Islamic Disuse and Twisting, Etc. of Sciences:
Literature - Quran, Hadith, Bible & Others


L. Literature

  • La.  The Bible.

  • Lb.  The Quran.

  • Lc.  Hadiths.

  • Ld.  Other literature.

We only accept central points – if not this topic becomes too wide for this “book”.

La.  The Bible.

La1.  (From siraj@gmail.com – a non-existing address the net said when we tried to answer.)

“The real revelation (in NT*) was Injeel (Gospel), which was later fabricated to the need of people - - -“. That the Bible is falsified is an old and never proved claim form Muhammad and his followers. It was Muhammad’s only way to explain away the differences between what he told the Bible said and what it really said (the real reason for the differences was that Muhammad did not take his “Biblical” material from the Bible, but from legends, folklore, made up apocryphal stories, and even from fairy tales and ). But both science and Islam (not from free will) strongly have proved that the Bible is not falsified, by being unable to find any falsifications in the tens of thousands of relevant old manuscripts and fragments – some mistakes, but not one proved falsification. (The best proof for this is that if one had been found, Muslim scholars had screamed about it. No such scream is heard – only unproved claims from obscure persons.)

La2.  (From siraj@gmail.com – a non-existing address the net said when we tried to answer.)

“They (Christians*) can live any way they want, because Jesus has taken up all the sins and men are purified” – this must be wrong, he means, and thus Christianity must be a wrong religion, he indicates.

Wrong. Forgiving is not that easy in NT. For one thing NT clearly indicates that sins from a weak nature are forgivable, but that willful sins take more for being forgiven. Besides according to the Bible it takes honest remorse to be forgiven. Unlike a number of points in the Quran, forgiving is not automatic in the Bible. Thus Jesus’ death on the cross according to NT means that the power to forgive exists, but you must yourself activate this power by means of honest regret for what you did, plus you must honestly ask/pray for forgiving. Siraj’s conclusion is wrong.

Lb3.  (From ExamineTheTruth):

“Christian make the same claim about the Bible”. What Christians say about the Bible is totally irrelevant for if what is claimed the Quran says about science, etc. is true or not. (But it is an argument often used by Muslims to derail a debate.) If what the Quran says is wrong, then it is wrong no matter if the Bible says the same.

Lb4.  (From ExamineTheTruth):

“- - - since we see the same kind of phenomenon in both books (the Bible and the Quran*) that would lead us to believe that it is the same author for both books”. This is such a nonsense and lack of logic – especially as the Quran took much of its stuff from legends, etc. based on the Bible (= indirectly used the Bible as a main source), that we do not bother to comment on it.

Lb. The Quran.

Lb1.  (From “A Brief Illustrated Guide To Understand The Quran” – BIGUQ):

“And if you are in doubt about what We (Allah*) have revealed (the Quran) to Our worshipper (Muhammad) then produce a chapter like it - - -“ (2/23-25). Islam and its Muslims claim that this is impossible – but never mention that the few who have tried to do so, have been persecuted or killed (the most known one was Musaylima ibn Habib – killed by Muslims in 634 AD).

Another point is that the Quran far from is high quality literature – something every unbiased real knower of good literature will confirm. Many a good author with enough knowledge about old Arab legends, etc. will be able to write a better book of better quality literature. But why do so? – a copycat only will be laughed at as a copycat, and even more: No matter how good a book he/she wrote, no Muslim would ever admit it was better than the Quran, because that would mean admitting that the Quran is not from a god and thus that Islam is a made up religion.

##Islam and its Muslims should stop using this claim. For anyone knowing something about both real literature and about the Quran, this “argument” is so hopelessly naïve and void of reality and knowledge, that it only destroys the claimant’s credibility.

Lb2.  (From siraj@gmail.com – a non-existing address  the net said when we tried to answer.)

“There are no scientific-logical-grammatical errors in it (the Quran*)”. We do not think we bother to comment on this – take a look at www.1000mistakes.com Book A.

Lb3.  (From “The Way to Truth”).

“The Quran, which he (Muhammad*) brought, has challenged all mankind with all their literary geniuses and scientists, from the first day of its revelation to the Last Day, to produce a like of it or even a single chapter of it”.

These are old claims in Islam, but only possible to be believed by people with little knowledge of good literature or little knowledge of the Quran or both – or because of strong wishful thinking. As literature the Quran is of very moderate quality, and there were and are many a good writer who could write something similar better, if he first studied old Arab folklore, etc., etc. a bit. But why bother? – no matter how well it was written, not one Muslim would admit it was better than the Quran, because that would be admitting that the Quran is not a divine product.

This claim has no value at all as a proof for divine origin for anybody who knows a little about good quality literature – the Quran falls short on quite a number of rules for quality in a book, f.x. unreliable facts, contradicting itself time and again and again, unclear language, the same stories again and again and again, more or less all “good” persons are copies of Muhammad (to prove Muhammad was good and a normal prophet), more or less all stories are the same: Muslims go to Paradise, all the others either become Muslims or go to Hell. The composition is deplorable. Lots and lots of claim, but not one of the central ones documented. Etc.

The rest of the claimed “proofs” from “The Way to Truth”, are so naïve that we do not think it is worth squandering time on commenting on them – everybody with a brain and a little knowledge will see the hopelessness in these “proofs” - except a comment on 21/20, which we handle under “Astronomy”.

Islam and its Muslims  often have problems with the rules for making logically correct conclusions, and they also often seem to be unable to - or do not want to - see the difference between words like “a coincidence”, “possible”, “perhaps”, “probably”, “likely”, etc., etc., and the word “proof”. If they like a point, they use it or twist it and name it “a proof”. But a definition for a proof is: “A proof is one or more proved facts which can give only one conclusion”.

Ld.  Other literature.

Ld1.  Dr. Maurice Bucaille.

This man is well liked by many Muslims. He was a medical (not mentioned by many Muslims) doctor who practiced in the Middle East and was the doctor of the high society. What Muslims practically never mention, is that he became a Muslim – many even only stress that he was a doctor (of religion? – or history? – or what?) and that he was French and member of the French Academy = a well educated Christian = “proving” that the Quran is right in most or all things (honesty does not count too much  for some Muslims when defending or promoting Islam – another fact worth remembering).

He wrote the book “The Bible, The Quran and Science”. As he was interested in Islam, the book is colored some by this, and it lacks some from being 100% reliable – not an overstatement. HE WROTE FOR THE EXPRESSED PURPOSE OF PROVING THE DIVINE ORIGIN OF THE QURAN, not for to find out if it was true or not. (With Muslims’ easy disuse of the word “proof”, “proving” such things – true or not – is easy for Muslims included Mr. Maurice Bucaille as a “proof”.)

You will meet Bucaille and his book as a claimed golden proof/witness for Islam from Muslims. But he was not a real Christian confirming the Quran. He was a cupboard Muslim writing with the expressed purpose to prove the Quran correct. Not very surprising that many Muslims like the result.

Another question is how much of what he wrote is true.


>>> Go to Next Part

>>> Go to Previous Part

This work was upload with assistance of M. A. Khan, editor of islam-watch.org and the author of "Islamic Jihad: A Legacy of Forced Conversion, Imperialism, and Slavery".