronicles 6:3 agrees with the latter versions. It says: “And the children of Amran; Aaron, and Moses, and Miriam.”

18[18]We have reproduced the above verse from the English translation of the Gujrati version. (Raazi)

19[19] The description in Deuteronomy 1:6 starts with the words: ”The Lord our God spake unto us in Horeb.” These words evidently indicate that the injunction contained in subsequent verses had been revealed much earlier in Horeb. It should, therefore have been present in the book of Numbers. This implies that the Samaritan version is correct.

20[20] There is a footnote under verse 10:7 of Deuteronomy in the Catholic Bible (Knox version 1963 London) page 157 which reads, “Verses 6-7 seem to be not taken from some record of the wanderings which is perhaps put in here to illustrate 9:20 above.”

21[21]This verse contains the words “unto this day” which also indicate that it verse is a later addition.

22[22]The present translations of the Hebrew version, however, have been made in accordance with the Greek and the Samaritan texts.

23[23] I have reproduced the above English passage from the English translation of the Gujrati version of Izharul Haqq. (Raazi)

24[24] I have quoted this passage from the English translation of Izharul Haqq since

25[25] the Samaritan version is not available to me. I am not certain of the faithful reproduction of this passage. (Raazi) 1.

The Catholic Bible (Knox version) gives yet a different version of this verse. It says, “Like a bucket brimming over the well, see how their posterity spreads from one river frontier to the next! The King that rules over them shall rival Agag himself, and take away his kingdom from him.” Numbers 24:7 (Raazi).

26[26]The King James version has this passage in accordance with the Samaritan version. Our author might have quoted it from the Hebrew version having a different text. Now both the passages are identical. (Raazi).

Second Objection


  • Contradictions Between The Quran And The Bible.

  • First Discrepancy To Twenty-Fifth Discrepancy.
The Qur’anic opposition to the Bible, as expressed by the Christian theologians, is categorized as follows:

1. The Qur’an abrogates a number of injunctions contained in the Bible.

2. The Qur’an fails to mention some events that are described in the Old and New Testaments.

3. Some events described by the Holy Qur’an are different from the descriptions given in the Bible.

There are no grounds for denying the truth of the Holy Qur’an on the basis of the above three types of Qur’anic opposition to the Bible. Firstly, abrogation is not unique to the Qur’an. We have cited specific examples of the presence of abrogation in the laws prior to the Qur’an. The presence of abrogation in any revelation is not contrary to reason. We have already seen that the law of the Prophet Jesus abrogated all but nine injunctions of the Torah including the Ten Commandments.

Secondly, there are many events described by the New Testament that do not exist in the Old Testament. It would be quite in order to reproduce some examples of such events. The following thirteen events out of a large number of them should sufficiently prove our claim. The Old Testament cannot be disbelieved only on these grounds.

1.We read in the Epistle of Jude in verse 9:

Yet Michael the archangel, when contending with the devil he disputed about the body of Moses, durst not bring against him a railing accusation, but said, The Lord rebuke thee.

No trace of the dispute of Michael with the devil mentioned above is found in any book of the Old Testament

2.The same epistle contains in verses 14-15 the following statement:

And Enoch also, the seventh from Adam, prophesied of these, saying, Behold, the Lord cometh with ten thousands of his saints, To execute judgement upon all, and to convince all that are ungodly among them of all their ungodly dceds which they have ungodly committed, and of all their hard speeches which ungodly sinners have spoken against him.

The above statement made by Enoch is also not found in any of the books of the Old Testament.

3.We find the following description in Hebrews 12:21:

And so terrible was the sight, that Moses said, I exceedingly fear and quake. 1[1]

The event to which the above statement has referred is described in chapter 19 of the Book of Exodus. The above sentence of the Prophet Moses can be found neither in Exodus nor in any other book of the Old Testament.

4.II Timothy 3:8 contains the following statement:

Now as Jannes and Jambers withstood Moses, so do these also resist the truth.

The dispute referred to in the above passage is described in chapter 7 of the Book of Exodus. The names Jannes and Jambers can be found neither in any chapter of Exodus nor in any other book of the Old Testament.

5. I Corinthians 15:6 says:

After that, he was seen of above five hundred brethren at once; of whom the greater part remain unto this present, but some are fallen asleep.

The number of five hundred people having seen Christ 2[2] after his resurrection cannot be found in any of the Gospels, nor even in the book of Acts, in spite of Luke’s fondness of describing such events.

6.The book of Acts 20:35 says:

And to remember the words of the Lord Jesus, how he said, It is more blessed to give than to receive.

The above statement of the prophet Jesus cannot be traced in any of the four gospels.

7.The genealogical description of Matthew in the first chapter contains names after Zorobabel 3[3] that are not found in any book of the Old Testament.

8.We find the following event described in the book of Acts 7:23- 28:

And when he was full forty years old, it came into his heart to visit his brethren the children of Israel. And seeing one of them suffer wrong, he defended him, and avenged him that was oppressed, and smote the Egyptian: For he supposed his brethren would have understood how that God by his hand would deliver them: but they understood not. And the next day he shewed himself unto them as they strove, would have set them at one again, saying, Sirs, ye are brethren: why do ye wrong one to another? But he that did his neighbour wrong thrust him away, saying, Who made thee a ruler and a judge over us? Wilt thou kill me, as thou diddest the Egyptian yesterday?

This event also appears in the Book of Exodus but we find that there are many additional things mentioned in Acts which do not appear in the following description of the book of Exodus, which goes:

And it came to pass in those days, when Moses was grown, that he went out unto his brethren, and looked on their burdens: and he spied an Egyptian smiting a Hebrew, one of his brethren. And he looked this way and that way, and when he saw that there was no man, he slew the Egyptian, and hid him in the sand. And when he went out the second day, behold, two men of Hebrews strove together: and he said to him that did the wrong, Wherefore smitest thou thy fellow? And he said, Who made thee a prince and a judge over us? intendest thou to kill me, as thou killedst the Egyptian? 4[4]

9.The Epistle of Jude verse 6 says:

And the angels which kept not their first estate, but left their own habitation, he hath reserved in everlasting chains under darkness unto the judgement of the great day.

10.The same statement also appears in the Second Epistle of Peter 2:4:

For if God spared not the angels that sinned, but cast them down to hell, and delivered them into chains of dark- ness, to be reserved unto judgement.

The above statements attributed to Jude and Peter do not exist in any book of the Old Testament. In fact it seems to be a false statement, because the imprisoned angels referred to in this statement are, it seems, devils while they too are not in everlasting chains of imprisonment. This is evident from chapter 1 of the Book of Job, Mark 1:12, I Peter 5:8 5[5] and many other similar verses.

11.Psalm 105:18 says, with regard to the imprisonment of the prophet Joseph:

Whose feet they hurt with fetters: he was laid in iron. Genesis also describes this event in chapter 39, but there he is not reported as being chained and laid in irons which was not always necessary for a prisoner.

12.The Book of Hosea 12:4 has:

Yea, he had power over the angel, and prevailed: he wept and made supplication unto him.

Genesis describes the above event of Jacob’s wrestling with the angel in chapter 32, but it does not speak of his weeping and making supplication to him.

13.The four gospels briefly describe Paradise, Hell, the Day of Judgement and the rewards and punishments of the Hereafter, but in contrast to this we do not find any of these things in the five books of the Pentateuch. The obedient are promised worldly rewards and the disobedient threatened with only worldly punishments. 6[6]This proves that the fact that such descriptions or events are described in later books and not mentioned in former books, does not necessarily prove the falsehood of the later books.

 Otherwise it would demand that the gospels be declared false since they contain material from the past that does not exist in any book of the Old Testament. It is not therefore necessary for a later book to cover all past events. For examples, the names of all the descendants of Adam, Seth and Jonah and their accounts are not mentioned in the Torah.

The commentary of D’Oyly and Richard Mant contains the following comments on II King 14:25:

The name of the Prophet Jonah is not found mentioned anywhere except in this verse and in the famous message to the people of Nineveh. There is no mention in any book of any prophecy of Jonah with regard to Jeroboam’s invasion of Syria. This is not because we have lost many books of the prophets, but simply because the prophets did not speak of many events that took place.

Our claim is sufficiently affirmed by the above statement.

Similarly the Gospel of John 20:30 says:

And many other signs truly did Jesus in the presence of his disciples, which are not written in this book.

John 21:25 also has:

And there are many other things which Jesus did, the which, if they should be written every one, I suppose that even the world itself could not contain the books that should be written.

Apart from being a metaphorical exaggeration the above statement testifies to the fact that all the events of Jesus’ life could not be recorded in the books.

Thirdly, their objection that, regarding many events, the Qur’anic description is different from the one in the Bible is not valid because a profusion of such differences is also present within the books of the Old Testament, and similarly some of the Gospels differ concerning many events from the others; and also the New Testament differs from the Old Testament. Though we have produced specific examples of this at the beginning of this book, it is quite in order to cite some more examples of such differences here to eliminate any possible misunderstanding Created by the above objections.

It goes without saying that the three basic versions of the Pentateuch, that is, the Hebrew, the Greek and the Samaritan are also different from each other in the same way. A further prolongation of this exposition by producing more examples of such discrepancies is necessary in view of their relevance to the present subject.

1[1] This refers to the oral communication of Moses with God on Mount Sinai described in Exodus.

2[2] This refers to the event of Christ’s resurrection after the ’crucifixion’. There is no mention of five hundred people having seen him, only eleven people are reported by the gospels to have seen him. R.A. Knox has admitted that Paul has erroneously counted separately every time he was seen by James and Peter.

3[3]. See Matthew 1:13-16.

4[4] . Exodus 2:11-14.

5[5] “Be sober, be vigilant; because your adversary the devil, as a roaring lion, walketh about, seeking whom he may devour.” 5:8. The freedom of the devil is obviously known from this statement. There are many more similar statements showing the freedom of the devils.

6[6]For example Exodus 23:22 says, “But if thou shalt indeed obey his voice, and do all that I speak; then I will be an enemy unto thine enemies and an adversary unto thine adversaries.” Similarly Leviticus 26:15-16 has said.”if will not do all my commandments, but that ye break my covenant:....I will even appoint over you terror, consumption and the burning ague.” Also see for obedience: Exodus 19:5, Leviticus 26:3, Deut. 4:8. etc.