THE ISLAM QUESTION

SHOULD I BECOME A MUSLIM?

by

ADRIAN REDDY
 Foreword

Should I become a Muslim?

The Islam question was raised in September 2006 when the

Al-Qaeda movement issued a dawah: an invitation to
convert, to ‘Americans and other unbelievers’.

However, such a decision shouldn’t be made without

careful consideration. It seemed to me that an assessment of
the relevant evidence and arguments would be necessary
before I could make an informed choice, so I began to look
into the basis of Islam.

And the following is the result.

A.P.R.
June 2009
 CONTENTS
Chapter 1 Introduction ...................................... 1
1.1. Muhammad: hero or zero ........................ 1
1.2. Why do Muslims think the Quran was
composed by God? ........................................ 2
1.3. The approach taken in this book.............. 2
1.4. Sources of information............................ 3

Chapter 2 The Muslim Story of the Origins of

Islam ................................................................. 6
2.1. A brief summary of the origin of the
Islamic scriptures........................................... 6
2.2. Discussion ............................................ 10
2.3. The secret of my successor.................... 18
2.4. Conclusions .......................................... 21

Chapter 3 Working the Audience ..................... 22

3.1. Introduction .......................................... 22
3.2. Early responses to the hecklers.............. 23
3.3. Abrogation............................................ 29
3.4. The perks of the job .............................. 39
3.5. Concluding remarks .............................. 46

Chapter 4 The Claim of Science in the Quran.. 48

4.1. Introduction .......................................... 48
4.2. Water.................................................... 49
4.3. The sky................................................. 51
4.4. The earth............................................... 56
4.5. Biology................................................. 60
4.6. Humans and other creatures .................. 62
4.7. Dr. Bucaille’s guilty secret.................... 66
4.8. Summing up ......................................... 69
Chapter 5 The Claim of Inimitability ............... 72
5.1. Introduction .......................................... 72
5.2. Characteristics of the Quran.................. 73
5.3. The Muslim claim of proof ................... 78
5.4. Final remarks ........................................ 86

Chapter 6 The Claim of the Quran’s Prophecies

........................................................................ 89
6.1. Introduction .......................................... 89
6.2. What do the ‘Romans’ verses refer to?.. 90
6.3. The curious incident.............................. 93
6.4. An alternative explanation .................... 94
6.5. A prophecy of Nostradamus-like quality95
6.6. A failed prediction in the Quran ............ 96
6.7. Final remarks ........................................ 98

Chapter 7 Aspects of Islamic Law.................... 99

7.1. Introduction .......................................... 99
7.2. Free will and the future ......................... 99
7.3. Adultery.............................................. 107
7.4. Slavery ............................................... 110
7.5. The Rules of Inheritance in the Quran. 113
7.6. The conclusion.................................... 118

Chapter 8 Islam’s Cousins............................. 120

8.1. Introduction ........................................ 120
8.2. The lessons of history ......................... 121
8.3. Keeping the faith ................................ 128
8.4. The secret of Islam’s success .............. 135
Chapter 9 The Real Origin of Islam............... 142
9.1. Voices in my head .............................. 142
9.2. The episodes of ‘inspiration’............... 143
9.3. A rational explanation......................... 146
9.4. Non-Muslim objections....................... 151
9.5. Discussion: a summary of the evidence,
and what it implies..................................... 158
9.6. Final remarks ...................................... 162

Chapter 10 Summary..................................... 164

10.1. The choice to be made ...................... 164
10.2. The origin of Islam ........................... 164
10.3. The Quran’s style.............................. 167
10.4. The Quran’s contents ........................ 169
10.5. Where the Quran really came from.... 172
10.6. Conclusion........................................ 173

References..................................................... 175
 Chapter 1
Introduction
1.1. Muhammad: hero or zero
There is only one legitimate basis for adopting a particular
religion: that one believes its claims to be true. In the same
way, there is only one legitimate basis for rejecting any
religion: that one believes its claims to be false.

Islam claims that, around the year 610 in what is now Saudi
Arabia, Muhammad ibn Abdullah began to receive messages
from the Biblical God (‘God’) and that he continued to receive
them until his death in 632. Subsequently, according to Islam,
the messages were compiled into a book: the Quran, which
thereby became a book of guidance, setting out the behaviour
that God expected from humankind.

It is clear, therefore, that the Quran must be either entirely the

word of God or entirely the product of human imagination. It is
either 100% genuine or 100% spurious, with no middle ground
possible. If it is the former, a large fraction of the earth's
population has, for nearly 1400 years, ignored the explicit
wishes of their creator. If it is the latter then, for the same
period, the whole of Islamic civilisation has been based on a
document which is, in essence, a fake. No happy medium
exists, even in principle: Muhammad is either hero or zero.

1
1.2. Why do Muslims think the Quran was
composed by God?
The Muslim case for divine authorship is based upon a number
of claims about the content and qualities of the Quran. From
the description in [1] of the original works by the medieval
Muslim theologians Abu Bakr Muhammad al-Baquillani
(whom we shall meet again in Chapter 5) and Abu Abdullah al-
Qurtubi, they can be summarised as follows. It is maintained
that:

1. The Quran is inimitable and superior to all other works

in Arabic
2. Its statements about the natural world must have been
produced by divine revelation
3. Its prophecies and promises have all been fulfilled
4. Its legislation cannot be surpassed
5. Its comprehensiveness cannot be matched
6. Its effect on the hearts of men fulfils human needs

Claim 6 can perhaps be ignored since all other religions (which

Islam considers to be uniformly false) produce the same
sensation of fulfilment as far as their adherents are concerned.

1.3. The approach taken in this book

My intention is to review Islam as it is conventionally
presented and to assess whether its central claim is to be
believed. What follows is therefore concerned not with whether
Islam is good or bad, but with whether Islam is true or false.

If we are to attempt an assessment of the truth of Islam, then it

might be assumed that an investigation of the question of the

2
existence of God should play a part since, in order for Islam to
be true, it is necessary that God should exist. However, this
issue can be sidestepped. If the Muslim belief that there is
proof of God’s authorship of the Quran is well-founded, then
this also provides proof of His existence. If it is not, then the
objective of the investigation has been achieved without the
question of God’s presence or absence ever needing to be
resolved.

So, to make things easier, I am going to assume the

fundamental monotheists’ position of belief in the existence of
the Biblical God and I am also going to accept as accurate the
Muslim accounts of the historical origins of Islam, so that the
question boils down to a straight run-off between God and
Muhammad as sole author of the Quran. I am going to examine
critically each of the above claims from the perspective of the
Muslim beliefs that God:

- is all-powerful and all-wise (as stated in the

Quran), and
- intends Islam to be the religion followed by the
whole world (see Section 2.1.2)

1.4. Sources of information

I have nothing to gain from drawing upon controversial or
hostile sources of information unless the subject under
discussion is not treated adequately elsewhere, so I try to stick
to Islamic sources of information wherever possible. In
reviewing Islamic sources, particularly the primary scriptures, I
remain well aware of the usual responses to critical reviews
which are carried out by non-Muslims, these being that the
reviewer:

3
 - has quoted from a poor translation;
- has misunderstood a passage;
- has quoted a passage out of context;

The translation of the Quran used for most of the quotations is

that of Arthur Arberry (1905-1969), a former Professor of
Arabic at the University of Cambridge [2]. According to [3]:

“The translation is without prejudice and is probably

the best around. The Arberry version has earned the
admiration of intellectuals worldwide, and having been
reprinted several times, remains the reference of choice
for most academics. It seems destined to maintain that
position for the foreseeable future.”

Nevertheless, a single translation is insufficient, so I always

cross check the meaning against some or all of the translations
by Yusufali, Pickthal, Shakir [4], Al-Hilali and Khan [5],
Sarwar [6] and Rodwell [7] (the translations seldom differ in
ways which are significant to the following discussion, by the
way). I also consult the tafsirs (commentaries) of Ibn Kathir [8]
and Maududi [9] and the book on Islamic law by Al-Misri [10]
in order to confirm that the interpretation is correct. Other
sources are referenced in the text.

The orthodox account of the origin of the Quran has been

presented in many sources. This article draws mainly on two,
both of which are available on-line. The first is by a Christian
Missionary, Edward Sell [11] and the second is by a European
convert to Islam, Ahmad von Denffer [1].

4
1.5. So….
In a nutshell: we have a book, and a story of how it came to be
compiled, and we have to decide whether the book was
composed by an almighty, all-knowing being or by an
uneducated 7th century Arab. A moment’s consideration makes
it clear that there exists such a vast gulf between the respective
abilities of these two candidate authors that the evidence
should therefore come down emphatically on one side or the
other.

And, indeed, it does.

5
 Chapter 2
The Muslim Story of the Origins of
Islam

2.1. A brief summary of the origin of the

Islamic scriptures
Islam maintains that, around the year 610 in Mecca, in what is
now Saudi Arabia, Muhammad ibn Abdullah was designated as
God’s final Messenger, or Prophet, and began to hear divine
communications, relayed to him by the Archangel Gabriel. He
continued to receive these messages until his death in 632 and,
subsequently, the messages were compiled into a book: The
Quran. The Quran is regarded as the actual word of God and
remains the primary source of guidance for Muslims.

Given the overwhelming importance of the sacred task that

Muhammad had allegedly been entrusted with it is remarkable
that, at the time of his death in 632, no complete, approved
written Quran is believed to have existed, though there were
reputedly a number of partial or private versions, either written
or preserved in people’s memories (7th century Arabia being
primarily an oral culture) plus a large number of fragments
recorded on diverse media. According to Islamic history, in
633, the first Caliph (i.e. Islamic ruler, or successor to
Muhammad), Abu Bakr commissioned the production of a
complete written Quran, though there is no evidence that this
became anything more than a personal copy kept by Abu Bakr

6
then, after his death, by the next Caliph, Umar ibn al-Khattab
and then by Umar’s daughter (and one of Muhamamad’s
widows) Hafsa.
The situation remained unaltered until 653 when the third
Caliph, Uthman ibn Affan, determined that a standardised
version should be created, since Muslims in Iraq and Syria
(parts of the ever-growing Islamic empire) had variant versions
which had given rise to quarrels. His scribes went over Abu
Bakr’s version (retrieved from Hafsa), rendering it in the
Meccan dialect. Uthman then commanded that all other copies
(including Hafsa’s) should be burnt, leaving the revised version
as the official and only representation of the Quran, and so it
remains to this day.
In what follows, the locations within the Quran of selected
passages are denoted by (Qa:b), where ‘a’ is the Sura (i.e.
Chapter) number and ‘b’ is the verse number. As stated in
Chapter 1, the Arberry translation [2] is the version usually
used for the quoted passages.

2.1.1. Collection of the Hadiths

The Quran is not the only Islamic scripture. There are also the
Hadiths: a large body of anecdotes concerning the things
Muhammad said (providing an interpretation of the Quran) or
did (thereby providing an example of correct behaviour or
ritual), which are second only to the Quran in terms of the
reverence in which they are held. The Hadiths, together with
biographies such as [12] are also the source of other aspects of
Islamic law not covered by the Quran such as, for example, the
death penalty for renouncing Islam (apostasy) or the use of
stoning for adultery. The two main Hadith collections were
compiled over 200 years after Muhammad’s death. Extracts

7
from the Bukhari collection [13] are referred to by the key
(Ba:b:c), referring to Bukhari, Volume ‘a’, Book ‘b’, Hadith
‘c’. Hadiths from the Muslim collection [14] (named after the
man who compiled them, rather than the religion) are denoted
(Ma:b), referring to Muslim, Book ‘a’, Hadith ‘b’.

2.1.2. A few key features of the Quran

The detailed contents of the Quran are not the subject of this
chapter. However, a few of its features need to be mentioned.
The most basic is its purpose. At the very start of Sura 2, the
Quran tells us:

“That is the Book, wherein is no doubt, a guidance to

the Godfearing ”

So the Quran is a book of guidance and the ‘Godfearing’ are

Muslims (and Muslims only). What were God’s intentions in
revealing the Quran? The following quotation is from [10], a
manual of Islamic law available in an English translation. In
Section o8.0, which deals with renouncing Islam, a number of
acts which entail apostasy are listed. One of them is:

“To deny that Allah intended the Prophet’s

message….to be the religion followed by the entire
world.”

which is self-explanatory. An important point for all non-

Muslims to appreciate is that the Quran is intrinsically an
Arabic text. The basis for this view is (Q12:2):
“We have sent it down as an Arabic Quran; haply you
will understand.”

8
God’s word, therefore, is in Arabic and Arabic only. Any
attempt to render the text in another language is not simply an
act of translation, but potentially one of alteration. Therefore,
translations are regarded with caution within Islam; a translated
Quran is considered not to be a true Quran, but more like an
interpretation or commentary.

Although it is less widely known, it is also believed that the

Quran was originally revealed in seven different forms. The
source of this belief is contained in the Hadiths. (B3:41:601)
reports:
Narrated Umar: “I heard Hisham bin Hakim bin Hizam
reciting Surat-al-Furqan [one of the chapters of the
Quran] in a way different to that of mine… Allah’s
Apostle [i.e. Muhammad] said…. ‘The Qur’an has been
revealed in seven different ways, so recite it in the way
that is easier for you’.”

One final significant aspect of the Quran is the question of the

dependence of its rulings upon the context in which they first
appeared. The situation is described by Mohamed Elmasry,
national president of the Canadian Islamic Congress [15]:

“For the last 1400 years, Muslims and their religious

scholars have dealt – and are still dealing – with the
important question of how much of the Quran is
binding on Muslims at all times and how much of its
teachings apply only to the age of the Prophet
Muhammad and the particular circumstances in which
he and his followers lived. This is a continually difficult
question, but one on which impressive scholarly work
has been done; more yet is needed.”

9
2.2. Discussion
According to Islam then, the almighty God intended that His
religion, specified in the Quran and elaborated upon in the
Hadiths, should be the one followed by the entire world. One
might therefore expect that His plan for revealing and
spreading Islam to the world would exhibit evidence of having
been conceived and executed by an intellect far superior to our
own. Let us consider the evidence and see if this is so. If it is
not, we may tend to favour the competing explanation: that
Muhammad was one of countless individuals, past and present,
who heard ‘voices’ and that the Quran was, therefore, entirely a
product of his own mind.

2.2.1. The use of prophets

For those brought up with Christian, Jewish or Islamic beliefs,
the concept of prophethood may seem so familiar as to be
barely worthy of comment. Yet, as a means for an almighty
being to channel His communications to humanity, it seems to
be rather an odd choice, given that He must surely have the
power to broadcast His message simultaneously to all the
world’s peoples, if He so wished.

In addition to being extremely slow and inefficient, the use of

prophets suffers from the drawback that each prophet has to
establish his own credibility. In ancient times, as now, there
was no way, even with the best will in the world, for a person
to distinguish reliably between a real prophet and a false one.
So the question is: why would God risk the rejection of His
words by choosing a method of revelation which lacks
credibility because it is so obviously open to fakery and self-
delusion?

10
As described more fully in Chapter 3, Muhammad’s early
attempts to spread the word to his fellow Meccans is a case in
point, with the experience being a slow, frustrating and
sometimes dangerous one. As a result of the general scepticism
and hostility, early conversions to Islam happened slowly. It is
estimated in [16] that, 13 years after he had started,
Muhammad’s converts numbered only around 100. His lack of
success and the persecution of the early Muslims caused him
and his followers to migrate to Medina, some 200 miles to the
north, after which his fortunes improved markedly. The simple
fact is that most of Muhammad’s compatriots, when given the
free choice (an arrangement which was not to last), did not
believe him. This difficulty in getting the Message across
continues to the present day.

That God was aware of the credibility problem is beyond

doubt, since the Quran describes how previous prophets were
challenged, mocked, taunted, accused of being frauds and
sometimes attacked. Tellingly, the Quran also abounds (see
Chapter 3) in both defensive self-reference (e.g. Q41:44) and in
tirades against the unreasonable stubbornness of unbelievers
(e.g. Q15:14,15). Remarkably, God was not content with this
state of affairs and contrived to make things even more
difficult. In (Q31:25), the Quran tells us that

“Even so We have appointed to every Prophet an

enemy among the sinners; but your Lord suffices as a
guide and as a helper.”

The reference to other prophets is significant. The Quran

maintains that, prior to its appearance, ‘every nation’ was sent
a prophet (Q16:36), with the total number being estimated by

11
later commentators as anything up to 200,000 ([11], p239). The
perplexing use of designated ‘enemies’ to hinder the efforts of
the prophets indicates quite unambiguously a process whereby
God is enacting His master plan with one hand while
undermining it with the other and may explain the almost
complete fruitlessness of His previous efforts. Even accepting
this hindrance, one cannot help wondering how, given this
saturation coverage of the Earth’s peoples, God’s word failed
to survive past the Iron Age except within one tribe: the Jews.
Even in their case, according to Islam, the scriptures were
corrupted.

That this ‘prehistory’ is believed to have occurred is an

underappreciated feature of Islam. Under normal
circumstances, i.e. if the actions were being attributed to a
human cause, a record of one partial success in couple of
hundred thousand attempts would result in the person
responsible being demoted, dismissed or executed, depending
upon whom he answered to. However, in the case of a plan
attributed to God, no such conclusions can be countenanced.
The apparent failure has to be represented as a success or,
alternatively, blamed on someone else. The ‘someone else’ is
non-Muslim humanity; the ones who failed to take heed of the
prophets and (in the case of the Jews) corrupted the Scriptures.
However, Islam also claims that God causes and foresees
everything and had therefore deliberately caused the previous
difficulties. This contradiction leads directly to the perplexing
Islamic stance on free will which holds that, God’s complete
control notwithstanding, humans are to be punished (in the
afterlife) if they fail to follow the straight path provided by
Islam. This is discussed further in Chapter 7.

12
2.2.2. The creation of the Quran
The story of the revelation of the Quran is as puzzling as the
story of the earlier prophets. Despite the latter’s almost total
failure, God again selected the same method of transmission.
Furthermore, although God’s message was supposedly
intended for all peoples and for all time (‘the religion followed
by the entire world’), Islam maintains that God has expressed it
only in Arabic; this being then, as now, a minority language in
world terms.

Then, there is the problem of the seven versions. There are

enough Hadiths on this subject to make this conclusion
unavoidable for Muslims yet, oddly, not nearly enough to
reflect its significance. If the story is true, Muhammad would
have had to have spoken all seven each time a passage was
revealed yet, in the Hadith quoted above, Umar (the same
Umar whose daughter Hafsa became one of Muhammad’s
wives) was unaware that alternatives even existed.

In the absence of any evidence as to what the seven forms of

the Quran might have been, Muslim scholars have, for
centuries, tried to square the circle of there being seven forms
originally, yet only one now, without any alteration having
taken place. There is, unfortunately, no wiggle room here since
the Quran predicts its own uncorrupted and complete
preservation (Q15:9), so any loss or alteration cannot be
acknowledged. There is no support for the contrived
‘explanation’ that these seven forms were merely different
Arab dialects [1] and the idea that God would create seven
separate versions in order to indulge the inhabitants of the
Arabian peninsula, yet ignore the major languages of the rest of
the world, is surely too implausible, even for an account for

13
which suspension of one’s critical faculties is a prerequisite.
Muhammad’s revelation concerning the existence of seven
versions must surely strike the uncommitted reader as his
attempt to finesse himself out of the consequences of previous
occasions when he had failed to recall correctly the exact
wording of a verse.

The case of the seven versions is not the only occasion where
what appears to be a simple human failing is given a divine
gloss. (Q2:106) refers to verses which God supposedly had
‘cast into oblivion’; caused Muhammad to forget, in other
words. The same verse describes the process whereby
delivered verses were supposedly abrogated, or superseded, by
later ones; a strange procedure for a text which had supposedly
existed in Heaven since the beginning of time and a problem
for subsequent generations since the original chronology was
lost. (Q22:52) relates an occasion where verses had to be
retracted because ‘Satan’ had deviously slipped them into
Muhammad’s mind and (Q3:7) refers to verses which are
‘allegorical’: incomprehensible, as far as the reader is
concerned. These are discussed in more detail in Chapter 3.

2.2.3. The years following Muhammad’s death

Muhammad was a mortal man and, in 632, he died as the result
of the rapid worsening of an illness. Upon his death, the Quran
was left in a somewhat disorganised state. Verses existed in
people’s memories, in incomplete and differing compilations
and on various unusual media, such as the shoulderblades of
sheep [1]. Von Denffer asks us, with almost desperate
optimism, “What arrangement could have been better…?” ([1],
p33). The answer is, of course: a collected, approved copy of
the kind produced later by Uthman, whose decisive though

14
dictatorial action was responsible for the preservation of the
Quran from 655 to the present day. Von Denffer also tries to
maintain that the retrieval of these fragments during the initial
compilation under Abu Bakr was a simple matter of visiting
Muhammad’s old house, collecting the fragments and
parcelling them up with string. The comment of Zaid Ibn
Thabit (B6:60:201), to whom the task fell:

“By Allah, if he (Abu Bakr) had ordered me to shift one

of the mountains (from its place) it would not have been
harder for me than what he had ordered me concerning
the collection of the Quran.”

suggests otherwise.

For Muslims, the dogma of an unchanged Quran clashes

uncomfortably with the fact that their own literature records
that different versions of the Quran were in circulation after
Muhammad’s death. One only has to contemplate the gravity
of Uthman’s decision to burn copies which had existed since
Muhammad was alive to appreciate that the differences must
have been significant. Moreover, parts of the Quran were
evidently lost forever, as described in some detail by Gilchrist
[11], who cites examples recorded within early Islamic
literature. The most unambiguous statement to this effect
comes again from Umar (B8:82:816):

“I am afraid that after a long time has passed, people

may say, ‘We do not find the Verses of the Rajam
(stoning to death) in the Holy Book’ and consequently
they may go astray by leaving an obligation that Allah
has revealed”

15
Umar’s concerns were well-founded, because the stoning verse
is, indeed, no longer there. This infamous Islamic punishment
for adultery nevertheless remains in force because of evidence
in the Hadiths that it was sanctioned (and personally carried
out) by Muhammad himself. There is no way to reconcile the
information in the early Islamic reports with the dogma of an
unchanged Quran except with a level of wishful thinking which
only the preconvinced can achieve.

2.2.4. Context
Attempts by Westerners to quote the Quran back at Muslims
are often met with the response that the non-Muslim has failed
to take into account the context of the original ‘revelation’ and
has therefore misinterpreted the text. The passage by Elmasry
[15], quoted above, largely gives the game away: Muslims are
also bemused and have failed to resolve the problem even to
their own satisfaction in nearly one and a half millennia of
‘impressive scholarly work’.

As with the case of the previous prophets, the implications of

the above are profound, but hardly ever aired. The difficulties
that Elmasry describes imply that God jumbled together
commands designed to cover temporary circumstances with
those of a more general application and gave no indication how
to tell the two apart, resulting in confusion which has lasted for
over 1350 years. Moreover, no amount of impressive scholarly
work can resolve this problem, since no further information
will ever become available.

There is no more stark example of the problems that the above

gives rise to than the controversy surrounding the notorious
passage known as the ‘Sword Verse’ (Q9:5): “..slay the

16
idolaters wherever you find them”. Unfortunately, ‘God’ fails
to make clear whether this applies for all time, or not, with the
result that some Muslims believe one thing and the rest, the
other. The verse which, almost single-handedly, defines the
relationship between Islam and the rest of the world, is
ambiguous.

2.2.5. Conversion of the unbelievers

An obvious necessary step in the adoption of Islam by the
entire world is that unbelievers should convert into Muslims
and it is reasonable to enquire as to how this conversion was
supposed to have been achieved. Many features of the Quran
itself and of its emergence seemed designed to promote doubt
and to discourage free, rational conversion and, as far as can be
determined, the overwhelming majority of Muhammad’s
fellow Arabs behaved exactly as anyone would behave today if
confronted by someone claiming to be a prophet (Chapter 3).
They did not convert en masse until Muhammad had gained a
good deal of entirely non-spiritual power.

The obstacles to informed rational conversion for the

remainder of the world’s peoples are even more severe. The
Quran is in Arabic; most people do not speak Arabic. The
message has to be spread throughout the earth, so the Quran
has to be translated. However, the Quran cannot be translated
and remain the Quran. For this to be resolved according to
God’s intentions, it would appear that everyone on earth needs
to learn Arabic and, in order for the contents of the Quran to be
appreciated fully, it should preferably be learned as a first
language. However, even in parts of the world which have been
Muslim for some considerable time (e.g. Turkey, Indonesia,
Pakistan and Iran), this has not taken place. This leads to the

17
strange situation of the supposed words of God being repeated
reverentially by non Arabic-speaking Muslims, even though
they have no clue what they are saying. Was this God’s
intention?

So what, exactly, was God’s plan for conversion of the

unbelievers? We may not have been told the details but,
presumably, what took place over the next 1350 years was its
realisation. But it seems scarcely credible that, with all the
means at His disposal, God selected, as his method of mass
communication, jihad – military conquest by the Arabs and
their converts. Yet that is largely how Islam has been
propagated. And despite its initial brutal success, God’s
method for spreading Islam has been somewhat ineffective
ever since the Arab/Muslim war machine ground to a halt
several centuries ago. After nearly 50 generations, most of the
unconquered world remains unconvinced by Islam’s message.
How much simpler and more successful it could have been;
how much bloodshed could have been avoided, if a more
elegant method of transmission had been selected.

2.3. The secret of my successor

The introduction to this chapter described the roles that the first
three Islamic Caliphs, Abu Bakr, Umar ibn al-Khattab and
Uthman ibn Affan played in the production of a standardised
Quran. However, the confusion arising from Muhammad’s
failure to perform this task himself was minor compared with
the shambles which occurred during the power vacuum which
followed his death, for his most significant oversight was his
failure to specify adequately the process by which his
successors should be chosen.

18
The following is only the briefest of summaries of the turmoil
which took place in the next few decades. Upon Muhammad’s
death, a cabal which included Umar appointed Abu Bakr, in
opposition to a rival grouping who supported Muhammad’s
cousin Ali ibn Abi Talib, thereby immediately causing a
schism which grew into the division between Sunni and Shia
versions of Islam. The cause of the split was the proto-Shia
belief that Muhammad had given his blessing to Ali in a public
statement of support, with the essence of the dispute hinging on
the meaning of a single word. Such is a typical consequence of
a religious movement wedded to literalism and a founder who
had a propensity for ambiguity.

Abu Bakr lived for only another two years and spent most of
his time as Caliph putting down the rebellion of a number of
tribes who tried to leave the Muslim fold. On his deathbed in
634, Abu Bakr returned the favour to Umar, strongly
recommending him as the next Caliph, again to the
considerable annoyance of the Ali supporters. Umar’s reign
saw a huge expansion in the Islamic empire until, in 644, Umar
was stabbed to death by a captured, enslaved and humiliated
Persian. Uthman was selected as the next Caliph by an
appointed committee.

The Islamic empire continued to grow under Uthman, but so

did the opposition to his rule, partly from religious and partly
from economic motives. In 656, riots broke out in Medina and
Uthman was assassinated by a grouping which included one of
Abu Bakr’s sons. Finally, Ali, who had been involved in the
opposition to Uthman, was appointed Caliph.

19
At this point, things began to turn really unpleasant. A small
group of dissidents, including a cousin of Abu Bakr and
Muhammad’s widow Aisha raised an army to overthrow Ali.
Ali was victorious, but faced another problem when Muawiya
ibn Abi-Sufyan, the Governor of Syria and a relative of
Uthman’s, demanded that the murderers of Uthman be brought
to justice. This Ali refused to do and a further conflict began.

After a battle between the two factions resulted in stalemate,

Ali agreed to put the matter to arbitration under Islamic law,
with a neutral adjudicator. Not only did Ali lose the judgement,
and then fail to accept it, but his agreement to the arbitration
procedure in the first place was seen by some of his own side
as a violation of Islamic law. Eventually, it was a member of
this zealous sub-faction, later named the Kharijites, who
assassinated Ali in a mosque. Muawiya became the next Caliph
and at this point, this brief summary ends.

The first four Caliphs: Abu Bakr, Umar, Uthman and Ali are
revered in Sunni Islam as the ‘Rightly Guided Caliphs’, so
called because of their supposed devotion to true Islam.
However, of these four Caliphs, three were murdered; two by
other Muslims and their reigns saw internecine fighting and the
acrimonious and permanent split of Islam into Sunni and Shia,
with this being caused predominantly by Muhammad’s
vagueness when he spoke in support of Ali. So, how is this to
be explained in Islamic terms, if no errors can be admitted in
either God’s plan or in Muhammad’s execution of it? Even if
this criticism of Muhammad’s political judgement is thought to
be a little harsh, it is surely an unavoidable conclusion that God
must then have failed to realise that a section of the Muslim
community had interpreted Muhammad’s statement concerning

20
Ali in an unintended and potentially calamitous way. If this
seems like an uncharacteristic oversight for an all-knowing
being, then an alternative conclusion is available, as set out
below.

2.4. Conclusions
Anyone considering the above must surely find it a challenge
to discern any evidence of divine planning in the haphazard
and, at times, chaotic sequence of events leading to the creation
and compilation of the Quran that we see today. Furthermore,
when judged against the supposed divine goal of the adoption
of Islam by the entire world, many features of the process: the
futile efforts of the (alleged) previous prophets, the confusing,
Arabic-only message, the failure of Muhammad to provide a
written, approved copy, the absence of any effective strategy
for the rational conversion of the unconvinced and the post-
Muhammad infighting, are simply inexplicable. The alternative
explanation; that the Quran was composed piecemeal,
consciously or unconsciously, by Muhammad alone, fits the
story perfectly.

21
 Chapter 3
Working the Audience
3.1. Introduction
It is a strange quirk of Western culture that the credibility of a
religion is determined more by the its age and size than by the
plausibility of its claims. It is therefore a useful exercise to set
aside the baggage of a religion’s history and to imagine how
things must have been at its very beginning or, alternatively, to
imagine what would happen if its founder had waited until the
present day before appearing on the streets a modern town. By
this means it is easier to judge whether one would have been
among the convinced or the unimpressed.
It is strange to contemplate but, for a short while, Islam
consisted of just one man. Even after Muhammad had gathered
his first few recruits, Islam remained, for more than a decade,
indistinguishable by its nature or its size from any other of the
thousands, more likely tens of thousands of cults which have
existed over the course of history (see Chapter 8 for examples).
In fact, as mentioned briefly in Chapter 2, the first 13 years of
Muhammad’s mission in his native Mecca were so ineffective
that, during this period, he accumulated only about 100
converts [16]: an average recruitment rate of less than one
every six weeks. Those who believe that the Quran is so
miraculously eloquent that its audience immediately recognise
its divine authorship (Chapter 5) should bear this in mind.
When one considers being confronted by someone who claims
to be receiving ‘messages’: from God, the spirit world, aliens
or whatever, it is not difficult to see why the Meccans were as

22
difficult to win over as people would be today. There was
nothing initially to distinguish Muhammad from a run-of-the-
mill street soothsayer and, in addition, the verses which
Muhammad revealed, claiming that they were words of God,
seemed to place disproportionate emphasis upon events which
affected Muhammad personally and spent a suspiciously large
amount of time in defensive self-justification. If his claims, as a
result of their intrinsic implausibility, were difficult to accept
then, why should anyone believe them now?
The verses of the Quran, alternately influenced by criticism and
by setbacks in Muhammad’s mission on one hand, and by his
growing power and increasing hold over his followers on the
other, betray their human origins. The following presents a
selection of examples presented in the approximate order in
which they took place. The order follows the chronological
sequence proposed by Soyuti, as summarised in [11]. The
actual order of suras is uncertain (compare Soyuti’s sequence
with those of Noldeke and Muir in [11]) and some suras
contain verses from different times, so the true story can never
be known, but this approach does provide an indication of the
ad hoc, ephemeral and parochial nature of at least some of the
Quran’s pronouncements. The Soyuti sequence number of each
sura quoted is shown in braces, e.g. {22}.

3.2. Early responses to the hecklers

Muhammad’s resemblance to a street soothsayer was more
than just superficial, for the style of the early Quran resembled
a type of rhyming or assonant prose known by the Arabic term
saj, which soothsayers of the time tended to favour ([18], p65-
66) and was as clear a sign of the Quran’s true origin being
from within Arab culture as one could wish to find. When this

23
was pointed out at the time, the Quran responded (Q69:40-42)
{16}:
“It is the speech of a noble Messenger. It is not the
speech of a poet (little do you believe) nor the speech of
a soothsayer (little do you remember).”
Although these verses are regarded by Muslims as
‘confirmation’ of God’s authorship, such responses in fact
consist of nothing more than Muhammad making the same
claim twice: the first time as himself, the second time as ‘The
Quran’. Having been fobbed off with this retort, the doubters
would, quite reasonably, have then enquired as to why
Muhammad had been selected for such an exalted role.
However, when they asked ’Why was this Quran not sent down
upon some man of importance in the two cities [i.e. Mecca and
the nearby town of Taif]?’ (Q43:31) they were told by
(Q43:32) {19} that it was none of their business to question
God’s methods. Enquiries as to why the Quran was in Arabic
(rather than, say, Hebrew, Latin or Persian) were headed off
with the response (Q41:44) {25}: “Had We [i.e. God] sent this
as a Quran (in the language) other than Arabic, they would
have said: …What! (a Book) not in Arabic and (a Messenger)
an Arab?”. If the obvious next question: “So why did God
choose an Arab?” was ever asked, neither it nor its response
were recorded in the Quran.
Muhammad also faced incredulity within his own family. His
uncle, Abu Lahab, and his aunt categorically rejected
Muhammad’s claims and the relationship between them soured
to such an extent that Abu Lahab and his wife became the
subject of a short, ill-tempered sura (Q111) {48}:
“Perish the hands of Abu Lahab, and perish he!
His wealth avails him not, neither what he has earned;

24
 he shall roast at a flaming fire
and his wife, the carrier of the firewood,
upon her neck a rope of palm-fibre.”
Those at the time must have wondered why an almighty God
would bother to comment upon a personal squabble, why He
would issue what is, in effect, a curse when He had the power
to put the curse into effect and why He should be annoyed at a
situation which He (according to Islam) had deliberately
created. For those of us in the present day, who are aware of
Islam’s developed claim that the Quran is intended for all
peoples and for all time, the inclusion of a spiteful sura about a
7th century Arab of no historical or theological significance
seems all the more remarkable.
The criticism evidently continued. The Quran professes itself
to be ‘clear’: easy to understand and is held to be so by
Muslims. Nevertheless, it is evident that parts of it are
incomprehensible, and were even for Muhammad’s Arab
contemporaries. (Q3:7) {73} conceded as much:
“It is He who sent down upon you the Book, wherein
are verses clear that are the Essence of the Book, and
others ambiguous.”
but decided to go on the attack, suggesting that those who drew
attention to the ‘ambiguous’ verses were just troublemakers:
“As for those in whose hearts is swerving, they follow
the ambiguous part, desiring dissension…”
while explaining that
“..none knows its interpretation, save only God”
And the Quran returns to the subject of its own dubious
credibility time after time after time. Often, it seems to be the

25
hecklers, rather than God, who are driving the content and
forcing Muhammad to issue retorts from ‘God’ in order,
presumably, to convince his followers that he and God had
everything under control. The next passage turned out to be
worth its weight in gold (Q4:82) {74}:
“What, do they not ponder the Quran? If it had been
from other than God surely they would have found in it
much inconsistency.”
The passage establishes for Muslims the characteristic of
‘containing no (or ‘not much’?) inconsistency’ as both a
property of the Quran and as a criterion for its divine
authorship, thereby telling future Muslims what to think and
how to think it. Both positions are, of course, untenable: the
Quran does contain inconsistencies (see Section 4.6) and
consistency is, in any case, hardly so miraculous that only God
can achieve it.
Accusations that Muhammad was simply a fraud or that he was
bewitched or was being coached in Judaism (which Islam often
resembles) are referred to in the text a score of times, as are his
conspicuous failures to provide a miracle to prove he was truly
a prophet. Muhammad is reported in the Quran as being
accused, unjustly of course, of being ‘bedevilled’ and a ‘lying
sorcerer’ and the Quran ‘fairy-tales of the ancients’ and ‘a
hotchpotch of nightmares’. How can a divinely-authored book
be so preoccupied with papering over the cracks of its own lack
of credibility?

3.2.1. The problem of the existence of unbelievers

There must have come a time when Muhammad’s manifest

lack of progress itself became a cause for comment for, since

26
Islamic dogma insists that all things happen only because God
wills them to happen (Chapter 7), why should unbelievers exist
at all? This caused Muhammad to introduce ‘explanations’ as
to why this should be so. One of these: that God had arranged
‘enemies’ for each of the prophets, was discussed in Chapter 2.
Another is the notion that God has ‘set a seal’ on the hearts of
certain individuals (Q2.7) {68}, either as the cause of, or as
punishment for, their initial doubt. Either way, the ‘seal’
ensured that they would continue to fail to recognise God’s
word.

It is worth again considering the problem from the point of

view of the contemporary Meccans. They had not had
satisfactory answers to their questions concerning the Quran’s
and Muhammad’s authenticity and they had listened to
Muhammad’s use of the form of speech favoured by street
soothsayers. Insufficient time had elapsed for the claimed
‘proofs’ (Chapter 1) of the Quran’s divine origin to come into
effect and they had been told (see Chapter 5) that no miracles
were to be forthcoming in order to prove that what Muhammad
was saying was true. They had seen the Quran described as
‘clear’ yet also be admitted (Q3:7) to be in part
incomprehensible; verses had been superseded, withdrawn and
even forgotten (Section 3.3). Surely even present-day Muslims
must concede that, even if the Meccans’ decision to reject
Muhammad turned out to be mistaken in the long term, it was
the only sensible decision based on the information they had so
far been provided with.

Furthermore, those whom Muhammad had failed to convince

were not given the credit for having a legitimate point of view;
non-Muslims were kafirs, normally translated as ‘unbelievers’

27
(or sometimes ‘infidels’), but implying those who recognise the
truth of Islam but cover it up. (Q2:109) states:

“Many of the People of the Book [i.e. Christians and Jews]

wish they might restore you as unbelievers, after you have
believed, in the jealousy of their souls, after the truth has
become clear to them.”

and the early biography of Muhammad by Ibn Ishaq [12]

asserts that

“...the Jewish rabbis showed hostility to the apostle in

envy, hatred and malice because God had chosen his
Apostle from the Arabs”.

In fact, the Quran is preoccupied, if not obsessed, with those

who do not accept that it is the word of God. The word
‘unbeliever’, or one of its various synonyms, occurs some 430
times in the Arberry translation, with many occasions being
accompanied by some insulting remark or threat of eternal
damnation. Unfortunately, this view of non-Muslims is set in
stone in Islam and is held today as firmly and literally as it was
1350 years ago. Some 700 years after Muhammad, Ibn Kathir
wrote ([8], in discussing (Q2:106)):

“Allah described the deep enmity that the disbelieving

polytheists and People of the Scripture, whom Allah
warned against imitating, have against the believers, so
that Muslims should sever all friendship with them.”

And in 1961, the writer and traveller Frithjof Schuon observed

[19]:

28
 “That anyone should be able to oppose Islam with a
good conscience quite exceeds the Muslim's
imagination”.

Therefore, one of the problems in writing a response such as

this book is that Islamic theology already provides the pretext
for dismissing it without a moment’s thought.

3.3. Abrogation
The intrinsic implausibility of Muhammad’s claims was
worsened when, early on, the Quran began to contradict itself.
Verses 73:1 to 73:4 require Muslims to pray for almost half of
the night {23}:
“O you enwrapped in your robes,
keep vigil the night, except a little
(a half of it, or diminish a little,
or add a little), and chant the Quran very distinctly”
One can imagine that this proved rather difficult, so ‘God’
(who had, seemingly, failed to anticipate the problems) reduced
the burden somewhat (Q73:20):

“…recite of the Quran so much as is feasible.”

It is fairly well known that alcohol is forbidden in Islam. This

is confirmed in Verse 5:93 {111}:
“O believers, wine and arrow-shuffling, idols and
divining-arrows are an abomination, some of Satan’s
work; so avoid it; haply So you will prosper. ”
What, then, do we make of Verse 4:43 {74}, which indicates a
toleration of alcohol (at least outside the mosque)?

29
 “O believers, draw not near to prayer when you are
drunken until you know what you are saying”

This brings us to one of the stranger features of Islamic

theology, which holds that, although the Quran is timeless,
self-consistent and perfect, some of the later verses
nevertheless abrogate (i.e. supersede) earlier ones. According
to (Q2:106) {68}:
“And for whatever verse We abrogate or cast into
oblivion, We bring a better or the like of it; do you not
know that God is powerful over everything?”
As before, it is evident that the local sceptics jumped on this.
The Quran responded with what amounts to little more than a
playground insult {107}:

(Q16:101)“And when We exchange a verse in the place

of another verse and God knows very well what He is
sending down – they say, ‘You are a mere forger!’ Nay,
but the most of them have no knowledge.”

In practical terms, the principle of abrogation is difficult even

for Muslims because, since the original chronology of the
verses was not preserved (see above), it was not always
obvious which of the competing verses was the later one. A
further problem arises because there is no general agreement as
to whether candidate verses disagree or not. Different schools
of thought have been unable to agree upon whether Quran
verses can be abrogated by later rules in the Hadiths and the
total number of identified abrogations has varied from several
hundred, to as few as five [20]. And all this in a book which
declares itself (Q3:7) to be ‘clear’ in a religion it describes

30
(Q5:3) as ‘perfect’.
The change of rules concerning alcohol is explained away
within Islam by the argument that giving up alcohol was
sufficiently difficult that a staged approach was necessary. This
is a plausible argument, though it does not take account of the
fact that, after Verse 5:93 had been revealed, anyone wishing
(or having) to convert to Islam would have to go cold turkey.
However, the argument that God was breaking people in gently
does not explain the instances where the changes in the
Quran’s laws go in the opposite direction.
The Quran originally had high expectations of a Muslim’s
ability in battle (Q8:65):
“…if there be a hundred of you, they will overcome a
thousand unbelievers, for they are a people who
understand not.”
but had to moderate these expectations later (nowadays Q8:66,
the very next verse):

“Now God has lightened it for you, knowing that there

is weakness in you. If there be a hundred of you, patient
men, they will overcome two hundred”

Whereas the argument of gradually raising the bar has some

plausibility, the idea that God should reduce his expectations
has none. Islam is quite explicit in its belief that God knows
exactly what will happen in the future (Chapter 7). How is it,
then, that He does not foresee that a man who prays half the
night will be too sleepy to be of any use the next day, or that
one man cannot be expected to defeat ten enemies?

31
And there is more. Verse 2:106 {68} above mentions verses
which have not just been replaced, but have been ‘cast into
oblivion’: forgotten, in other words. It is entirely possible that
Muhammad could have forgotten verses occasionally; the
Hadith mentioned in Section 2.1.2 suggests that he made
mistakes in recalling the exact wording and had to invent a
cover story that the Quran had been revealed in seven different
forms. The following (M4:1720) is even more explicit:

“Aisha reported that the Apostle of Allah … heard a

person reciting the Quran at night. Upon this he said:
‘May Allah show mercy to him; he has reminded me of
such and such a verse which I had missed in such and
such a sura’.”

However, simply forgetting a verse was not acceptable: the

disappearance had to be attributed to God. The early Quran
confirmed this idea:
(Q87:6,7) {8}: “We shall make thee recite, to forget not
save what God wills”
The following Hadith, though not necessarily applying to
Muhammad himself, indicates that the idea had already
occurred to him:

(M4:1726) “Ibn Mas’ud reported Allah’s

Messenger…..as saying:’ Wretched is the man who
says: I forgot such and such a sura, or I forget such and
such a verse, but he has been made to forget’.”

The implication is unambiguous: Muhammad had forgotten

verses. According to Islam, God had therefore revealed verses

32
which had been written down since the creation and then
arranged to have the verse forgotten almost immediately.
Again, one can only imagine the scorn which must have been
heaped upon Muhammad when the sceptical Islam-watchers of
Mecca heard of his ‘explanation’ for his poor memory.

3.3.1. A complete U-turn

The direction that Muslims face to pray is known as the Qibla.
It is well known that the Qibla is in the direction of Mecca.
What is less well known, at least in the non-Muslim world, is
that, for a while, it was towards Jerusalem. The Qibla remained
in the direction of Jerusalem for about eighteen months after
the migration to Medina until, suddenly, Muhammad
announced that God had changed the rules. Instead of facing
north towards Jerusalem, they should face south, towards
Mecca. And so it has remained ever since.

As with the other sudden changes of policy, it fell to

Muhammad to fend off scepticism and ridicule from the
unconvinced. First, there was the tried and trusted implied
insult:

(Q2:142) {68} “The fools among the people will say,

‘What has turned them from the direction they were
facing in their prayers aforetime?’”

Then, the ‘explanation’:

(Q2:143) {68} “…We did not appoint the direction you

were facing, except that We might know who followed
the Messenger from him who turned on his heels…”

33
which indicates that God specified the previous Qibla as some
kind of test of sincerity. The argument that, in the early days,
when recruitment was extremely difficult, an unpopular and
unfamiliar prayer direction was necessary to winnow out
unworthy individuals is difficult to support in the light of the
claim that God requires everyone to convert. In addition, why
should God set up a test, when He knows its outcome?

Untypically for a book supposedly in existence for all earthly

time, the Quran seems to imply that the change to Mecca was
initiated in response to the wishes of Muhammad:

(Q2:144) “We have seen you turning your face about in

the heaven [i.e. in hope that God would change the
Qibla]; now We will surely turn you to a direction that
shall satisfy you.”

A more plausible explanation is given in [16]. Muhammad had

tried to enlist the support of the Jewish tribes in Medina, but
had been unsuccessful and had, in the meantime, recruited a
significant amount of Arab support. The change of Qibla
signified a break with the Jews and Arabisation of Islam. As
Dashti says: “For the Jews this decision was an alarm signal”
([16], p88). It was indeed.

3.3.2. Overhead cranes

The following verse, (Q22:52) {53} was supposedly addressed
to Muhammad:

“We sent not ever any Messenger or Prophet before

you, but that Satan cast into his recitation, when he was
reciting; but God annuls what Satan casts, then God

34
 confirms His signs”

This verse refers a passage which was reportedly removed

from the Quran: the passage of the ‘cranes’, otherwise known
by a phrase which has become a byword for Islamic
intolerance: ‘The Satanic Verses’.

The story goes as follows. While still in Mecca, Muhammad

had become estranged from his own tribe, the Quraysh, who
still worshipped the pagan goddesses al-Lat, al-Uzza and
Manat. Muhammad was anxious for a reconciliation. The early
biography by Ibn Ishaq takes up the story ([12], p165):

“.. it would delight him if the obstacle that made his

task so difficult could be removed; so that he meditated
on the project and longed for it and it was dear to him.
Then God sent down ‘By the star when it sets your
comrade errs not and is not deceived; he speaks not
from his own desire’ [i.e. the start of Sura 53] and when
he reached his words [(Q53:19,20) {15}] ‘Have you
thought of al-Lat and al-Uzza and Manat, the third, the
other?’, Satan, when he was meditating upon it and
desiring to bring reconciliation to his people, put upon
his tongue ‘these are the exalted cranes, whose
intercession is approved’.”

The acknowledgement of the existence of the goddesses and

particularly their description as ‘exalted cranes’, this being a
reference to the soaring, graceful birds and a great compliment,
was a fundamental U-turn from the strict monotheism of Islam
and was a popular concession with the Quraysh. According to
Islamic tradition however, Gabriel visited Muhammad (though
not, it seems, immediately) and told him that the ‘cranes’ line

35
was not from God, but an insertion by Satan. The verse
praising the goddesses was annulled and replaced by (Q53:23):
“They are naught but names yourselves have named,
and your fathers; God has sent down no authority
touching them.”
which re-established the orthodox Islamic teaching. As a
comfort to Muhammad, God then revealed (Q22:52), quoted
above, to set things straight.
Is this story true? Did Muhammad speak the ‘cranes’ verse,
then withdraw it later? Despite the fact that the story was part
of standard Islamic tradition for centuries, it appears nowadays
to have become an embarrassment to some and efforts seem to
be underway to discredit it. Certainly, the story seems to imply
that God had been outmanoeuvred by Satan but, from an
outsider’s viewpoint, the traditional account of the story does
not seem any more implausible than the Muslim version of the
origin of Islam, so it is not entirely clear why Muslims are
uneasy about it.
However, seen from a more objective stance, the story appears
to be yet another example of Muhammad altering his teaching.
Modifications to doctrine or verses forgotten were attributed to
God; major errors committed under pressure (which must have
been considerable) were blamed on Satan. The last sentence of
(Q53:23): “God has sent down no authority touching them”
looks suspiciously like a reference to the deleted verse and,
even if the ‘cranes’ story is untrue, something along these lines
certainly happened at some time, because (Q22:52) says so.
Again: another retraction; another blow to Muhammad’s
credibility.

36
3.3.3. Sister Mary
The conversion of non-Muslims to Muslims is an original and
abiding goal of Islam. Consider now a much-criticised verse of
the Quran concerning Mary, the mother of Jesus, which states
(Q19:27-28) {113}:
“Then came she with the babe to her people, bearing
him. They said, ‘O Mary! now have you done a strange
thing!
O sister of Harun [Aaron]! Your father was not a man
of wickedness, nor unchaste your mother.’”.
The problem lies with the ‘sister of Aaron’ phrase, implying
that Muhammad had confused Mary with Maryam (Miriam),
the sister of Aaron and Moses, who had lived centuries before.
Significantly, this apparent mistake was noticed at the time, as
referred to in the following Hadith (M25:5326):
“Mughira b. Shu’ba reported: ‘When I came to Najran,
they [the Christians of Najran] asked me: You read “O
sister of Harun” in the Quran, whereas Moses was born
much before Jesus. When I came back to Allah’s
Messenger I asked him about that, whereupon he said:
“The (people of the old age) used to give names (to
their persons) after the names of Apostles and pious
persons who had gone before them.”’”
The Islamic explanation is that ‘sister’ in this instance simply
means someone of the same tribe. Even Rodwell [7], a
Christian clergyman, finds it difficult to believe that
Muhammad, with his obvious knowledge of Biblical theology,
could have made such a mistake. However, this explanation is
not convincing, Christian assent notwithstanding. One would
expect the terms ‘brother’ or ‘sister’ to be given to one’s

37
contemporaries, but not to one’s ancestors or descendents. If
Mary’s people had wanted to imply descent from Aaron, would
they not have used ‘daughter’? Furthermore, there is an earlier
verse which seems to confirm the error:
(Q66:12) {51}“And Mary, Imran’s daughter, who
guarded her virginity”
In Islam, Jesus is considered to be an entirely human prophet,
but miraculously born of a virgin. Therefore, the Mary in
(Q66:12) is definitely the mother of Jesus. Imran (Amram in
the Bible) was the father of Moses, Aaron and Miriam, so
Muhammad appears to have made the same mistake twice. The
only way out of this difficulty for Muslims is to assert, in
addition to the above special pleading concerning the
unconventional use of the term ‘sister’, that Mary’s father just
happened to have the same name as Miriam’s: an unlikely
coincidence.
Even if the above assertion is maintained, why would God utter
something which seems like an obvious howler, and which has
caused scepticism ever since it was revealed, when the problem
could just as easily have been avoided? A further related
example occurs in Muhammad’s apparent misidentification of
the components of the Christian Trinity:
(Q5:116) {111} “And when God said, ‘O Jesus son of
Mary, did you say to men, “Take me and my mother as
gods, apart from God”?’”
Again, if the purpose is to convert Christians to Islam, why
invite disbelief like this?

38
3.4. The perks of the job
3.4.1. Good times
It is commonly acknowledged, though seldom experienced
personally, that having groups of adoring followers increases
one’s opportunities for sex considerably. That Muhammad was
able to take advantage of this and still remain within the strict
constraints of Islamic law was due to a number of
dispensations which were ‘revealed’ at convenient moments.

Muslim men are allowed up to four wives. However, according

to Quran Verse 33:50 {50}, Muhammad, and only Muhammad,
was entitled to an unlimited number.

“O Prophet, We have made lawful for you your wives

whom you have given their wages and what your right
hand owns [This refers to slave girls who then, as now,
may be raped at will (Chapter 7)], spoils of war [ditto]
that God has given you, and the daughters of your
uncles paternal and aunts paternal, your uncles maternal
and aunts maternal, who have emigrated with you, and
any woman believer, if she give herself to the Prophet
and if the Prophet desire to take her in marriage, for you
exclusively…”
The implications of this were not lost on his (very) young wife
Aisha, who commented (B6:60:311):
“I said (to the Prophet), ‘I feel that your Lord hastens in
fulfilling your wishes and desires.’”
a comment which has lost none of its bite in the more than
1300 years since it was delivered.

39
When Muhammad developed a desire for his adopted son
Zaid’s comely wife Zainab, she was offered to him by her
husband. He initially refused since she was, after all, his
daughter in law. A new revelation then came his way, allowing
him to marry Zainab and chastising him lightly for previously
being so scrupulous (Q33:37-38) {50}:
“…So when Zaid had accomplished what he would of
her, then We gave her in marriage to you….There is no
fault in the Prophet, touching what God has ordained
for him”
As Goldsack [21] says:
“Can the intelligent Muslim reader believe, we ask, that
the words quoted above are indeed the words of God?
Is it not rather self-evident that the whole passage,
instead of being a revelation direct from God, was
deliberately framed and promulgated by Muhammad in
order to justify his conduct?”
The correct answers to these two questions are ‘apparently’ and
‘yes’ respectively.
In another incident, Muhammad became attracted to his
Egyptian slave-girl, Mary. This aroused the jealousy of his
wives, who scolded him and made him swear an oath to keep
his hands off her, which he failed to do. However, they were
subsequently overruled by yet another revelation accompanied,
again, by the lightest of divine slaps to the wrist (Q66:1,2)
{51}:
“O Prophet, why do you forbid what God has made
lawful to you, seeking the good pleasure of thy wives?
And God is All-forgiving, All-compassionate.
God has ordained for you the absolution of your oaths.

40
 God is your Protector, and He is the All-knowing, the
All-wise.”
and a warning to his wives not to be selfish, because (Q66:5):
“It is possible that, if he divorces you, his Lord will
give him in exchange wives better than you, women
who have surrendered, believing, obedient, penitent,
devout, given to fasting, who have been married and
virgins too.”

The whole verse bears all hallmarks of a threat by Muhammad,

and a rather spiteful one at that. In particular, the phrase “It is
possible that..” indicates an degree of uncertainty not
characteristic of an all-knowing deity.

3.4.2. Bad times

Helpful revelations also appeared at times of personal stress,
with one noteworthy occasion being when Aisha was rumoured
to have spent a night of illicit passion in the desert with another
man (B3:48:829). Shortly after the incident which gave rise to
the rumours, Aisha fell ill for several weeks and was nursed by
her mother at her parents’ house. According to Aisha’s
testimony [12], the incident in question had an entirely
innocent explanation and so Aisha, who was young and naive,
had no inkling that it would give rise to malicious gossip.

Aisha remained, during her illness, unaware of the growing

rumours which had already reached the ears of Muhammad and
it was only after she had recovered that he confronted her and
suggested that she could confess her sin to God, who would
forgive her. This, since she was innocent, she refused to do.
The difficulty was resolved when another revelation arrived.

41
The relevant verses, (Q24:11-19) {97}, which target the
rumour-mongers, are as follows:
“Those who came with the slander are a band of you;
do not reckon it evil for you; rather it is good for you.
Every man of them shall have the sin that he has earned
charged to him; and whosoever of them took upon
himself the greater part of it, him there awaits a mighty
chastisement.
Why, when you heard it, did the believing men and
women [i.e. the Muslims] not of their own account
think good thoughts, and say, 'This is a manifest
calumny'?
Why did they not bring four witnesses against it? But
since they did not bring the witnesses, in God’s sight
they are the liars.
But for God's bounty to you and His mercy in the
present world and the world to come there would have
visited you for your mutterings a mighty chastisement.
When you received it on your tongues, and were
speaking with your mouths that whereof you had no
knowledge, and reckoned it a light thing, and with God
it was a mighty thing.
And why, when you heard it, did you not say, ‘It is not
for us to speak about this; glory be to Thee! This is a
mighty calumny’?
God admonishes you, that you shall never repeat the
like of it again; if you are believers.
God makes clear to you the signs; and God is All-
knowing, All-wise.

42
 Those who love that indecency should be spread abroad
concerning them that believe -- there awaits them a
painful chastisement in the present world and the world
to come; and God knows, and you know not.”
If the author of this passage had truly been an all-knowing
deity, an obvious and effective declaration might have been
(something along the lines of) “I, God, see all, and nothing
untoward happened”, in contrast to the long-winded rant
quoted above. Strangely, the verses contain no such direct
statement of exoneration. Most say nothing more than ‘Don't
pay attention to gossip’, which may be sound advice but, given
that the creator of the universe had allegedly decided to
intervene in the matter, it is hardly the unambiguous
declaration of innocence that one might have hoped for.

And the more detail one adds to this story, the less divine the
revelations appear. Several weeks had passed since the incident
in the desert and the rumours had spread unchecked, with
Aisha out of the picture and unable to defend herself. So, when
did ‘God’ step in to sort things out? According to ([12], p497),
Aisha had just finished her tearful declaration of innocence to
her husband when:

“..the apostle had not moved from where he was sitting

when there came over him from God what used to come
over him..”

and the above verses were revealed. Yes, it was several weeks
too late and it occurred at the very moment when Muhammad
had himself become convinced of Aisha’s fidelity. Quite a
coincidence, is it not?

43
Islamic texts (e.g. [8], [12]), following the Quran, are full of
pious indignation that anyone could possibly have believed the
rumours about Aisha. Note, however, that Muhammad had
offered her the opportunity to confess: “..if you have done
wrong as men say..” ([12], p496). Furthermore, according to
Aisha:
“The story had reached the apostle and my parents, yet
they told me nothing of it though I missed the apostle’s
accustomed kindness to me. When I was ill he used to
show compassion and kindness to me, but in this illness
he did not and I missed his attentions. When he came in
to see me when my mother was nursing me, all he said
was “How is she?” so that I was pained and asked him
to let me be taken to my mother so that she could nurse
me. “Do what you like”, he said.”

So, Muhammad himself had doubted Aisha’s innocence to the

extent that he behaved coldly towards her during her illness,
leaving all subsequent claims of Muhammad’s righteousness
and the lack of moral backbone in others looking rather hollow.

Furthermore, one of the above verses (Q24:13) points out that

any accusation of adultery must be supported by four
witnesses, a principle of Islamic law stated in (Q24:4). Was
this rule simply invented for this occasion in order to help
exonerate Aisha in the eyes of his followers? If so, then it is yet
another example of enduring rules being framed on the spur of
the moment for Muhammad’s own convenience. If not: if it
had been formulated previously, there is a more serious
problem. Muhammad’s doubt, described above, implies that he
had disregarded the principle himself, almost as if he knew that
it was bogus.

44
If the rule had predated the Aisha episode, one might speculate
as to how it came to have that precise form since, as discussed
further in Chapter 7, it seems to be an adulterers’ charter. This
suggests that a man with frequent sexual opportunities might
find that such a rule meshed perfectly with his requirements.
The apparently arbitrary nature of the ‘four witnesses’
requirement may therefore not be quite so arbitrary after all.

The affair involving Aisha was not the only example of

damaging gossip that Muhammad had to contend with. After
the battle of Badr, rumours spread that Muhammad had
misappropriated some of the spoils, to be specific: a red robe.
Again, the Quran came to the rescue with (Q3:161) {73} which
confirmed that “It is not for a Prophet to be fraudulent…”. Had
the author of this revelation been an all-knowing God, he could
have assisted Muhammad’s exoneration by naming the actual
thief and revealing the hiding place of the red robe, but no such
revelations took place.

In a quite astonishing verse the Quran, God’s supposed final

message to mankind, commands people not to turn up too early
for a meal at Muhammad’s house, nor to bore him with small
talk (Q33:53) {50}:

“O believers, enter not the houses of the Prophet,

except leave is given you for a meal, without watching
for its hour. But when you are invited, then enter; and
when you have had the meal, disperse, neither lingering
for idle talk; that is hurtful to the Prophet, and he is
ashamed before you; but God is not ashamed before the
truth.”

45
Any comment would be superfluous. The passage speaks for
itself.

3.5. Concluding remarks

What else should one conclude from Muhammad’s use of the
saj verse form other than that he, a man whose cultural
traditions mandated the use of saj in street oratory, was the
originator of the verses that he spoke? To claim that God
composed the Quran raises the problem of explaining why He
should have framed His eternal pronouncements in a manner
similar to that of the 7th century Meccan crackpots. Aleem’s
statement [18]:
“By [the soothsayer’s] very nature he was bound to use
ambiguous language and saj provided him with a handy
material. Small compact sentences, sounding very
grandiose but devoid of any sense, or capable of being
interpreted in innumerable ways, form the bulk of these
sayings…”
ostensibly concerns soothsayers but, in the context of the
article, looks like a sly dig at the Quran itself. Whether uttered
by soothsayers or not, being expressed in verse surely
diminishes any serious work.

It is evident that the importance attached by the Quran to

contemporary events increases according to their proximity to
Muhammad himself and that this is another obvious clue to
who the real author was. In addition, when a book of eternal
guidance to all mankind, composed by an all-powerful all-
knowing deity, issues directives to aid someone’s love life and
to warn people off turning up early to his dinner parties, you
must surely conclude that something is not quite right. In fact,

46
as described above, the Quran contains so many obvious signs
of human authorship, and vacillating human authorship at that,
it is a wonder that Muhammad achieved any converts at all.

47
 Chapter 4
The Claim of Science in the Quran.
4.1. Introduction
In 1976, a book was published which claimed that the Quran
“..does not contain a single statement that is assailable from a
modern scientific point of view”. The book: ‘The Bible, the
Quran and Science’ [22] had been written by a French doctor,
Maurice Bucaille, who became interested in Islam after he was
appointed family physician to King Faisal of Saudi Arabia. In
the early chapters, Bucaille proclaims articulately,
enthusiastically and with apparent sincerity that the scientific
accuracy of the Quran is such that “I could not find a single
error…“ and that “…there can be no human explanation” for
its contents.

Such a claim was not new. Something similar had been

expressed in the 13th century by the Islamic scholar Al-Qurtubi
(see Chapter 1), but here was an educated Western non-Muslim
putting forward a detailed and, seemingly, carefully argued
case that, more than 700 years after Al-Qurtubi, the science in
the Quran still stood up to scrutiny. To the Islamic world,
frustrated by centuries of failure to convince the non-Muslim
world that the Quran was miraculous, the book was
enthusiastically received. It became a best seller and its
existence fuelled the growth of the ‘Science in the Quran’
movement, a movement which is supported today by the
enthusiasm of countless individuals on the internet, each
endeavouring to push the claim even further and to publicise
new ‘discoveries’ of scientific predictions in the Quran’s

48
enigmatic verses.
As summarised above, ‘The Bible, the Quran and Science’
does not make a feature of claiming that the Quran contains
new information. It mostly promotes the weaker claim that
there is no contradiction between the Quran and modern
science and so falls short of the extravagant claims of
Bucaille’s many successors. Nevertheless, it is perhaps a
surprise that such a claim can be made at all for a book nearly
1400 years old, so it is worth attempting to determine how at
least the illusion of scientific compatibility came about. This
chapter therefore presents a brief review of Bucaille’s approach
and an assessment of selected Quranic statements. It also
discusses the evidence in the book for Bucaille’s guilty secret,
of which more later.

4.2. Water
The Quran contains many statements urging people to be
grateful to (or fearful of) God for various natural phenomena.
Not surprisingly, given the desert location of Mecca and
Medina, where Islam began, the Quran emphasises the
importance of water in such verses as (Q39:21):

“Have you not seen that God sent water down from the
sky and led it through sources into the ground? Then He
caused sown fields of different colours to grow.”

and (Q50:9-11):

“We sent down from the sky blessed water whereby We

caused to grow gardens, grains for harvest, tall palm-
trees with their spathes…”

49
with further references in (Q23:18,19), (Q36:34) and (Q56:68-
70). It is evident that such verses remain true to the present day
by being expressed as straightforward qualitative observational
statements. Bucaille nevertheless contends that the work of a
mere mortal would inevitably reveal errors, but that

“In the passages from the Quran, there is no trace of the

mistaken ideas [concerning the water cycle] that were
current at the time of Muhammad”
Nevertheless, consider the following:
(Q25:53)”(God) is the One Who has let free the two
seas, one is agreeable and sweet, the other salty and
bitter. He placed a barrier between them, a partition that
it is forbidden to pass.”
(Q55:19) “He has loosed the two seas. They meet
together. Between them there is a barrier which they do
not transgress.”
The two verses, taken together, show that the ‘two seas’ refers
to bodies of fresh and of salt water. Although the first of the
verses suggests that the ‘barrier’ may refer to the land, the
second shows that this is not so: it is located where the two
seas ‘meet together’. Bucaille interprets this meeting as taking
place at the mouths of rivers, a view that is consistent with the
translations of Shakir [4], Yusufali [4] and Sarwar [6].
However, what point is being made by the verses? It is surely
noting the remarkable fact that the sea does not turn the rivers
salty, nor do the rivers turn the sea fresh.
However, there is neither a physical nor a virtual barrier. The
fresh water mixes fully with the sea and (as we now know) the
status quo is maintained only because a similar quantity

50
evaporates from the sea and falls as rain upstream. Therefore,
the statement that a barrier exists is simply incorrect and
disproves, if further disproof were needed, the notion that the
Quran was authored by an all-knowing deity. In addition,
Bucaille’s favourite get-out argument: that God adjusted his
descriptions so as to be comprehensible to 7th century Arabs, is
particularly inappropriate in this case, for there were then, as
there are now, no rivers (at least, no permanent ones) in Arabia.
Most of Muhammad’s compatriots must therefore have been
mystified by the reference to the ‘two seas’.
The lack of Arabian rivers explains why the description of the
‘two seas’ is so muddled for, surely, even an unschooled river-
bank dweller would realise that the separation between fresh
and salt waters exists because of the continuous downstream
flow. Muhammad’s meagre knowledge must therefore have
been based entirely on hearsay from travellers familiar with
(for example) the huge deltas of major rivers such as the Nile
and the Tigris-Euphrates. The Quran therefore does not
demonstrate scientific knowledge of the water cycle; quite the
opposite: it demonstrates nothing but a naïve ignorance, an
ignorance consistent with its authorship by an uneducated 7th
century Arab.

4.3. The sky

Though never stating unambiguously that the earth is flat, the
Quran adopts a conventional pre-scientific geocentric stance
and fails to distinguish adequately between ‘Heaven’ (where
God is alleged to reside) and ‘the Heavens’ (space), so that a
cryptic verse can be proclaimed as ‘scientific’ if it possesses an
oblique resemblance to some finding within astronomy or
cosmology, yet remain unassailable as ‘theology’ if it does not.

51
On many occasions in his book, Maurice Bucaille displays
considerable inventiveness in perceiving the poetic imagery of
the Quran as divine wisdom, but this inventiveness reaches its
peak in the chapters dealing with ‘the Heavens’. A number of
verses are helped along by scientific-sounding translations,
such as that of the sun and the moon ‘travelling in an orbit’
where the Arberry translation refers to them as ‘swimming in
the sky’ (Q21:33) which, incidentally, the Quran verses below
imply is some sort of physical object:
(Q22:65) “(God) holds back the sky from falling on the
earth unless by His leave”
(Q13:2) “God is He who raised up the heavens without
pillars you can see…”
As stated above, Bucaille takes the view that God expressed his
concepts within the limited vocabulary of 7th Century Arabia
and that therefore these concepts can now be freed from these
constraints by means of the replacement of the original
vocabulary by modern scientific terminology. This is a highly
dubious process, and not just from a secular point of view. The
idea that God was somehow prevented from expressing
Himself properly does not seem compatible with the Islamic
notions that the Quran is perfect and that God is unlimited in
his power. Furthermore, since (according to Islam) God chose
the time, the place and the language for his revelation, it seems
somewhat insolent to imply that this choice impaired the
effectiveness of what He had to say. From the non-Islamic
perspective, the manipulation of the wording in this way just
looks like cheating.

In addition to giving God a helping hand with the terminology,

Bucaille makes the most extraordinary interpretations of some

52
fairly vague statements, such as:
(Q31:29) “Have you not seen how God merges the
night into the day and merges the day into the night?”
(Q39:5) “. . . He coils the night upon the day and He
coils the day upon the night.”
Bucaille states, obscurely: “This process of perpetual coiling,
including the interpenetration of one sector by another is
expressed in the Quran just as if the concept of the Earth’s
roundness had already been conceived at the time-which was
obviously not the case”. The statement, in addition to being
largely incomprehensible, fails to note that the idea that the
earth was a sphere had been around for centuries. Eratosthenes
(276–194 BC) had even made a remarkably accurate estimate
of its diameter.
Sura 15, verses 14 and 15, speak of the unbelievers in Mecca:
“Even if We opened unto them a gate to Heaven and
they were to continue ascending therein, they would say
‘Our sight is confused as in drunkenness. Nay, we are
people bewitched.’”
The verse clearly says only that unbelievers would not
recognise Heaven even if it was right in front of them.
Bucaille, however, states that “It describes the human reactions
to the unexpected spectacle that travellers in space will see”.
Of course, the author of the Quran is not to blame for
Bucaille’s over-active imagination. However, Sura 36 contains
verses which reveal the primitive level of understanding
underlying them. Verse 38 states:
“The Sun runs its course to a settled place. This is the
decree of the All Mighty, the Full of Knowledge.”

53
and Bucaille comments: “’Settled place’ is the translation of
the word ‘mustaqarr’ and there can be no doubt that the idea of
an exact place is attached to it”. The following recollection in
the Bukhari Hadiths, along with the passage quoted above,
suggest that Muhammad remained in complete ignorance about
the true nature of the solar system:
(B9:93:520) “I entered the mosque while Allah’s
Apostle was sitting there. When the sun had set, the
Prophet said, ‘O Abu Dharr! Do you know where this
(sun) goes?’ I said, ‘Allah and His Apostle know best.’
He said, ‘It goes and asks permission to prostrate, and it
is allowed, and (one day) it, as if being ordered to
return whence it came, then it will rise from the west’”
In discussing the following verse, Bucaille misses a most
significant error:
(Q36:40) “The sun must not catch up the moon, nor
does the night outstrip the day….”
Since the moon, along with the earth, orbits the sun, it is
meaningless to speak of the sun actually ‘catching up’ with the
moon, so the verse must (and does) refer to the apparent
motion of the sun’s and moon’s disks across the sky. Because
the moon orbits the earth in the same direction as the earth
spins, its apparent speed across the sky is slightly less than that
of the sun. The result is that the sun’s disk does indeed catch up
and overtake that of the moon, an occurrence which can be
clearly seen in sequences of photographs of a solar eclipse, of
which one example is shown on the title page of this book.
Furthermore, the sun overtakes the moon, in violation of
(Q36:40), not just during eclipses (when both bodies happen to
line up with the Earth, making the event visible), but once a
month, resulting in the familiar phenomenon of the new moon.

54
The wording of (Q36:40) is sufficiently clear and unambiguous
that no significant difference exists between the various
English translations. Its meaning is, therefore, exactly as it
appears. Even if, by some creative interpretation of the original
Arabic, it could be argued that some other meaning than that
suggested above was intended, it is evident that the suspicion
raised by the dubious way that the verse is expressed is trivially
avoidable. Had the first part been expressed as “The moon
must not catch up the sun”, the astronomical interpretation
would have been correct. Had it been omitted altogether,
nothing would have been lost. To include it was the author’s
decision and therefore the author’s error. Again, provincial
ignorance, not divine knowledge, is evident in the verse.
In addition to the remarks made above, it appears that the
wording of the second part of the extract from (Q36:40): ‘..nor
does the night outstrip the day..’ is superfluous. The following
verse suggests a possible reason for its inclusion: that the
author does not quite grasp the underlying natures of light and
darkness:
(Q25:45,46) “Have you not seen how thy Lord has
spread the shade. If He willed, He could have made it
stationary. Moreover We made the sun its guide and
We withdraw it towards Us easily.”
As a final observation: for a man selected to receive
communications from God, Muhammad had a remarkably
unsophisticated attitude to the harmless appearance of a solar
eclipse. One of the Bukhari Hadiths (B1:8:423) reports that:
“The sun eclipsed and Allah’s Apostle offered the
eclipse prayer and said, ‘I have been shown the Hellfire
(now) and I never saw a worse and horrible sight than
the sight I have seen today.’”

55
4.4. The earth
As with the verses dealing with the sky and the water cycle,
those mentioning the earth reflect an almost total lack of any
understanding of natural processes. For example, the following
verse tells us that valleys came before rivers, rather than the
other way around:
(Q27:61) “He Who made the earth an abode and set
rivers in its interstices and mountains standing firm….”.
In fact, the Quran is rather keen to emphasise the ‘stability’ of
mountains, for example:
(Q79:30-33) “After that (God) spread the earth out.
Therefrom He drew out its water and its pasture. And
the mountains He has firmly fixed….”

with similar sentiments expressed in (Q16:15), (Q21:31)

(27:61) and (Q31:10). Bucaille, who is outside his field of
expertise, asserts the following:

“These verses express the idea that the way the

mountains are laid out ensures stability and is in
complete agreement with geological data.”

Strangely, given the appearance of permanence that mountains

provide, the opposite is true. Over geological timescales,
mountains are transient things and symptoms of instability,
rather than stability. They grow as a result of major crustal
movement and, once the force giving rise to them has ceased to
operate, they sink and erode. The Quran is even more in error
when it becomes more specific:

56
 (Q78:6,7) “Have We not made the earth an expanse and
the mountains stakes.”
about which Bucaille says: “The stakes referred to are the ones
used to anchor a tent in the ground”. The idea that mountains
are like stakes, anchoring the earth’s surface to some sort of
stable foundation, is an analogy which has probably never
occurred to any non-Muslim geologist.

4.4.1. The Ark

The Quran mentions Noah many times because Muhammad is
represented as Noah’s successor: a prophet sent to warn the
people of the hazards of unrighteousness. It is difficult to
decide the category under which the tale of Noah’s ark should
be placed, since the sciences of geology, zoology and
anthropology are all equally adamant that there never was a
global Flood, that the earth’s animal life was not saved from
death by being crammed into a wooden ship and that today’s
human population did not descend from the survivors of this
mythical catastrophe. Bucaille steers well away from this
subject, for obvious reasons.
However, it is sometimes claimed that the Quran’s account of
Noah and the Ark is plausible because it does not make the
mistake of representing the Flood as a global disaster but rather
as a local event. It is therefore necessary to review what the
Quran has to say about the subject of the Ark.
The account in the Quran does indeed appear to avoid most of
the impossibilities found in the Biblical story. There is none of
the Biblical “..every living substance that I have made will I
destroy from off the face of the earth” nor “…and the
mountains were covered”. The Ark, according to the Quran,
eventually runs aground on (but not ‘on top of’) ‘Mount Judi’,

57
sometimes identified as Mt. Cudi in the south east of present-
day Turkey, about half way between the towns of Cizre and
Sirnak. The Tigris river runs near to Mt. Cudi so it is not
beyond the bounds of possibility that a river flood could have
deposited a boat on the bank close to the lower slopes of the
mountain. So far, so good.
However, things are not quite so straightforward. First, it is
worth noting that the story of the Ark had been rattling around
the Middle East for centuries before it was incorporated into
the Bible. It appears in the Epic of Gilgamesh, a tale
originating in Sumer (bronze age central Iraq) and involves a
character by the name of Utnapishtim. It seems, therefore, that
Noah was simply transplanted into an existing pagan tale.
Second, it has even been proposed (see the entry for ‘Noah’ in
[23]) that the attribution of the Biblical flood story to Noah was
a mistake and that the ‘true’ captain of the Ark was Enoch,
Noah’s great-grandfather. This would certainly avoid the
uncomfortable conclusion that the man saved from global
extermination because of his extreme righteousness was the
same individual who had subsequently drunk himself into a
stupor (Genesis 9:21) and placed a curse on his grandson
because his (Noah’s) son had played some sort of prank on him
when he was out cold and au naturel in his tent. If this is true
then not only did the Quran simply repeat the error, but
Muhammad’s role model was not actually the hero of the
flood, but merely a vindictive sot.
However, all this is mythology or, at best, history. To return to
the Quran’s account: although there is no direct mention of the
Flood as a global event, there is an unambiguous indirect
reference. Verse (Q26:119) refers to the Ark as a ‘laden
vessel’; verse (Q36:41) says of the unbelievers of

58
Muhammad’s time “We carried their seed in the laden vessel”.
According to Maududi [9]:
“’A laden vessel’ : the Ark of the Prophet Noah. … All
the rest of mankind had been drowned in the Flood, all
later human beings are the children of those who were
rescued in the Ark.”

and Ibn Kathir [8] says:

“Allah saved him and the believers, apart from whom

none of the descendants of Adam were left on the face
of the earth.”

Therefore, Muslims who claim that the Quran only deals with a
local event (and therefore does not conflict with science) are
failing to take account of all the Quran’s statements on the
subject and are consequently expressing an opinion which runs
counter to Islam’s considered view. Even without any
reference to the ‘laden vessel’ verses, a little thought indicates
that the orthodox view of what the Quran is saying must be
correct. The Quran is deeply Biblical and refers to Old
Testament stories frequently, without re-telling them to any
great extent. The references to Noah and the Ark therefore
relate to the Biblical version and not to some other account, for
it would be remiss of the Biblical God to refer to an unfamiliar
version without making it clear that this was a significantly
different account from the one which people would assume.

So, although you may read claims to the contrary, the Quran’s
story of the Flood is indeed the same story as that in the Bible:
a global catastrophe in which all the Earth’s inhabitants, except

59
for those on the Ark, were destroyed. As if to underline the
point, (Q29:14) tells us what the Bible tells us:

“Indeed, We sent Noah to his people, and he tarried

among them a thousand years, all but fifty…”.
And, since this chapter concerns the claim that the Quran is in
agreement with modern science, it is only right to point out that
humans do not live to be 950 years old.

4.5. Biology
When Bucaille is within his intellectual comfort zone, he
commits none of the howlers that he makes when dealing with
astronomy or geology. However, he is forced to confront the
realisation that some Quranic statements relating to mammal
physiology appear to be complete nonsense. Bucaille then steps
beyond the bounds of merely lending a helping hand to the
vocabulary, to the point where he simply rejects the existing
translations because the errors can no longer be ignored.

In the undoctored versions of the Quran, there is a strange

description of the region where human sperm originates:

(Q86:5-7) “So let man consider of what he was created;

he was created of gushing water issuing between the
loins and the breast-bones” (Arberry translation)
There are considerable variations of detail in the English
translations for the last verse:
“Proceeding from between the backbone and the ribs”
(Yusufali)
”That issued from between the loins and ribs”.
(Pickthal)

60
 ”Coming from between the back and the ribs.” (Shakir)
There is also an equally inaccurate verse concerning the
biology of mammalian milk production:
(Q16:66) “And surely in the cattle there is a lesson for
you; We give you to drink of what is in their bellies,
between filth and blood, pure milk, sweet to drinkers”
(Arberry)
“ from what is within their bodies between excretions
and blood…” (Yusufali)
“ of that which is in their bellies, from betwixt the
refuse and the blood….. “ (Pickthal)
“ of what is in their bellies–from betwixt the faeces and
the blood….” (Shakir)
“ between dregs and blood, which is in their bellies…”
(Rodwell)

So, semen comes from between the backbone and the ribs and
milk is formed in the bellies of cattle between faeces and
blood, whatever that means. Bucaille now takes a step beyond
the already dubious process of ‘modernising’ the Quran’s
vocabulary. He now alters the sense of the text for no other
reason than that it is wrong in its original form, expressing it as

“ of what is inside their bodies, coming from a

conjunction between the contents of the intestine and
the blood”

His justification for the alteration is that:

61
 “These translations are the work of highly eminent
Arabists. It is a well known fact however, that a
translator, even an expert, is liable to make mistakes in
the translation of scientific statements, unless he
happens to be a specialist in the discipline in
question….From a scientific point of view,
physiological notions must be called upon to grasp the
meaning of this verse”
whereas, in reality, they have been used to correct the verse.
The translators, though not experts in the sciences, were in no
worse a position than the millions of others who have tried to
understand the Quran. It is therefore reasonable to suppose that
what they expressed in their translations is pretty much what
the Quran says.

4.6. Humans and other creatures

As with the case of the Ark story, Bucaille avoids reviewing
the Islamic accounts of human origins since Islam takes a hard-
line creationist stance. Humankind, it asserts, was descended
from Adam and (though the Quran does not mention her)
Hawwa, or Eve. (Q3:59) tells us that
“He created him of dust, then said He unto him, ‘Be,’
and he was.”
However, other verses tell us that he was made from clay
(Q55:14), or from water (Q25:54). Although the Quran gives
little additional information, the Hadiths relate that Muhammad
considered Adam to have been 60 cubits (about 120 feet) tall
(B4:55:543). None of the Islamic scriptures tells us in which
era of prehistory the creation of Adam was supposed to have
occurred, but (M4:1856) helpfully tells us that it took place on
a Friday.

62
The Quran also makes a number of dubious statements
regarding the Earth’s animal life. For example:
(Q16:79) “Do they not look at the birds subjected in the
atmosphere of the sky? None can hold them up (in His
Power) except God.”
As with (Q36:40) above, all the translations say more or less
the same thing, implying that there is no ambiguity in the
original. The verse says that birds can fly only because God
holds them up. Now, it is true that Muslims believe that all
things happen by the ‘will of Allah’, so (Q16:79) could be
interpreted as a purely theological statement. However, it looks
suspiciously like the verse is drawing our attention to the
evident ‘miracle’ of the flight of birds, which is attributed to
God’s direct intervention rather than to the lift produced by the
shape and motion of their wings. This again is a sign of human
ignorance, rather than divine knowledge. Bucaille clearly also
had difficulty with this verse since, in addition to the
substitution of the scientific term ‘atmosphere’ instead of the
mundane ‘air’, he feels it necessary to misdirect his readers by
including an irrelevant discussion of the alternative ‘miracle’ of
migration.
4.6.1. Talking Ant
Not surprisingly, Bucaille also fails to include in his book the
account of one of King Solomon’s expeditions with his army.
Starting with (Q27:17)
“And his hosts were mustered to Solomon, jinn, men
and birds, duly disposed…”
The verse therefore claims that (a) Solomon’s army contained a
division of birds and (b) it contained another division of the
Arab folklore beings called jinn who, according to (Q55:15),

63
were created by God from “..a smokeless fire”.
The question of the existence of jinn presents something of a
problem for the modern Muslim. To assert that they exist not
only flies in the face of overwhelming evidence that they do
not, but also implies the remarkable coincidence that only the
Arabs, out of all the Earth’s cultures, had managed to discern
them prior to the delivery, also to the Arabs, of the Quran,
where their existence was ‘confirmed’. It must be tempting to
consider the alternative explanation: that the Quran was
composed by an Arab who had been brought up to believe in
jinn.
However, for a Muslim to deny the existence of jinn is to doubt
the Quran, which entails apostasy ([10], Section o8.7): a capital
offence. It is as if Irish law specified the death penalty for
denying the existence of leprechauns.
The account of Solomon’s journey does not get any more
plausible, because the next verse tells us that
“.. when they came on the Valley of Ants, an ant said,
‘Ants, enter your dwelling-places, lest Solomon and his
hosts crush you, being unaware!’ ”
Solomon understood the local ant dialect, though his response
was rather dismissive:
“But he smiled, laughing at its words….”
and he proceeded to ignore the ant, and to concentrate instead
on a rather edgy discussion with one of his birds (Q27:22
onwards).
The story of Solomon and the ant is an old Jewish legend (see
entry for ‘Solomon’ in [23]). Many of the Earth’s cultures have
a variety of barmy folk tales but Islam is unusual in that, in

64
effect, it stakes its life on its own stories being true. For if the
account of Solomon and the ant is untrue, then the Quran
contains errors and the whole basis of Islam is false. It is
indeed a heavy burden to place on the narrow shoulders of a
talking ant.
Muslim apologists are uncertain regarding the appropriate
interpretation of the ant story. Those who prefer a rational
explanation suggest that the inhabitants of the valley were a
tribe called the ‘Naml’ (Arabic for ‘ant’), thereby avoiding the
embarrassment of having to defend an indefensible position.
However, the original Jewish story does indeed concern an
actual ant, as the phrase “..lest Solomon and his hosts crush
you, being unaware” implies. Furthermore, the ‘Naml’
explanation does not adequately deal with the subsequent
implausible account of the man-bird dialogue and suggests that
God included in the Quran an account so misleading that, for
centuries, Muslims held the mistaken view that a warning
voiced by a tribal leader was in fact given by an ant.
The more traditional explanations portray Solomon as a Bronze
Age Dr. Dolittle, miraculously endowed with the ability to talk
with creatures. Although such a claim is no more implausible
than many others within this and other religions, it nevertheless
falls well short of explaining all the extraordinary features of
the story. Although, according to the tale, Solomon possessed
miraculous powers (including, presumably, very acute
hearing), it is the abilities of the humble ant which are the more
remarkable. Not only could it speak, it also achieved the feat of
recognising Solomon from a distance and evidently already
knew his name. Unless Solomon had previously dropped in for
a chat from time to time, it is difficult to see how the ant could
have come by this knowledge.

65
Remind us of your conclusion, Maurice. Ah yes:
“.. the Qur’an does not contain a single statement that is
assailable from a modern scientific point of view”.

4.7. Dr. Bucaille’s guilty secret

There is a perception that Maurice Bucaille converted to Islam
as a result of his studies and his book certainly encourages that
view. However, is it true? In a 1992 interview with the online
Islamic Bulletin [24], Bucailles himself states:

“I knew then [i.e. during his studies] that the Quran was
the “Work of Allah” and had not been authored by any
human being.”

However, when asked the straight question “Have you

embraced Islam?”, Bucaille fails to give a straight answer. He
first replies:

“..when God guided me to undertake a study of the

Quran, my inner soul cried out that Al-Quran was the
Word of God revealed to his Last Prophet Mohammed”

which looks almost, but not quite, like ‘yes’. However, he goes
on to say

“About my faith and belief, God knows what is in one’s

heart. I am convinced that if I identify myself with any
creed, people will invariably dub me as one belonging
to such and such group”

66
which sounds suspiciously like a ‘no’. Campbell (see [25]) has
looked into this subject more thoroughly, and says

“At a public lecture in Fez Morocco in either 1981 or

1983, a friend of mine asked during the question period
whether Dr. Bucaille had become a Muslim. Dr.
Bucaille said, “No”.

And [25] also points out that the following passage occurred in
the catalogue of the Islamic publisher and book distributor Pak
Books in 1998:

“Dr.Bucaille’s study of scientific information in

scriptures gave him high regard for Qur’an and
recognition of contradictions in Christian scriptures.
Yet he remained a Christian.”

So, what is the truth? Surprisingly, the answer can be found in

Bucaille’s book, though it is carefully disguised by weasel
words. He writes:

“For me, there can be no human explanation to the

Quran”.

“..statements that simply cannot be ascribed to the

thought of a man who lived more than fourteen
centuries ago.”

“Such statements….obviously do not lend themselves

to a human explanation”

“…the existence in the Qur’an of the verse referring to

67
 these concepts can have no human explanation on
account of the period in which they were formulated.”

These are words which are carefully crafted to convince

Muslims that he had been won over by the Islamic view of the
Quran, but equally carefully avoiding the explicit anti-Christian
conclusion that its author was God. This he never states, so
leaving open the question of what type of being he considers
responsible for the text. Dr. Bucaille may not have embraced
Islam, but he has certainly embraced the Islamic practice of
dissimulation ([10], Section r10.0).

Muslims should perhaps consider why someone who appears

so rapturously convinced of the miraculous origin of the Quran
would not convert to Islam, particularly since “..God guided
me..” to carry out the study in the first place. Kasem [26] has
no doubt about Bucaille’s motives:

“This charlatan found a great opportunity to make good

money out of this situation.”.

However, despite the fact that Bucaille achieved a good deal of

fame in the Muslim world as a result of his book, and
undoubtedly received large amounts of money, the idea that he
planned a scam from the very start seems a little too good to be
true. My own view of Bucaille’s motives is less damning than
Kasem’s, though I would shed no tears if Kasem turned out to
be right.

I think that, for a long while during his studies, Bucaille did
genuinely believe that the Quran was divinely authored: “..my
inner soul cried out that Al-Quran was the Word of God”.

68
However, I suspect that, at some point during his researches,
Bucaille began to realise that this belief could not be sustained.
The contrived special pleading that he was forced to make,
time and time again, to support so many flagrantly poor
descriptions of the natural world, must have had its effect.

Nevertheless, to retract his nascent book was impossible. Too

many close acquaintances were eagerly anticipating the
glowing praise soon to be bestowed on the Quran by a Western
scholar: people who included his distinguished employer, King
Faisal, of whom Bucaille writes “The debt of gratitude I owe to
the late King Faisal, whose memory I salute with deepest
respect, is indeed very great.” So he decided to weaken his
conclusions just a touch, publish anyway, and remain a
Christian. Nevertheless, the conclusion seems inevitable: by
the time he penned his final words, and though he didn’t dare
to admit it, Bucaille had ceased to believe his own book.

4.8. Summing up
There are no verses in the Quran with any modern scientific
content. Those of the Quran’s statements about the natural
world which have survived unrefuted to the present day have
done so not because they contain profound truths, but precisely
because they contain no profound truths. Most are just
everyday rustic observations; those which venture beyond the
mundane often contain nothing more than an opaque mixture
of poetic description, vagueness and mysticism. How did
Muhammad largely avoid expounding a series of then-current
but erroneous scientific ideas? Because he was interested only
in theology, lived in an intellectual backwater and had not
received a formal education, so knew nothing of them.

69
There remains, however, a residue of statements in the Quran
which are both clear enough to be understood and specific
enough to be identified as erroneous. Even ignoring the simple
errors and absurdities which Bucaille overlooks or tries to
divert our attention from, the descriptions of natural
phenomena in the Quran are often so poor that they cannot be
the product of divine revelation, nor even of an educated
mortal. There is no sense in which (Q36:38) is an adequate
description of the motion of the sun, nor (Q78:6,7) an adequate
description of the geology of mountains, nor (Q86:5-7) a
competent account of human biology. Are Muslims really
suggesting that the above was the best that an almighty, all-
knowing deity could do? For anyone who believes that the
descriptions quoted above are satisfactory, consider this: if you
were marking an examination paper and you came across one
of the above passages without realising it was a direct quote
from the Quran, how many marks out of 10 would you give?

And there is, of course, the problem of the talking ant. If

anyone could suggest a reason why this story should not be
regarded as absurd, it would be most interesting to hear it.
Nevertheless, even if a plausible explanation of the account
could be constructed, the problem remains that ‘God’ has
included in the Quran a tale which appears ridiculous, with its
resulting adverse effect on the book’s credibility. For an
almighty being intent on the world’s conversion to Islam, this
is a strange approach.

The supposed existence of scientific references in the Quran, as

with that of ‘inimitability’ (Chapter 5), is a myth, born of
wishful thinking and inflated by exaggerated repetition. The
continuous ‘discovery’ of new interpretations resembles the

70
‘discovery’ of new predictions contained in the quatrains of
Nostradamus. However, while the latter is a relatively
inconsequential pastime for devotees, the former helps sustain
the delusion that the Quran is miraculous, thereby giving
support to the grim edifice of Islam itself.

Finally, one cannot explain away the Quran’s low score in

Science by claiming (as Bucaille does) that God adjusted his
descriptions to suit the average uneducated 7th century Arab.
According to Islam, God composed the Quran for all people,
for all time, and was happy elsewhere to include ‘ambiguous’
(i.e. incomprehensible) verses about other subjects (see Q3:7).
So why not include accurate descriptions about the natural
world for the benefit of later generations, even if they could not
necessarily be appreciated at the time? The Quran was not
composed for a 7th century Arab, it was composed by a 7th
century Arab.

71
 Chapter 5
The Claim of Inimitability

5.1. Introduction
Islam claims that the text of the Quran is of such a quality that
no human can match it, and that this property provides proof
that the author was God (see e.g. [1]). This section reviews this
claim and the evidence cited to support it. If it cannot be
supported, then Islam is founded on nothing more than the
assumption that the voices and visions experienced by
Muhammad were not the products of his imagination. That
would be a flimsy basis for such a demanding system of belief.

The Quran is referred to by committed Muslims as ‘glorious’,

‘sublime’, ‘perfect’, possessing ‘superb clarity’ and ‘perfect
order’. Indeed, when one reads Islamic descriptions of the
Quran, one gets the impression that there is no complimentary
claim which would ever be considered an exaggeration.
Muhammad al-Nafzawi, in his erotic work ‘The Perfumed
Garden’ even suggests the use of the Quran as an aphrodisiac
([27], Chapter 7).

In contrast, the Scottish essayist and historian Thomas Carlyle

(1795-1881) was less enthusiastic, considering the Quran to
have been: “…written, so far as writing goes, as badly as
almost any book ever was” [28]. My own views on the Quran
are closer to those of Carlyle than to those of al-Nafzawi,
whose recommendations have proved disappointingly
unfounded.

72
What is going on here? How can a book which is ‘perfect’ with
‘superb clarity’ simultaneously be as bad as Carlyle describes?
Does the relentless torrent of superlatives from Muslim
commentators imply that this is a truly unique written work, if
only we had the knowledge of Arabic to appreciate it, or are
these commentators simply behaving like the courtiers in the
story ‘The Emperor’s New Clothes’: sycophants locked into an
ever-rising spiral of flattery? These are the questions that we
shall try to answer.

5.2. Characteristics of the Quran

If you were to begin reading a book which you understood to
be composed by an all-wise, all-powerful deity and to be
intended for all mankind for all time, you would not be
surprised if you discovered that it displayed an awareness of all
the earth, of all its peoples, of their past and of their future
development. You would also not be surprised if the book
showed exceptional clarity of expression and was well-
organised, succinct, precise, complete and consistent in its
approach.

You might then be surprised to discover that the Quran

possesses none of these qualities. Its scope, outside the many
references to Biblical tales, is limited to events contemporary
with its origin and to the peoples, flora and fauna of the
Arabian peninsula. It has no clear structure and its style and
tone change markedly between the early and later suras –
obvious even in English versions. It is long and repetitive, yet
incomplete. Passages can be vague to the point of
incomprehensibility. Despite claims to the contrary (see
Chapter 4), all the verifiable information it contains was readily

73
available at the time.

It is necessary to provide examples of the above, in order to

forestall any accusations that these are just cursory insults. The
limitations of scope, lack of structure, and change of style are
evident even to the casual reader. Repetition may be readily
seen by (for example) searching for such words as
‘chastisement’ or ‘unbeliever’ in the text. Incomprehensibility
and incompleteness are less obvious. However, there should be
no dispute regarding the former since, as discussed previously
in Section 3.2, (Q3:7) acknowledges it:

“It is He who sent down upon you the Book, wherein

are verses clear that are the Essence of the Book, and
others ambiguous….”

The problem of incomprehensibility in the Quranic laws of

inheritance is discussed in Chapter 7. Further examples are as
follows. Twenty nine of the Suras begin with groups of Arabic
letters: Sura 2, for example, begins “Elif, Lam, Mim” (i.e.
A.L.M.). No one knows what these mean, but they are recited
reverentially as an integral part of the sura they introduce. The
verse (Q77:30) clearly presents a considerable challenge for the
translator. Arberry [2] expresses it as:
“Depart to a triple-massing shadow”
whereas Shakir [4] tries
“Walk on to the covering having three branches”
and other translators have made a variety of guesses, all
equally baffling. As a final example here, Bell [29] states “Sura
89 begins with four clauses so cryptic as to be unintelligible”.
Other examples of words and passages which are not

74
understood, as well as examples of many other peculiarities,
are given in [30].
Muhammad, in (Q3:7) above, had already suggested that the
incomprehensible verses had deeper meanings. Muslim
scholars continued to build on the idea. According to [31]:
Zamakhshari and Fakhr al-Din Razi [two respected 12th
century Muslim scholars] do not consider the existence
of the allegorical verses as a defect but as a mark of
aesthetic excellence and as being conducive to the
development of culture and science.”

Rather than the ‘ambiguous’ or ‘allegorical’ verses being

interpreted as evidence that the Quran has a human author, they
are treated instead as something virtuous. The concept that
incomprehensibility = profundity was therefore in existence for
nearly a millennium before it was rediscovered in the 20th
century by the French.

Next, incompleteness: some Islamic laws do not appear in the

Quran and derive instead from the Hadiths, the collection of
anecdotes about the things Muhammad did and said. Since
Muslims do not consider that he made up this information
himself, he must have had communications from God which
did not make it into the Quran. Moreover, some of the Hadiths;
the Hadith Qudsi or Sacred Hadiths [1] are considered to
contain God’s words; words which again were not incorporated
into the Quran. The Quran cannot therefore be complete, if
divine pronouncements necessary to the formulation of Islamic
law occur outside of it.

75
5.2.1. So, why the superlatives?
The above features of the Quran seem to be imperfections;
what other interpretation can there be? So why is the Quran
described by Muslims in a manner which implies that it is
flawless? The answer lies in the Islamic view of the nature of
the Quran. Muhammad’s fellow Meccans, who doubted his
claims (Chapter 3), challenged him to perform a miracle. His
response was that the Quran itself was the miracle that they
sought. The Bukhari Hadith (B6:61:504) reports:

“The Prophet said, ‘Every Prophet was given miracles

because of which people believed, but what I have been
given is Divine Inspiration which Allah has revealed to
me.’ ”

As a consequence, Muslims regard the Quran as a miracle. It

should therefore be recognised that, when Muslims describe
the Quran, the purpose is not to present an accurate description
of what is seen in the text, but to bestow a degree of acclaim
commensurate with the exalted status of the book and its
alleged author. However, there is more to it. Muslims describe
the Quran in glowing terms because that is how the Quran
describes itself. An example: the Quran is described as ‘clear’:
easy to understand. This is not because the Quran actually is
easy to understand, but because the Quran repeatedly says so,
in (Q11:1), (Q36:69), (Q15:1), (Q54:17) and (Q28:1) with
other compliments to itself arising in (Q6:115), (Q15:87),
(Q36:2), (Q50:1), (Q56:77), (Q72:1) and (Q85:21).

To digress for a moment: Muslims are normally on safe ground

within Islam when adopting and expressing opinions which
correspond closely to passages in the Quran. However, non-

76
Muslims sometimes make the mistake of assuming that such
opinions are based on empirical evidence; in fact, the opinion
and the available evidence may markedly conflict. The
description of the Quran as ‘clear’ is but one example. Another
is the description of Islam itself as a ‘perfect’ religion. This is a
view which has its basis in (Q5:3) “Today I have perfected
your religion for you”, not in any assessment of Islam against a
set of agreed criteria.

To continue: perhaps the most misleading claim is that based

on (Q2:256), “There is no compulsion in religion”
(alternatively translated as the rather different “Let there be no
compulsion in religion” (Yusufali [4])), which holds that Islam
does not force anyone into conversion (and never has). This
claim, to the extent that it can be justified at all, rests on the
almost imperceptible distinction between ‘compulsion’ and
‘coercion’: you can be coerced to do something, but you cannot
strictly be compelled for the choice, ultimately, is yours.
Evidence that Islam does indeed coerce non-Muslims to
convert, and on a vast scale, is widely available in the history
books (e.g. [32], and see Section 8.4.2). Moreover, Islamic law
on jihad ((M1:30) or [10], Section o9.8), the payment by non-
Muslims of the jizya tax ((Q9:29) or [10], Section o9.8) and the
punishment of those who renounce Islam ([10], Section o8.1),
all contain substantial, explicit and deliberate elements of
coercion. The fact that the ‘no compulsion’ statement appears
explicitly in the Quran is therefore seen to render it ‘truer’ than
the (Islamic) empirical evidence which flatly contradicts it.

Returning to the main subject: yet another disincentive to

critical assessment of the Quran is the implied contempt for
those who waver, as expressed in (Q3:7):

77
 “It is He who sent down upon thee the Book….and
those firmly rooted in knowledge say, ‘We believe in it;
all is from our Lord’; yet none remembers, but men
possessed of minds”.
For those who have begun to feel that the analogy with ‘The
Emperor’s New Clothes’ is perhaps an apt one, please compare
the above verse with the claim, made by the swindlers in that
famous story, that “this material has the amazing property that
it is invisible to anyone who is incompetent or stupid.”

5.3. The Muslim claim of proof

Perhaps the main factor underlying Muslims’ certainty in their
religion is the perception that there exists proof of the divine
origin of the Quran. If the proof is believed to exist, then all
appearance of imperfection must be illusory and can be
dismissed without further consideration. How, then, do we
investigate the claim that the Quran is miraculously inimitable?
I know no Arabic and possess primitive abilities in the field of
literature, yet it is necessary to attempt to assess the claim,
since it lies at the heart of the Muslim belief that they are right
and everyone else is wrong. The basis of the claim is that:

(a) the literary qualities of the Quran self-evidently exceed

those achievable by humans, and

(b) doubters have been challenged to write something equal

to the Quran and have failed.

We shall now try to examine both parts of the claim.

78
5.3.1. Literary excellence?
Part (a) above represents an argument so ill-defined that it is
difficult to know where to begin the task of assessing it, as it
places the judgement of its validity firmly in the realm of the
subjective and, because of the need for the assessor to be at
least fluent in Arabic, beyond the reach of most of the Earth’s
population. Fortunately, a claimed proof of the miraculous
nature of the Quran based on (a) above, written by the 9th
century Muslim scholar al-Baquillani has been translated in
part by the Islamic scholar G.E. von Grunebaum [33]. Al-
Baquillani endeavours to show that the Quran is superior to
two of the then most famous classical Arabic poems by means
of a line-by-line critique of the latter. His views on both
celebrated works are lengthy and unflattering, but the
following give a flavour of his opinions. The first poem
possesses “…diction which at one time splits a rock and at
another time melts away, changes colour like a chameleon,
varies like passions, whose grammatical construction teems
with confusion”. A selected aspect of the second “…comes
closer to incompetence than to eloquence and closer to
barbarism than to excellence”.

Unfortunately, in [33], the Quran is subject to no such scrutiny,

its supposed superiority merely being asserted by means of the
familiar gush of superlatives coupled, in this case, with
complete gibberish. The Quran “..is uniformly pure, splendid
and brilliant. Its heterogeneity is homogeneous, its
homogeneity is oneness, what seems remote in it is near, its
original elements are familiar”. The style is also “…uniform,
despite its variety” and the composition is “ ..beyond human
imagination and thought”. Other parts of al-Baquillani’s work
are quoted, and his main arguments summarised, by Aleem

79
[18]. While there is no doubt that the man had a way with
words, his arguments (at least, as represented in [18]) are little
more than florid but vacuous assertions of the superiority of the
Quran over everything else, in all possible ways. His claim that
even the words of the Quran, when transplanted to other
compositions, ‘shine like jewels’ might strike the uncommitted
reader as absurd.

The review of the poems in [33] is hostile; that of the Quran,

servile. This ‘proof’ of the superiority of the Quran is therefore
seen, on closer inspection, to be a sham. It must reluctantly be
accepted that the Islamic world is an unsuitable place to search
for critical assessments of the Quran. Instead, we must call
upon the writings of Western Islamic scholars. Readers must
make up their own minds as to whether the following quoted
views are rendered invalid by hostility to Islam; I see no sign
that they are.

The first opinion cited is that of Richard Bell (1876-1952). He

explains [34] how the Quran is written in a form which is
subdivided into verses which end with either rhymes or
assonances which are largely produced by the use of the same
grammatical forms or terminations, and observes that

“The structure of the Arabic language, in which words

fall into definite types of forms, was favourable to the
production of such assonances”.

Ref. [4] supplies a transliteration of the Quran, by which the

reader may obtain a feel for the type of rhyming or assonance
used. Bell describes how the content of the verses is sometimes
manipulated in a rather pragmatic way:

80
 “…so that we get phrases like ‘one of the witnesses’
instead of simply ‘a witness’ because the former gives
the rhyming plural-ending, while the latter does not.”

“Occasionally, a phrase is added at the end of a verse

that is really otiose as regards sense but supplies the
assonance, as in (Q12:10, 21:68, 79, 104). Sometimes
the sense is strained in order to produce the rhyme, such
as in [Sura] 4, where statements regarding Allah are
inappropriately thrown into the past….the accusative
ending on which the rhyme depends being thereby
obtained.”

Bell also observed the presence of excessive repetition in Sura

55, noting that the phrase “O which of your Lord’s bounties
will you and you deny?” occurs eventually “in practically each
alternate verse, whose sense they frequently interrupt”.

Another early reviewer was Theodor Noldeke, who writes [36]:

“The Muslims themselves have observed that the

tyranny of the rhyme often makes itself apparent in
derangement of the order of words and in the choice of
verbal forms which would not otherwise have been
employed, e.g., an imperfect instead of a perfect. In one
place, to save the rhyme, he calls Mount Sinai Sinin
(Q95:2) instead of Sina (Q23:20); in another Elijah is
called Ilyasin (Q37:130) instead of Ilyas (Q6:85,
Q37:123). The substance even is modified to suit the
exigencies of rhyme. Thus the Prophet would scarcely
have fixed on the usual number of “eight” angels round

81
 the throne of God (Q69:17) if the word thamaniyah,
“eight” had not happened to fall in so well with the
rhyme.”

The paragraph continues with another comment on Sura 55:

“And when (Q55). speaks of ‘two’ heavenly gardens,

each with ‘two’ fountains and ‘two’ kinds of fruit, and
again of ‘two’ similar gardens, all this is simply
because the dual termination (-an) corresponds to the
syllable that controls the rhyme in that whole sura”.

and he continues:

“In the later pieces, Muhammad often inserts edifying

remarks, entirely out of keeping with the context,
merely to complete his rhyme. In Arabic it is such an
easy thing to accumulate masses of words with the
same termination, that the gross negligence of the
rhyme in the Qur’an is doubly remarkable. ”

Julius Wellhausen [37] points out another oddity with the ‘two
gardens’ passages in Sura 55: there are two examples of the
two gardens: seemingly a simple case of two alternative
versions of the same text. The first version starts at Verse 46
and the second, at Verse 62. The reader is invited to verify
Wellhausen’s observation using any available Quran.

It would be unfair to omit the Islamic explanation of the double

‘two gardens’ passage, which is (B6:60:402):

82
 “Allah's Apostle said, ‘In Paradise….there are two
gardens, the utensils and contents of which are made of
silver; and two other gardens, the utensils and contents
of which are made of gold.’ ”

Muhammad’s account brings to mind his other justifications of

seeming errors in the Quran (see Sections 2.1.2 and 3.3.3). As
with the case of the ‘seven versions’ (Section 2.1.2), the above
suggests that Muhammad had spoken different versions on
different occasions and was forced subsequently to conjure up
the cover story that they were both correct and, in fact,
described two different places. Unfortunately, since each
version was, by then, a fixed text, there was then no room to
shoehorn the explanation into the Quran, so it had to be
supplied later in the form of an anecdote. Anyone who prefers
the Islamic interpretation may wish to explain why God failed
to supply the simple and necessary explanation (given in
B6:60:402 above) in the Quran in the first place.

Sura 55 therefore comes in for criticism for content contrived

in order to fit the rhyme, for excessive repetition and for the
perplexing occurrence of what seem to be two alternative
versions of the same thing; the last two features being as
obvious in English as they must be in Arabic. Again, we ask:
by what possible argument could one claim that these are not
flaws? Part (a) of the above claim is therefore seen to be
without foundation. Part (b) is discussed below.

5.3.2. Imitators of the Quran

In addition to the books written in support of the claim of
inimitability such as that by al-Baquillani, there are accounts of
attempts by Arab poets to equal or surpass the Quran,

83
particularly in the second century after the death of
Muhammad. According to Aleem [18]:

“It is a most remarkable phenomenon in Arabic literary

history that many of the best prose writers and also
some poets of the early times are accused of trying at
one time or another to rival the Quran. But the stories
always end on the same note, namely, that they were
obliged to abandon the attempt finding it beyond their
power”.

However, Aleem seems unenthusiastic about the truth of these

stories, commenting “The stories sound very circumstantial….”
and he follows this comment with the perceptive observation
that “…the passage of time turns vague rumour into established
history”. These words were published in 1933; one cannot help
wondering whether Aleem would have felt comfortable or,
indeed, safe in displaying such objectivity nowadays.

Another review of supposed imitators is presented in the

Islamic Awareness website [38]. However, on closer
inspection, these claims are not so convincing. Indeed, most
seem either to represent attempted parodies, to be merely in the
style of the Quran, or not to be attempts at bettering the Quran
at all. As with other ‘proofs’ such as that of al-Baquillani, the
supposed evidence simply evaporates upon close inspection.

Nevertheless, there is a more objective version of the claim of

inimitability consisting, first, of a challenge, made in the Quran
itself, to produce even one Sura equal to those in the Quran
and, second, the assertion that the challenge has never been
successfully met.

84
5.3.3. The ‘Sura Like It’ Challenge:
There are four verses in the Quran which present a challenge to
unbelievers. They are:
Produce an alternative Quran:
(Q52:33-34) “Or do they say, ‘He has invented it?’
Nay, but they do not believe. Then let them bring a
discourse like it, if they speak truly.”
No? Then produce ten Suras:
(Q11:13-14) “Or do they say, ‘He has forged it’? Say:
‘Then bring you ten suras the like of it, forged; and call
upon whom you are able, apart from God, if you speak
truly.’ “
No? Then produce just one sura:
(Q2:23) “And if you are in doubt concerning that We
have sent down on Our servant, then bring a sura like it,
and call your witnesses, apart from God, if you are
truthful.”
with a similar challenge in (Q10:38).
The challenge seems to provide an unusually objective means
for deciding a religious dispute, though the Quran gives no
indication that anyone responded to the challenge during
Muhammad’s lifetime. Nevertheless, the challenge is still
open! As an encouragement, it is worth noting that some of the
early suras (near the back of the Quran) are less than 5 lines
long. Sura 108 (in the English version) contains just 23 words.
It seems implausible to claim that to write a sura like 108 is
impossible, so what is the catch?

The first catch is that, since the Quran is in Arabic, the

85
challenge must be met in Arabic also. Even on the most
generous estimate, the number of Arabic-speaking non-
Muslims amounts to less than 0.5% of the world’s population,
leaving the vast majority of potential challengers unable to
participate even if they wanted to. Then, for the aspiring
participants, the requirement that the imitation verse should be
‘like’ the real one is a Catch-22. The Quran and the Hadiths
give no clue as to the criteria, leaving the decision entirely to
whoever judges the challenge. If the verses are too alike, then
copying can be claimed. If they differ to a degree such that this
accusation cannot be made, then the imitation can be rejected
on the grounds that the resemblance is insufficient.

Who would judge an imitation sura? Muslims would be

unlikely to accept non-Muslims as judges. If qualified (i.e.
devout, scholarly) Muslims could be persuaded to judge the
challenge, the comparison could not be done ‘blind’, since
anyone judging the contest would know that ‘God’ wrote Sura
A and an unbeliever wrote Sura B. Even if the judge was,
despite himself, impressed with a contribution, he would
almost certainly consider it blasphemous to compare it
favourably it with God’s work. A fair contest could never take
place, and never has.

5.4. Final remarks

Muslims maintain their belief in the miraculous inimitability of
the Quran in the face of obvious and abundant evidence that
the book is not the masterpiece that it is claimed to be. There is
no way in which the text of the Quran can be considered
flawless. Obvious imperfections exist in the style, in the
content and in the layout of the Quran and to recognise them
requires not a fluent command of Arabic, but an open mind.

86
The idea that the Quran is miraculously inimitable was not
developed by observation, but merely inferred from statements
to that effect uttered by Muhammad, either as part of the Quran
or in reference to it. Muhammad’s fellow Meccans, when in
receipt of the early verses of the Quran, were unimpressed to
such an extent that Muhammad achieved only around 100
converts in the first 13 years of his mission (see Chapter 3).
This suggests that any miraculous properties of the text were so
inconspicuous as to be overlooked completely by its target
audience. If, as Aleem states in [18], the Islamic doctrine of
inimitability took more than a century to establish, this must
surely be some kind of clue to its credibility.

The supposed divine strategy of providing inimitability (of all

things!) as a ‘miracle’ contains an obvious flaw. Not only is the
message of the Quran inaccessible to most of the Earth’s
population because of the exclusive use of Arabic (Chapter 2),
the claimed proof of its authenticity is therefore inaccessible
also. This implies that Muslims, mindful of their duty to spread
Islam to all the corners of the Earth, are given absolutely
nothing with which to persuade non Arabic-speaking peoples
of the truth of their religion, which may explain their reluctant
use of conquest, slaughter and plunder as alternative means to
the same end.

It is difficult to be impressed by the much vaunted ‘Sura Like

It’ challenge. Even if this had a history of objective criteria,
unbiased judges and documented rulings (it has none of the
above), Muslims should still keep a sense of proportion about
the value of a contest in which at least 99.5% of those who may
be motivated to compete are effectively barred due to an
accident of birth. Moreover, one must ask why there are three

87
successive challenges in the Quran when the last, alone, is
sufficient? If the author was God, why should He, knowing that
humans could not produce even a single sura like the ones in
the Quran, waste time with the earlier challenges to produce
ten or more? At the very heart of the Muslim ‘proof’ of the
divine origin of the Quran lies a subtle but unmistakeable clue
to human authorship.

The evidence which has been reviewed in the search for

evidence of inimitability is admitted to be incomplete.
However, it is noteworthy that, in Muslim reviews of the
subject ([18], [38]) where the evidence could and should have
been presented, it is absent. It is therefore suggested here that
the existence of proof of the ‘inimitability’ of the Quran is
merely an Islamic myth. If the supposed primary evidence for
the truth of Islam is simply not presented to the non-Muslim
world when the opportunity arises, the only possible
conclusion is that it does not exist.

88
 Chapter 6
The Claim of the Quran’s
Prophecies

6.1. Introduction
Explicit prophecies are few and far between in the Quran.
According to Pfander [39], Islamic scholars have claimed only
a limited number of examples, these being contained in
(Q2:21,22), (Q2:88,89), (Q3:10), (Q3:107,108), (Q3:144),
(Q5:71), (Q8:7), (Q9:14), (Q15:9), (Q15:95), (Q24:54),
(Q28:85), (Q30:2-4), (Q41:42), (Q48:16), (Q48:18-21),
(Q48:27), (Q48:28), (Q54:44,45), (Q61:13) and (Q110:1,2). In
truth, few of these have even the appearance of prophecies and
most can be dismissed as requiring far too much creative
interpretation on the part of the reader. Others seem no more
than upbeat assessments of the prospects of the Muslims in
forthcoming battles and can be viewed more as pep talks than
prophecies. One, however, looks like the real deal. It concerns
the ‘Romans’ (sometimes translated as ‘Greeks’) and refers to
the Christian Byzantine Empire, whose capital was
Constantinople. Verses (Q30:2-4) read:
“The Romans have been vanquished in the nearer part
of the land; and, after their vanquishing, they shall be
the victors in a few* years. To God belongs the
Command before and after, and on that day the
believers shall rejoice”
(* The original Arabic term seemingly means ‘three to nine’

89
years).
Is (Q30:2-4) a real prophecy or something a little more
mundane? This is discussed below.

6.2. What do the ‘Romans’ verses refer to?

The text of (Q30:2-4), like much of the Quran, is frustratingly
unspecific, but most likely refers to the war between the
Byzantines and the Persians, which took place over the Middle
East and North Africa from 603 onwards. Of particular
relevance are the victories by the Persians in nearby Jordan and
Palestine (‘..the nearer part of the land..’) in 613/614, including
the capture of Jerusalem [40], just 3 years after Muhammad
first considered himself to have been chosen as a prophet. The
Persian victories continued in North Africa until 619 but,
remarkably, the Byzantine Emperor Heraclius counterattacked
and, between 622 and 626, retook the land that had been lost.
In 630, he restored the Holy Cross, taken by the Persians in
614, to Jerusalem.
From the Islamic point of view the Byzantines were, at least,
believers in the Biblical God, so the Muslims cheered for them
whereas the pagan Arabs supported the Persians ([4], re.
(Q30:2-4)). The victory of the Christians was therefore a cause
for celebration, thus explaining the end of the verse.

6.2.1. Are the verses a prophecy, and of what?

It is clear that the quality of any prediction contained in the
above text depends upon the date when the verse first
appeared. It is less obvious, and symptomatic of the contrived
nature of the claim, that it also depends upon what is meant by
‘victory’.

90
If the verse first appeared just after the Byzantines were
defeated in the Middle East (i.e. from around 615, up to about
619), then it is a genuine example of prediction (though not
necessarily either supernatural or even remarkable).
Unfortunately, a prophecy issued this early cannot refer to the
final victory of the Byzantines (in 630) since this did not fall
within the stated period of three to nine years hence. If the
verse appeared after 622 (after the Byzantine counterattack had
started), but before 627, ‘victory’ may indeed mean final
victory. The predicted time period is then correct but, if the
verse was issued towards the end of this period, it could
represent nothing more than an optimistic assessment of the
news from the front line, with the tide having already turned
against the Persians. If it appeared between 627 and 630, the
prediction is in error because the victory takes place in less
than three years and if the verse appeared after 630, then the
prediction is a fake.
The best Islamic information allowing a dating of the verse is
the hadith that the prophecy formed the basis of a bet between
Abu Bakr, one of Muhammad’s Companions, and one of his
fellow Meccans. Abu Bakr was reported to have waited for
seven years, before eventually collecting his winnings, the
latter event suggesting that the whole episode took place before
the Muslims’ migration to Medina in 622 and dating the
appearance of the verse to 615. This is the date favoured by
Syed Abu-Ala Maududi [9]. However, if the authenticity or
accuracy of the hadith is brought into question, then there
appears to be nothing in either the context or the tense of the
first sentence of (Q30:2-4) to say that the defeat had only just
occurred. According to [41], Harun Yahya (a prolific author of
naive Islamic apologetics) states that the verse appeared
“around 620”: a significant difference. The reason for selecting

91
the later date is not given, but it could be simply that by
pushing the date back as late as possible within the Meccan
period, Yahya is able to claim that the final victory was the
subject of the prediction.
Of the two Muslim authors, Maududi is the scholar, Yahya
more the populariser, so the view of the former represents the
opinion which is more in line with the Islamic mainstream. It
must then be emphasised that the claim is therefore
emphatically not that the Byzantines were ultimately
triumphant over the Persians (in 630); the verse supports no
such interpretation because of the time limit. The prediction, as
claimed, is fulfilled by the occurrence of only one single battle
success by the Byzantines within nine years of their defeat in
Jordan: hardly a marvellous piece of precognition. However,
the aura of miraculous prophecy surrounding (Q30:2-4) relies
heavily on the eventual complete Byzantine victory in 630: an
event which was outside the scope of the verse. In fact, had the
Persians rallied, regained the upper hand and conquered the
Byzantines, the prophecy would still technically have been
fulfilled. However, under those circumstances, it is doubtful if
so much present-day weight would have been given to it.
The appearance of a vague prophecy with a flexible time
frame, and the subsequent identification of an event which
satisfies it, should be familiar to Westerners as characteristic of
the process which sustains the fame of Nostradamus, the 16th
century author of many cryptic quatrains. It may then not be a
complete surprise to learn that Muslims have managed to
retrofit a second successful prediction into the verse. In 624, a
small army of Muslims overcame a larger force of Pagan Arabs
at the Battle of Badr. Since this was a cause of celebration
among the believers it was taken as being consistent with, and

92
hence predicted by, the last part of the verse.

6.3. The curious incident

If (Q30:2-4) is regarded as a miraculous prophecy by present-
day Muslims, imagine what the impact would have been at the
time it was originally fulfilled. As discussed previously,
Muhammad’s rise to power had been long, difficult and
frustrating as he had been unable, by words alone, to convince
his fellow Arabs that he truly was God’s Messenger. Now, a
prophecy of significant events, known to have been delivered
years before, had come true, against all the odds. Time to shout
it from the rooftops.
Yet, the evidence suggests that the extent of exploitation of the
success was extremely limited; Abu Bakr collected his
winnings (some camels), a few Arabs reportedly converted to
Islam and that was it. The first biography of Muhammad ([12],
p653) describes Heraclius’s triumphant return to Jerusalem,
without so much as a hint that the event had been associated
with a prophecy within the Quran. Ref. [12] even reports the
interruption of Heraclius’s finest moment by an alleged
prophetic vision in which he saw “..the kingdom of a
circumcised man [i.e. Muhammad] victorious”. Shortly
thereafter, Muhammad had begun to make overtures to (i.e.
threaten), the Byzantines. Although the prophecy covered only
the start of the Byzantine recovery, that would have been no
reason not to play up its significance in political terms.
However, again according to [12], Muhammad’s envoy’s
discussions with Heraclius never touched upon the important
matter of (Q30:2-4). Even with the future defeat by the
Muslims having seemingly been foretold by Heraclius’s vision,
and the unmissable opportunity to reveal the fulfilment of the

93
previous prophecy having thereby presented itself, no such
statement was made.
That was the curious incident: the prediction was granted no
significance at the time. Seemingly, for whatever reason,
(Q30:2-4) was not considered to be a prophecy of any
consequence. As with the concept of inimitability (Chapter 5),
the idea that it was miraculous is therefore surely a later
invention.

6.4. An alternative explanation

The above suggests that the prophecy, if prophecy it was, was
at best correct but unremarkable. However, Pfander [39]
proposes an alternative explanation, noting that the Muslim
scholar Al Baizawi had suggested that there was, at the time,
no difference in written Arabic between the version given
above and the alternative: “The Romans have conquered in the
nearer part of the land, and they shall be defeated in a small
number of years”. The verse therefore could have originally
referred to the victory of the Byzantines over the Persians in
630 and their subsequent predicted defeat by the Muslims
(which took place, after a number of attempts, in 1453).
Hesham Azmy [42] objects to this variant explanation on the
basis that such a change would not have been accepted at the
time by the ‘hundreds’ of Quran reciters who knew the exact
form of the original. This objection relies on the Islamic
conceit that reciters existed in such numbers. In fact, as
discussed in [17] (which draws on accepted Muslim sources),
the number of reciters was significantly depleted at the Battle
of Yamamah in late 632 and there is evidence that some of the
Quran was thereby lost forever: an impossibility if Azmy’s
assertions were true. Therefore, although there is no evidence

94
that the meaning of (Q30:2-4) was massaged prior to the
production of an authorised Quran some 20 years later (see
Chapter 2), the possibility certainly cannot be ruled out on the
grounds put forward by Azmy.

6.5. A prophecy of Nostradamus-like quality

When considering the verdict on the prediction contained in
(Q30:2-4), it is worth considering what standards we might
reasonably expect from a Quranic prophecy, if the book was
indeed composed by an all-knowing deity.
Islam maintains that the Quran was written, along with the
entire future of all God’s creation, on a huge slab referred to as
the ‘Guarded (or ‘Preserved’) Tablet’ (or ‘Table’) (Q85:22);
engraved stone being God’s preferred form of data storage. The
Quran, according to Islam, has therefore been in existence for
all earthly time. If this is the case, then it follows that all the
then contemporary events to which the Quran appears to
respond so swiftly were known in advance, with the Quran’s
‘response’ merely being revealed at the appropriate time in
order to allow Muhammad and his fellow Muslims to react
accordingly. If this is the case, then it follows that the all the
text of the Quran is, in essence, prophecy; all the contemporary
events to which it refers took place precisely as they had been
preordained to do.
So why, we must ask, is the extent of prophecy of future events
so meagre, and the quality of the claimed prophecy so poor?
Even in (Q30:2-4), the flagship prophecy of the Quran, there is
no direct reference to the Persians, to the region in which the
battles occurred or to the dates when they took place.
Furthermore, the Quran predicted neither the final victory of
the Byzantines, nor the date of their resurgence, preferring

95
instead to give an ambiguous statement of the first and a vague
estimate of the second.
However, there exists at least one prediction which got things
completely wrong, as described below.

6.6. A failed prediction in the Quran

There is a story in the Quran about a heroic figure called Zul-
Qarnain: ‘The two-horned one’ and his dealings with a tribe
who feared ‘Gog and Magog’: warlike peoples of the East. Part
of the story (Q18:92-97) describes how he helped the tribe by
constructing a barrier between two mountains, so that Gog and
Magog were safely walled in behind it.

The first question to be answered is: who exactly was the two-
horned one? He was, according to the evidence, Alexander the
Great, based on (a) Alexander was sometimes represented (on
old coins, for example) as having two horns and (b) the story of
the building of the rampart appears in a fictionalised, earlier
story of his exploits. That Zul-Qarnain was Alexander was
accepted by Muslims for centuries, and it was only when the
credibility of the story became more and more dubious that
recent, rather forlorn attempts have been made to reinterpret it
in terms of someone else.

However, the argument as to Zul-Qarnain’s true identity is

ultimately irrelevant because, whatever his true identity, there
is the problem of the existence of the great barrier. The next
few verses are the key (Q18:98-100)
[Zul-Qarnain said] “But when the promise of my Lord
comes to pass, He will make it [i.e. the barrier] into
powder; and my Lord’s promise is ever true. Upon that

96
 day We shall leave them surging on one another, and
the Trumpet shall he blown, and We shall gather them
together, and upon that day We shall present Gehenna
[i.e. Hell] to the unbelievers “
This is an unambiguous prophecy that, one day, God will level
the barrier, let the hordes loose and “..present [Hell] to the
unbelievers” and, if anyone doubts that this is the correct
interpretation, they are invited to consult Ibn Kathir’s detailed
analysis [8]. Therefore, either the barrier is still there, with the
hordes of Gog and Magog still waiting patiently behind it, or
the barrier has already been levelled and Hell presented to
unbelievers, an event which seemingly escaped everyone’s
notice despite (according to [8]) the predicted simultaneous
appearance of nearly five billion angels.

It is unclear if modern Islamic scholars believe they have

resolved this difficulty with a creative interpretation of the
verses, or if they have adopted the policy of simply pretending
that it does not exist. Maududi [9] seems to be attempting a
diversionary tactic by trying to suggest that the phrase ‘when
the promise of my Lord comes to pass..’ means either (or
both?) the day when the wall crumbles to powder and the Day
of Judgement. Without any obvious justification, he then
asserts that the story of Zul-Qarnain ends at the end of verse 98
(‘… is ever true’) and that the following verses are just a brief
Judgement Day refresher, with no direct connection to the
previous tale. By such imaginative mental gymnastics is the
myth of an error-free Quran maintained. However, as with the
question of the identity of Zul-Qarnain, this reinterpretation
rather implies that the previous understanding of the verses was
completely mistaken: a stance which is difficult to reconcile
with a belief that the Quran is ‘clear’.

97
6.7. Final remarks
Even if all Muslim sources are assumed to be historically
accurate, the Quran’s flagship prophecy concerning the
Byzantine victory over the Persians remains a weak affair and
more remarkable for its vagueness, omissions and lack of
contemporary impact than its predictive success. By contrast,
the prediction of the levelling of the great barrier constructed
by Zul-Qarnain is quite unambiguous and completely wrong.
There is one further point to make. If Islamic claims are true,
there is no reason at all why the prophetic accuracy of the
Quran should not have continued after Muhammad’s death.
Yet, as we know, there are no prophecies which successfully
predicted events after Muhammad’s lifetime, for reasons which
should, by now, be obvious.

98
 Chapter 7
Aspects of Islamic Law
7.1. Introduction
If imposed rigorously, Islamic (Sharia) law regulates a
Muslim’s life completely and suggests that God has an almost
obsessive preoccupation with commonplace features of human
behaviour. For the purposes of this book, we shall concentrate
only on selected areas which show evidence of incompetence
and therefore of human origin. These consist of the Islamic
laws which govern adultery, the keeping of slaves and the
distribution of the estate of a person who dies intestate.

Before this, a discussion of a more general subject lying at the

heart of the question of whether people are responsible for their
actions: the Islamic views on fate and free will.

7.2. Free will and the future

As discussed in Chapter 6, Islam maintains that the entire
future of all God’s creation is already written on a huge slab
referred to as the ‘Preserved Tablet’. How might God have
arranged this? The following would seem to cover the
possibilities:

a) before setting the universe running (so to speak),

God predicted the precise future because he had
arranged ‘natural laws’ which ensured it would
develop in a predictable way. In this way, God
would know the future (just as we have predicted

99
 the future motions of the planets) but would not
have determined it.
b) God created the universe and the natural laws in
such a way that it developed exactly as he wished,
without His further intervention.
c) God decided that His intentions would be better
served by proceeding as in a), and making judicious
interventions at appropriate moments.
d) God created the universe and then manipulated each
and every event in real time, as a chess player
actively decides upon and instigates each move on
the board.

How do these scenarios relate to the question of human free

will? Decisions are normally considered to be ‘free’ if made (1)
by someone capable of making them (i.e. a sane adult) (2)
without coercion and (3) without prior brainwashing, though
the latter might be dubious as a legal defence. If one also
assumes the existence of an all-powerful deity, then we can
add: (4) in the absence of direct control from outside. There is
therefore nothing intrinsic in a), b) or c) above which prevents
‘free will’. However, d) is definitely out, for reasons discussed
below.
Now, which of these options are consistent with Islam? It is
evident that only c) and d) qualify, since Islam maintains that
God has intervened in human affairs many times (Chapter 2). If
the intervention had consisted only of the sending of prophets,
then human decisions would be just as free in c) as in a) and b).
However, it seems that the interventions take place on a more
fundamental level:
(Q14:4) “God leads astray whomsoever He will, and He

100
 guides whomsoever He will; and He is the All-mighty,
the All-wise.”
(Q2:6,7) “As for the unbelievers, alike it is to them
whether you have warned them or have not warned
them, they do not believe. God has set a seal on their
hearts and on their hearing, and on their eyes is a
covering”
(Q16:93) “If God had willed, He would have made you
one nation; but He leads astray whom He will, and
guides whom He will”
(Q9:51) “Say: ‘Naught shall visit us but what God has
prescribed for us; He is our Protector; in God let the
believers put all their trust.’”
(Q57:22) “No affliction befalls in the earth or in
yourselves, but it is in a Book, before We create it; that
is easy for God”
(Q76:29-31) “Surely this is a Reminder; so he who will,
takes unto his Lord a way. But you will not unless God
wills; surely God is ever All-knowing, All-wise.
For He admits into His mercy whomsoever He will”
The passages from the Quran swing our choice strongly
towards option d): God controls completely everything that
occurs in the physical world, and this is the general position
taken by orthodox Islam. However, because of the fatal
implications for free will implicit in this stance (see below), the
subject remains a source of continuing confusion. Broadly
speaking, and using the terminology used by Sell [11], those
who take the uncompromising view that God determines
everything are referred to as Jabarians (from the Arabic jabr,
meaning compulsion). Orthodox Muslims (Sunnis) are

101
Jabarians. Those who take precisely the opposite view: that
humans have free will, are known as Qadarians. The Qadarians
were an offshoot of the Mutazilites, a sect which introduced
rationalism and critical thought into Islam in the 8th century,
before declining towards the end of the 10th. Naturally, there
were, and remain, others who try to sit on the fence.
Nevertheless, that d) is indeed the Islamic view is confirmed by
the statement that “to believe that things…have any causal
influence independent of the will of Allah” constitutes apostasy
(i.e. leaving Islam) ([10], o8.7(17)).

7.2.1. Innocent, yet guilty

In the secular world, the complete determination of a person’s
thoughts and actions by the will of another exists only in the
world of fiction. In effect, this is nothing other than the
phenomenon of ‘mind control’, used from time to time as the
basis of movie plots. One of the reasons why this idea makes
for successful entertainment is that the ethical decision as to
who is the guilty party is straightforward and undisputed. There
is no question in anyone’s mind that the person doing the
controlling is responsible for the consequences (usually, in the
movies, some dastardly crime), whereas the one being
controlled is completely innocent, and normally unaware of the
manipulation. As far as the present writer is aware, no one has
ever suggested otherwise.
However, there is a sting in the tail of several of the Quran
verses quoted above. Although Verses 2:6 and 2:7 point to God
as being responsible for the unbelief of the infidels, Verse 2:7
goes on to say: “…and there awaits them a mighty
chastisement.”. Verse 16:93 immediately warns that “ and you
will surely be questioned about the things you wrought. “. and

102
Verse 76:31 ends with “…as for the evildoers, He has prepared
for them a painful chastisement..”. And so we arrive at the
Catch-22 of Islam: God determines all we do, but holds us
responsible for our actions, for the Quran includes verses
which seem to indicate that humans have free will, after all:
(Q41:16) “As for Thamood [a tribe], We guided them,
but they preferred blindness above guidance”
(Q18:29) “Say: ‘The truth is from your Lord; so let
whosoever will believe, and let whosoever will
disbelieve.’ “
(Q4:79) “Whatever good visits you, it is of God;
whatever evil visits you is of thyself.”
The difficulty is confirmed by the following, originally written
by the Muslim theologian Muhammad al-Barkavi and quoted
in [11]:

“It is necessary to confess that good and evil take place

by the predestination and predetermination of God; that
all that has been and all that will be was decreed in
eternity and written on the Preserved Tablet; that the
faith of the believer, the piety of the pious and good
actions are forseen, willed, predestinated, decreed by
the writing on the preserved table, produced and
approved by God; that the unbelief of the unbeliever,
the impiety of the impious and bad actions come to pass
with the foreknowledge, will, predestination and decree
of God, but not with His satisfaction and approval.”
The last sentence gives a hint that things are, perhaps, not as
straightforward as they might seem. God, despite determining
everything that happens, is sometimes less than pleased about

103
the result. Furthermore, God does not just react with
disapproval or dissatisfaction, as implied by al-Barkavi above,
He actually gets angry with those who do not follow His
guidance: the very first Sura of the Quran says so in the form
of a prayer:
(Q1:7) “Guide us in the straight path, the path of those
whom You have blessed, not of those against whom
You are wrathful, nor of those who are astray.”
and the ‘Abu Lahab’ sura (Chapter 3) confirms it. Islam
therefore maintains the position that God is angered by events
which He himself has caused. Al-Barkavi clearly sees the
difficulty in this, ending his previous observation with the lame
remark that:

“Should any ask why God wills and produces evil, we

can only reply that He may have wise ends which we
cannot comprehend”.

This is echoed by a remark on the SunniPath website [43] by

the present-day Islamic scholar Faraz Rabbani:

“As for how this works, it is beyond the understanding

of the intellect.”

Al-Barkavi and Rabbani have therefore committed the ultimate

intellectual sin of taking a nonsensical piece of dogma and
concluding on the basis of their preconceptions that it is,
instead, a truth too profound for humans to comprehend. One
should be fair to Islam at this point and suggest that this is an
unfortunate trait of theology in general.

104
7.2.2. Fate
Many of the events in the physical world take place as a result
of (or, if predetermined, ‘consistent with’) the human decisions
which preceded them. It is therefore possible that one’s fate is
inevitable but only if the decisions (one’s own, and those of
others) which lead up to it were also inevitable, since the fate
of any person will be seen, in retrospect, to be the culmination
of a whole array of consistent circumstances converging upon
the final moment. It therefore makes no sense to hold that the
events were preordained but that the decisions which brought
them about were not. Nevertheless, in a reference to the Battle
of Uhud, which went badly for the Muslims, we hear
(Q3:145): “It is not given to any soul to die, save by the
leave of God, at an appointed time.”
and
(Q3:154): ”…Even if you had been in your houses,
those for whom slaying was appointed would have
sallied forth unto their last couches..”
The Quran therefore states quite unambiguously that, whereas
one’s fate is inevitable, it is actually independent of the
decisions made prior to it. This is the basis of the well-known
Muslim tendency towards fatalism.
It takes only a little imagination to conjure up any number of
ludicrous consequences of such a position. As an example,
consider the case of a man deciding whether or not to shoot
himself. Let us assume first that his preordained fate is to die.
Islam’s position implies that, had he decided not to pull the
trigger (which he was free to do), he would nevertheless have
died a second later from some other cause. On the other hand,
let us assume that his death is fated to occur at some other time

105
and in some other place. If he decides to shoot, Islam must
surely maintain that he will survive the bullet which blows his
brains out, and presumably remained unscathed.
Of course, it could be argued that, under the precise
circumstances which existed as he was considering his
decision, the outcome – whether shoot or not – was inevitable
and would therefore have been consistent with his fate.
However, (Q3:154) clearly says otherwise: the decision was
not inevitable; the Muslim fighters at the Battle of Uhud could
have decided to remain at home, but would have died anyway.

7.2.3. Final remarks on free will

As with the question of ‘context’ (Chapter 2), Muslim
theologians cannot agree on the question of fate and free will
after nearly 1400 years, despite having an exposition in a book
which they describe as ‘clear’. Islamic commentators, mindful
that the Islamic position on free will and fate is contradictory,
try to suggest solutions which selectively ignore the
difficulties. As in other branches of religious apologetics, the
defence of unworkable doctrine is carried out by the production
of large quantities of verbiage, including impenetrable jargon,
non sequiturs, misleading analogies and so forth.
The idea that God “..has set a seal..” on the hearts of
unbelievers as a reaction to their initial disbelief was
mentioned in Chapter 3 as a strange tactic for a deity to adopt
when His goal would seemingly require precisely the opposite
approach. However, there are yet further problems. The initial
disbelief (which was quite reasonable, given the evidence)
would surely have been foreseen since it was, after all, written
on the Preserved Tablet. Did God nevertheless wait until after
the unbelievers had chosen their position, before simply

106
reinforcing it? Why? Furthermore, was any reinforcement
necessary? The unbelievers would have been unlikely to
change their views without further evidence, and none was
being provided. Finally, the Muslim position is contradicted by
history; the unbelieving Meccans, who had resisted Islam for
two decades, all suddenly converted. Had the seal suddenly
been removed? There is no scriptural evidence that this was the
case. Or was it because the city had just surrendered to
Muhammad and his large army?
The above set of statements on fate and free will from the
Quran could be viewed a collection of profound truths.
However, it is proposed here that they are truly as confused as
they appear. The Quranic verses were uttered at various times
by Muhammad, who either did not appreciate the muddle he
was getting himself into or realised it, but could abandon
neither the concept of an all-controlling deity, nor of one angry
at our disobedience. Just as in the instances of abrogation and
of his additional romantic privileges, he relied on his followers’
loyalty, credulity and considerable persuasive powers to keep
the lid on any dissent.

7.3. Adultery
Although God appears to take a dim view of adultery, in that
He requires that adulterers should be stoned to death, He seems
to make it all but impossible to prove that the crime has taken
place. Islamic law requires that four upright male witnesses
actually watch the act in all its essential biological detail,
where the term ‘upright’ refers not to the men’s unrestrained
state at the time, but to their prior piety. Non-Muslims do not
qualify as witnesses because “..unbelief is the vilest form of
corruption..” and Muslims who are “..without respectability,

107
such as a street-sweeper, bathhouse attendant and the like..” are
also excluded ([10], Section o24) although, presumably, they
would still be allowed to watch.

This is a strange law. Most cases of adultery (one would

assume) take place in private, and it would only be in cases of
extreme carelessness that four unsuspected witnesses would be
present. That these witnesses should also be pious men seems
somewhat in conflict with the fact that they have gathered
together in a group and are watching a couple having sex.
However, if fewer than four witnesses are present, their
testimonies are simply not sufficient. The rule means that a
prudent adulterer should be able to continue with his activities
in perpetuity without ever attracting a large enough group of
spectators to be prosecuted for his deeds.

This law actually caused trouble and protest during

Muhammad’s lifetime, since it meant that a man who caught
his wife in the act was powerless to do anything about it (other
than to divorce her) (see [8]). Fortunately, further revelations
appeared (though somewhat belatedly) allowing a wronged
husband to swear four times that he did indeed see what he
saw, and further allowing the wife to swear similarly that he
did not (Q24:6-9). How this actually resolves matters is not
obvious. Furthermore, it is yet another example of the Quran’s
contents being modified according to the wishes of mere
mortals.

As described in Section 3.4.2, the four witnesses rule proved

useful in helping Muhammad persuade his followers that his
wife, Aisha, had not committed adultery as the then current
rumours had suggested. Contained within the rather oblique

108
passage from the Quran relating to this incident, quoted in
Section 3.4.2, is a statement which rather overplays its hand. It
is (Q24:13), and reads:
“Why did they not bring four witnesses against it? But
since they did not bring the witnesses, in God’s sight
they are the liars.”
It is clear that the four witnesses rule, even as amended (see
above), is unsatisfactory because it will clearly exclude from
consideration many actual adulterous acts and, consequently,
many entirely truthful testimonies from eyewitnesses. It
therefore cannot be correct to say, as (Q24:13) does, that those
who do not produce four witnesses are necessarily ‘liars’ (all
the translations use this word), since they may be telling the
truth. Nor does it help to add to the term ‘liars’ the phrase ‘..in
God’s sight..’. The fact is that if someone is knowingly telling
the truth, they are not lying and that is all there is to it. At the
very worst, they might be considered to be technically guilty of
slander, but this arises from their having failed to comply with
the letter of an over-prescriptive law. Muhammad’s own
reaction to the rumours (see Section 3.4.2) suggests that he
agreed with the above analysis.

If the only consequence of this was that adulterers escaped the

(severe) legal consequences of their infidelity, then only
limited damage would have been done. However, this is not the
only consequence. It is best to leave the description of another
to a journalist from the U.K. (liberal) newspaper The Observer
[44]:
“For a rape trial to go ahead in Pakistan, four adult
Muslim men, 'all of a pious and trustworthy nature',
must have witnessed the attack and be willing to testify.

109
 Evidence from female and non-Muslim witnesses is
considered worthless. A woman who can't produce
those witnesses can be prosecuted for fornication and
alleging a false crime, the penalties for which are
stoning, lashings or prison.”.
This state of affairs is a direct result of the Quran verses quoted
above. Yet, in Chapter 1, we see that an argument for the
divine origin of the Quran is that “Its legislation cannot be
surpassed”.

7.4. Slavery
The Quran condones slavery while condemning the eating of
pork and the charging of interest on loans. It would be difficult
to find anyone outside the Muslim world who agreed that the
Quran had its priorities right. However, it is evident that even
Muslims are somewhat uncomfortable with Islam’s toleration
of slavery, despite its impeccable theological credentials.
Slavery is represented as something Islam was forced to inherit
from its Pagan predecessors. It was
“…a system of ownership that Islam did not invent but
found fully established and not possible to instantly
abolish, so it rather encouraged its elimination in steps,
with incentives” ([10], Sec. k32.0)
Reference [10] (Sec. w13.0) also quotes Islamophile writer
Titus Burkhardt, who tells us that “Slavery within Islamic
culture is not to be confused with Roman slavery or with the
American variety of the nineteenth century”. The Islamists’
favourite, Sayid Qutb, in his book ‘Milestones’ [45], was
positively enthusiastic about it:
“When Islam entered the central part of Africa, it

110
 clothed naked human beings, socialized them, brought
them out of the deep recesses of isolation, and taught
them the joy of work for exploring material resources.”
The mysterious activity which brought the African slaves so
much joy: “exploring material resources” apparently denotes
the pastime that we would normally refer to as ‘mining’. It is
not known what researches helped Burkhardt and Qutb form
their favourable opinions, but it is doubtful if they involved
seeking the views of the slaves themselves.
For a Muslim to assert that God has certain objectives is to
enter a trap of his own making. The more earthly objectives
which are claimed for Islam, the more the inability of Islam to
achieve those objectives becomes apparent. If God’s plan was
to phase out slavery by means of Islamic laws, it becomes a
problem for Muslims to explain why the plan was such an
abject failure and why it took the non-Muslim world to do it
effectively. The Quran’s pronouncements on the various
specifics of slavery, without condemning the practice in
general, amount to a tacit approval. The result of this is that
Islamic theology has justified and sustained Arab slavery for
nearly 1400 years, as compared with the relatively brief,
though industrial-scale slave trade between Europe and the
New World. One can hardly imagine the sheer scale of the
human suffering which took place as a result. Furthermore, it is
worth bearing in mind that this approval, preserved in the
Quran, remains as valid for Muslims today as it did for the
seventh century Arabs.
Furthermore, the Islamic claim that the Quran has the slaves’
(long term) interests at heart is based on dubious evidence.
Current Islamic apologists also insist that Islam’s notorious
rules relating to women are, in fact, based on a deep-rooted

111
respect for women’s wellbeing and chastity. However, it
remains Islamic law that Muslim men are allowed to have sex
with – the usual word in the West is ‘rape’ – their slave girls
(who are referred to in the Quran as ‘what your right hands
own’). The permission for this is contained in (e.g.) (Q4:3):
“…marry such women as seem good to you, two, three,
four; but if you fear you will not be equitable, then only
one, or what your right hands own; so it is likelier you
will not be partial.”
Verse (Q4:3) suggests marriage as a cover, though this can be
easily ended (by the man) in Islamic law. The following verses
contain no such implication:
(Q23:1,5-7) “Prosperous are the believers who…guard
their private parts save from their wives and what their
right hands own then being not blameworthy “
and again, almost identically
(Q70:29-31) “and guard their private parts save from
their wives and what their right hands own, then not
being blameworthy”
Nor does it matter if female slaves are already married:
(Q4:24) “(Forbidden to you are) wedded women, save
what your right hands own.”
which leaves Islamic claims concerning the humane treatment
of slaves and the respect for women looking somewhat hollow.
However, the question of whether Islam is good or bad is not
the issue. The issue is whether God created the rules in the
Quran. If He did, and if His intention regarding slavery was
truly to “encourage its elimination in steps”, one can only
wonder at the wisdom of issuing eternal rules which

112
perpetuated it.

7.5. The Rules of Inheritance in the Quran

7.5.1. Introduction
The following presents a detailed description of one of the
most straightforward and unambiguous errors in the Quran,
involving that most exact of sciences, mathematics, in that
most important of subjects, money. It concerns the division of a
person’s remaining wealth (net of bequests and debts) after
death.

You would expect that an almighty God would make a

competent job of setting out the rules. However, the rules are a
muddle. Incompleteness could perhaps be forgiven on the basis
that some of the details had been lost, but there is no excuse for
incoherence, inconsistency and incomprehensibility.

7.5.2. The source

Which parts of the Quran deal with inheritance? In order to
avoid accusations of misrepresentation, I have used the words
of Ibn Kathir, author of one of the most respected tafsirs, or
interpretations of the Quran [8]. He says, referring to Sura 4,
Verse 11:

“This [verse], the following [Verse 12], and the last

honourable verse in this Sura [i.e. Verse 176] contain
the knowledge of Al-Fara’id, inheritance. The
knowledge of Al-Fara’id is derived from these three
verses and from the Hadiths on this subject which
explain them”.

113
It should be mentioned that the Quran’s rules have
subsequently been refashioned into a workable (though not
necessarily equitable) system for the distribution of a
deceased’s estate. None of this subsequent rationalisation is of
any relevance; only the coherence of the Quran’s rules is of
interest, so later texts will be ignored and only the three Verses;
11, 12 and 176 of Sura 4 will be discussed. Muslims would be
unlikely to argue with the proposition that God should be able
to specify rules competently without the need for a helping
hand from humans.

7.5.3. The rules

First: Verse 11; this reads (deep breath):
“.. concerning your children: to the male the like of the
portion of two females, and if they be women above
two, then for them two-thirds of what he leaves, but if
she be one then to her a half; and to his parents to each
one of the two the sixth of what he leaves, if he has
children; but if he has no children, and his heirs are his
parents, a third to his mother, or, if he has brothers, to
his mother a sixth, after any bequest he may bequeath,
or any debt. Your fathers and your sons – you know not
which out of them is nearer in profit to you.”
Near the start of Verse 11, Arberry’s version [2] says “..if there
be women [i.e. daughters] above two,…., but if she be one”,
thus omitting the case of two daughters. Whose error is this?
Rodwell [7], Pickthall [4], Sarwar [6] and Shakir [4] concur
with this translation. However, Yusufali [4] and Al-Hilali &
Khan [5] refer to “…two or more..”, thereby (temporarily)
rescuing the verse. Maududi [9] states “The same applies in the

114
case where there are two daughters.”, therefore implicitly
conceding that the original is deficient. To add further
confusion, Ibn Kathir, who follows the latter opinion,
comments “We should mention here that some people said the
verse only means two daughters, and that ‘more’ is redundant,
which is not true”, where the “some people” were undoubtedly
informed Muslims. Already, the confusion is such that the
same phrase has been taken by various scholars to mean (in
standard mathematical notation), >2, ≥2 or =2. The conclusion
is clear: the error is in the original text.

Later in the verse, after the phrase “if he has brothers”,

Yusufali and Al-Hilali & Khan add “(or sisters)”, clearly an
inclusion not in the original Arabic. Maududi leaves the
brackets off. Rodwell, Pickthall, Sarwar and Shakir stick to the
all-male version, though Sarwar assumes that “brothers”
specifically refers to the plural, i.e. to “more than one ..
brother” rather than an implied “brother or brothers”.

But that is not all. There is a further uncertainty about whether

the verse applies to men and women, or just to men. Arberry
and Rodwell use ‘he’ throughout whereas Yusufali, Al-Hilali
& Khan and Maududi are equally consistent in using ‘the
inheritance’ in place of ‘what he leaves’ and Sarwar similarly
refers to ‘the legacy’ thereby making the verse applicable to
both sexes. Pickthall and Shakir start off in a gender-neutral
style, but then refer to ‘he’. As a final complication, where all
the other translators refer to ‘children’ (…if he has children;
but if he has no children… ), Pickthall says ‘if he have a son;
and if he have no son’.

The choice of which of the versions to adopt here needs to be

115
made carefully. They seem to group into Yusufali, Al-Hilali &
Khan and Maududi on one side and everyone else on the other,
with Sarwar at times going off on his own. It is evident that
Yusufali and Al-Hilali & Khan, on a number of occasions, add
words or phrases to assist with the generality and
comprehensibility and it is for this reason that there is an
obvious suspicion that they are giving ‘God’ a helping hand, as
Bucaille did in Chapter 4. Furthermore, it is conceivable that
Arberry et al did not worry about the implications of the rules,
but merely translated what was there. Therefore, on the basis of
this argument, it is assumed that the translation of the latter
group (which includes Arberry) is the more accurate one.

Verse 12, which has been separated here into two parts,
specifies:
“And for you a half of what your wives leave, if they
have no children; but if they have children, then for you
of what they leave a fourth, after any bequest they may
bequeath, or any debt. And for them a fourth of what
you leave, if you have no children; but if you have
children, then for them of what you leave an eighth,
after any bequest you may bequeath, or any debt.
If a man or a woman have no heir direct, but have a
brother or a sister, to each of the two a sixth; but if they
are more numerous than that, they share equally a third,
after any bequest he may bequeath, or any debt not
prejudicial.”.
Though not exactly transparent, the verse is rendered similarly
by the various translators. As an aside, it is instructive to
consider the extraordinary difficulties which even the early
Muslims faced with the Arabic version of the second part of

116
the verse. According to Ibn Kathir, the opening phrase reads “If
a man or a woman was left in Kalalah” where “Kalalah is a
derivative of Iklil; the crown that surrounds the head” [8]. This
phrase is essentially meaningless as it stands and a suitable
interpretation, that of “a man who has neither ascendants nor
descendants” or, as Arberry expresses it, a man or a woman
having “no heir direct” was only arrived at by (essentially)
informed guesswork. However, even this leaves it unclear as to
the status of a spouse.
Now, compare the second part of Verse 12 with Verse 176,
reputedly the last part of the Quran ever to be revealed:
“…concerning the indirect heirs. If a man perishes
having no children, but he has a sister, she shall receive
a half of what he leaves, and he is her heir if she has no
children. If there be two sisters, they shall receive two-
thirds of what he leaves; if there be brothers and sisters,
the male shall receive the portion of two females.”
Now, compare the beginning of Verse 176 with the beginning
of the second part of Verse 12. They appear to cover the same
example of a man with no parents, children or spouse but with
surviving brother(s) and/or sister(s). However, the rules in the
two cases are quite different. A way out of this discrepancy,
though it has no support in the Quran, is to assume that Verse
12 refers to the siblings having only the same mother as the
deceased, i.e. half siblings. Verse 176 is then taken to refer to
full siblings or to half siblings having only the same father as
the deceased.

Yet further problems arise when one tries to work out the
numbers. In many instances, the fractions do not add to 1,
meaning that there is money left over (whose fate the Quran

117
does not specify) or, worse, that there is a shortfall. For
example: a woman with two living parents dies, leaving a
husband and two daughters According to first part of Verse 12,
the husband gets 1/4 of his late wife’s estate (“but if they have
children, then for you, of what they leave, a fourth”). The
daughters, according to Verse 11 (and assuming that the verse
applies to both sexes) get 1/3 each (“..then for them two-thirds
of what (he) leaves”) and, by Verse 11 again, the parents get
1/6 each (“..and to (his) parents to each one of the two the sixth
of what (he) leaves, if he has children”), making a total of (1/4
+ 1/3 + 1/3 + 1/6 + 1/6) = 1¼, or 25% more than the amount
available. Of course, various ways out of these problems have
been formulated, but only by adding further rules not in the
Quran. The Quranic rules alone are, as the above discussion
shows, badly flawed.

For those readers whose interest in Islamic inheritance law has,

against all the odds, been awakened by the above description,
an account of the (Sunni) rules as applied in practice is given in
([10], Section L). Note, however, that because of the
difficulties discussed above, Shiite rules are somewhat
different.

7.6. The conclusion

As above, we are forced to ask: if the author was an almighty
God, could He not have produced a clear, complete and
consistent statement of His requirements? It is evident from
(e.g.) [8] that a considerable amount of thought was brought to
bear on turning the confused rules in the Quran into a workable
system. That this rationalisation has been achieved is a tribute
to human ingenuity; that it has taken place without an
admission that the original rules were badly flawed is a greater

118
tribute to the human ability of self deception. The chaotic
prescription in the Quran is so obvious a mark of human
authorship, and careless human authorship at that, that one is
forced to profess astonishment that this remains unrecognised
by the entire Muslim world.

119
 Chapter 8
Islam’s Cousins
8.1. Introduction
Muslims, ‘the best nation ever brought forth to men’, are
probably largely unaware of the similarities between the origin
of Islam and the origins of other religions, and between
themselves and other religious adherents. In fact, Islam, far
from being unique, is merely one example of an occurrence
which has been repeating itself time and time again, on
different scales, throughout history.

Islam is just one of many religions which began with their

founders believing that they were hearing the voices of higher
beings. This phenomenon: hearing disembodied voices is, in
fact, so common that, in all probability, it is happening to many
people throughout the world as you are reading this. What is
surprising is not just the frequency with which this perception
occurs, but the number of times that affected individuals were
able to convince other, apparently rational, men and women
that actual communications were truly taking place. Even
during his own time, Muhammad himself had to share the
limelight with a rival ‘prophet’, Museylima, who had “..quite a
good following” [18].

The phenomenon itself is discussed in Chapter 9. In this

chapter we outline a number of other religions whose origin
bears more than a passing resemblance to Islam’s and, using a
number of other examples, discuss the means by which
religious adherents avoid facing up to unambiguous evidence

120
of the falsity of their beliefs.

Finally, the subject of this chapter returns to Islam and

considers the reasons for its much greater numerical success,
compared to the relatively modest achievements of many of its
theological cousins.

8.2. The lessons of history

Over the course of history, many religions have been started by
committed individuals who claimed to receive communications
which only they could experience. Below are a few examples.

In 1892, in the Japanese province of Tamba, Nao Deguchi had

the first of her ‘spirit dreams’ where she found herself
apparently addressed by a Shinto spirit named Ushitora no
Konjin [46]. Her behaviour altered after the incident, to the
extent that she was considered insane. Her thoughts of suicide
were dispelled when the same being told her: “You must not
die! Your life is all-important for the great things expected of
you.”. She proceeded to engage in ‘automatic writing’, dictated
by the spirit, and founded a religious movement, which went
under a succession of names, but settled as Oomoto (‘Great
Origin’). By the time of her death in 1918, she had written over
200,000 pages, none of which she could read because, like
Muhammad, she was illiterate. Oomoto still exists, with a few
tens of thousands of adherents.

In 1935, Mark L. Prophet (yes, really) was allegedly contacted

by El Morya, one of a class of beings known as the Ascended
Masters, but rebuffed his advances due to theological
differences. However, after a change of heart, Prophet made a
reciprocal approach to El Morya (described as ‘Chohan of the

121
First Ray’). Prophet founded a movement called The Summit
Lighthouse [47] and published a series of communications
containing ‘profound teaching’ from the Ascended Masters,
under the title of ‘Pearls of Wisdom’, which today runs to 75
books. After Prophet’s death in 1971 (after which he became
the Ascended Master Lanello), his mission was carried on by
his wife Elizabeth who, in 1974, renamed the movement the
Church Universal and Triumphant and was able to consolidate
her position by means of a number of supportive
communications from the Masters. The CUT descended into
paranoia, militarism and anti-social behaviour in the early
1990s

In London in 1954, George King was shocked to hear a voice

telling him that he was to become a member of the
Interplanetary Parliament. According to his account: eight days
of bewilderment later, he received a mysterious visitor dressed
in white robes and, shortly after that, a message from an
extraterrestrial known as Aetherius, one of the Cosmic Masters
(not to be confused with the Ascended Masters), who sent King
over 600 messages up to his death in 1997. The Aetherius
Society [48] still exists, has a few thousand members and,
thankfully, remains peaceful and relatively unobtrusive.

In Persia in May 1844, Siyyid Alí-Muhammad declared

himself to be the (Shia) Mahdi, the appointed successor to
Muhammad just prior to Judgement Day and took the title of
The Bab (i.e. The Gate), thereby forming an Islamic breakaway
religion known as Babism [49]. However, the Bab is not the
main player in this story. Despite the exalted status that he
claimed for himself, and unusually for one who claims such
things, he in turn foretold the coming of “He Whom God Will

122
Make Manifest”. Sure enough, in 1853, three years after the
Bab’s execution by the Persian government (under pressure
from the Islamic clergy), one of his devout followers, Mirza
Huseyn-Ali, experienced a vision while imprisoned in a
dungeon in Tehran. He recalled:

“I felt as if something flowed from the crown of My

head over My breast, even as a mighty torrent that
precipitated itself upon the earth from the summit of a
lofty mountain. Every limb of My body would, as a
result, be set afire. At such moments My tongue recited
what no man could bear to hear.” [50].

On the basis of this, he concluded that he was, indeed, the one

referred to by the Bab. This was the origin of the Bahai religion
which, despite brutal persecution by the Islamic establishment,
now has 6 million adherents. Huseyn-Ali’s remaining 40 years
of life saw him maintain a prodigious output of written works,
totalling more than 15 times the volume of the Bible.

In 1820, Joseph Smith of New York went into the woods near
his home in order to pray. He says that then:

“I was seized upon by some power which entirely

overcame me, and had such an astonishing influence
over me as to bind my tongue so that I could not speak.
Thick darkness gathered around me, and it seemed to
me for a time as if I were doomed to sudden
destruction…..Just at this moment of great alarm, I saw
a pillar of light exactly over my head, above the
brightness of the sun which descended gradually until it
fell upon me….When the light rested upon me I saw

123
 two personages, whose brightness and glory defy all
description, standing above me in the air. One of them
spake unto me, calling me by name and said, pointing
to the other—This is My Beloved Son. Hear Him! My
object in going to inquire of the Lord was to know
which of all the sects was right, that I might know
which to join….I was answered that I must join none of
them, for they were all wrong….When the light had
departed, I had no strength; but soon recovering in
some degree, I went home.” [51].

However, it was not until another three years had elapsed that
the following took place:

“I discovered a light appearing in my room….when

immediately a personage appeared at my bedside,
standing in the air, for his feet did not touch the floor.
He had on a loose robe of most exquisite whiteness. It
was a whiteness beyond anything earthly I had ever
seen.…His whole person was glorious beyond
description….He called me by name, and said unto me
that he was a messenger sent from the presence of God
to me, and that his name was Moroni….He said there
was a book deposited, written upon gold plates”

The book, helpfully translated by Smith himself, was the Book

of Mormon. The resulting religion: The Church of Jesus Christ
of Latter Day Saints today has about twelve and a half million
members.

Smith’s and Muhammad’s experiences had a number of things

in common. Their first visions occurred when they had taken

124
themselves off for a period of isolation in order to pray. Both
founders saw themselves as restoring ‘original’ forms of
religion. Both founders dictated ‘holy books’; both claimed
that unique physical objects of divine origin and global
importance (for Smith, the gold plates; for Muhammad, the
Kaaba) just happened to be located in or near the towns where
they grew up.

However, none of these cases can match, in scale, impact or

resemblance to Islam, an example from that world-within-a-
world, China. The story of Hong Xiuquan, the Chinese
Muhammad, is virtually unknown in the West. It should (but
probably will not) serve as a warning against following leaders
who claim to see God.

8.2.1. The Chinese Muhammad

In 1837, Hong Xiuquan (or Hung Hsiu-chuan in pre-Pinyin
spelling) [52], [53] of Guangzhou (Canton) was ‘..carried in a
sedan chair to Heaven’ where he met ‘..a venerable old man in
black-dragon robe and high-brimmed hat’ who, it appears, was
God. After a subsequent period of seven years of relative
normality, Hong was suddenly seized with the belief that he
had been chosen by God and began to preach his message,
which involved urging his followers to destroy the artefacts of
the native Chinese beliefs. Facing mounting opposition, Hong
and his followers moved to Guangxi province and made
several thousand converts among the Hakka people, a cultural
group to whom Hong himself belonged. ‘Jesus’ then told Hong
to ‘fight for Heaven’. His followers were now organised into
military brigades, with men and women were strictly
segregated. Those who failed to attend religious meetings were
beaten with a hundred blows.

125
In the early 1850s, Hong’s followers began an armed uprising
against the ruling dynasty and he declared himself as the
absolute ruler of the Heavenly Kingdom of Peace. By 1853
Hong, commanding the Taiping Heavenly army, a force of
nearly one million, took the city of Nanjing. Within the
Heavenly Kingdom, many Daoist and Buddhist temples were
burnt to the ground. Idolatry and the use of opium and alcohol
were strictly forbidden. Polygamy was banned, though Hong
himself reputedly had 88 concubines.

In contrast to the case of Islam, to which the above so far bears

an extraordinary resemblance, Hong’s new religion was short-
lived. One of Hong’s followers, Yang Xiuqing, became his
rival and the internecine warfare devastated the kingdom. In
1864, the ruling dynasty retook Nanjing, Hong Xiuquan
committed suicide and the movement that he had founded died
with him. Approximately twenty million lives had been lost as
a result of Hong’s sedan chair journey to Heaven.

8.2.2. Will we ever learn?

The emergence of Islam should therefore be seen, not as
anything out of the ordinary, but as just one example of a
continuing process, common to all cultures and eras. Oomoto
grew out of Shinto. The Summit Lighthouse emerged from the
mystical religious movement known as Theosophy and the
Aetherius Society from a blend of beliefs, with a good measure
of UFOlogy thrown in. Mormonism and the Heavenly
Kingdom were spinoffs from Christianity and Bahai was a
spinoff from Islam, just as Islam and Christianity themselves
emerged from Judaism.

126
In all cases, the splits occurred as a result of individuals who
perceived that they had received messages directly from higher
beings which, of course, is also the way Judaism itself
originated. There is one very good and simple reason for this
obvious similarity, and it will be discussed in Chapter 9.

There are two main lessons to be taken from the above. First,
there is no dividing line between those we would call
‘crackpots’ and those we would call ‘prophets’, other than that
the former tend to see beings that they appear to have made up
themselves, whereas the latter see beings who were already in
the public domain. Second, there is no theological dividing line
between a ‘religion’ and a ‘cult’. We simply tend to call these
groups ‘cults’ when they are young small, poor and weak, but
‘religions’ or ‘faiths’ when they are old, populous, rich and
powerful. If there is a meaningful distinction between the two
terms, it usually concerns the amount of control that their
founders (or their successors) exercise over the rank and file.
We shall return to this issue shortly.

What is evident from the above examples and the many other
low-profile movements that pop into existence, then fade away
or die with their founders, is that new religions are surprisingly
easy to create [54]. Once started, whether the new religions
number their followers in the thousands, millions or hundreds
of millions are based on factors other than the plausibility of
their beliefs; factors which include luck, lack of effective
opposition (intellectual or physical), the zeal with which they
are promoted and the disincentives presented to those who
show signs of wavering.

Before we return to Islam, there are just a few more religions to

127
consider. The first was very small and ceased to exist some
while ago. Nevertheless, it is important because it gave rise to a
whole new branch of psychology dealing with the stubborn
persistence of treasured beliefs.

8.3. Keeping the faith

8.3.1. Believing when you know it ain’t so
In 1956, a report appeared in a Chicago newspaper describing
how Dorothy Martin, a local woman, claimed to have been
given messages in the form of “automatic writing” from alien
beings. She had already convinced a group of believers, later
termed the ‘Seekers’, some of whom had left employment,
college, and spouse on the basis of what Martin had claimed
about an inevitable apocalypse.
However, Martin broke the golden rule of prophecy (‘Be
Vague’) and made a definite prediction. She claimed that a
flying saucer would rescue the group when world ended in a
flood before dawn on December 21, 1956. The true believers
waited but there came neither a flying saucer nor a great flood.
What happened next? Did the Seekers face reality and disband
amid embarrassment and recriminations? No, Martin ‘received’
another message to say that, as a result of the group’s actions,
God had spared the earth. The previously reclusive group of
believers then began a campaign to spread the message of their
group to as wide an audience as possible.
What Martin and her followers did not know was that, not only
were they being hoaxed by various opportunistic practical
jokers who had read the newspaper article, they also were
being closely studied by a group of psychologists who had
infiltrated their fledgling religion. Their observations of the

128
Seekers (in which Martin was represented as ‘Marion Keech’)
and the research that followed became the basis of the theory
of cognitive dissonance, which analysed the ways in which
people adjusted their beliefs and attitudes in order to minimise
the ‘dissonance’, or uncomfortable conflict, between them [55],
[56]. The adjustment (‘dissonance management’) is commonly
carried out purely for comfort: not a means of getting closer to
reality, but a means of insulating oneself from it.
To the Seekers, the pain of abandoning the belief into which
they had poured so much emotional and material commitment
would have been unbearable, so they created an alternative
explanation for the failure of the prophecy, one which
reinforced and elaborated upon the perception that they had
been right all the time.

8.3.2. Dealing with the disappointment

The complete failure of the single specific prophecy upon
which a religion is entirely founded would seem to be as close
to a fatal blow as one could imagine yet, as we see above,
abandoning the belief is, for many, not an option. Again, the
reaction of the Seekers is not unique: the same thing happens
time and time again, aided by a variety of forms of dissonance
management. A couple of examples may illustrate the idea.
The Millerites [57] were followers of the American amateur
Biblical scholar William Miller who, on the basis of his
interpretation of the Bible, concluded in 1822 that the Second
Coming of Jesus would occur sometime in the next 20 years or
so. As the end of the period approached, Miller narrowed down
his time frame: it would occur between March 21, 1843 and
March 21 1844. After the latter had passed by, the prediction
was reviewed and alternative Jewish calendars considered in

129
order to identify the possible sources of error. A follower of
Miller determined a revised date, April 18 1844, but this came
and went, as did July 10. Finally, 22 October 1844 was taken
as the last-chance prediction. It failed, and its failure became
known as the Great Disappointment.
As with the Seekers, some Millerites were sufficiently
disappointed that they left the movement. However, again as
with the Seekers, many renewed their efforts and tried to
reinterpret the prophecy, with a number of sub-religions
forming from their efforts. Judged from the perspective of the
present day, the most successful of these was based on the view
propounded by one of Miller’s followers (which also occurred
as the result of a ‘vision’) that the October 22 date was correct,
but the nature of the event was misinterpreted and that the
Biblical prophecy actually referred to the entry of Jesus into a
particularly holy region of Heaven. The movement became the
Seventh Day Adventist Church, which today has around 10
million members.
As an aside: seemingly, the Bahais (Section 8.2) have a stake
in the above, for they regard Miller’s prediction as essentially
correct, but referring to the emergence of Siyyid Alí-
Muhammad (The Bab) in May 1844.
In 1994, the Jewish Chabad (or ‘Lubavitch’) [58] sect were
shocked when their leader, Menachem Schneerson, died.
Whereas many might be saddened, few would be as taken
aback at the passing of a frail old man of 92 as his followers
were, for they believed that Schneerson was the Messiah. Yet
he was dead; what had happened?
The followers could simply have recognised that they had been
wrong, and they could have done this without in any way
abandoning messianic Judaism. However, their belief in their

130
former leader and their anticipation of his imminent promotion
were so strong that they had to find a way that their belief
could be preserved, even in the face of conclusive evidence that
it had been incorrect. A number of competing explanations
emerged and were promoted with renewed vigour. Schneerson
was still alive, but ‘concealed’ (as with the Shia Mahdi or,
indeed, Elvis) and would be revealed at the appropriate time.
Alternatively, he truly died, but was to be physically
resurrected: an option which resulted in some of its more
enthusiastic proponents sleeping near his grave. The
movement’s present website [59] suggests a thriving
community and now displays no sign of this past trauma,
though doubtless there are many who still hope to see
Menachem Schneerson again. However, to date, he remains
dead.

8.3.3. Dissonance Management in Islam

The above examples are intended to illustrate nothing more
than that committed religious adherents are perfectly capable of
denying the significance of unambiguous evidence that refutes
their beliefs in preference to facing up to the fact that their
beliefs are wrong.
Although Islam does include at least one prophecy which has
failed (see Section 6.6) the prophecy does not form a major
component of the religion, so its failure can be swept under the
carpet without too much fuss. However, Islam does bet the
farm on its doctrine that the Quran is clear, inimitable, error-
and contradiction-free and superior to all other books. Denial
and reinterpretation are therefore applied to the obvious
violations of these claimed characteristics rather than, in the
above examples, to failed prophecies.

131
As Chapter 3 discusses, the first to perform this type of process
was Muhammad himself, who had over 20 years to provide
himself, his followers and his successors with a range of
theological ammunition with which to dismiss criticism and
doubt. He was able to get the Quran to deny its own
shortcomings and to grant to itself a range of virtues which it
clearly does not possess, such as that of ‘clarity’. He included
the ‘no inconsistency’ verse as both a statement of the Quran’s
perfection and a bogus rule for confirming it, and threw in the
‘abrogation’ concept so that he could change the rules anyway.
For good measure, he also provided a variety of ad hoc
‘explanations’ for obvious errors (Sections 2.2.2, 3.3.3).
Muhammad further established the principle that unbelievers
recognised the truth of Islam but had a ‘seal’ set on their hearts,
that those who enquired too deeply into the inconsistencies in
the Quran were just troublemakers and that others, particularly
Christians and Jews, were driven by a range of ulterior
motives, including jealousy, to plot against Muslims. These
opinions which, if exhibited in an individual, would be thought
a sign of mental illness, are a part of mainstream Islamic
theology.
Nevertheless, Muhammad did not do all the hard work. His
successors established (though following Muhammad’s hints)
the dogma that the Quran in inimitable and that non-Arabic
speakers must inevitably fail to appreciate the Quran’s
miraculous qualities. The position that critics inevitably quote
poor translations and, as non-Muslims, simply cannot
understand Islam seems to be a more modern invention, though
it would certainly not be a surprise if it had its origin in one of
Muhammad’s sayings.

132
Later Muslim commentators continued the process whereby
obvious defects in the Quran are simply redefined as
miraculous virtues. The identification of the ‘ambiguous’ (i.e.
incomprehensible) verses as ‘a mark of aesthetic excellence’
was described in Chapter 5. Also discussed there was the
occurrence in the Quran of small groups of letters, whose
significance is unknown. Al-Hilali and Khan [5] describe them
thus:
“...one of the miracles of the Quran and none but Allah
(Alone) knows their meanings”
In [60], the point is made that, in the Quran, ‘God’ refers to
himself variously as ‘I’, ‘We’, ‘He’ and ‘God’ (i.e. Allah):
seemingly a clear case of inconsistency. Khalid Zaheer, an
associate professor of Islamic Studies at the Lahore University
of Management Science, explains things thus:
“It is a masterpiece of Arabic literature…The use of
pronouns in the Quran…should be viewed from that
perspective….To someone who knows the subtle
delicacies presentations (sic) that are expressed in the
highest level of literary taste, usage of the same
pronoun can raise that work from the level of ordinary
prose to a much higher level of literary taste”
and he adds:
“The Quranic style of presentation should not be
critically examined from the point of view of ordinary
logic”
And this line of argument is ubiquitous, since no faults in the
Quran can ever be acknowledged within Islam. On the topic of
the Quran’s relaxed approach to organising its subject matter,
the Quran-Islam website tells us [61]:

133
 “Quranic verses deliver a truth independent within
themselves. Various adjacent verses contain
independent truths that are placed side by side. Having
said that, it is still necessary for any person studying a
specific subject in the Quran to study all the verses in
the book that speak of the common theme. These are
often found in a number of suras and not one single
sura. Many readers have often arrived at false
interpretations of Quranic verses simply because they
studied one verse in isolation”

The structure of the Quran, for which the descriptive words

‘random’ and ‘disorganised’ seem admirably suited, is never
described in anything other than glowing terms. Yet, despite
the author of the above piece acknowledging that the
haphazard structure gives rise to misunderstandings among
many of the Quran’s target readership, he fails to draw the
conclusion that the book itself is at fault, preferring to blame
instead the insufficiently dedicated reader.

By means of techniques other than simple denial, the property

of ‘consistency’ can be imposed on parts of the Quran which
do not seem to exhibit it at first sight. Two seemingly
incompatible statements, a and b, can be claimed not to
contradict one another by, for example, specifying that b
supersedes a, or that a applies in circumstance A and b applies
in circumstance B. And this is exactly what takes place; the
first approach is, of course, the principle of abrogation, and we
saw an example of the second in Section 7.5. Moreover,
virtually any two statements can be resolved in one way or the
other, provided that we are allowed sufficient freedom to relax

134
our normal criteria of acceptability for the coherence of written
works and to weave our own explanations as to what was
‘really’ meant.
By such means, if they are diligently applied, willing Muslims
can successfully avoid ever having to entertain the slightest
doubt about their beliefs. Nevertheless, a leader would be
remiss if he was to assume the unswerving loyalty of all his
subjects. Further incentives are sometimes required. These are
reviewed below.

8.4. The secret of Islam’s success

8.4.1. Total control
In Section 8.2.2 above, the distinction between a religion and a
cult was discussed. What, apart from age and size,
distinguishes the former from the latter? It is most commonly
held to be the degree of control that the movement exerts over
its members. How does Islam stand according to this criterion?

The following was compiled by Michael Langone, editor of the

Cultic Studies Journal [62], for people concerned that their
relatives (usually offspring) have become ensnared by cults. It
is a checklist of criteria by means of which the degree of
manipulation and entrapment of the followers by the cult’s
leaders can be judged. As far as I am aware, the list was
compiled with no reference whatever to Islam and is presented
below exactly as published, with some explanatory notes edited
out for brevity. It reads as follows:

135
No. Criterion Relevance to Islam
1 The group is focused Though Muslims claim to worship only God,
on a leader to whom their reverence for Muhammad is worship in
members seem to all but name. (B1.2.14): Narrated Anas: The
display excessively Prophet said “None of you will have faith till
zealous, he loves me more than his father, his children
unquestioning and all mankind.”.
commitment.

2 The group is In the concept of jihad, Islam has history’s

preoccupied with most aggressive recruitment technique. See
bringing in new Section 8.4.2.
members.

3 The group is The zakat tax for Muslims and the jizya tax
preoccupied with for non-Muslim subjects are specified in the
making money. Quran. The most blatant example is Sura 8 of
the Quran, which deals with the division of
the spoils of war. According to Maududi [9]:
“Spoils of war … essentially belong to God
and His Messenger. They alone have the
right to dispose of them. As for the soldiers
who fight, they are not the rightful owners of
the spoils; whatever they do receive should
be considered an extra reward from God
rather than their legitimate right.”

4 Questioning, doubt, According to Section a7.2 of [10]: “Unlawful

and dissent are knowledge includes … anything that is a
discouraged or even means to create doubts”. Doubt itself, even
punished. “..to intend to commit unbelief … in the
future” is equivalent to leaving Islam which,
if not retracted, is punishable by death ([10],
Section o8.0).

136
5 Mind-numbing The most popular examples relating to
techniques are used modern cults seem to be “meditation,
to suppress doubts chanting, debilitating work routines” and so
about the group and forth. In Islam, the 5-times-a-day prayer and
its leader(s). the obsessive-compulsive ablution ritual (see
below) certainly qualify.

6 The leadership Muhammad’s detailed rules about all aspects

dictates sometimes of a Muslim’s life reach out from beyond the
in great detail how grave. As an example, detailed rules about
members should ritual ablutions take up 50 pages of [10]. See
think, act, and feel. also No. 10 of this table.

7 The group is elitist, In the Quran, Islam is asserted to be ‘perfect’,

claiming a special, Muslims are ‘the best nation ever brought
exalted status for forth to men’, whereas non-Muslims are
itself, its leader(s), ‘..deaf, dumb, blind -- they do not
and members. understand.’. Islam might better be described
as supremacist, rather than merely elitist.

8 The group has a See Nos. 2, 7 and 13 of this table. Also, any
polarized us-versus- number of news reports from around the
them mentality, world.
which causes
conflict with the
wider society.

9 The group’s leader is Muhammad, by force of arms, became the

not accountable to ruler of Arabia. Nowadays, Islamic clerics
any authorities. may govern, or strongly influence
governments, in Islamic countries.

137
10 The group teaches or Ethical decisions are to be made entirely on
implies that its Islamic principles: “ ‘good’ is what the
supposedly exalted Lawgiver [i.e. God or Muhammad] has
ends justify means indicated is good by permitting it or asking it
that members would to be done. ‘Bad’ is what the Lawgiver has
have considered indicated is bad by asking it not to be done.
unethical before Good is not what reason considers good, nor
joining the group. bad, what reason considers bad” [10].

11 The leadership Guilt, and fear. Woe betide a Muslim in a

induces guilt feelings strict Muslim society who is subject to a
in members in order declaration of takfir: that he has done
to control them. something such that he is considered an
unbeliever.

12 Members’ Not always applicable now that entire

subservience to the countries are Muslim, but still applies when
group causes them to young men become radicalised. Furthermore,
cut ties with family suicide bombing most emphatically causes
and friends, and to the more zealous to “cut ties with family and
give up personal friends and to give up personal goals and
goals and activities activities” permanently.
that were of interest
before joining the
group.

13 Members are According to Kettani [63] “Once a Muslim

encouraged or finds himself in a non-Muslim environment,
required to live it becomes his Islamic duty to get organised
and/or socialize only with other Muslims” with the purpose of
with each other. “establishing a viable Islamic community”.
Assimilation into the wider community is not
an option. Muslims are strictly not allowed to
live amongst unbelievers ([8], re. (Q4:100))
because (Q4:101) “the unbelievers are for
you a manifest foe.”

138
Out of 13 criteria, we have 13 direct hits and, in a number of
instances (particularly Nos. 2 and 4), the degree of coercion is
undoubtedly greater than in the type of present-day cult that
Langone had in mind when he compiled the checklist. This,
then, is one of the two main reasons for Islam’s success. The
other is reviewed in the next section.

8.4.2. Jihad
The renowned Muslim historian Ibn Khaldun (1332-1406)
declared that ([64], Chapter 3, Section 31):

“In the Muslim community, the jihad is a religious

duty, because of the universalism of the (Muslim)
mission and (the obligation to) convert everybody to
Islam either by persuasion or by force.”

The Arabic word jihad (struggle) is undergoing something of a

makeover at present in order to soothe concerns in the non-
Muslim world. However, whatever the nuances of its meaning
in Arabic, its use within Islam overwhelmingly refers to one
specific activity. Jihad is defined in [10] only as follows:

“Jihad means to war against non-Muslims and is

etymologically derived from the word mujahada,
signifying warfare to establish the religion”

That is: jihad in Islam is not a struggle to become a better

Muslim, it is not warfare in self-defence, it is aggressive
warfare to establish the religion, just as Ibn Khaldun says.
Unfortunately, the reality of this has yet to be fully grasped in
the western democracies, despite the fact that the jihadis are
seldom reserved in declaring it.

139
In the decades following Muhammad's death, the Muslim
Arabs spread out from the Arabian peninsula and conquered
the regions we know today as Pakistan, Afghanistan,
Uzbekistan, Tadjikistan, Iran, Iraq, Azerbaijan, parts of
Turkey, Syria, Lebanon, Jordan, Israel, Egypt, Libya, Algeria,
Tunisia and Morocco and the Mediterranean islands of Cyprus,
Sicily, Rhodes and, partly, Majorca, Corsica and Sardinia. In
the east, they failed, despite a number of attempts, to make
extensive inroads into India. In the west, they crossed the
straits of Gibraltar and conquered almost all of Spain and
Portugal. They were only stopped from conquering Europe by
military defeats at Constantinople in 718, at Tours, in mid
France, in 732 and at Rome in 846.

In the west, Islam was slowly pushed back out of Spain and
Portugal (the Reconquista), though the process was not
completed for another 800 years. Attempts at further Islamic
expansion continued with repeated Arab attacks on Italy and
incursions in the East, carried out by Turks, Persians and
Afghans. India was invaded again in the late 900s, with
Muslim rule over a fluctuating area of the country taking place
over the subsequent centuries.

In 1095 the first Crusade was launched, partly in response to a

request from Constantinople, centre of the Christian Byzantine
empire, in order to protect it from attacks by the Turks. The
Crusades continued until about 1300 and they, along with
attacks from the Mongol army, arrested Islam's military
advance. Nevertheless, once this period had ended, the
expansion began anew. Constantinople eventually fell to the
Ottoman Turks in 1453. The Ottomans conquered Albania,
Bulgaria, Yugoslavia, Greece, Hungary and Romania, and

140
besieged Vienna in 1529 and again in 1683. Again, European
land was regained from the world of Islam, this time by
Austria, as the Ottoman Empire slowly declined. Finally, Islam
lost territory close to home, as Palestine became Israel.

The purpose of this summary is not to criticise Islam for past

expansionism. After all, many nations, including the British,
have done the same thing. It is not even to warn non-Muslims
that the jihad will continue, even though it inevitably will since
the underlying ideology has not changed one iota. The purpose
of the summary is to emphasise that, with the exception of
Indonesia and, arguably, South Saharan Africa, Islam was
adopted as a belief only in the lands the Muslim armies
conquered, was ignored in the lands where those armies failed
to advance and rejected in the lands where the Islamic
conquerors were overthrown. Even in the case of Indonesia,
where the conversion was slow and piecemeal, there is no
reason to suppose that it took place without the use of threat.
Azra [65] comments: “There were of course some isolated
cases of the use of force by some Malay-Indonesian Muslim
rulers to convert their people or neighbouring populations to
Islam”. The words “of course” are (of course) intended to pre-
empt the anticipated criticism of Islam’s inherently violent
method of expansion. However, they merely serve to draw
attention to it.

The fact is that the success of Islam has not been achieved
because of any suggestion of plausibility in its doctrines; it has
always had to rely (despite denials) on coercion to convert and
on rigid control thereafter. The reasons why so few convert
because they are convinced of its truth should be clear from the
previous chapters of this book.

141
 Chapter 9
The Real Origin of Islam
9.1. Voices in my head
A central part of Islamic doctrine asserts that Muhammad holds
a unique position in history: the last of God’s Messengers.
However, when viewed from a broader perspective,
Muhammad was neither the first, nor the last, nor a particularly
unusual example of someone who heard ‘voices’ that no one
else could hear. We came across a few examples in Chapter 8.

It is not just the founders of religious movements who have

such experiences. The following is from an account given by
Joan of Arc:

“When I was thirteen years old, I had a voice from

God…The first time I was very fearful…I heard this
voice on the right hand side, towards the church and
rarely do I hear it without a brightness. This brightness
comes from the same side as the voice is heard. It is
usually a great light…This voice was sent to me by God
and, after I had thrice heard this voice, I knew that it
was the voice of an angel. This voice has always guided
me well and I have always understood it clearly.”

If we are to believe that Joan’s visions were truly of an angel

sent by God, we would be forced to conclude that God had, for
a while, developed a particular interest in ending English rule
in medieval France: a proposition which is difficult to accept,
especially for the English. Therefore, is there a more mundane

142
cause that could have made all these people and, particularly,
Muhammad have the experiences that they described? Let us
consider Muhammad’s reported behaviour during his periods
of ‘inspiration’.

9.2. The episodes of ‘inspiration’

Although there are relatively few accounts in the Hadiths, there
is enough information for us to get at least a partial picture of
the nature of these incidents. In order to avoid accusations of
cherry-picking the information, I have quoted the relevant
Hadiths below: none have been altered and none have been
omitted, at least not intentionally.

First, Muhammad suffered sudden losses of consciousness:

(B5:58:170): ”When the Kaaba was rebuilt, the

Prophet and 'Abbas went to carry stones. 'Abbas said to
the Prophet "(Take off and) put your waist sheet over
your neck so that the stones may not hurt you." (But as
soon as he took off his waist sheet) he fell unconscious
on the ground with both his eyes towards the sky. When
he came to his senses, he said, "My waist sheet! My
waist sheet!"

However, when he experienced ‘visitations’, these were

initially traumatic (as they were for Joan of Arc):

(B1:1:3):”.. The angel came to him and asked him to

read. The Prophet replied, "I do not know how to read.
The Prophet added, "The angel caught me (forcefully)
and pressed me so hard that I could not bear it any
more. He then released me and again asked me to read

143
 and I replied, 'I do not know how to read.' Thereupon he
caught me again and pressed me a second time till I
could not bear it any more. He then released me and
again asked me to read but again I replied, 'I do not
know how to read (or what shall I read)?' Thereupon he
caught me for the third time and pressed me, and then
released me and said, 'Read in the name of your Lord,
who has created (all that exists) has created man from a
clot. Read! And your Lord is the Most Generous." Then
Allah's Apostle returned with the Inspiration and with
his heart beating severely. Then he went to Khadija bint
Khuwailid [his wife] and said, "Cover me! Cover me!"
They covered him till his fear was over..”

They were intermittent:

(B6:60:478):” …But a short while later Waraqa died

and the Divine Inspiration stopped for a while so that
Allah’s Apostle was very much grieved…”

and of varying intensity:

(B1:1:2):”… and this type of Divine Inspiration is the

hardest on me…”

and of varying form:

(B1:1:2)”Sometimes it is (revealed) like the ringing of a

bell….and then this state passes off after I have grasped
what is inspired. Sometimes the Angel comes in the
form of a man and talks to me and I grasp whatever he
says.”

144
During his spells, Muhammad was observed to sweat
profusely:

(B3:48:829): “So, there overtook him the same state

which used to overtake him, (when he used to have, on
being inspired divinely). He was sweating so much so
that the drops of the sweat were dropping like pearls
though it was a (cold) wintry day.”

become detached:

(B9:92:400): “…The Prophet stood up for a while,

waiting. I realised that he was being divinely inspired.”

move his tongue and lips involuntarily:

(B6:61:564): “…And whenever Gabriel descended to

Allah’s Apostle with the Divine Inspiration, Allah’s
Apostle used to move his tongue and lips, and that used
to be hard for him and one could easily recognise that
he was being inspired”

and his face used to change colour:

(M30:5765):”..When inspiration descended upon

Allah’s Messenger…he felt a burden on that account
and the colour of his face underwent a change.”

Let us consider these episodes. First, if one looks at them

according to the Islamic explanation: that they were caused by
the angel Gabriel, Muhammad’s first encounter is bizarre and
unnecessarily distressing. Three times, the angel asks

145
Muhammad to read. To read what? Nothing seems to have
been presented. Furthermore, the angel strangely seems to have
selected for this task a man who cannot read. However, each
time Muhammad points this out he is, in effect, tortured, with
the angel taking no heed of the reply and repeating the request.
Finally, Gabriel appears to abandon the idea and, instead, tells
Muhammad something which makes very little sense. The
whole episode is nightmarish and it is not surprising that
Muhammad was profoundly affected by the experience.
Therefore, given its incoherence, was the event really a divine
visitation, or something altogether different?

9.3. A rational explanation

Imagine that you are a medical student and have been told that
‘Patient A’ who had, at times, suffered sudden bouts of
unconsciousness, had reported receiving intermittent visits and
messages from a superior Being. As a result, he had become
convinced that he was a prophet and was compiling a book of
messages that he had received. Moreover, when Patient A was
supposedly experiencing these visits, his face changed colour
and he was observed to experience anxiety or terror and to
become detached, move his mouth involuntarily and to sweat
profusely.

You are now asked to come up with a list of possible causes for
Patient A’s behaviour. How would you set about the task and
what would be on your list? In all likelihood, you would search
the appropriate medical textbooks (or modern equivalent) and
compile a number of candidate conditions. Nowhere on the list
would you be likely to put as a possible cause “actual visits
from perceived Being”.

146
However, at the very top of the list would come a single
condition which is capable of producing all of Muhammad’s
symptoms. The condition is temporal lobe epilepsy, or TLE.
Aside from religious hallucinations, discussed below, the
symptoms are many and varied, but some are characteristic and
quite common. These include [66]:

a. fear or anxiety
b. a wide-eyed, motionless stare
c. lip smacking, chewing and swallowing
d. changes in heart rate and sweating
e. pallor or blushing [67]

All the features of Muhammad’s extraneous behaviour are

symptoms of this condition, with c. above (“Allah’s Apostle
used to move his tongue and lips, and that used to be hard for
him”) being otherwise most unusual. Epileptic attacks are also
known to be short-lived, varied in intensity and highly
irregular. It is an almost perfect match.

9.3.1. Instant prophet

As well as the symptoms described so far, the most important
side effects of temporal lobe epilepsy, as far as the world at
large is concerned, are those producing religious mania
(‘religiosity’). The neuroscientist V.S. Ramachandran begins
his book ‘Phantoms in the Brain’ thus [68]:

“A man wearing an enormous bejeweled cross dangling

on a gold chain sits in my office, telling me about his
conversations with God, the "real meaning" of the
cosmos and the deeper truth behind all surface
appearances. The universe is suffused with spiritual

147
 messages, he says, if you just allow yourself to tune in.
I glance at his medical chart, noting that he has suffered
from temporal lobe epilepsy since early adolescence,
and that is when "God began talking" to him.”

The subject of religiosity as a result of TLE is reviewed in [69],

where the authors comment that mystical delusional
experiences had been found to be ‘remarkably common’ in
sufferers. The similarities between Muhammad’s experiences
and some of the case histories reviewed in [69] are as clear as
the similarity between the origin of Islam and those of the other
religions reviewed in Chapter 8. A patient in the 19th century

“..declared that God had given him a mission to reform

the world by law.”

and one of the patients treated by the authors of [69]

“…completely believed everything he had seen and

heard during the acute phase, and specifically rejected
the idea that the experience could have been the product
of a disordered mind. He considered that he had
received a message from God to mend his ways and
help others and the fact that he had been singled out in
this way meant that he was God’s chosen instrument”

Another heard the voice of ‘God’ say:

“A human life is like a tree or shrub. It either grows

straight up or bends and goes right over. As long as it is
upright it has the hand of God”

148
which has the same kind of portentous yet empty quality
exhibited by Muhammad’s first communication: it is the sort of
pseudo-Biblical thing that believers feel God ought to say.

An earlier review by Howden [70] covered similar ground. Of

one of his case studies, the patient ‘J.I.’, Howden writes:

“He tries to convert the attendants and his fellow

patients, chiefly by threatening them with God's
judgments if they will not do what he (J.I.) tells them.
He is fond of the terrors of the law, and tries to impress
on his hearers that he is a messenger sent by God to
warn his fellow men to believe and flee from the wrath
to come.”

which is a pattern of behaviour which should be familiar to

anyone who has read the Quran. Nao Deguchi’s first
experience (Section 8.2) bears a startling resemblance to
Muhammad’s. According to [46]:

“The voice in reply commanded her to take up a writing

brush. However there was no writing brush in the cell,
and even if there were, unlettered as she was, Nao could
not have written even a single word.”

Nao also displayed strange additional behaviour traits when her

‘spirit dreams’ occurred. Again from [46]:

“..she felt a great force in her abdomen. At this time all

feeling of fatigue left her and her posture became erect
and rigid, like an effigy in stone. Presently her body
began to rock backward and forward and she would

149
 raise and lower her feet alternately.”

Also included in the (relatively short) list of symptoms in [67]

are:
- epigastric [‘of or relating to the anterior walls of
the abdomen’] sensations and
- automatisms, elaborated upon in [66] as
‘dystonic [‘sustained muscle contractions cause
twisting and repetitive movements’] posturing’.

Moreover, as required by all prophets who wish their works to

outlive them, sufferers from TLE commonly display the
symptom of compulsive recording of their thoughts or their
‘messages’: a behaviour termed hypergraphia [71], [72]. This is
a feature shared by all those examples discussed in Section 8.2
and, of course, by Muhammad himself.

The idea that Muhammad’s visions were caused by epilepsy is

not new, having been proposed as early as the 8th century by
the Byzantine Christian historian Theophanes. A study in 1976
concluded [73]:

“Although an unequivocal decision is not possible from

existing knowledge, psychomotor or complex partial
seizures of temporal lobe epilepsy would be the most
tenable diagnosis”

Unfortunately, when ‘Patient A’ is replaced with

‘Muhammad’, even non-Muslim authors seem to forget the
basic principles of their craft, and reason gives way to sloppy
research, wishful thinking and the desire not to be seen to rock
the boat. Their objections to the epilepsy diagnosis are

150
therefore reviewed below.

9.4. Non-Muslim objections

9.4.1. Closet Islamophiles
It is strange to consider, but some non-Muslims have an
interest, whether personal, ideological, religious or even
economic, in declaring that Muhammad was not simply an
epileptic. Certainly, most religious adherents are sympathetic
to the idea of direct ‘spiritual’ experience and are unwilling to
delve too deeply into the possibility that at least some of these
occasions may simply be dreams, delusions or hallucinations.
Therefore Christians, particularly those of an ecumenical
persuasion, may close ranks with Muslims when the reality of
revelation is called into question.

Paradoxically, non-Muslims who oppose Christianity may also

side with Islam in order to maintain what they see as an
appropriate political or religious stance. Islamic claims may
therefore draw fraternal support from a variety of those who
might be expected to adopt a more objective approach.

Nevertheless, sympathetic non-Muslims should not be too

eager to oppose the epilepsy theory since, if someone does not
believe that God composed the Quran and cannot accept that
some medical condition gave rise to the visions, then they are
out of options: the only explanation left is that Muhammad was
faking.

The problem arises more acutely for those involved in Islamic

studies. Although wishing to assess Muhammad from a non-
Muslim viewpoint, they may be reluctant, for the sake of the

151
smooth running of their professional relationship with the
Muslim world, to be seen to be expressing a view which
implies that Islam is false. Some fairly creative equivocation is
then necessary in order to make it unclear as to exactly what is
being said.

So, the Swedish theologian Tor Andrae writes:

“If epilepsy is to denote only those severe attacks which

involve serious consequences for the physical and
mental health, then the statement that Mohammad
suffered from epilepsy must be emphatically rejected
[74]”

the logic of which may best be assessed by comparing it with

its equivalent:

“If ‘driving a car’ is to denote only those cases which

involve collision and death, then the statement that
Elvis Presley ever drove a car must be emphatically
rejected”

Caesar Farah also adopts the sophistry approach. He deals

directly with the epilepsy question by quoting the passage from
Andrae above, despite its obviously fallacious form (though
neatly based on a truism). He then makes the highly dubious
comment:

“Many personalities before Muhammad who were

considered ‘psychologically sound’ had less to offer
posterity… [75]”

152
Dubious? Well, if Farah does not accept the Muslim view of
the origin of the Quran, then he should be honest enough to
admit that all that Muhammad then had ‘to offer posterity’ was
a book which was a fake. And what does he mean by putting
quotes around ‘psychologically sound’? That the whole
madness thing is just a social construct? Very R.D. Laing.

Maxime Rodinson brings Theophanes back into the mix. His

third sentence could mean whatever you wish it to mean:

“Hostile Christians put it down to epilepsy. If this were

so, it was a benign form. What is much more probable
is that Muhammad's psycho-physiological constitution
was basically of the kind found in many mystics [76]”

The idea that ‘hostile Christians’ simply invented the idea of

Muhammad’s epilepsy is a thread which runs through another
sequence of opinions. Edward Gibbon, author of the celebrated
18th century work The History of the Decline and Fall of the
Roman Empire, was vehemently anti-Christian and yet a
relatively uncritical admirer of Muhammad and of Islam. His
assessment that the epilepsy diagnosis was “…an absurd
calumny of the Greeks” [77] was more a manifestation of this
attitude than a reasoned assessment of the evidence he had to
hand.

9.4.2. The falling sickness

The question of whether Muhammad was an epileptic was
considered by Owsei Temkin as part of what is regarded as the
classic book on historical epilepsy: The Falling Sickness [78].
Temkin’s book is a wide scholarly review of how epilepsy has
been viewed throughout history and, as part of this his review,

153
he includes a range of opinions concerning Muhammad.

At times, it is unclear if Temkin is concurring with previous

writers’ opinions or simply reporting them. However, he does
give the overall impression that he is against the epilepsy
explanation and, because of the high regard in which the book
and its author are held and because later authors construct
unjustifiably dogmatic arguments on the basis of his general
tone (see below), a number of features of Temkin’s treatment
of the subject are discussed here.

Temkin’s research was clearly extensive and meticulous, yet he

appears not to have had access to the Hadiths and to have relied
instead on the early biographies, such as that of Ibn Ishaq [12].
The evidence contained in these biographies is consistent with
the Hadiths cited above, but lacks the force of what are
supposedly eyewitness testimonies. Nevertheless, Temkin is
curiously reluctant to infer from this information anything in
favour of the epilepsy diagnosis and, in parallel, fails to
evaluate the weakness of some of his predecessors’ counter-
arguments.

First, he echoes Gibbon’s misgivings concerning the Byzantine

epilepsy story, stating:

“The story has all the earmarks of religious and

political propaganda.”

The Byzantines were undoubtedly anti-Muslim and with good

reason since, by the time Theophanes was born, Constantinople
had been attacked twice by the Muslim Arabs, intent on
capturing the capital of Christendom for Islam (see Sections

154
6.3, 6.4). However, it should be obvious that the question of
whether Muhammad did or did not suffer from epilepsy cannot
be decided on the basis of whether or not the diagnosis was
also useful as Christian propaganda.

Temkin also makes the point that the suggestion that

Muhammad suffered from epilepsy had not been made, or at
least reported, during his lifetime. For this to be considered as
evidence against the diagnosis we would need to be confident
that (a) epilepsy would have been recognised by Muhammad’s
compatriots and (b) the opinions would have been recorded and
preserved.

Temkin appears to suggest that (a) above applies by quoting

from a 9th century Islamic document written by the physician
al-Tabari, whom he describes as an ‘Arabic author’. However,
not only was this document written some 200 years after
Muhammad’s lifetime, but Temkin commits, or at least
perpetuates, the common misconception that Islamic authors
with Arab names, writing in Arabic, were Arabs. According to
the medieval Islamic historian Ibn Khaldun [64]:

“…with few exceptions, Muslim scholars both in the

religious and in the intellectual sciences have been non-
Arabs. When a scholar is of Arab origin, he is non-Arab
in language and has non-Arab teachers”

And, indeed, al-Tabari was a Persian and, before his

conversion to Islam, a Jew. The Arabs themselves had
achieved few scholarly achievements by the 9th century and
could claim even fewer during Muhammad’s time. In addition,
Mecca was a small desert town on a trade route: as a centre of

155
learning it had more in common with Dodge City than with
Oxford, Vienna or Baghdad. Therefore, although epilepsy was
known to ancient scholars and physicians, there is no reason to
suppose that it was common knowledge in 7th century Mecca.

Regarding (b) above: the fact is that, according to supposedly

eyewitness accounts, Muhammad did indeed display visible
symptoms which would have suggested epilepsy to someone
familiar with the condition. That there is now no record of the
suggestion means nothing more than that the diagnosis was
never made or, if it was, it was ignored and has now been
forgotten. The absence of evidence is very clearly not, in this
case, evidence of absence.

Finally, Temkin does venture his own opinion by citing the

Quran itself as evidence against the epilepsy explanation:

“It is hard to imagine that the Quran, a body of

religious, legal and social instruction should largely be
the product of a succession of hallucinatory epileptic
attacks.”

It is unclear how much of the Quran Temkin had actually read.

It may be “..a body of religious, legal and social instruction.”
but, considering how vague, abstruse and disorganised it is,
there is no difficulty at all in seeing it as being “..the product of
a succession of hallucinatory epileptic attacks.” (coupled with a
degree of conscious input). Perhaps a view of Sura 101 will
help illustrate the point:
“The Clatterer!
What is the Clatterer?
And what shall teach thee what is the Clatterer?

156
 The day that men shall be like scattered moths,
and the mountains shall be like plucked wool-tufts.
Then he whose deeds weigh heavy in the Balance
shall inherit a pleasing life,
but he whose deeds weigh light in the Balance
shall plunge in the womb of the Pit.
And what shall teach thee what is the Pit?
A blazing Fire!”
Unfortunately, Temkin’s conjectures have been picked up more
recently by the clinical psychologist Vaughan Bell who writes
unequivocally that Temkin has ‘debunked’ the epilepsy claim
[79], when he clearly has not. Whether Bell consequently
considers Muhammad to have been a fraud, he does not say.

9.4.3. Epileptophobia
Finally, number of unjustified objections to the epilepsy theory
are based on the assumption that an epileptic could not have
achieved what Muhammad achieved. Montgomery Watt, a
professor of Arabic and Islamic Studies, stated that:

“Epilepsy leads to physical and mental deterioration

and there are no signs of that in Muhammad..”

for which he is chided by Freemon [73], who points out that:

“A…..common misconception predicts that epileptics

undergo brain deterioration.”

It is a fallacy to assume that epileptics cannot produce coherent

written works or lead others. The Russian author Fyodor
Dostoevsky was epileptic, as was the American science fiction
writer Philip K. Dick. Whereas someone who suffered

157
hallucinations and delusions might be an unsuitable head of
state of a secular democracy, it is quite feasible that such a
person could act as an inspirational leader for an ideological or
religious movement. The subjects of Section 8.2 became
leaders of the movements that originated as a result of their
‘visions’ and the most successful, Hong Xiuquan, became head
of an army of more than a million.

The popular objections to the epilepsy explanation are

therefore seen to be groundless, being based on intellectual
cowardice, irrelevancies or misconceptions. Now, let us return
to the actual evidence.

9.5. Discussion: a summary of the evidence,

and what it implies
To summarise, the evidence given in Chapter 8 and in this
chapter shows that:

1. A significant number of religions besides Islam have

been founded by people who experienced sudden and
unsettling visions of supernatural beings and, from
these beings, intermittently received ‘messages’ which
they felt compelled to record.
2. The movements founded in this way have usually been
based on a religion (in the broadest sense of the term)
with which the founder was extremely familiar.
3. The movements founded in this way have incompatible
theologies.
4. Very similar experiences to those in 1. above have been
recorded in people diagnosed with temporal lobe
epilepsy.

158
 5. Muhammad experienced visions and messages in a
manner indistinguishable from those mentioned in 1.
above.
6. Muhammad also experienced a number of other effects
which are known symptoms of temporal lobe epilepsy
and most unusual otherwise.

9.5.1. What are the implications concerning

religious experience in general?
It is a foundation of many theologies that religious experiences
and visions are ‘real’, in that they involve some contact with,
or glimpse of, one of the religion’s pantheon. Unfortunately,
the adherents of each individual religion seldom face up to the
problem of explaining how the members of the other religions,
with different deities, can also experience equally real visions.

In fact, people tend to have experiences which are coloured, if

not entirely determined, by their own religious upbringing.
Visions of Jesus, in his role as the Son of God, tend to occur
only to Christians and, more specifically, appearances by the
Virgin Mary tend to take place only in the presence of Roman
Catholics. By contrast, in India [80]

“One 40-year-old female with … seizures reported

seeing images of the goddess Durga on 5 occasions
over a span of 3 years. Another case, a 36-year-old
male … dreamt of lord Shiva, who instructed him to
visit a nearby temple. Both these cases became more
religious after their experience.”

The examples of Section 8.2 provide further evidence with, in

each case, the individual concerned (even Hong Xiuquan, who

159
had received Bible lessons from an American missionary)
experiencing visions which were entirely consistent with his or
her existing beliefs.

If such episodes were genuine, one would expect them to

provide glimpses of only a small number of beings that actually
exist and to reveal a consistent theology. In fact, they tend to
exhibit as many incompatible deities and messages as there are
mutually contradictory religions. Any religion which asserts
that it is the only true religion must therefore hold that only
those experiences which fall within its theology can be real and
that all those which contradict it are false.

However, the examples given in Section 8.2, whether arising

from an identifiable medical condition or not, clearly
demonstrate the existence of a common Prophet Syndrome
which crosses racial, linguistic, cultural and religious
boundaries. Given that there is no feature which could allow an
impartial observer to differentiate between the testimonies of
the various people who display it, it is difficult to argue that
two causes so fundamentally different, that is: mental
pathology on one hand and divine communication on the other,
could produce indistinguishable results. Since many, if not all
religions hold that their deities are superior in all sorts of ways,
including intellectually, to humans, this implies that the gods
deliberately arranged the symptoms of ‘real’ experiences to be
the same as those of false ones. This, I would suggest, is so
implausible that even a committed believer should find it
difficult to accept.

160
9.5.2. What are the implications concerning
Muhammad’s visions?
Even without an identification of the exact cause, it is clear that
Muhammad’s bouts of ‘inspiration’ correspond to the Prophet
Syndrome precisely, so that there is nothing to distinguish his
experiences from those of a number of founders of other
religions. The problem identified at the end of the previous
section therefore presents itself even more starkly. If the
allegedly almighty, all-knowing Biblical God was responsible
for Muhammad’s visions, why did He choose a means whose
outward signs can not only be faked, but which are also
reproduced by a significant number of people who not
prophets, but are clearly not faking either?

The problem only gets more acute as more of the specifics are
considered. Muhammad’s experiences, down to detailed
sensations and behaviour, correspond to a recognised medical
condition: temporal lobe epilepsy. Islam has no satisfactory
explanation for the extraneous oddities of Muhammad’s
behaviour during these episodes, for why should God create
these superfluous effects, if all they achieve is to suggest
strongly to later generations that their origin lay in some form
of mental illness? Did the problem simply not occur to Him?

9.5.3. Summary
Although his name has been dragged through the mud by later
writers, the Byzantine scholar Theophanes must have known
what the subsequent critics had either denied or failed to
discover: that Muhammad had indeed displayed unambiguous
symptoms of epilepsy during his episodes of inspiration and
that this condition, and not God, was the origin of the Quran.

161
The fact is that TLE (or some similar condition) has been
producing almost identical prophet-like behaviour in its victims
since time immemorial and it is a remarkable consequence of
society’s bewildered response to these symptoms that acute
sufferers may end up either in a mental ward or as founders of
a religion.

We should therefore not hold back from concluding that

Muhammad really did suffer from TLE any more than we
should hold back from concluding that Ludwig van
Beethoven’s loss of hearing was due to a medical condition
which caused deafness. A society which long ago abandoned
the idea that strange or erratic behaviour is caused by demonic
possession should not cling onto the notion that it might instead
be due to angels.

9.6. Final remarks

9.6.1. Voluntary or involuntary?
Chapter 3 provides evidence which indicates clearly that
Muhammad issued revelations whose content was very much
to his personal advantage. This chapter concludes that he was
in the grip of a powerful neurological condition. Are these two
positions consistent?

The strength of seizures varies greatly even within a single

person, so some revelations could have been spontaneous and
involuntary, others strongly shaped by Muhammad’s own
wishes. After he had become convinced of his prophethood, he
may even have identified his own conscious thoughts with
divine inspiration, without ever deliberately committing fraud.

162
There is therefore no contradiction between the content of
Chapter 3 and that of this chapter: the Quran contains all types
of ‘revelation’.

9.6.2. The human condition

The most significant parallel to the case of Muhammad is yet
to be mentioned. This is the case of Saul of Tarsus, a vigorous
persecutor of Christians, who experienced a seizure and a
vision of Jesus in the year 35 (or thereabouts) while travelling
to Damascus. He converted to Christianity as a result and was
the driving force in spreading it beyond the Jews to the world
at large, becoming the Christian Saint Paul in the process.
Since Christianity and Islam fundamentally disagree on the
alleged divinity of Jesus, it is not possible that Muhammad’s
and Saul’s experiences were both ‘real’ though, of course, it is
perfectly possible that neither were.

It is astonishing to consider that the world’s two largest

religions, with perhaps three billion followers in total, may be
based on nothing more than the epileptic seizures and
subsequent altered personalities of two previously
unexceptional men. Has any other medical condition, be it
plague, malaria, influenza or smallpox, had so profound an
effect on human history?

163
 Chapter 10
Summary

10.1. The choice to be made

In response to the dawah, or invitation to Islam, issued by Al-
Qaeda, I have reviewed what I see as the key evidence for and
against the central claim of Islam: that the Quran is the word of
the Biblical God (‘God’), dictated to Muhammad ibn Abdullah
by the Archangel Gabriel.

The conclusions drawn from the evidence considered in this

book are summarised below. Detailed arguments in support of
these conclusions are in the relevant chapters.

10.2. The origin of Islam

10.2.1. Are there signs of a divine plan?
Islam maintains that the revelation of the Quran was a
purposeful act by God, whose intention was for the world to
become Muslim (Section 2.1.2). However, anyone considering
Islam’s version of its own origins must surely find it a
challenge to discern any evidence of a guiding intelligence in
the haphazard sequence of events leading to the creation and
compilation of the Quran that we see today (Chapter 2).

Many features of the genesis of Islam and the Quran are simply
inexplicable when viewed as the supposed grand plan of an
almighty deity. Equally perplexing, in that it implies repeated

164
failure on God’s part, is the Islamic belief that He had made
many previous attempts to spread His message to other nations,
with all these attempts being unsuccessful (Section 2.2.1).
Furthermore, this belief remains uncorroborated by historical
evidence from elsewhere in the world.

The lack of success was perhaps inevitable. The use of

unqualified, unheralded individuals in order to propagate the
divine message is a strange tactic, given God’s supposedly
unlimited abilities to spread the word by more effective
methods. Furthermore, the role of ‘prophet’ intrinsically lacks
credibility (Chapter 3), having been wide open to abuse,
through fakery and self-delusion, throughout history (Chapters
8 and 9).

One also cannot help but notice that the alleged divine plan,
while requiring worldwide conversion, has no rational strategy
for bringing it about (Section 2.2.5). The proof that anyone
would reasonably require in order to make such an important
decision, and which should be trivial to provide if the
originator was truly God, is simply absent, and replaced only
by repeated and intemperate denunciations of those who, quite
reasonably, remain unconvinced (Section 3.2). These are
unambiguous signs of an entirely human origin of the Quran.

10.2.2. Is Islam special?

Islam, far from being unique, is just one of many religions
which began with their founders becoming convinced that they
were receiving messages from higher beings (Chapter 8).
Moreover, Muhammad’s experiences during his times of
‘inspiration’ bear a striking and detailed resemblance to those
undergone by these other individuals (Chapter 9). The

165
appearance of Islam should then be seen not as anything out of
the ordinary, but only as a typical example of a recurring event.
That this same circumstance should occur time and time again
within all cultures and eras is certainly more than coincidence
but cannot, because of the inconsistent theologies revealed, be
evidence of repeated divine communication (Section 9.5). A
possible, indeed highly likely, natural cause is discussed in
Section 10.5.

10.2.3. Why has Islam been so successful?

The Quran’s alleged miraculous eloquence went all but
unnoticed among Muhammad’s fellow Meccans (Section 3.1).
Moreover, the Arabs of the time were provided with no
evidence to convince them of the truth of Muhammad’s words
(Sections 3.2, 3.3), since none of the claimed ‘proofs’ of the
Quran as God’s message (Section 1.3) applied during
Muhammad’s lifetime. Conversion must therefore have taken
place by other means. Subsequent conversions in non Arabic-
speaking countries also cannot have taken place by free,
rational choice, because the inhabitants could not, and still can
not, understand the Quran.

Islam’s numerical success cannot therefore have been achieved

as a result of any underlying truth in its message, since even
those who believe that an underlying truth exists must surely
concede that this truth has always been, and remains,
inaccessible to potential converts. What, then, are the reasons
for Islam’s global achievements?

With few exceptions, Islam was adopted as a system of belief

only in the lands the Muslim armies conquered, was ignored in
the lands where those armies failed to advance and rejected in

166
the lands where the Islamic conquerors were overthrown. Islam
has (despite vociferous denials) always had to rely upon
coercion to convert and upon rigid control thereafter (Section
8.4).

10.3. The Quran’s style

10.3.1. Obvious flaws
As many Muslims must realise in their hearts, the Quran is
simply not the masterpiece that it is claimed to be. By any
normal criteria, it contains flaws which are as obvious in
English translations as they must be in the original Arabic, with
these defects merely being redefined as miraculous virtues in
order to maintain the fiction that the book is perfect. The text is
undisputedly repetitive, inconsistent in style, incomplete and, at
times, incomprehensible (Section 5.2).

When carrying out a rational assessment of the truth or falsity

of Islam, non-Muslims need to come to terms with the Muslim
practice of bestowing uninhibited superlatives on all aspects of
the Quran. The superlatives do not denote the results of a
genuine critical assessment, but are simply an act of worship,
based on the prior conviction that the book is indeed the word
of God. The act of praising the Quran should be seen as
nothing more than an exercise in the communal reinforcement
of the doctrine upon which Islam is entirely based (Section
5.1).

Claims of the Quran’s supposed miraculous virtues are without

foundation, being based only upon the uncritical acceptance of
assertions of its own perfection made within the book itself and
on extreme and, occasionally, ridiculous exaggeration by

167
Muslim or pro-Muslim writers (Section 5.2). Moreover, the
idea that all the Quran’s claimed miraculous properties are
radiantly apparent in the original Arabic, but simply vanish
without trace when the book is translated, is absurd. If the
merits of human works of literature can at least partially
survive translation, is it really being claimed that God could
not have arranged this for His own composition?

That God’s final message to all humanity was expressed in

untranslatable verse, in Arabic; a language today spoken as a
first language by less than 3% of the earth’s population, is so
intrinsically implausible that Islam can surely be rejected on
this argument alone. When one considers also that the style of
the early Quran just happened to resemble a style favoured by
contemporary Arab soothsayers (Section 3.2), there is simply
no other possible conclusion but that the book originated not
from God but from within 7th century Arab culture.

10.3.2. Inimitability
Muslims believe that the Quran is literally inimitable: that
nothing comparable to it can be produced by mere mortals.
However, this idea was not developed by observation, but
simply inferred from statements to that effect uttered by
Muhammad, either as part of the Quran or in reference to it
(Chapter 5).

The Quran challenges its readers to write a single sura (i.e.

chapter) like those it contains. However, the claim that this
challenge was taken on unsuccessfully by some of the giants of
early Arabic literature appears to be based on nothing more
than myth, endlessly retold and reinforced down the centuries
(Section 5.3).

168
Muslims should also keep a sense of proportion about the value
of a challenge in which the rules are unstated, which cannot be
judged objectively and from which at least 99.5% of those non-
Muslims who may be motivated to compete are effectively
barred by being non Arabic speakers. Moreover, the challenge
itself was issued after two previous challenges to write more
extensive passages were ignored. A little thought must surely
indicate that the previous, more difficult challenges were
pointless if it is claimed that the last, easier one could not be
met. Again, this is not a characteristic of a perfect book, nor of
an all-knowing author.

10.4. The Quran’s contents

The idea that the directives in the Quran can only be
interpreted correctly when the context of each revelation is
understood undermines the whole claimed eternal nature of the
book. It also implies that God jumbled together commands
designed to cover temporary circumstances with those of a
more general application and gave no indication how to tell the
two apart, resulting in confusion which has existed to the
present day (Section 2.2.4). Moreover, the orthodox Islamic
position that the Hadiths: an extensive but essentially random
compilation of recollections of the things Muhammad said and
did, only fully compiled some two centuries after his death, are
a necessary supplement to the Quran, undermines the claims
even further.

10.4.1. Muhammad
An indication of the true identity of the author occurs when one
observes that the importance attached by the Quran to then
contemporary events increases according to their proximity to
Muhammad himself. Some passages are clearly invented by

169
Muhammad for his own personal convenience. When a
supposedly divine, timeless and universal revelation issues
directives to aid Muhammad’s love life and to warn people off
turning up early to his dinner parties, surely a glimmer of
realisation must cross the mind of even the most devoted
follower (Section 3.4).

10.4.2. The natural world

The Quran’s subject matter is often transitory and parochial,
displaying no awareness of any lands beyond Arabia nor any
understanding of the workings of the natural world. The claim
that it contains nothing which contradicts modern science is a
gross falsehood: there are a number of unambiguous examples
of ignorance and error, together with references to talking ants
and to jinn: Arab folklore beings, whose existence is no more
real than that of pixies or mermaids. Furthermore, there is clear
evidence within his own book that the modern champion of the
‘Science in the Quran’ movement, Maurice Bucaille, did not
actually believe that God composed the Quran: a position
which he takes great care to conceal (Chapter 4).

Nothing in the Quran is quite as implausible as the passage

concerning King Solomon and the talking ant (Section 4.6.1).
If anyone could suggest a reason why this story should not be
regarded as absurd, it would be most interesting to hear it.
Nevertheless, even if a plausible explanation of the account
could be constructed, the problem remains that the book’s
author has included in the Quran a tale which appears
ridiculous, with its resulting adverse effect on the book’s
credibility.

170
10.4.3. Prophecy
Nor does the Quran contain any miraculous anticipation of
future events (Section 6). Even when taken at face value, the
celebrated prediction of the victory of the ‘Romans’
(Byzantines) over (it is assumed) the Persians is, at best, a
much weaker affair than portrayed. Moreover, the fact that no
political capital was made of it during Muhammad’s lifetime,
when the perfect opportunity presented itself, suggests that it
was not viewed as an important prophecy at the time. Its
present-day appearance as an ancient prediction may therefore
be an illusion or a later construct (Section 6.3).

The unambiguous prophecy that the ‘great barrier’ erected by

the leader Zul-Qarnain (usually assumed to be Alexander the
Great) will be levelled, the warlike tribes Gog and Magog
released and Hell presented to the unbelievers was simply
wrong. This has not happened, nor will it ever happen, since
the barrier and Gog and Magog, if they ever existed, exist no
longer (Section 6.6).

If Islamic claims of the existence of the ‘Preserved Tablet’,

upon which the future of all mankind is set out, are true, there
is no reason at all why the Quran should not have continued to
foretell events after Muhammad’s death. Yet, as we know,
there are no prophecies which successfully predicted later
events, for reasons which should be obvious (Section 6.7).

10.4.4. Philosophy and Law

The Quran contradicts itself a number of times on the subject
of whether mortals have free will or whether God controls their
thoughts and actions. As with the question of ‘context’,

171
Muslim theologians cannot agree on a coherent interpretation
of the Quran’s statements on this subject, despite having an
exposition in a book which they describe as ‘clear’ (Section
7.2).

It is evident that at least some Muslims are uncomfortable with

Islamic laws which condone slavery, portraying them as an
attempt to phase out the practice. If this was the goal, one can
only wonder at the wisdom of the Quran issuing eternal,
immutable rules which perpetuated it (Section 7.4).

Islam’s requirement for four witnesses to be present in order

for an accusation of adultery to be upheld makes the charge
almost impossible to prove and benefits no one but the
adulterers. Furthermore, it is a source of obvious injustice in
that it can lead to the criminalisation of rape victims (Section
7.3).

The Quran’s rules for the division of the estate of someone

who dies intestate have not been framed competently. As well
as being unclear and incomplete the rules can, under certain
circumstances, give rise to the sum allocated being less, or
more, than the amount available (Section 7.5).

10.5. Where the Quran really came from

Muhammad’s religious experiences were not unique. Many
people undergo strikingly similar sensations, though only a
fraction of them carry on to set up religions (Chapter 8).
Furthermore, there exists at least one recognised neurological
condition: temporal lobe epilepsy, which exactly reproduces
the type of experience undergone by Muhammad, from the
perception of receiving divine visitations and messages and the

172
compulsion to record them, down to the occurrence of odd
aspects of involuntary behaviour during these episodes
(Chapter 9).

When it is acknowledged that such natural causes exist, it is

surely an uphill task to argue that Muhammad’s experiences
were nevertheless both unique and supernatural. Not only is
clearly preferable to adopt the simpler explanation, the
alternative implies that God deliberately set out to make
Muhammad’s behaviour resemble the symptoms of a known
neurological disorder, even down to details which are entirely
superfluous.

If Muhammad displayed a whole range of symptoms consistent

with epilepsy, then it is surely reasonable to conclude that
epilepsy was by far the most likely cause of the symptoms. A
society which long ago abandoned the idea that strange or
erratic behaviour is caused by demonic possession should not
cling onto the notion that it might instead be due to angels.

10.6. Conclusion
In response to the dawah, or invitation to Islam, issued by Al-
Qaeda, I have reviewed the basis of the Muslim claim that the
Quran was composed in its entirety by an all-knowing, all-
powerful God as His final and definitive message to mankind.

The foregoing claim, despite being vigorously asserted and

zealously defended, is contradicted by a wide range of
evidence and supported by none. The Quran contains nothing,
absolutely nothing, which would lead an unprejudiced reader to
conclude that it had been composed by anyone other than a
mere mortal. Indeed, the evidence that the Quran had a human

173
author is so overwhelming in quantity and so decisive in nature
that only those preconditioned to ignore it could possibly think
otherwise.

Islam is clearly based on nothing more than the delusions,

desires and opinions of a 7th century Arab and, as a
consequence, is as false a system of belief as could ever be
found. So: no, this unbeliever will not be converting.

174
 References
The internet allows readers to access referenced material
instantly, and for free, and I have tried to make the best use of
this prolific source of information. However, information on
the internet may change or disappear without notice and has a
(sometimes undeserved) reputation for unreliability.

So, where possible, I have provided references to electronic

copies of source documents which have also been published on
paper. If these can no longer be found at the web addresses I
give, they can usually be located elsewhere after a little
searching. Copies of the Quran are fairly easy to find. Passages
quoted from books can often be inspected for accuracy and
correct interpretation using Google Books, and the Scribd
website is worth searching for anything and everything. I have
tried to steer away from information which exists solely on
websites, though I have included such sources if they seemed
to be appropriate as, for example, in the case of the new
religious movements discussed in Chapter 8.

1 Ahmad von Denffer. Introduction to the Quran. Studies in Islam and

the Middle East ePublishing Series.
http://majalla.org/books/2004/intro-to-quran/1-intoduction-to-the-
quran.pdf

2 Arthur Arberry (Translator). The Koran Interpreted. Touchstone

Books. 1996.
http://arthursclassicnovels.com/arthurs/koran.html

175
3 Khaleel Mohammed. Assessing English Translations of the Quran,
The Middle East Quarterly, Spring 2005, Volume XII, Number 2
http://www.meforum.org/article/717

4 USC-MSA Compendium of Muslim Texts. University of Southern

California.
http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/

5 Muhsin Khan and Muhammad Al-Hilali. Complete Interpretation of

the Meaning of the Noble Quran in the English Language.
http://www.iiu.edu.my/deed/quran/nobelquran/index_t.html

6 The Holy Quran. Translated by Muhammad Sarwar.

http://al-shia.com/html/eng/books/quran/quran-and-hadith/index.html

7 Rodwell, J.M. (Translator). The Koran. Phoenix Press. 1994

Also: http://trisagionseraph.tripod.com/Texts/Rodwell_Index.html

8 Tafsir Ibn Kathir.

http://abdurrahman.org/qurantafseer/ibnkathir/

9 Sayyid Abul Ala Maududi. Towards understanding the Quran.

http://www.tafheem.net/main.html

10 Ahmad ibn Naqib al-Misri (d. 1368), Reliance of the Traveller: A

Classic Manual of Islamic Sacred Law, (rev. ed., trans. Nuh Ha Mim
Keller, Beltsville, Maryland: Amana, 1994)

11 Edward Sell. The Faith of Islam. SPCK Press, Madras, 1907.

http://www.answering-islam.de/Main/Books/

12 Ibn Ishaq. The Life of Muhammad (originally Sirat Rasul Allah).

Translated by A. Guillaume. Oxford University Press. 1967

13 Sahih Bukhari (Bukhari Hadiths)

http://www.usc.edu/schools/college/crcc/engagement/resources/texts/
muslim/hadith/
or search: http://www.scribd.com/

176
14 Sahih Muslim (Muslim Hadiths)
http://www.usc.edu/schools/college/crcc/engagement/resources/texts/
muslim/hadith/
or search: http://www.scribd.com/
15 Mohamed Elmasry. Does the Quran sanction violence?
http://muslim-canada.org/elmasry.html

16 Ali Dashti. Twenty Three Years: A Study of the Prophetic Career of

Mohammad. Mazda Publishers. 1994.

17 John Gilchrist. Jam al-Qur’an: The Codification of the Quran text.

http://www.answering-islam.org/Gilchrist/Jam/index.html

18 Aleem, A. Ijazul-Quran. Islamic Culture. Jan 1933. Pages 64-82 and

215-233

19 Schuon, F. Stations of Wisdom. Re-issued by World Wisdom Books

1995.

20 Abdullah Saeed. Interpreting the Quran. Routledge. 2005.

(Extracts available on Google Book Search)

21 Goldsack, W. The Origins of the Quran. An Enquiry into the Sources

of Islam. The Christian Literature Society. London, Madras and
Colombo. 1907.
http://www.answering-
islam.de/Main/Books/Goldsack/Sources/index.htm

22 Bucaille, M. The Bible, The Qur’an and Science

http://www.witness-pioneer.org/vil/Books/MB_BQS/default.htm

23 Jewish Encyclopedia.
http://jewishencyclopedia.com

24 Islamic Bulletin. Issue 6, January 1992.

http://www.islamicbulletin.org/newsletters/issue_6/jan92-
embracedislam.htm

177
25 Is Dr. Maurice Bucaille a Muslim?.
http://www.answering-islam.org/Campbell/bucaille.htm

26 A. Kasem. The tales of Bucaille and Moore, two occidental

charlatans.
http://humanists.net/avijit/article/western_scientists_.htm

27 Muhammad al-Nafzawi. The Perfumed Garden.

http://www.bibliomania.com/2/1/74/121/frameset.html

28 T. Carlyle, On Heroes, Hero-Worship, and the Heroic in History.

http://digital.library.upenn.edu/webbin/gutbook/lookup?num=1091

29 R. Bell and W.M. Watt. Introduction to the Quran.

http://www.truthnet.org/islam/Watt/Introduction.html

30 Ibn Warraq (Editor/Translator). What the Koran really says.

Prometheus Books. 2002.

31 Baha’ al-Din Khorramshahi .The Tawil of the Quran Known Only to

God?
http://www.hawza.org.uk/index.php?option=content&task=view&id=
54&Itemid=27

32 Goel. S.R. Heroic Hindu Resistance to Muslim Invaders (636 AD to

1206 AD). Voice of India. New Delhi.
http://voiceofdharma.org/books/hhrmi/

33 G.E. Von Grunebaum. A Tenth Century Document of Arabic Literary

Theory and Criticism. University of Chicago Press. 1950.

34 R. Bell and W.M. Watt. Introduction to the Quran.

Available in book form or online at
http://www.truthnet.org/islam/Watt/Introduction.html

35 Ibn Warraq (Editor/Translator). What the Koran really says.

Prometheus Books. 2002.

178
36 Theodor Nöldeke. The Quran. An Introduction.
http://www.answering-islam.de/Main/Books/Noeldeke/quran.htm

37 J. Wellhausen. On the Koran. As published in [35].

38 M S M Saifullah. Topics Relating To The Qur’an: I’jaz, Grammarians

& Jews.
http://www.islamic-awareness.org/Quran/Miracle/ijaz1.html#Muk

39 Carl Gottlieb Pfander. The Mizanul Haqq (Translated by W. St. Clair

Tisdall)
http://www.answering-
islam.de/Main/Books/Pfander/Balance/index.htm

40 Robert Naranjo. The Persian Campaign of Emperor Heraclius.

http://ehistory.osu.edu/world/articles/ArticleView.cfm?AID=60

41 http://www.miraclesofthequran.com/predictions_01.html

42 Hesham Azmy. Exposing Fallacies of “Muhammad’s False

prophecies”.
http://www.geocities.com/noorullahwebsite/shamoun-
false.html#Roman%20victory%20over%20Persians

43 Faraz Rabbani. SuuniPath.

http://qa.sunnipath.com/issue_view.asp?HD=1&ID=131&CATE=24

44 Dan McDougall. Fareeda’s fate: rape, prison and 25 lashes.

The Observer, Sunday 17/9/2006, as quoted in:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2006/sep/17/pakistan.theobserver

45 Qutb, S. Milestones.
http://www.islamistwatch.org/texts/qutb/Milestones/

46 Nao Deguchi. A Biography of the Foundress of Oomoto.

http://www.oomoto.or.jp/
English/enKyos/kaisoden/index.html

179
47 The Summit Lighthouse
http://www.tsl.org/

48 The Aetherius Society

http://www.aetherius.org/

49 Bahai Topics. Overview of the Babi Faith

http://info.bahai.org/babi-faith.html

50 Bahai Topics. Bahaullah: Manifestation of God

http://info.bahai.org/bahaullah-manifestation-of-god.html

51 The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints.

http://scriptures.lds.org/en/js_h/1

52 New Encyclopedia Britannica. Vol 6.

53 Heavenly Kingdom of Great Peace

http://www.asiawind.com/pub/forum/fhakka/
mhonarc/msg00602.html

54 New Religious Movements. Hartford Institute for Religion Research.

http://hirr.hartsem.edu/denom/
new_religious_movements.html

55 Pennington, D. (ed.). Introducing Psychology. Hodder and Stoughton.

2002

56 Lorne L. Dawson. When Prophecy Fails and faith persists: A

Theoretical Overview.
http://caliber.ucpress.net/doi/pdf/10.1525/nr.1999.3.1.60

57 Millerism.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Millerites

58 Chabad
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lubavitch

180
59 Chabad.Org
http://www.chabad.org/

60 Probing Islam
http://www.scribd.com/doc/3378628/Probing-Islam

61 The Quran (Introduction)

Quran-Islam website
http://www.quran-islam.org/78.html

62 Cultic Studies Journal

http://www.csj.org/pub_csj/csj_home.htm

63 Kettani, M. A. “The Problems of Muslim Minorities and their

Solutions” in Muslim Communities in Non-Muslim States (London:
Islamic Council of Europe, 1980) pp.96-105.

64 Ibn Khaldun. The Muqaddimah.

http://www.muslimphilosophy.com/ik/Muqaddimah/

65 Azyumardi Azra. Islam in the Indonesian World.

Google Books

66 Temporal Lobe Epilepsy. Patient UK Website.

http://www.patient.co.uk/showdoc/40024895/

67 M. Mumenthaler, H. Mattle and E. Taub. Neurology. Thieme 2004.

68 V.S. Ramachandran. Phantoms in theBrain.

Fourth Estate Ltd. 1999

69 K. Dewhurst and A.W. Beard. Sudden Religious Conversion in

Temporal Lobe Epilepsy.
Epilepsy and behaviour. Vol. 4 (2003) 78-87
http://www.uni-graz.at/~schulter/se04_religiosity.pdf

181
70 James C. Howden. The religious sentiment in epileptics.
Journal of mental sciences, 18, 491-497 1873.
http://asklepios.chez.com/XIX/howden.htm

71 S.G. Waxman and N. Geschwind. Hypergraphia in Temporal Lobe

Epilepsy. Neurology. Vol. 24 (1974) 629-636.
http://www.neurology.org/cgi/content/abstract/24/7/629

72 T. Okamura and others. A Clinical Study of Hypergraphia in

Epilepsy. Journal of Neurology, Neurosurgery and Psychiatry. Vol.
56, pages 556-559 (1993).
http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=1015019

73 F.R. Freemon. A Differential Diagnosis of the Inspirational Spells of

Muhammad the Prophet of Islam.
Epilepsia Vol. 17 (1976) 423-427
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/793843

74 Tor Andrae. Mohammad: The Man and his Faith, trans. Theophil
Menzel.
New York: Harper Torch Book Series, 1960

75 Caesar Farah. Islam: Beliefs and Observances

Barron's Educational Series, 2003

76 Maxime Rodinson. Muhammad: Prophet of Islam.

Tauris Parke Paperbacks, 2002

77 Edward Gibbon. History of the Decline and Fall of the Roman

Empire. Vol. 5.
http://www.scribd.com/

78 Owsei Temkin. The Falling Sickness. 2nd Edition. Johns Hopkins

Press. 1971

79 Vaughan Bell. Did Mohammed Have Epilepsy?

http://www.mindhacks.com/blog/2005/11/
did_mohammed_have_ep.html

182
80 G.A. Khwaja, G. Singh and N. Chaudhry. Epilepsy and religion. Ann
Indian Acad Neurol. 2007;10:165-8.
http://www.annalsofian.org/text.asp?2007/10/3/165/34796

183