Isamic Origins - Conflict of The Narratives - 2022

i
©2022
ii
Copyright © 2022 Michel Alhassan Yahaya.
All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, distributed, or

transmitted in any form or by any means, including photocopying, recording, or other
electronic or mechanical methods, without the prior written permission of the publisher,
except in the case of brief quotations embodied in critical reviews and certain other non-
commercial uses permitted by copyright law. For permission requests, write to the
publisher, addressed “Attention: Permissions Coordinator,” at the address below.
Scriptures marked HCSB are taken from the HOLMAN CHRISTIAN STANDARD BIBLE
(HCSB): Scripture taken from the HOLMAN CHRISTIAN STANDARD BIBLE, copyright©
1999, 2000, 2002, 2003 by Holman Bible Publishers, Nashville Tennessee. All rights
reserved.
Scriptures marked KJV are taken from the KING JAMES VERSION (KJV): KING JAMES
VERSION, public domain.
Scriptures marked NIV are taken from the NEW INTERNATIONAL VERSION (NIV):
Scripture taken from THE HOLY BIBLE, NEW INTERNATIONAL VERSION ®. Copyright©
1973, 1978, 1984, 2011 by Biblica, Inc.™. Used by permission of Zondervan.
Scriptures marked NLT are taken from the HOLY BIBLE, NEW LIVING TRANSLATION
(NLT): Scriptures taken from the HOLY BIBLE, NEW LIVING TRANSLATION, Copyright©
1996, 2004, 2007 by Tyndale House Foundation. Used by permission of Tyndale House
Publishers, Inc., Carol Stream, Illinois 60188. All rights reserved. Used by permission.
Scriptures marked CJB are taken from the COMPLETE JEWISH BIBLE (CJB): Scripture taken
from the COMPLETE JEWISH BIBLE, copyright© 1998 by David H. Stern. Published by
Jewish New Testament Publications, Inc. www.messianicjewish.net/ jntp. Distributed by
Messianic Jewish Resources Int’l. www.messianicjewish.net. All rights reserved. Used by
permission.
Scriptures marked TM are taken from the THE MESSAGE: THE BIBLE IN CONTEMPORARY
ENGLISH (TM): Scripture taken from THE MESSAGE: THE BIBLE IN CONTEMPORARY
ENGLISH, copyright©1993, 1994, 1995, 1996, 2000, 2001, 2002. Used by permission of
NavPress Publishing Group.
ISBN: 978-0-000000-0 (Paperback)
ISBN: 978-0-000000-0 (Hardcover)
Library of Congress Control Number: 00000000000
iii
Front cover image by Artist.
Book design by Designer.
Printed by NameSOON, Inc., in the Republic of Ghana.
First printing edition 2022.
NameSOON
111 Address St.
City, Country, 12345
www.yahayamichel2020@gmail.com
IV
The Contents
COPYRIGHT iii
DEDICATIONvi
INTRODUCTION 1
CHAPTER 1 4
The Islamic Creed 4
Pantheism 7
Pantheism of Force 9
CHAPTER 2 15
Proving the Creed 15
Allah, the Divine Essence 19
The Ninety-nine Names of Allah 29
CHAPTER 3 45
Allah’s Attributes Examined 45
CHAPTER 4 61
Allah’s Relation to His Creation 61
CHAPTER 5 73
Islamic Concept of The Trinity 73
References to The Trinity 76
Qur’an Texts Regarding False Trinity 79
The Christology of The Qur’an 81
Third Person of The Trinity 86
Predestination Vs. Fatalism 91
CHAPTER 6 105
Deficiency in The Notion of God 105
CONCLUSION115
REFERENCES117
v
Dedicated to:
The Truth-Seeker—The one who persistently, without

preconceptions, labour in the ancient volumes for it. They that
know full well what heavy price the truth often exacts;
nonetheless, for duty and for honour, are willing to pay.
You are the real hero!
vi
INTRODUCTION
Muslims all over the world are resolute in the concept of their two
paradigms—namely, Muhammad(p.b.h.) has been the last, and greatest of the
prophets sent by God; wherein the Qur’an refers to him as the َ‫“ خَاتَ َم النَّبِيِّين‬Seal
of the Prophets” (cf. surah 33:40). Accordingly, Mohammad himself makes
the very claim that [there will be among his followers (i.e., the Islamic
nation), thirty grand liars, and imposters, each of whom will claim to be a
prophet after the order of Muhammad. Nonetheless, Muhammad claims he
is the Last1 of the Prophets, for there will be no Prophet after him]. Against
this backdrop, majority of Muslims around the world are convinced that
Islam as a religion, has always existed; and that Adam and Eve were,
themselves, Muslims.
Secondly Muslims believe that Muhammad (p.b.h.) received revelations
between 610 and 632 CE (also known as, the 22-year-period of Divine
Revelation), and that he inaugurated the Khalifah (the Islamic Caliphate) in
624 CE. To this effect, most people mistakenly assume that, the year 624 is
when Islam began. However, that is not what Muslims generally assert.
Therefore, in order to understand Islam, you would need to understand the
Man (Muhammad(p.b.h.)) and the book (al-Qur’an) which was revealed to him.
Thus, as far as the Muslim is concerned, Islam is the final religion
(handed down by GOD to Man) literally based on the teachings of the
1
See Muhammad’s claim in the following hadith collections: Sunan Abu Dawud (Arabic-
English) Vol. 4. No. 4252, (p. 490-491); Jami at-Tirmidhi (Arabic-English) Vol. 4. No. 2219,
(p. 270); Sahih Bukhari (Arabic-English) Vol. 4. No. 3455, (p. 414); Sahih Bukhari (Arabic-
English) Vol. 5. No. 4416, (p. 424); Sahih Bukhari (Arabic-English) Vol. 6. No. 4896, (p. 348).
1
INTRODUCTION
Qur’an, and Muhammad's lifestyle and sayings (known as the Sunnah and
Hadith respectively). Hence, it is safe to infer that, Islam is arguably a
religion of one book—al-Qur’an, and one Man—Muhammad; much like the
Christians’ one book—the Bible, and one Man—Christ Jesus, the God-Man.
As Islam is dependent on one Book and one Man; so are the Christians
dependent on another Book and another Man. On the premise of the
forgoing, it can be argued that, Christians probably understand Muslims
better than any other religious group.
For the purposes of this study, we shall be looking at the Man called
Muhammad, and the emergence of his religion, Islam.
2
CHAPTER ONE
STANDARD ISLAMIC NARRATIVE
Anyone who ever studied the things of Islam—the historical origins; the
biography of Muhammad(p.b.h.); the hadith collections; the Maghazi
narratives; and the Tafsr—either from a certified Islamic Madrasa (school),
or any other institution of learning, would concur that, there are two
narratives of the same account. The first narrative (the orthodox version) is
riddled with hagiographical accounts and centuries of embellishment. This
is what researchers refer2 to as the “Standard Islamic Narrative” or “SIN” for
short. It is the only account you are ever told—this is the account that you
get in your schools, in your colleges, in the University campuses across the
globe. Anywhere you have attempted to study the things of Islam, this was
the account you were given.
Whereas the second narrative, ironically the more accurate version, the
critical scholarly (forensic, often disturbing in its findings) narrative has
conveniently been ignored, or purposefully supressed by the powers that
be.
Regarding the “SIN” Muslims generally believe that: Muhammad was born in
570 CE; that he started receiving his revelations in the Hira cave in 610 CE;
and that from 610 to 622 CE, he received the Meccan revelations (i.e.,
roughly speaking, the second half of the Quran); in 621 CE he was woken up
in the middle of the night, and instructed to get on the back of a winged
2
Shaikh Yasser Qadi once made this startling confession regarding the canonisation of
the Qur’an by admitting that indeed “the Standard Islamic Narrative has holes in it” [in
other words, the “SIN” is grossly, and evidently unreliable]—quote
3
CHAPTER ONE STANDARD ISLAMIC NARRATIVE
horse called “Burak” who takes him on a flight from Mecca to Jerusalem. At
Jerusalem, Burak takes Muhammad up to the seven heavens where he meets
Allah who then tells him to pray 50 times a day. After the meeting,
Muhammad descends from the seventh heaven to the fifth heaven where he
meets Moses who advises that the prayers given him (Muhammad) were to
many; and that he should go back to Allah and see if the number of prayers
could be reduced. Accordingly, Muhammad bounces back and forth between
the seventh and the fifth heavens wherein he kept on bargaining for a
reduction of the prayers —i.e., from 50 prayers to 45, to 30, to 15, to 10, and
finally down to 5 prayers; after which Moses supposedly gave the nod of
approval. Thus, Muhammad descends back to Jerusalem and then returns to
Mecca (all these took place in 621 CE).
In 622 CE, Muhammad migrates from Mecca to Medina —which is
known as the “Hijra” (i.e., the Exodus, also known as the first year of the
Islamic era) along with 80 to 200 followers (depending on which account
you read). Then from 622 to 632 CE, he began receiving the Medinan
revelations (which would be the first half of the Qur’an.) In 630 CE
Muhammad walks into Mecca, and conquers it without lifting a sword. In
632 CE. he dies suddenly like most people; however, according to some
traditions, he was poisoned by a Jewish woman whose husband and entire
clan were slaughtered by Muslim invaders. At the time of his death, the
Qur’an had not yet been compiled into a book—i.e., the Quran that we have
in our hands today did not exist at the time; it was memorized by many of
his companions (known as the “Hufaz”), whereas parts of it were written on
bones of animals and stones, as some of it were written on pieces of
4
ISLAMIC ORIGINS Michel Alhassan Yahaya
parchment and the like thereof. In essence, the Qur’an was not written in a
codex form at the time of Muhammad’s death.
After his death in 632 CE, Abu Bakr takes over as Caliph for two years
wherein he dies naturally. Umar then takes over for another ten years (from
634 to 644 CE) and he is killed. Uthman the third Caliph takes over and
reigns for another 12 years before he is killed; and finally, Ali, the nephew,
and adopted son of Muhammad, takes over as the fourth Caliph and reigns
for five years (656 to 661 CE) before he is also killed. Thus, the epoch of the
above four Caliphs is what is known as the “Rashudeen” period, or the
“rightly guided” Caliphs.
Accordingly, the foregoing is the Standard Islamic Narrative regarding
the emergence of Islam, and the introduction of the man Muhammad into
the pages of history. However, there is a problem with the narrative—in
that, every bit of it was not written down in the time of Muhammad. In order
words, everything about Islam, the prophet Muhammad, his biography, his
sayings (hadith), and the “Rashudeen” period, were all written down
centuries after the supposed events transpired. From an objective
standpoint, one would have expected that these narratives would be penned
down in the same time period—i.e., eyewitness accounts written down in
the same time period; wherein people who had seen Muhammad, who had
seen what he did, and had heard what he said, had them written down while
he was living. But unfortunately, that was not the case.
Furthermore, one would have expected these narratives to be written
down in the same century that Muhammad lived; however, that was not the
case either. As a matter of fact, the very first written document about
Muhammad is the biography of Muhammad written by Ibn Ishaq, who died
5
CHAPTER ONE STANDARD ISLAMIC NARRATIVE
in 765 CE, whereas Muhammad died in 632 CE (i.e., 130 years after the
actual events). Ironically, Ibn Ishaq’s biography of Muhammad is lost to
history—for there is no surviving manuscript; nonetheless, the first man to
build upon his work was Ibn Hisham. Interestingly, Ibn Hisham (whose
biography was a revised version of Ibn Ishaq’s work) openly admits that he
deleted portions of Ibn Ishaq’s biography; portions he says were
detrimental to Muhammad and Islam. In essence, the first surviving
biography of Muhammad, was written by a man, who, building on an earlier
work, retained what he liked about the earlier work, and discarded what he
did not like. Hence, Ibn Hisham 833 CE. (200 years after the actual events).
6
ISLAMIC TRADITIONS
The Islamic Traditions are a set of genres of literature that supplements the
understanding of the Qur’an, and the religion of Islam as a whole. Nestled in
the Traditions are:
1. Sirat al-Rasul Allah (the biography of the Apostle of Allah).

2. Al-Maghazi (the biographical accounts of Muhammad’s military
campaigns).
3. Hadith (the sayings of Muhammad).
4. Tafsr (the commentary on the Qur’an).
5. Tarikh (the history books).
Consequently, as far as tracing the origins of the sayings of
Muhammad (which are much greater, and much more prolific) you
need to go to one man, Al-Bukhari—he is the first to write down the
hadith (the sayings, of Muhammad (p.b.h.) ) However, much like the
foregoing, there is a problem with his document; in that, he died in
870 CE (200 years after the actual events in his document). After
Bukhari comes the following collection of hadiths: Sahih Muslim 000
CE (i.e., 000 years after the actual events of his document); Sunan
Abu Dawud 000 CE (i.e., 000 years after the actual events of his
document); Sunan Ibn Majah 000 CE (i.e., 000 years after the actual
events of his document); At-Tirmidhi 000 CE (i.e., 000 years after the
actual events of his document); An-Nisaaee 000 CE (i.e., 000 years
after the actual events of his document.) Bukhari–256, Muslim–261,
Tirmidhi–270, Ibn Majah–273, Abu Dawood–275, and An-Nisaaee–
7
CHAPTER ONE PANTHEISM
303. Interestingly, none of the above hadith compilers flourished

until three centuries after Muhammad.
The above six collections of hadith make up the “Kutub Sittah” i.e., the six
canonical books on hadith according to the orthodox Sunni traditions. The
chart below puts these problems in perspective:
Chart
From the chart above, it becomes evident —everything we know about how
Islam began; everything we know about how the Quran was compiled; all
that you were (probably) told your whole life (about the origins of Islam)
does not come from the period it happened. Regrettably, it all comes from (a
period) two to three centuries later. This is quite troubling to say the least.
Because it means that, everything we know about Muhammad, about Islam,
and how it began does not come from any eyewitness account whatsoever;
on the contrary, it comes from people who were writing hundreds of years
later, and hundreds of miles removed from the actual locations.
8
21 s t CENTURY SCHOLARLY CRITICISM
From an objective standpoint, one can safely infer that the foregoing
historical evidence proves that as far as written documents are concerned,
Islam has nothing before 823 CE. Against this backdrop, it becomes difficult
for any objective-minded Muslim to defend their religion. Consequently,
regarding the apparent late dates of the Islamic documents, 21st century
scholars (in their objective criticisms) have this to say:
 Humphreys (1991) is of the view that, “Islam as we know it did not

exist in the 7th century, but evolved over a period of 200-300 years”
(pp. 71, 83-89).
 “The Quran probably was not revealed to one man in 22 years, but
likely evolved over a period of 50-100 years” (Rippin 1985, p. 155;
Rippin 1990, pp. 3, 25,60; Lester 1999, pp. 44-45; Wansbrough 1977,
pp. 160-163).
 Therefore, their conclusion is [the history of Islam] —at least from
the time of the Caliph Abdul Malik (685-705 C.E.) —and before, [is a
later fabrication.] (Cook 1983, p. 65; Robinson 1995, p. 47).
In essence, what these scholars are saying is that, almost everything

(regarding the “SIN”) about the origins of Islam and the introduction of the
man Muhammad into the pages of history, are all fabrications. The foregoing
conclusions are quite serious, and frightening to say the least. Against this
backdrop, we shall humbly ask the following questions, which by the way,
are legitimate questions; for they are the same questions that were asked
about the Bible, about Jesus, and Christianity back in the eighteen-hundreds
9
CHAPTER ONE PANTHEISM OF FORCE
in Tubingen, Germany—when Wellhausen3 asked the following hard but

necessary questions:
1. “How do we know who Abraham was?”

2. “How can we know who Moses is; for no one was writing at that time,
besides, none of this is his eyewitness account”
3. “Moses was not there when Abraham was living, so how do we know
that Moses wrote them?”
The above set of questions, arguably birthed the concept of the following:
Documentary Hypothesis (???); Redacted Criticism (???); and Source
Criticism (???). In essence, the above standard of scrutiny which we are
respectfully going to employ in our study, were first used on the Bible;
therefore, it behoves us to treat the things of Islam with equal measure. It is
imperative to understand that, we would not have historical criticism
without Biblical criticism. To this effect, everything we are going to discuss
was first asked of the Bible; and the Bible has answered every one of those
criticisms. The scrutiny of the “Standard Islamic Narrative” are the
following:
1. Why in the world did it takes so long to write down Muhammad’s

biography?
2. Why were people not writing it down as he lived (i.e., Muhammed's
biography)?
3. Why did it take so long to write down what he said (i.e., the hadith)?
4. Could people not read or write? —remember they (the Islamic
Caliphate) by 652 CE., controlled: Basra, Baghdad, Damascus,
3
Wellhausen was a ……
10
THE QUEST FOR GOD Michel Alhassan Yahaya
Jerusalem, and Cairo; therefore, could nobody read or write in these

five prominent and (and well-advanced) cities?
5. By 685 CE. —i.e., the time Caliph Abdul Malik comes to power (which
shall be discussed later), the Islamic Caliphate stretched from Spain
in the West, all the way to India in the East; therefore, could nobody
read or write in the whole empire?
Incidentally, there was an entire library that was destroyed in Alexandria

(Egypt) in the 5th century; thus, no Muslim would dare admit that nobody
could read or write. Therefore, where did these 9th century biographers
(833 C.E., 870 CE) and the 10th century compilers (923 CE) got their
materials from, and should we trust them when they are evidently so late? If
we cannot trust them, then it is imperative we go back to the 7th century
and ascertain what truly happened. The map below shows the dominion of
the Islamic empire; wherein the brown areas, and the yellow areas —i.e., all
the way to the Mongol Empire (that whole swath of land was under Islamic
controlled by 685 CE.) So, by 661 CE, the brown area was under the control
of the Caliphate.
MAP
11
CHAPTER TWO
PROVING THE SCHOLARLY CRITICISMS
This chapter seeks to ascertain the validity of scholarly criticisms of the

origins of Islam, and the introduction of the man Muhammad into the pages
of world history. To this effect, five major conclusions shall be examined
from an objective point of view:
Firstly, through the extensive research works of Ohlig & Puin (2010) we
discover that “the first Arabic inscription referencing [a character, or an
individual known as] Muhammad is in 691 CE” (p. 53, italic emphasis ours).
Thus, if Muhammad died in 632 CE, what then did they (his companions,
and chroniclers) do for sixty years? Who knew this man (Muhammad), and
why is it that from Arab sources we cannot find any reference to him?
However, outside of Arab sources we can find him—e.g., the Doctrine in E. A.
Kobe in 634 CE refers to him; the Chronicles of Sabias in 660 CE talks about
him, nonetheless not within Arab sources. But here lies the dilemma, is
Muhammad not supposed to be an Arab?
Secondly, the first reference to the name, “Muslims” is not until the 690s
CE (‘Chronicle of John of Niku’-1602, & Nevo & Koren, 2003:234) —so what
did they call themselves prior? The reason for this question is that, these
Arabs were conquering Basra, Baghdad, Damascus, Jerusalem, and Cairo —
which were all conquered by 652 CE. But here lies the dilemma, who and
what were these Arab conquerors, and what did they refer to themselves?
Historical evidence shows that, these Arabs used other names for
themselves (and not Muslims):
12
(‘Chronicle of John of Niku’-1602, & Nevo & Koren, 2003:234)
i. They called themselves, “The Saracens”— that was the name

the Europeans gave (from the progeny of the Matriarch
Sarah.)
ii. They called themselves, “The Hagarenes” (from the progeny of
the Matriarch Hagar.)
iii. They called themselves, “The Ishmaelites” (from the progeny
of the Patriarch Ishmael through Hagar.)
iv. They called themselves, “Maghreb.” (from the area they came
from, i.e., “The Maghreb.”)
v. They called themselves, “al-Muhajiroun” (i.e., people of the
Hijr, or people of the Exodus; thus, people who were
nomadic.)
In essence, the foregoing are the names these Arabs referred to themselves,
and nowhere can we find any reference to a people known as “Muslims”
before 690 CE; yet these were the supposed first Muslims (or so we have
been told). But why did they not call themselves Muslims if they were the
first of their kind?
Thirdly, the first reference to “Islam” is not until 691 CE. (Volker Popp-Ohlig
& Puin 2010:71) —specifically the inscriptions on the Dome of the Rock (i.e.,
the al-Aqsa mosque in Jerusalem). Fourthly, the first reference to the city of
Mecca is not until 741 CE (Crone 1987:134-137; Hoyland 1997:426; Holland
2012:303) —which is arguably the most devastating of the discoveries; in
that, the single most important, and holy city in the Islamic world does not
appear in the pages of history until 741 CE, when Muhammad is supposed to
13
CHAPTER TWO PROVING THE CREED
have died in 632 CE. This is quite significant to say the least. Fifthly, the first
biography of Muhammad (within any Islamic sources) is not until 833 CE
(Ibn Hisham)—as was stated earlier.
14
GEOGRAPHICAL PROBLEMS
When Dan Gibson (2011) looked at the Qur’an, he noticed that there are
about 65 geographical names in it. Nine of them were listed; yet when he
looked at their geographical locations, he realized that none of them made
any sense. This supposed prophet of Islam is not given a name except four
times in the entire 114 chapters of the Qur’an; whereas Jesus is mentioned
93 times. What then does this imply in terms of importance? The Qur’an
refers to this prophet (Muhammad) who lives in a settlement, who lives in
the prophet’s place, but does not give a name to the place except for once in
the entire Qur’an (cf. Qur’an 48:24) where it refers to Mecca.
From an objective standpoint this is confusing; in that, if this prophet was so
important, and if the place was so important why in the world were they not
adequately referred to? The Qur’an narrates Muhammad’s contact with
three different groups of people:
i. the people from Ad (23 times i.e., Uz in the Bible, cf. Gen. 10:23)
ii. the people from Thamud (i.e., the Nabateans of Petra in Syria)
iii. and the Midianites (7 times.)
Admittedly, these peoples are well known in the Bible; but the problem with
Muhammad’s supposed contact with them is that, they are situated 600
miles north of the current location of Mecca. Which literally means, it will
take his caravan (marching 10 hours a day) 20 days to arrive at the above
locations (cf. Royal Geographical Society with IBG, No. 31 Michael Asher;
Camel Expeditions 2004)
However, the Qur’an says Muhammad had daily contact with these peoples.
It is therefore safe to conclude that, whoever wrote the Qur’an obviously did
15
CHAPTER TWO ALLAH, THE DIVINE ESSENCE
not know their geography; or perhaps Mohammed was not in Mecca after all
(or perhaps, not the current Mecca.)
When you do a candid comparison (geographically)of the Qur’an with the
Bible it becomes evident —take the Gospel of Luke for instance, you will
discover that, there are 110 geographical locations in the Gospel of Luke;
whereas there are 65 geographical locations in the entire Quran. However,
when you look at the 65 geographical locations of the Qur’an, nine places are
named; but all of them are 600 miles too far north. Meaning, they are all in
the wrong place. Luke’s Gospel by contrast has 110 geographical locations
which is much older than the Quran (by 600-800 years,) it has 31 places
named right where they belong. In essence, all the 31 places mentioned in
the Gospel of Luke are currently in the right placeoncerning the real
significance of the Arabic word “Allah” there has been much speculation and
endless discussion among Muslim exegetes and lexicographers. Al-Bustani, a
Lebanese Maronite Christian and author of the famed Muheet-el-Muheet
dictionary, (as cited in Zwemer, 1905), says:
"Allah is the name of necessary Being. There are twenty different views
as to the derivation (root or the origin) of this name of the Supreme; the
most probable is that its root is ilah, the past participle form, on the
measure fi'al, from the verb ilaho (to worship,) to which the article was
prefixed to indicate the supreme object of worship" (p. 23, emphasis in
bracket ours).
When you objectively read the commentaries of Firouzabadi, Baidhawi or
Zamakhshari, and consider some of the above-mentioned derivations, you
will find yourself at the outset before an unknown God. Historically the
intellectual difficulty was a real one to the Muslim exegete, wherein he must
16
discover some root and some theory of derivation that is not in conflict with
his accepted idea of God. Baidhawi, for example, suggests that “Allah” is
derived "from a [invented] root “ilaha” to be in perplexity, because the mind
is perplexed when it tries to form the idea of the Infinite" Yet more fanciful
are the other derivations given, and the Arabic student can satisfy his
curiosity in the Commentary of Baidhawi. Vol. I. (pp. 5, 6).
On the other hand, according to the opinion of some Muslim
theologians, it is infidelity (kufr) to hold that the word “Allah” has any
derivation whatsoever. This is the opinion of the scholars who are domiciled
in Eastern Arabia. They say "God is not begotten," and so his name cannot be
derived. He is the first, and had an Arabic name before the foundations of
the worlds were erected. They say, Allah is an eternal combination of letters
written on the throne in Arabic and each stroke and curve has mystical
meaning. They claim Muhammad received the revelation of this name and
was the first to preach the divine unity among the Arabs by declaring it. This
kind of argument is conveniently tied to the narrative of the days of
“Jaahiliya” before the advent of the prophet. However, history establishes
beyond a shadow of a doubt that even the pagan Arabs, before Muhammad's
time, knew their chief god by the name of Allah and even, in a sense,
proclaimed His unity. In pre-Islamic literature, Christian or pagan, ilah is
used for any god and Al-ilah (contracted to Allah), i.e., the God, was the name
of the Supreme.
Among the pagan Arabs this term denoted the chief god of their
pantheon, the Ka’bah, with its three hundred and sixty idols. Incidentally,
Herodotus (430 BCE) informs us4 in his day the Arabs had two principal
4
Herodotus, lib. iii., cap. viii., "Διονυσον δε θεον μουνον και την Ουρανιην ηγευνται είναι
… Ονομαζουσι δε τον μεν Διονυσον Οροταλ, την δε Ουρανιην ’ Αλιλατ."—Tisdall, W. S. C.
17
deities, Orotal and Alilat. The former is doubtless a corruption of “Allah

Ta’ala” God most high5 a term very common in the Islamic vocabulary; the
latter is Al-Lat, mentioned as one of three pagan goddesses worshiped by
the Arabs in the Qur’an (cf. Qur’an 53:19-20). Anyway, two of the pagan
poets of Arabia, Nabiga and Labid, have been historically proven to employ
the word “Allah” repeatedly in the sense of a supreme deity: 6
Nabiga says, "Allah has given them a kindness and grace which others
have not. Their abode is the God (Al-ilah) himself and their religion is
strong"—Derenbourg, M. H. (Trans. 1899). Nabiga, Dhobyani. The
Diwan. Unedited, from the Arab Manuscript 65 from the collection by
Schefer. Paris: National Printing (Poem I., verses 23, 24; Poem III, verses
9, 10).
Whereas Labid says, "Neither those who divine by striking stones or

watching birds, know what Allah has just created"—Quoted by Tisdall,
The Religion of The Crescent. (1906). New York & London: Society for Promoting Christian
Knowledge (p. 129).
َ ‫ َأهَلل ُ تَ َع‬Regarding this title, Allah Ta’ala', Weil says, speaking of the pre-Islamic Arabs: ".
5
‫الى‬
. . but did not stop believing in a supreme being, which before Mohammed was already
called Allahu Ta’ala." Weil, G. (1843). Mohammed the Prophet. (p. 18.) Muir, W. (1861). Life
of Mahomet. (p. xvii., note) agrees with this.
6
Brockelman in his “History of the Arabic Written Tradition” remarks: "…also in Nabiga
and Labid there are some specifically Christian thoughts that prove to us that Christianity had
its silent share in the spiritual education represented by poetry." Cheikho claims that Labid
was a Christian poet. Nabiga died before the Hegira (i.e., before Muhammad’s migration from
Mecca to Medina)—Brockelmann, C. (1898). History of the Arabic Written Tradition Vol. I.
USA: Random House, Inc. (p. 30, emphasis in bracket ours).
18
in the Journal of the Victoria Institute, Vol. XXV., p. 149. (He gives the
Arabic text of both Nabiga and Labid's stanzas).
Ash-Shabristani says of the pagan Arabs that some of them "believed in a
Creator and a creation, but denied Allah's prophets and worshipped false
gods, concerning whom they believed that in the next world they would
become mediators between themselves and Allah." Accordingly, Ibn Hisham,
the earliest biographer of Muhammad, whose work is extant, admits that the
tribes of Kinanah and Quraysh (Muhammad’s own tribe) used the following
words when performing the pre-Islamic ceremony of ihlal:
"We are present in thy service, O God. Thou hast no partner except the
partner of thy dread. Thou ownest him and whatsoever he owneth"—
Sirat, Part II., (p. 27).
As final proof, we have the fact that centuries before Muhammad the
Arabian Kaaba, or temple at Mecca, was called “Beit-ul Lah” the house of God
and not “Beit-ul Alihat” the house of idols or gods. Now if even the pagan
Arabs acknowledged Allah as Supreme, surely the Hanifs (the religious
reformers at Mecca before the emergence of Muhammad) were not far from
the idea of the Unity of God. This was a classic case of henotheism 7 in the
days of paganism, and the Hanifs led the way for Muhammad to preach his
version of absolute monotheism.
The Qur’an often calls Abraham a Hanif and strongly affirms that he was
neither a Jew nor a Christian (cf. Surahs 2:129; 3:60, 89; 6:162; 16:121, etc.).
Among the Hanifs of Muhammad's time were Waraka, the prophet's cousin,
and Zaid bin 'Amr, surnamed the Inquirer. Both exerted unquestionable
7
See Tiele, P.C. (1896). Outlines of The History of Religion. Sixth Edition. London: Kegan
Paul, Trench, Trubner, & Co. Ltd (pp. 107-108). “The adoration of one god above others as
the specific tribal god.”
19
influence on Islam and its teaching. Accordingly, Nö ldeke (1909) thinks

Muhammad was in doubt as to which name, he would select for the supreme
being and that he thought of adopting “Ar-Rahman” the merciful, as the
proper name of God in place of Allah, because that was already used by the
heathen (p. 112). Incidentally, “Rahmana” was a favourite Hebrew name for
God in the Talmudic period and in use among the Jews of Arabia—
Encyclopaedia Britannica. Ninth Edition, Vol. XVI. (p. 557). Besides, on the
Christian monuments discovered in 1882/83 by Dr Edward Glaser in
Yemen, Allah is also mentioned. The Sirwah inscription (A.D. 542) opens
with the words, "In the power of the All-merciful and His Messiah and the
Holy Ghost,"8 which shows that, at least in Yemen, Arabian Christians were
not in error regarding the persons of the Trinity.
Anyway, one other term often used for Allah in Islam (which shall be
discussed later) is As-Samad—the Eternal. The origin of this word is
interesting; wherein it comes from the same root as “Samood”, the name of
an idol of the tribe of 'Ad and mentioned in the poem of Yezid bin Sa'ad —
Taj-el-Aroos Dictionary, Vol. II. (p. 402). More curious is the fact that, Hubal,
the Chief god of the Ka’bah (and whom Dozy identifies with Baal), 9 is
surprisingly, not mentioned in the Qur’an. Perhaps he was at this period
already identified by the Meccans with Allah. This would explain
Muhammad's silence on the subject.
8
See Hilprecht, H. V. (eds.) et al. (1896). Recent Research in Bible Lands. Philadelphia:
John D. Wattles & Co. (p. 149). “Does not this Christian introductory formula show whence
Muhammad borrowed his Bismillahi-er Rahman-er-Rehim?”
9
See Oort, J. H. (1865). The Israelites at Mecca. London: Longmans, Green, & Co. (pp. 6-
7), and Pococke's Spec. Hist. Arab., ed. White. (p. 98).
20
Thus, we are led back to the sources from which Muhammad drew his
ideas of Allah; namely (as for all his other teaching), from Arabian paganism,
Talmudic Judaism and Oriental Christianity. For all intents and purposes,
Islam is not an original concept; it is the by-product of a conglomeration of
concepts. Testament to the above statement is the fact that, its ideas of God
are still in the process of fine-tuning, and incomplete. The passages of the
Qur’an that teach the existence and unity of God are either those that refer
for proof of His unity to creation (cf. Surahs 6:96-100; 16:3-22; 21:31-36;
27:60-65, etc.), or state that polytheism and atheism are contrary to reason
(cf. surah 23:116), or that dualism is self-destructive (cf. surah 21:22), or
bring in the witness of former prophets (cf. surahs 30:9; 21:25; 39:65;
51:50-52). The dogma of absolute monotheism is held forth first against the
pagan Arabs as, in the case of chapter 71:23, where Noah and Muhammad
agree in condemning the idols of antediluvian polytheists:
"And they have said: 'You shall not leave your gods: nor shall you leave
Wadd, nor Suwa, nor Yaghuth, nor Ya'uq nor Nasr' (these are the names
of their idols)”—Qur’an 71:23 (Hilali-Khan).
But then again, this dogma is no less aimed at the Jews whom the Qur’an
accuses of deifying Ezra (cf. Surah 9:30) and Christians who believe in three
Gods. Astonishingly, regarding the Christian Godhead (see pp. 76-77),
Muhammad (or perhaps his Allah) grossly misunderstood, and
misrepresented “The Trinity” as consisting of Allah, Jesus, and the Virgin
Mary (cf. surahs 5:73, 116; 4:171). The deity of Christ is utterly rejected (cf.
surahs 19:35, 36; 3:51, 52; 43:57-65; 5:19, etc.), and His incarnation and
crucifixion denied, although not His miraculous birth (cf. surahs 19:22-24;
3:37-43, 47-50; 4:156-157).
21
The word “Allah” is referred to by Muslim theologians as “Ism-ul

That”—the name of the essence, or of the Being of God; all other titles, even
that of “Rabb” Lord, are considered “Asma-ul-Sifat”—names of the
attributes. Accordingly, in this first name, we have (a somewhat) Muslim
idea of the nature of God apart from His attributes and creation; although at
the same time, in sharp contrast with Christian ideas of the Godhead. As is
evident from the very form of the Islamic creed, their fundamental
conception of Allah is negative—God is unique, as well as a unit, and has no
relations to any creature that partake of resemblance. The statement in
Genesis that man was created in the divine image is to the Muslim “shrk”
(blasphemy). Allah is defined by a series of negations. Outside of the Qur’an,
Muhammad was silent regarding the nature of God's being; wherein
Osborne (1878) remarks:
"For while traditions have been handed down in abundance which give
the responses of the Prophet to inquiries concerning prayer, almsgiving,
fasting and pilgrimage there is not one having reference to the being
[and attributes] of God. This is a fact acknowledged by all those most
profoundly versed10 in Traditional lore” (p. 134).
Scholars, and apologists of Islam are unanimous regarding the danger and
impiety of studying or discussing the nature of the being of Allah. Hence,
whenever they attempt to describe Allah’s being, they invariably fall back on
negations. The idea of absolute sovereignty and ruthless omnipotence
(borrowed, as we shall see, from the nature of Allah's attributes) are
unmistakable at the very core; wherein the rest of Allah’s character is
impersonal —that of an infinite eternal vast Monad.
10
Note Osborne’s phrase "and attributes" in brackets. Admittedly, the statement is too
strong. There are traditions to this effect, although not many, on Allah's attributes.
22
God is not a body.

God is not a spirit.
Neither has God a body nor has He a spirit.
Accordingly, Islamic scholar Imam al-Ghazali posits:
"Allah is not a body endued with form nor a substance circumscribed
with limits or determined by measure. Neither does He resemble
bodies, as they are capable of being measured or divided. Neither is He
a substance, nor do substances exist in Him; neither is He an accident,
nor do accidents exist in him. Neither is He like anything that exists;
neither is anything like Him. His nearness is not like the nearness of
bodies nor is His essence like the essence of bodies. Neither, does He
exist in anything nor does anything exist in Him”—al-Ghazali, Al-
Maksadul asma. An extract is found in, Oakley, S. (1857). The History of
The Saracens. London: Covent Garden (p. 72), and quoted in, Hughes, T.
P. (1885). A Dictionary of Islam. London: W. H. Allen & Co. (p. 145).
The words "There is no God but Allah" occur in surah Muhammad, (chapter
47:91) but the surah which Muslims call the surah of the Unity of God is the
112th. According to Tradition, this chapter is Muhammad's definition of
Allah. To this effect, Baidhawi says:
"Muhammad (on him be prayers and peace) was asked concerning his
Lord and then this Surah came down." Zamakhshari says "Ibn Abbas
related that the Quraysh said, O Muhammad, describe to us your Lord
whom you invite us to worship; then this Surah was revealed."
23
As an example of Muslim exegesis here is the surah with the comments first
of Baidhawi and then of Zamakhshari; 11 the words of the Qur’an are put in
italics wherein the translation is literal:
"‘Say, He is God, One.’ God is the predicate of He is, and One is in
apposition to it or is a second predicate. ‘God is eternal’ (Samad), that is,
God is He to whom men betake themselves for their needs. ‘He does not
beget,’ because of the impossibility of his homogeneousness. ‘And is not
begotten,’ because of the impossibility of anything happening
concerning Him. ‘And there is not to Him a single equal,’ i.e., equivalent,
or similar one. The expression 'to him' is joined to the word 'equal' and
precedes it because the chief purpose of the pronouns is to express the
denial. And the reason for putting the word 'single' last, although it is
the subject of the verb, is that it may stand separate from 'to him.'"
The idea of Baidhawi seems to suggest that, even in the grammatical order
of words, there must be unequivocal and absolute separation between Allah
and creation! Zamakhshari interprets likewise as follows:
"‘God is one,’ unified (unique?) in His divinity, in which no one shares,
and HE is the one whom all seek since they need Him and HE needs
nobody. ‘HE does not beget,’ because HE has none of His own genus—
and so possesses no female companion of His own kind, and
consequently the two of them propagate. This is indicated by God's
saying, 'How can there be offspring to Him and HE has no female
companion.12 ‘And HE is not begotten’ because everything born is an
occurrence and a (material) body. God, however, is ancient, there is no
11
Baidhawi, the most celebrated of all Sunni exegetes, died at Tabriz in 1319 CE.
Zamakhshari died 1143 CE, and spent most of his life at Mecca. He was for a time a free-
thinker, but his commentary is held equal to that of Baidhawi.
24
beginning to his existence and He is not a body. ‘And HE has no equal,’

i.e., no likeness or resemblance. It is allowed to explain this of
companionship in marriage13 and to deny a female consort.”
This, then, is the definition of the Essence of God, according to the Qur’an
and the best commentaries. How far such negations come short of the
sublime statements of revelation, say, God is a Spirit, God is light, God is
love, He lives in me.
12
Note the word “God” has been purposefully used in place of Allah in our translation
and capitalized “He” to demonstrate how shocking such ideas seem to the Christian
consciousness.
13
On the word “Samad” (Eternal) there is a curious note in the biography of Muhammad
known as Insaan al-Ayoun (Vol I., p. 372), margin: "Samad means that which has no insides
or inside organs and was the name given by Muhammad to God in reply to the Najran
Christians who affirmed that Jesus ate food; for God needs no food and has no organs of
digestion!" The same explanation of the word is given by Ibn Abbas, Mujahid, and Ibn
Zubair. See further Hartwig, H. (1902). Asiatic Monographs. Vol. III. (London: Royal Asiatic
Society (p. 42), notes: “According to Al Shobi, it means one who neither eats nor drinks.
Others say it means one who has no successor. Al Suddi explains it to be one who is sought
after for favours and presents.”
25
THE NINETY-NINE NAMES OF ALLAH
The attributes of God are referred to by Muslim theologians as “asma-ul

Sifat” and are also referred to in the Qur’an as “asma-ul Husna” the excellent
names. The Qur’an to this effect says:
"The Most Beautiful Names belong to Allah. So, call on him by them; but
shun such men as use profanity in his names: for what they do, they will
soon be requited" —Qur’an 7:180 (Yusuf Ali).
The number of the names or attributes of Allah is given by Tradition as
ninety-nine. Abu Huraira relates that Muhammad once said:
“Allah has ninety-nine Names, i.e., one hundred less one, and whoever
complies with (believes in) their meanings and acts accordingly, will
enter Paradise; and Allah is Witr (one) and loves Al- Witr”—Sahih
Bukhari, Arabic-English Vol. 8; No. 6410.
In the same tradition these names are mentioned, but the number is
arbitrary and the lists of the names differ in various Islamic books. 14 It is the
custom of many pious Muslims to employ in their devotions a rosary of
ninety-nine beads to represent these names, and the repetition of them is
called Dzikir, or remembrance. The latter is the chief religious exercise
among the various schools of dervishes. 15 Below is a list of these names in
14
Compare the lists as given in Mishkat al-Masabih, Al Mustatraf, Hughes' Dict. of Islam,
Nofel's Sinajet el Tarb. Arnold's Pearls of the Faith, etc. Ahmed bin Ali el Buni's Shems-ul
Muarif is one of many books on the ninety-nine names of God. in this book these names are
written in talismanic form.
15
Dervish, Darvesh, or Darwish in Islam can refer broadly to members of a Sufi
fraternity, or more narrowly to a religious mendicant, who made a promise to stay poor and
live without comforts or pleasures. As part of their worship, Dervishes perform fast lively
26
order with the place where they occur in the Qur’an and brief comment
where necessary:
1. Ar-Rahmaan—The Merciful (cf. surah 1:1;3, etc.)

2. Ar-Raheem—The Compassionate. Both names are from the same root
and are very frequently used in the Qur’an. They occur as the opening
formula, “In the name of Allah, the Merciful, the Compassionate," before
every surah of the Qur’an except the ninth chapter (surah At-Tawbah).
Baidhawi says [Ar-Rahmaan is a more exalted attribute than Ar-
Raheem, because it not only contains five letters in Arabic, while
Raheem only has four, but it expresses that universal attribute of
mercy which the Almighty extends to all men, the wicked and the
good, believers and unbelievers. This is a noble thought.]
3. Al-Malik —The King, or the Possessor. Used often in the Qur’an as in
the first surah, "King of the day of judgment." In surah 43:77, however,
the same word is used for the angel who presides over hell. Is this
latter use of the word associated to Molech, the fire-god of Syria?
4. Al-Quddus—The Holy. Used only twice of Allah in the entire Qur’an
(cf. Surah 59:23, 62:1), "Allah is He, than Whom there is no other god;
the Sovereign, the Holy One." Curiously, the Taj al-Aroos dictionary,
instead of defining this important attribute, discusses the various
readings of its vowel-points (see chapter 3.) Accordingly, the Holy
Spirit (Ruhu Quddus) is a term frequently used in the Qur’an, but is in
no case applied to Deity.16
dances characterized by spinning, and whirls that leads to a trance.
16
Nine times Islamic commentators posit (even though the Qur’an has not expressly
done so) the Spirit or Holy Spirit to be the Angel Gabriel (surahs 2:87; 253, 5:110, 16:2;102,
27
CHAPTER TWO THE NINETY-NINE NAMES OF ALLAH
5. As-Salaam—The Peace, or the Peace-maker. The latter significance is

given by Zamakhshari. Baidhawi again explains it by a negation, "He
who is free from all loss and harm." Used only in surah 59:23.
6. Al-Mu'min—The Faithful (cf. surah 59:23.)
7. Al-Muhaymin—The Protector (cf. surah 59:23.).
8. Al-Aziz—The Mighty One. Very frequently used; e.g., surahs 42:3;
46:2, etc. It is one of the dozen or more names that express Allah's
power.
9. Al-Jabbar—The All-Compelling (cf. surah 59:23.) The word is also
translated, The Giant or the Absolute Ruler. What Muslims think the
word means is evident from the teachings of one of the Islamic sects
accordingly known as [Jabariyah, which denies all free agency to man]
—Dictionary of Islam, (p. 223).
10. Al-Mutakabbir—The Proud. This word when used of a human being
always implies haughtiness, and Zamakhshari defines it (cf. surah
59:23), "Supreme in pride and greatness or the One who is haughty
above the wickedness of his slaves."
11. Al-Khaaliq—The Creator (cf. surah 6:102, etc.)
12. Al-Baari’—The Maker (cf. surah 2:54.)
13. Al-Musawwir—The Fashioner. The above three are used in
succession for Allah as creator in surah 59:23. The commentators take
pains to explain away any nearness of the Creator to the creature in
the last term used.
19:17, 26:193, 70:4, 97:4); three times to Jesus Christ (surahs 4:171, 21:91; 66:12), in this
case without the epithet Holy; the other cases are left in doubt by the commentators.
Strangely enough, in none of the instances is the word "Spirit" referring to deity (according
the commentators).
28
14. Al-Ghafaar—The Forgiver (cf. surah 20:82, 39:5, etc.) Sometimes

given as Al-Ghafuur (cf. surah 2:225.) Both names are frequently used.
15. Al-Qahhar—The Dominant (cf. surah 13:15.)
16. Al-Wahhab—The Bestower (cf. surah 3:8, etc.) This name is
commonly used with “Abd” as a surname among the Arabs, meaning
"Slave of the Bountiful."
17. Ar-Razzaq—The Provider; used once in surah 51:58.
18. Al-Fattah—The Opener or Judge (cf. surah 34:26.) The first surah of
the Qur’an accordingly bears the name, “Al-Faatiha” meaning “the
opening.” This name is inscribed over gates and doors, on the title-
pages of books and is used as the first copy-book lesson for boys at
school.
19. Al-'Alim—The Knowing One (cf. surah 35:38.) Frequently used in
nearly every long surah of the Qur’an.
20. Al-Qaabidh—The Grasper, the Restrainer.
21. Al-Baasit—The Spreader or Uncloser[sic] of the hand. These two
names are complementary. The former occurs not in the Qur’an as a
noun, but was put in the list in reference to a passage in the surah of
the Cow (surah 2:245). The latter is found in surah 13:26, and there
means he who dispenses riches.
22. Al-Khaafidh—The Abaser (cf. surah 56:3.)
23. Ar-Raafia'—The Exalter (cf. surah 58:11, 19:57 i.e., the exaltation of
Enoch.) However, in surah 3:55 Allah uses this “verb” in reference to
the Translation, and Exaltation of Jesus Christ.
24. Al-Mu'izz—The Strengthener. The word does not occur in the Qur’an,
but the idea is referred to in surah 3:26: “O Allah. Lord of Power (And
29
Rule), Thou givest power to whom Thou pleasest, and Thou strippest off
power from whom Thou pleasest.”
25. Al-Muzil—The One who leads astray (cf. surahs 4:142, 143; 5:41;
11:34; 14:4; 16:36; 17:97, etc.) Moreover, the words, "God misleadeth
whom He pleaseth," is a common phrase in the Qur’an.
26. As-Sami’—The hearer (cf. surah 40:20, etc.)
27. Al-Baseer—The Seer (cf. surah 40:20 and frequently elsewhere.)
According to surah 31:34, Allah has present vision of five secret things:
the day of judgment, and the times of rain, the child in the womb, what
happens tomorrow, and where every mortal dies.
28. Al-Hakam—The Wise, the Only. Very often used, as in surah 2:129,
e.g., "Thou art the mighty and the wise." It is used in every-day Arabic
for a philosopher or a physician.
29. Al-Adl—The Just. It is remarkable and equally significant to note, this
title (regarding Allah’s name) does not literally occur in the Qur’an,
nonetheless it is put in the list on Traditional authority. The word ‫َع ْد ُل‬
—'adl —meaning “Justice” (fairness, equity) literally occurs fourteen
times in the Qur’an: 4:3; 58; 135, twice in 5:8, twice in 5:95, 6:115;
152, 7:159; 181, 16:76; 90, 49:9.
Interestingly in each of the above fourteen instances, the word 'adl, is
never used in connection to the righteous acts of Allah nor His name.
Accordingly, these verses admonish believers to be just; and how they
must relate to wives, to women captives, to orphans, between
aggressing parties, etc. In one instance however (surah 6:115), it talks
about the fact that, Allah’s “Word” has been fulfilled in Justice.
30. Al-Lateef—The Subtle (cf. surah 6:103.)
30
31. Al-Khabeer—The Cognizant (cf. surah 6:103.)

32. Al-Haleem—The Clement (cf. surah 2:225.) "Allah will not call you to
account for thoughtlessness in your oaths, but for the intention in your
hearts; and He is Oft-forgiving, Most Forbearing." Is this Muhammad's
notion of clemency?
33. Al-Az’eem—The Grand/Magnificent (cf. surah 42:4, 56:96.)
34. Al-Ghafuur—The Forgiving (cf. surah 2:173, 8:69, etc.)
35. Ash-Shakur—"The Acknowledger of Thanksgiving." This is more
correct than to translate “The Grateful” (cf. surah 35:30.) "For He will
pay them their meed, nay, He will give them (even) more out of His
Bounty: for He is Oft-Forgiving, Most Ready to appreciate (service)."
36. Al-Aliyyu—The Exalted (cf. surah 2:257.)
37. Al-Kabeer—The Great (cf. surah 34:23.) Note that this is never used
by Arabic-speaking Christians as a title for the Godhead, since it really
means big in size or position. Zamakhshari says (Vol. II., p.231): "Al-
Kabir means the possessor of pride."
38. Al-Hafeez’—The Guardian (cf. surah 86:4.) This name is often put over
house-doors.
39. Al-Muqeet—The Feeder, the Maintainer (cf. surah 4:85.)
40. Al-Haseeb—The Reckoner. Occurs three times (cf. surahs 4:6; 86,
33:39.)
41. Al-Jaleel—The Majestic (cf. surah 55:27.)
42. Al-Kareem—The Bountiful/Generous (cf. surah 96:3 "Proclaim! And
thy Lord is Most Bountiful.")
43. Ar-Raqeeb—The Watchful (cf. surah 4:1.)
44. Al-Mujeeb—The Answerer (of prayer) (cf. surah 11:61.)
31
45. Al-Waasi’—The Capacious (cf. surah 4:130, 5:54, 53:32 etc.)

46. Al-Hakeem—The Judge. "Is not Allah the wisest of Judges?" (cf. surahs
95:8 and 7:87.)
47. Al-Waduud—The Affectionate. Occurs only twice in the Qur’an (cf.
surahs 11:90 and 85:14.)
48. Al-Majeed—The Glorious (cf. surah 11:73 and elsewhere.)
49. Al-Baa'ith—The Awakener or Raiser; used frequently in the verbal
form regarding the resurrection of the body (cf. surah 22:7 by
inference.)
50. Ash-Shaheed—The Witness, occurs frequently (cf. surah 3:98).
Al-Haqq—The Truth (cf. surah 22:6.) Paradoxically, according to
orthodox Tradition, a lie is justifiable in three cases: "to reconcile those
who quarrel, to satisfy one's wife, and in case of war" (cf. surah
16:106;110)—Al Hidayah, Vol. IV., (p. 81). The Islamic concept of
“Taqiyya” (lying to promote Islam) has for centuries baffled the
objective mind. To this effect, Professor Abdul Qayyum Natiq (2015)
explains that:
“it is quite lawful to tell something which is not true at all, that may
reconcile people.” He adds a tradition from Umul Kalsum (daughter
of Mohammed) that ‘Mohammed only allowed people to lie, firstly,
in the case of war to deceive the enemy; secondly, to reconcile two
parties, and thirdly, when husband and wife talk together.’ He says
that “Allah and Muhammed are well pleased by this as it is for the
betterment of Islam” (pp. 77-79).
Accordingly, Abu Hanifah alleges that if a man should swear "by the
truth of God" this does not constitute an oath; wherein Imam
32
Muhammad agrees with him —Oaths, Dict. Of Islam, (p. 438).

Regarding the subject of absolute truth in Deity or in ethics, the
Muslim mind has very distorted ideas, and Tradition affords many
examples of Muslim teaching in this regard.
51. Al-Wakeel—The Agent/Trustee (cf. surah 4:171.)
52. Al-Qawiyy— The Strong (cf. surah 11:66.) Used of physical strength.
53. Al-Mateen—The Firm; in the sense of a fortress. Used in surah 51:58:
"For Allah is He Who gives (all) Sustenance, - Lord of Power, -Steadfast
(for ever)"
54. Al-Waliyy—The Helper; and by implication, the Helper to Muslims (cf.
surah 22:78.)
55. Al-Hameed—The Laudable/Praiseworthy (cf. surah 11:73)
56. Al-Muhsi—The Counter (cf. 78:29) wherein regarding inventory, is
referenced in surah 36:12, which speaks of God having “taken account
in a clear Book (of evidence)."
57. Al-Mubdi—The Beginner; it is referenced in surah 85:13.
58. Al-Mueed—The Restorer; it is reference in surah 85:13.
59. Al-Muhyi—The Quickener or Life-giver (cf. surah 15:23.)
60. Al-Mumeet—The Slayer. These two names (60 & 61) are in a pair and
usually occur together; e.g., in surah 3:156 in a verbal form. The
former also occurs, surahs 30:50 and 41:39, in both cases referring to
quickening the soil after rain as proof of the resurrection.
61. Al-Hayy—The Living (cf. surah 3:2), frequently mentioned.
62. Al-Qayyum—The Self-Subsisting (cf. surah 3:2.) Baidhawi and
Zamakhshari both speak of this term in a purely physical way. "He who
always stands up," does not need rest or sleep. Compare the same
33
words as used in the “verse of the Throne” (surah 2:255) and the
attendant commentaries.
63. Al-Waajid—The Inventor or Maker. The word does not occur in the
Qur’an.
64. Al-Maajid—The Glorious/He who is Most Glorious (cf., 11:73, 85:15.)
Note that 48 & 65 are essentially the same name; the question then is,
was this deliberately manipulated by the compilers to arrive at the so-
called ninety-nine names of Allah?
65. Al-Waahid—The One (cf. surah 39:4) is frequently used.
66. Al-Ahad—The One (cf. surah 112:1, 22:34.)
67. As-Samad—The Eternal (cf. surah 112:2.) According to the
dictionaries and some commentaries, the word means "One to whom
one repairs in exigencies," and hence the Lord, the Eternal One.
68. Al-Qaadir—The Powerful (cf. surah 2:20, and in many other places.)
The word is from the same root as qadr, fate, predestination; and
Zamakhshari, in commenting on surah 2:20, leaves no doubt that the
term used means to him "The One who predestines all."
69. Al-Muqtadir—The Prevailer or Overcomer. Literally used three times
in the Qur’an (cf. surahs 18:45, 54:42;55.)
70. Al-Mukaddim—The Approacher or Bringer forward (cf. 16:61.)
71. Al-Mu’akhir—The Deferrer/The Procrastinator (cf. 71:4)
72. Al-Awwal—The First (cf. 53:25, 57:3, and 93:13.)
73. Al-Aakhir—The Last (cf. 53:25, 57:3, and 93:13.)
74. Al-Z’aahir—The Substance/The Perceptible (cf. 57:3.)
75. Al-Baatinu—The Imperceptible; The Hidden One. The above four
divine titles (i.e., from 73-76) are known by the technical appellation
34
of "The mothers of the attributes," being regarded as fundamental and

all-comprehensive. All four occur together in surah 57:3. This verse is
a great favourite among the Mystics of Islam.
76. Al-Waali—The Governor (cf. surah 13:11.)
77. Al-Muta’ali—Lofty One; The Extremely Exalted One. "He knoweth the
unseen and that which is open: He is the Great, the Most High," “Glory to
Him! He is high above all that they say! -Exalted and Great (beyond
measure)! (cf. surah 13:9, 17:43.)
78. Al-Barr—The Source of All Goodness; The Benign, The Good, The
Beneficent (cf. surah 52:28.)
Note also the word ‫ ْالبَ ُر‬Al-Barr (aside surah 52:28) literally occurs six
times in the entire Qur’an: in two cases as ‫— ْالبَ ُر‬al-barr, the
ِ ‫— اَأِلب َْر‬
righteous/righteousness; whereas in four case it is rendered, ‫ار‬
al-abraar (pl.) the pious (cf. twice in 2:177, 3:198, 76:5, 83:18; 22.) To
this effect, the Qur’an says:
“It is not righteousness that ye turn your faces Towards east or West;
but it is righteousness to believe in Allah and the Last Day, and the
Angels, and the Book, and the Messengers; …” —Surah 2:177; (Yusuf Ali,
emphasis ours).
The above verse, together with the other five instances,
specifically deal with the deeds, or the exemplary conduct of Men here
on earth. Curiously enough, there is not a single instance in the Qur’an
wherein ‫“ ْالبَ ُر‬Al-Barr”— the righteous/righteousness is attributed to
Allah. This is imperative in the subject of Divinity, viz the Salvation of
the Soul. Righteousness is not worked for; it is imputed upon (credited
35
to a believer.) The word, “Righteous” is an exclusive Divine attribute;

wherein Men are made righteous by an exclusive Divine Act:
“Consult together, argue your case. Get together and decide what to
say. Who made these things known so long ago? What idol ever told
you they would happen? Was it not I, the LORD? For there is no other
God but me, a Righteous God and Saviour. There is none but me”—
Isaiah 45:21 (NLT, emphasis ours).
“Abram believed the LORD, and He credited it to him as

righteousness” —Genesis 15:6 (HCSB, emphasis ours)
“For what does the Tanakh say? “Avraham put his trust in God, and it
was credited to his account as righteousness” —Romans 4:3 (CJB,
emphasis ours).
Consequently, the foregoing infers that the Qur’an has no instance of
Allah’s righteous attribute. The following are some of the words in the
Qur’an wherein translators (for the purposes of making grammatical
sense in the English language) commonly interpret as righteous; thus,
their literal meanings in the Arabic has been given for emphasis. Note
in each example it refers to Men and not God:
i. ‫“ ال َت ْق َو ٰى‬at-taqwa’”—fear—piety, reverential fear (cf. surah
َ ‫“ ْال ُم َتق‬al-
20:132, etc), from which we get the word, ‫ِين‬
mut’taqeen”— the pious(pl.) the God-fearing (cf. surah, 2:245,
َ ُ‫“ َت َتق‬tat-
3:133, 5:27, etc.); also rendered elsewhere as ‫ون‬
taquun’”—those who are pious (cf. surah 2:183, 6:69, etc.)
36
ii. ‫ص الِحً ا‬
َ “saaw’lihan”—good deeds—the acts of Men worthy of
emulation (cf. 16:97, 18:83, etc) from which we get the word
‫“ الصالحين‬as-saawliheen”—the good doers; those who perform
good deeds (cf. 2:130, 5:84, etc.)
iii. ‫“ َح َس َن ًة‬hasana”—good —goodness, good deeds, manners, and
moral conduct of Men (cf. 2:201, 3:120, 4:79, etc) from which
َ ‫“ ْالمُحْ ِس ن‬al-muhsineen”— benefactors, the
we get the word ‫ِين‬
good doers i.e., those who do right, and conduct themselves
honourably (cf. 3:134, 5:13, 7:56, etc.)
iv. ‫“ َع ِم َل‬amila/amal”—a job—works, to work, to achieve, to attain
(cf. 3.195, 27:19, 40:40, etc) from which ‫“ َعمِلُوا‬amiluu”— “they
work”, “they worked”, “they do”, “they did” [ya’maluun/a] is
frequently derived (cf. 2:25, 5:93, 13:29, etc.)
The word ‫“ َع ِم َل‬amal” typically appears in conjunction with
‫ص الِحً ا‬
َ “saaw’lihan” i.e., “good deeds” in almost every instance
(regarding “righteousness”) in the Qur’an; wherein it renders
it, ‫ص الِحً ا‬
َ ‫“ َع َمال‬amalan saaw’lihan” or ‫ت‬ َ ‫“ َع ِملُ وا‬amiluu
ِ ‫الص ال َِحا‬
saaw’lihat” —"good work” or “do good deeds” respectively (cf.
9:102, 2:277, 3:57, etc.)
79. At-Tawwab—The Relenting (one who turns frequently.) Used four
times in the second chapter (2:37; 54; 128; 160) and twice in the ninth
(9:104; 118.) Also, beautifully employed in surah 9:118: "(He turned in
mercy also) to the three who were left behind; (they felt guilty) to such a
degree that the earth seemed constrained to them, for all its
spaciousness, and their (very) souls seemed straitened to them, - and
they perceived that there is no fleeing from Allah (and no refuge) but to
37
Himself. Then He turned to them, that they might repent: for Allah is Oft-
Returning, Most Merciful" —Yusuf Ali.
80. Al-Muntaqim—The Avenger (cf. surah 32:22.) Also, surahs 43:41 and
44:16.
81. Al-Afuw—The Pardoner. Literally, the Eraser or Canceller of sins (cf.
surah 4:99; 149, 22:60, etc.)
82. Ar-Ra'uuf—The Kind or Indulgent. Frequently used (cf. surah 2:143,
9:117, etc.)
83. Malikul-Mulk—Ruler of the Kingdom (cf. surah 3:26, etc.)
84. Zul-Jalaal Wal-Ikraam—Possessor of Majesty (cf. surah 55:27; 78.)
85. Al-Muqsit—The Equitable. This title, much like no. 29, does not
literally occur in the Qur’an (regarding Allah’s name), but was included
on Traditional authority; wherein the phrase ِ‫“ ِب ْالق ِْس ط‬bil-qisti” “with
equity”—which talks about believers being equitable, standing for
justice, and Allah expecting believers to be equitable is inferred (cf.
surahs 3:18, 4:135, 7:29.)
86. Al-Jaami’—The Gatherer; referring to the gathering of the
Resurrection (cf. surah 3:9. 4:87, 75:3-5.)
87. Al-Ghaniyy—The Rich; Self Sufficient One (cf. surah 60:6.)
88. Al-Mughni—The Enricher (cf. surah 9:28, 53:48.)
89. Al-Maania’—The Withholder. Literally not in the Qur’an; but inferred
(cf. surah 67:21.)
90. Ad-Darr—The Harmful; the one who harms. Literally not in the
Qur’an; but inferred (cf. surah 6:17; 71.)
91. An-Naafia'-— The Profiter. Literally not in the Qur’an; but inferred (cf.
surah 10:106, 22:12.) Although these names, and others, are not found
38
in the Qur’an, they belong to Allah's attributes on authority of the

Prophet and are used especially in invocations and incantations.
92. An-Nuur—The Light. Literally used only once in the Qur’an as ‫هَّللا ُ ُنو ُر‬
Allahu Nooru— “Allah is the Light.”
“Allah is the Light of the heavens and the earth. The Parable of His
Light is as if there were a Niche and within it a Lamp: the Lamp
enclosed in Glass: the glass as it were a brilliant star: Lit from a
blessed Tree, an Olive, neither of the east nor of the West, whose oil is
well-nigh luminous, though fire scarce touched it: Light upon Light!
Allah doth guide whom He will to His Light: Allah doth set forth
Parables for men: and Allah doth know all things”—Qur’an 24:35
(Yusuf Ali).
Granted, the above verse is couched in elegant allegorical and poetic

construct; nonetheless in two other instances (surahs 9:32 and 61:8), it is
rendered as ِ ‫ور هَّللا‬
َ ‫ ُن‬Noor Allah— “Allah’s Light” wherein it talks about the
[Unbelievers desiring to blow out Allah's Light as It is a cause of offence to
them; thereby mimicking a foolish, ignorant person who thinks of
extinguishing it is like a rustic who wants to blowout electric light as he
might blowout a rush candle! "With their mouths" much like the false
teachers and preachers distort the Message of Allah by the false words of
their mouth]—Ali, A. Y. (1991). The Holy Quran. Al-Madinah: King Fahd
Printing Complex (p. 1739).
This idea seems borrowed from the Old Testament concept of the
[lampstand of solid gold with the bowl on top, having seven lamps, each
with seven spouts set on it. And there are two olive trees, one on either
side of the bowl] (cf. Zechariah 4:2-3, TM). Or the New Testament concept
39
of [The LORD of Lords, who dwells in Unapproachable Light] (cf. 1Tim.

6:16); wherein He is ["like a son of man," dwelling amongst The Seven
Golden Lampstands, who is dressed in a robe reaching down to his feet and
with a golden sash around his chest. His head and hair are white like wool,
as white as snow, and his eyes are like blazing fire. His feet are like bronze
glowing in a furnace, and his voice is like the sound of rushing waters. In
his right hand he holds seven stars, and out of his mouth comes a sharp
double-edged sword. His face is like the sun shining in all its brilliance] (cf.
Rev 1:12-18, NIV).
93. Al-Haadi—The Guide (cf. 22:54), inferred in surah 1:6, 3:8.

94. Al-Badi’—The Eternal-in-the-Past. Arabic language has another word,
Abadi, for eternal future, and a third, Sarmadi; to include both (cf.
2:117, 6:101.)
95. Al-Baaqi—The Enduring (cf. surah 16:96, 20:73), and inferred in
surah 28:88.
96. Al-Waarith—Inheritor of all things (cf. 15:23, 19:40), and inferred in
surah 57:10.
97. Ar-Rasheed —The Director/The One who Guides. Literally occurs
only once in the Qur’an, wherein it is not applied to God, but in
reference to a question asked regarding the immorality, and
debauchery of Sodom and Gomorrah. Thus, the phrase, ‫َر ُج ٌل َر ِش ي ٌد‬
“rajulun rasheedun” —a right-minded (reasonable) man. "Is there not
among you a single right-minded (reasonable) man?" (cf. surah 11:78)
and inferred in surah 2:186. This word is still in common use as a
proper name among the Arabs, and Muslims the world over.
98. As-Sabuur—The Patient (cf. surah 16:127, 2:153, etc.)
40
Noticeably, the word “Rabb” Lord (although an attribute, according to the

Islamic ideas of the Unity of God), is not mentioned among the ninety-nine
names. Nonetheless, it is frequently applied to all the Divine Titles, wherein
it is used in combination with other title phrases in Islamic theology, such
as: Lord of Glory, Lord of the Universe, Lord of Lords, and Lord of Slaves (i.e.,
His servants). Ironically, it is worthy of note most of these Divine Titles were
later applied to Muhammad by devout Muslims, and in the list of his two
hundred and one titles, Al-Tabrizi includes scores of the ninety-nine
beautiful names! —See Mishkat al-Masabih, and any Islamic book on prayers
or devotions for proof (e.g., Asmaa un-Nabi, or Asma-e-Nabi (SAW); 99
Names of Prophet Muhammad (PBUH) etc.)
41
CHAPTER THREE
EXAMINING ALLAH'S ATTRIBUTES
"And Ar-Ra'd (thunder) glorifies and praises Him, and so do the angels
because of His Awe. He sends the thunderbolts, and therewith He strikes
whom He wills, yet they (disbelievers) dispute about Allah. And He is
Mighty in strength and Severe in punishment.”—Qur’an 13:13 (Hilali-
Khan)
“There is none in the heavens and the earth but comes unto the Most
Gracious (Allah) as a slave"—Qur’an 19:93 (Hilali-Khan)
The verses above are a fitting introduction to the study of Allah's attributes
— as they express the effect those attributes are intended to have, and do
have on His worshippers; which also explains in a measure the reason for
the usual Muslim classification of God's ninety-nine names. Thus, through
fear of death and terror of Allah's mighty power, the pious is all his life
subject to bondage. According to some Muslim theologians, the attributes
are divided into three categories (much like their rosary, consisting of three
sections) namely, the attributes of Wisdom, Power, and Goodness. However,
the more common division is into two: “asma-ul Jalaaliyah” and “asma-ul
Jamaaliyah” i.e., “terrible names/attributes” and “glorious names/attributes”
respectively. The former is more numerous and more emphasized than the
latter not only in the Qur’an, but in the Tradition narrative, and in daily life
as well.
From an objective classification of the names given in the last chapter,
the following result is arrived: Seven of the names (viz., 66, 67, 73, 74, 75, 76
42
and 87) describe Allah's unity and Absolute being. Five of them speak of
Allah as Creator or Originator of all nature, and matter (viz., 11, 12, 13, 62
and 63). There are twenty-four titles which characterize Allah as merciful
and gracious (to believers, viz., 1, 2, 5, 6, 14, 16, 17, 32, 34, 35, 38, 42, 47, 56,
60, 78, 79, 82, 83, 89, 92, 94, 98, 99) wherein an objective consideration of
them, indeed, reveals beautiful names, beautifully employed (mostly where
they do appear) in the Qur’an.
On the other hand, there are thirty-six names to describe Muhammad's
idea of Allah's power, pride, and absolute sovereignty (viz., 3, 7, 8, 9, 10, 15,
20, 21, 23, 24, 28, 33, 36, 37, 39, 41, 45, 48, 49, 53, 54, 58, 59, 61, 65, 68, 69,
77, 78, 84, 85, 88, 89, 96, and 98). Furthermore, it is interesting to note
these are "terrible attributes"; wherein five of them describe Allah as hurting
and avenging (viz., 22, 25, 81, 90, 91). He is a God who abases, leads astray,
avenges, withholds His mercies, and works harm. In all these doings He is
independent and all-powerful. Finally, there are four terms used, which may
be said in a special sense, to refer to the moral indication in deity (viz. 4, 29,
51 and 86); although, admittedly, the merciful attributes are in a sense
moral attribute. Of these only two occur in the Qur’an, and both are of
doubtful significance in Islamic theology. While there is an abundance of the
"terrible attributes” of God's power in the Qur’an, the net total of the moral
attributes is found in only two verses, which mention that “Allah is Holy” and
“Allah is Truthful,” (in the Islamic sense of those words). What a contrast to
the Bible!
The Qur’an shows, and Tradition illustrates that Muhammad had in a
measure a correct idea of the physical attributes (note this word is used in
the theological sense) of Deity; nonetheless, he had a false conception of His
43
CHAPTER THREE EXAMINING ALLAH'S ATTRIBUTES
moral attributes or no conception at all. He saw God's power in nature, but

never had a glimpse of His Holiness and Justice. The reason is evident—
Muhammad had no true idea of the nature of sin and its consequences.
There is perfect unity in this respect between the Hadith, and the Sira
narratives. Against this backdrop, Arnold (as cited in Zwemer, 1905)
concludes:
“The attribute of Holiness is ignored in the Koran[sic]; everything put
forward concerning the unapproachable purity and holiness of him who
is represented as Thrice Holy in the Bible can be applied to any
respectable man”—Der Islam, p.70 (p. 49).
The Qur’an is not only silent on the nature of sin, but tells next to nothing
about its origin, repercussion, and remedy. Against this backdrop, the book
stands in marked contrast with all the other sacred books of the heathen,
and the Word of God in the Old and New Testaments. Incidentally, this
aspect of the Qur’an was noticed as early as the days of the Reformation;
wherein Melanchthon, in an introductory epistle to a Latin Koran (which
incidentally displeased Luther so much), he finds fault with Mohammed, or
rather, to use his own words, he thinks that "Mohammed is inspired by
Satan," because he "does not explain what sin is," and further, since he
"sheweth[sic] not the reason of human misery"—Quoted in, Deutsch, E.
(1874). Literary Remains of Emanuel Deutsch. New York: Henry Holt and
Company (p. 62).
Anyway, the passages of the Qur’an that hints at sin are the following
surahs: 4:31; 2:81; 4:46; 14:28-29; also, surahs 2:284-286; 9:117; 69:30-37;
86:9; 70:19-25, and 47:2-3. The nearest approach to a definition that can be
gathered from these passages is that “sin is a wilful violation of known law
44
or,” as Wherry (1884) concludes that “sin, according to most Muslim

authorities, is a conscious act committed against known law; wherefore sins
of ignorance are not numbered in the catalogue of crimes” (p. 316). This
Islamic idea invokes the memory of the Judaic distinction of sins great and
small (cf. Matthew 22:36, Qur’an 4:31, etc.) on which are based endless
speculations of Muslim commentators. To this effect, some say there are
seven great sins: idolatry, murder, false charge of adultery, wasting the
substance of orphans, usury, desertion from Jihad, and disobedience to
parents. Others say there are seventeen, still others catalogue seven
hundred.
Putting aside the fruitless discussion of what constitutes a great, and a
small sin, it is to be noted to the Muslim all sins, except the Kabeera ("great
sins"), are regarded with utter carelessness and no qualm of conscience.
Accordingly, lying, deception, anger, lust, and the like thereof are all smaller
and lighter offences; all of which will be "forgiven easily" if only men keep
clear from great sins. Another important distinction between the scriptural
doctrine of sin and Islamic teaching, which also has direct bearing on our
interpretation of Allah's attributes is the terminologies employed—the most
common word used in the Qur’an for sin is ‫“ َذ ْنب‬zanb”, although other terms
are used, especially haram (forbidden).17 The words "permitted" and
"forbidden" have superseded the use of "guilt" and "transgression"; wherein
the very pages of the Qur’an are testament to this fact; in that, nothing is
right or wrong by nature, but becomes such by the decree of the Almighty.
What Allah forbids is sin, even when he forbids what seems to the human
conscience right and lawful. Similarly, what Allah allows is not sin and
17
This word is used for Muhammad's sins and those of other "prophets," and yet nearly
all Muslims hold that all the prophets, including Muhammad, are sinless!
45
cannot be sin at the time he allows it, though it may have been before or
after. One has only to argue the matter of “Taqiyya” or polygamy with any
Muslim cleric to have the above statements18 confirmed.
To the common mind there is, indeed, no distinction whatsoever
between the ceremonial law and the moral, nor is it easy to find such a
distinction even implied in the Qur’an. It is as great an offense to pray with
unwashed hands as to tell a lie; wherein "pious" Muslims, who nocturnally
break the seventh commandment19 (according to their own lax
interpretation of the text) will flee from a tin of meat (especially produced in
a Western country) for fear they be defiled with swine's flesh. To this effect,
when it comes to moral code, Islam is simply Phariseeism transposed unto
the Arabian setting. The lack of distinctions between the ceremonial and
moral law features prominently in the Traditional sayings of the prophet.
These sayings, we must remember, have nearly equal authority with the
Qur’an; and testament to this effect are the following examples:
The prophet, upon whom be prayers and peace, said, One dirhem of
usury which a man eats, knowing it to be so, is more grievous than
thirty-six fornications; and whosoever has been so nourished is worthy
18
In Islam, Taqiyya literally means "prudence, fear." It is a precautionary concealment or
the denial of religious belief and practice in the face of persecution. This practice is
emphasized in Shi’a Islam (and occasionally practiced by Sunnis when the need arises)
whereby adherents are permitted to conceal their religious affiliation when under threat of
persecution or compulsion. In lay Man’s term, Taqiyya means lying meant to promote Islam.
19
i.e., “You shall not commit adultery”; wherein the Qur’an states:
‫اء َس ِب ياًل‬
َ ‫ِش ًة َو َس‬
َ ‫ان َف اح‬ ِّ ‫َو اَل َت ْق َر بُوا‬
َ ‫الز َن ا ۖ ِإن َُّه َك‬
“Do not approach unlawful sexual intercourse. Verily, it is immoral and an evil way”—Qur’an
17:32.
46
of hell-fire. The taking of interest has seventy parts of guilt, the least of
which is as if a man commits incest with his mother.
The trousers of a man must be to the middle of his leg ... but whatever is
below that is in hell-fire—Mishkat al-Masabih, (p. 449); Khalifs of
Bagdad, (p. 63).
To understand the great lack of the moral element in the attributes of Allah
we must probe deeper. In the Islamic system and according to the Qur’an,
which is equally reinforced by the Tradition, all sin is, after all, a matter of
minor importance; it is the repetition of the creed that counts, and not
necessarily the reformation of character. To repeat the “Kalimatu
Sha’haada” by confessing, "There is no god but Allah, and Muhammad is
Allah's Apostle" thus constitutes one a true believer. All other considerations
are of less importance. So confidently is this asserted by Muslim scholars
that, they say, even if one should repeat the Kalimatu Sha’haada accidentally
or by compulsion, it would make him a Muslim.
Consequently, in a fanatic setting, Zwemer (1905) is of the view that it
could be dangerous for a non-Muslim to say the Kalimatu Sha’haada even
casually in a conversation; because, they would "then take the Nasrani (the
Arabic term for a Christian) by force and circumcise him" (p. 53, emphasis
ours). In essence, repeating the creed (per the teachings) is the door into the
religion of Islam. The Qur’an teaches that the first sinner was Adam (cf.
surah 2:35), and yet the general belief of Muslims today is that all the
prophets, including Adam, were without sin. Especially is the latter asserted
regarding Muhammad, the seal of the prophets; wherein the Qur’an, the
Tradition, and history clearly states the contrary. According to the Qur’an,
the fate of unrepentant sinners is hell-fire (cf. surahs 18:53; 19:89-90;
47
20:74); and the punishment is eternal (cf. 43:74-78) wherein there is no

hope for repentance (cf. 26:91-105).
To this effect, all the wealth of Arabic vocabulary is exhausted in
Muhammad's fearful and particularized descriptions of the awful torments
of the doomed. And for deeper shades in this horrible picture, one has only
to read the commentators, who also delight in describing the situation of the
unbelievers—wherein Hell has seven divisions, each with special terrors,
special purpose, and name:
Jahannam is Islam’s version of purgatory; Laza blazes for Christians; Al
Hatumah is specially made hot for the Jews; Sa'eer is custom-built for
the Sabaeans; Sakar scorches the Magi (Al-Majus); Al Jaheem is the
huge, hot fire for idolaters; and Hawiyah the bottomless pit is reserved
for the hypocrites.
The foregoing is the deduction of Muslim scholars regarding the various
sections of hell; however, the Qur’an only gives the names and says that
[each section has its occupants]. Incidentally, nearly all the references to
hell, and punishment in the afterlife are found in the Medinan surahs, and
therefore belong to the latter period of the prophet's life. Per the
observations of Hughes (1885), the allusions to hell in the Meccan surahs are
very brief and "are in every case directed against unbelievers in the
prophet's mission and not against sin" (p. 171). Anyway, from an objective
standpoint (considering the study of the Qur’an and the Tradition), it is safe
to conclude as thus, Allah does not appear to be bound by any standard of
justice. For instance, the worship of the creature is heinous to the Muslim
mind and yet Allah punished Satan for not willing to worship Adam, a
mortal (cf. surah 2:34). Allah is merciful in winking at the sins of His
48
favourites, such as the prophets and those who fight in His battles, but is the
quick avenger of all infidels and idolaters. He reveals truth to His prophets,
but also abrogates it, changes the message, or makes them forget it. (cf.
surah 2:106.) The whole teaching of Muslim exegetes about Nasikh and
Mansukh, or the so-called “abrogated verses” of the Qur’an, is utterly
opposed to the idea of God's immutability and truth. To this effect, Jalaalu ’d-
Din in his Itqan, says there are twenty instances in the Quran; wherein one
revelation superseded, contradicted, or abrogated a previous revelation to
Muhammad.20
Considering the foregoing, Allah's moral law changes, like his
ceremonial law, according to times and circumstances. Islamic scholars
passionately reject the notion that Allah is subject to an absolute standard of
moral rectitude; for He can do what He pleases. The Qur’an often asserts
this; wherein Allah is not only physically, but morally, He is almighty, in the
Islamic sense of the word. The Qur’an says, “Allah is the best of all schemers”
(cf. 3:54), He mocks and deceives, and "makes it easy" for those who accept
the prophet's message (cf. surahs 8:30, 3:54, 27:50-51, 86:15-16, 16:36-
37;93, 44:15, 9:51). Al Ghazali says:
“Allah's justice is not to be compared with the justice of men. For a man
may be supposed to act unjustly by invading the possession of another,
but no injustice can be conceived on the part of God. It is in His power
to pour down upon men torments, and if He were to do it, His justice
could not be arraigned. Yet He rewards those that worship Him for their
obedience on account of His promise and beneficence, not of their merit
or of necessity, since there is nothing which He can be tied to perform;
20
See Hughes' Dict. of Islam, (p. 520); wherein Jalaal-Din in his Itqan gives the list of
passages.
49
nor can any injustice be supposed in Him nor can He be under any
obligation to any person whatsoever”—Al Maksad-ul Asna, quoted in,
Ockley, S. (1857). The History of The Saracens. Sixth Edition. London:
Henry G. Bohn (p. 75).
According to one tradition, the seven chief attributes of Deity are: Life,
Knowledge, Purpose, Power, Hearing, Sight, and Speech —Hughes’ Dictionary
of Islam, (p. 27). Granted, the above attributes are used in a superlative
sense; nonetheless, they would still describe only an Intelligent tyrant. Taqī
al-Dīn Muhammad al-Birgawī (d. 1573) in his book on these seven chief
attributes uses language that unambiguously reveals his idea of what the
Qur’an teaches. He says:
Allah can annihilate the universe if it seems good to Him and recreate it
in an instant. He receives neither profit nor loss from whatever
happens. If all the infidels became believers and all the wicked pious, He
would gain nothing. And if all believers became infidels it would not
cause Him loss. He can annihilate even heaven itself. He sees all things,
“even the steps of a black ant on a black rock in a dark night.”
This last expression shows how the idea of God's omniscience remains
purely physical even in its highest aspect. How much loftier is the thought of
God's omniscience in the 139th Psalm than in any verse of the Qur’an or any
passage of the Traditions. In the Qur’an, God's eye is a big microscope by
which He examines His creatures; whereas in the Bible, His eye is a flame of
fire laying bare the deepest thoughts and intents of the heart. The Qur’an
has no word for conscience; and together with the Tradition, struggles to
articulate the description of God's power. The wonderful "verse of the
50
Throne" (surah 2:255) which is often been quoted as proof of Muhammad's

noble ideas, is testament to this effect.21 The verse reads:
"Allah. There is no god but He, —the Living, the Self-subsisting, Eternal.
No slumber can seize Him nor sleep. His are all things in the heavens and
on earth. Who is there can intercede in His presence except as He
permitteth? He knoweth what (appeareth to His creatures as) before or
after or behind them. Nor shall they compass aught of His knowledge
except as He willeth. His Throne doth extend over the heavens and the
earth, and He feeleth no fatigue in guarding and preserving them for He is
the Most High, the Supreme (in glory)"—Surah 2:255 (Yusuf Ali)
The Islamic scholar, Zamakhshari, after explaining on the above passage
why Allah does not need physical sleep, tells the following Tradition to
buttress his stance:
The children of Israel asked Moses why God did not slumber or sleep or
take rest. In reply to their question God told Moses to remain awake for
three days and nights and at the end of that time to hold two glass
bottles in his hands. He did so, and, overcome with drowsiness,
smashed the one against the other. Tell your people, said Allah, that I
hold in one hand the seven heavens and in the other the seven worlds;
if my eyes should slumber, verily the universe would smash as did
Moses' bottles.
From an objective standpoint, one cannot help but ask, what must have been
Muhammad 's idea of the character of God when he named Him, The Proud,
The All-Compelling, The Slayer, The Deferrer, The Indulgent, and The
21
Muslims are often offended at the verses in Genesis and in Exodus which speak of God
"resting" the seventh day; thereby insisting that such statements are "kufr," i.e., infidelity.
God never rests, never needs rest.
51
Harmful? Evidently, the candid mind cannot reconcile such attributes with
those of goodness and compassion without doing violence to the text of the
Qur’an. Accordingly, some Muslim theologians teach that all the good
attributes are exercised toward believers and the terrible ones toward
unbelievers; thereby “turning Allah into a sort of two-faced Janus”—
Doctrine of God, (p. 58). Besides, in the Islamic doctrine of the Unity, all real
unity is absent; for the attributes of Allah can no more be made to agree
than the surahs which he sent down to Muhammad. In any case, this lack of
agreement (according to Muslims), does not reflect on Allah's character.
Nonetheless when God is twice called “The Holy” in the Qur’an (cf. Surah
59:23, 62:1), the term does not signify moral purity or perfection, as is
evident from the exegetes and from any Islamic Arabic lexicon. Baidhawi's
comment on the word is: "holy means the complete absence of anything that
would make Him less than He is."
Almost all the commentaries in this regard leave out the idea of moral
purity and use, at the most, the word “taahir” as a synonym; which means
ceremonially clean, circumcised, immaculate, etc. Similarly, in the
dictionaries, the idea of holiness, for Quddus, in the Old Testament sense, is
absent. The Taj al-Aroos and the Muheet al-Muheet dictionaries tell us
Quddus is pure (taahir); but in a surprising turn of events, the next
definition reads: [Quddus, a vessel used to wash the parts of the body in the
bath; this is the special name for such a vessel in Hejaz.] It is worthy of note,
al-Hejaz was Muhammad's native country. Furthermore, the Qur’anic use of
the word “taahir” is no different; that too, has only reference to outward
purity of the body.
52
A classic example of the above statement in the Qur’an is, the text which
states, "None shall touch it but ‫ُون‬ َ ‫[ ْالم‬al-mutaharoun] the purified"(cf.
َ ‫ُط َه ر‬
surah 56:79). The above text is generally applied to circumcision, or to
emphasize the obligation (regarding ablutions) on all who literally handle or
intend to touch the Qur’an. An English missionary to Egypt (as cited in
Zwemer, 1905) once made this startling observation:
“Some years ago, I was anxious to see what the Qur’an teaches
regarding the necessity of man's being holy inwardly. I closely
examined all the verses having any reference to this subject and did not
find a single passage pointing out the necessity of man's being holy or
becoming sanctified in his heart, mind, or thoughts. I remember finding
one passage which seemed likely to point somewhat more to inward
purity, but when I read the commentary showing under what
circumstances the verse was revealed, I found a long story explaining
that Muhammad having addressed a series of questions to certain
people in order to find out whether they were true believers ultimately
declared them to be mutaahiroun, "purified" (sanctified?) because he
had ascertained that they performed their purifications in the proper
manner, with three clean stones! It is a hopeless case to look for the
doctrine of the holiness of God and the necessity of purity of heart in the
Qur’an” (pp. 59-60).
Evidently, the whole idea of moral purity and utter separation from sin is
unknown to the Qur’an vocabulary. One further thought derived by studying
the Muslim idea of God's attributes is succinctly captured in the phrase of
Palgrave (1865) as, "the Pantheism of Force” or of Act, thus exclusively
assigned to God, Who absorbs it all, exercises it all, and to Whom alone it can
53
be ascribed, whether for preserving or for destroying, for relative evil or for
equally relative good” (p. 365). To this effect, the seventy-third, seventy-
fourth, seventy-fifth and seventy-sixth names on the list of attributes are
called "mothers of the attributes" for they are the fundamental ideas in the
conception of God; they are the "Essence and Substance, the First and the
Last." This is to Muslims:
“the verse which all the names of Allah holdeth. As in one sky the silver
stars all sit”
Whether Muhammad himself intended to teach the ideas of pantheism or
had any idea of the import of these terms does not alter the fact that they
spell pantheism to many of his followers. If pantheism is the doctrine of one
substance, it is taught here. God is the inside and the outside of everything.
He is the phenomena (Dzaahir) and the power behind the phenomena
(Baatin). It is this verse that is the delight of the Sufis and the Mystics. On this
revelation of God, they built their philosophy after the pattern of the
Vedanta school of the Hindus. How far this teaching was carried is best seen
in the celebrated work of Jalaalu deen Ar-Rumi, who puts these words as
emanating from Deity:
“I am the Gospel, the Psalter, the Qur’an;
I am Uzzi and Lat —Bel and the Dragon.
Into three and seventy sects is the world divided.
Yet only One God; the faithful who believed in him am I.
Lies and truth, good, bad hard and soft
Knowledge solitude, virtue faith.
The deepest ground of hell the highest torment of the flames,
The highest paradise,
54
The earth and what is therein,

The angels and the devils, Spirit, and man, Am I.
What is the goal of speech, O tell it, Shems Tabrizi?
The goal of sense? This—The World Soul Am I”— Trans. Whinfield, B. H.
(1898). Masnavi i-Ma'navi, the Spiritual Couplets. London: Trü bner & Co.
Not only are there thousands of Muslims who are pantheists of the Sufi-
school, but frankly there is not a Muslim sect which does not go to extremes
in its erroneous conception and misconstruction of the doctrine of God. The
Wahabis are accused (and not without reason) of being gross
anthropomorphists. As a revolt from the rationalism of the Mutazilite school
many, in the days of the Abbasid Caliphate (from 750-1258 CE), held
anthropomorphic views of Deity and materialistic ideas regarding the soul.
Accordingly, De Boer (1903) concludes:
“The soul, for example, was conceived of by them as corporeal or as an
accident of the body and the Divine Essence was imagined as a human
body. The religions teaching and art of the Moslems[sic] were greatly
averse to the symbolical God-Father of the Christians, but there was an
abundance of absurd speculations about the form of Allah. Some went
so far as to ascribe to him all the bodily members together, with the
exception of the beard and other privileges of Oriental manhood”—The
History of Philosophy in Islam. London: Luzac & Co. (p. 44).
Accordingly, the al-Salbiyah hold that "God is indifferent to the actions of
men, just as though He were in a state of sleep"; the Mu’tazila hold that good
and evil are both directly from God and that man is entirely irresponsible;
the Nezamiyeh hold that it is lawful to speak of the Almighty as "The Thing."
Some schools hold that the attributes are eternal and others deny it to save
55
their idea of pure and absolute monism (the belief that there is only one god)
in Deity. They argue, if any of the attributes are eternal, or all of them, there
is more than one Eternal, and two Eternals is infidelity!
One sect, the Mutarabisiyah chose an impossible, although golden
concept by teaching that Allah with all His attributes, save three, is eternal;
but his Power, Knowledge and Purpose were created.22 Nonetheless, what
Allah could have been before He had Power, Knowledge, or Purpose they do
not say. In only one passage of the Qur’an, Allah is described as seemingly
dependent on or indebted to something outside of Himself; the verse
22
The al-Salbiyah doctrine posit that, all Negative Attributes cannot be found in Allah
because they are below His dignity, and accordingly referred to as, “Sifat al-Salbiyah”.
The Mu’tazila (al-mu’tazilah) “Those Who Withdraw, or Stand Apart”, also called “Ahl
al-Adl wa al-Tawhid”, is an Islamic group that appeared in early Islamic history in the
dispute over Ali’s leadership of the Muslim community after the death of the third caliph,
Uthman. Those who would neither condemn nor sanction Ali or his opponents but took a
middle position between him and his opponents at the battle of Siffin and the battle of
Jamal were termed the Mu’tazila. This school developed an Islamic type of rationalism,
partly influenced by Ancient Greek philosophy, based around three fundamental principles:
the oneness and justice of God, human freedom of action, and the creation of the Quran. The
Mu’tazilites are best known for rejecting the doctrine of the Quran as uncreated and co-
eternal with God, asserting that if the Quran is the word of God, he logically "must have
preceded his own speech"
The Nezamiyeh or Nizamiyyah are a group of institutions of higher education
established by Khwaja Nizam al-Mulk in the eleventh century in Iran. The name nizamiyyah
derives from his name. Founded at the beginning of the Seljuk Empire, these Sunni Islam
theological schools are the model of later Islamic universities, or schools. Nizamiyyah
institutes were among the first well organized institutions of higher learning in the Muslim
world. The quality of education was among the highest in the Islamic world; wherein they
were renowned in Europe.
56
represents Allah as the Light of the World, but the commentaries cast no
light on its peculiar and evidently mystical teaching;
"Allah is the Light of the heavens and the earth. The Parable of His Light
is as if there were a Niche and within it a Lamp: the Lamp enclosed in
Glass: the glass as it were a brilliant star: Lit from a blessed Tree, an
Olive, neither of the east nor of the West, whose oil is well-nigh luminous,
though fire scarce touched it: Light upon Light! Allah doth guide whom
He will to His Light: Allah doth set forth Parables for men: and Allah doth
know all things." —Surah 24:35; (Yusuf Ali)
Could this be one of the many distorted reflections of ideas which
Muhammad borrowed from the Jews, and Christians; and does he refer to
the Golden Lampstand? (See Exodus 25:31-40).
57
CHAPTER FOUR
ALLAH’S RELATION TO HIS CREATION
Muhammad’s doctrine of the Unity of God is at the same time his doctrine of
Providence and his philosophy of life. The existence and character of God
not only, but his relation past, present, and future to the universe are
nestled in the words “La ilaha illal-Allah,” there is no god but God.
Interestingly, it was not a theologian nor a philosopher who first called
attention to this fundamental idea in Islam as the key to a proper
understanding of the Muslim mind, but the Arabian traveller, William
Clifford Palgrave—who knew Islam not from books, but through long and
close contact with the Arabs themselves. There was no shred of doubt
amongst Palgrave’s contemporaries that he was a candid observer, and an
honest chronicler. His accuracy in describing the manners and religion of
the Arabs was commended. Against this backdrop, it is expedient to
carefully consider Palgrave's (1865) famous characterization of Allah:
“There is no god but God —are words simply tantamount in English to
the negation of any deity save one alone; and thus, much they certainly
mean in Arabic, but they imply much more also. Their full sense is not
only to deny absolutely and unreservedly all plurality whether of
nature or of person in the Supreme Being, not only to establish the
unity of the Unbegetting and the Unbegot, in all its simple and
uncommunicable Oneness, but besides this the words in Arabic and
among Arabs imply that this one Supreme Being is also the only Agent,
the only Force, the only Act existing throughout the universe and leaves
58
us to all beings else, matter or spirit, instinct or intelligence, physical or

moral, nothing but pure unconditional passiveness, alike in movement
or in quiescence, in action or in capacity. The sole power, the sole
motor, movement, energy, and deed is God; the rest is downright inertia
and mere instrumentality, from the highest archangel down to the
simplest atom of creation.
Hence in this one sentence, ‘La ilaha illal-Allah,’ is summed up a
system which, for want of a better name, I may be permitted to call the
Pantheism of Force, or of Act, thus exclusively assigned to God, who
absorbs it all, exercises it all, and to Whom alone it can be ascribed,
whether for preserving or for destroying, for relative evil or for equally
relative good. I say relative because it is clear that in such a theology no
place is left for absolute good or evil, reason or extravagance; all is
abridged in the autocratical will of the one great Agent: 'sic volo, sic
jubeo, stet pro ratione voluntas;' or more significantly still, in Arabic,
'Kamaa yeshaa,' 'as He wills it,' to quote the constantly recurring
expression of the Koran.
Thus, immeasurably, and eternally exalted above, and dissimilar
from, all creatures which He levelled before Him on one common plane
of instrumentality and inertness, God is One in the totality of
omnipotent and omnipresent action, which acknowledges no rule,
standard or limit, save His own sole and absolute will. He
communicates nothing to His creatures; for their seeming power and
act ever remain His alone, and in return He receives nothing from them;
59
CHAPTER FOUR ALLAH’S RELATION TO HIS CREATION
for whatever they may be, that they are in Him 23 by Him, and from Him
only.
And secondly, no superiority, no distinction, no pre-eminence can
be lawfully claimed by one creature over another in the utter
equalization of their unexceptional servitude and abasement; all are
alike tools of the one solitary Force, which employs them to crush or to
benefit, to truth or to error, to honour or shame, to happiness or misery,
quite independently of their individual fitness, deserts, or advantage
and simply because He will it and as He wills it. One might at first sight
think that this tremendous Autocrat, this uncontrolled and
unsympathizing Power would be far above anything like passions,
desires, or inclinations. Yet such is not the case for He has with respect
to his creatures one main feeling and source of action, namely, jealousy
of them, lest they should perchance attribute to themselves something
of what is his alone, and thus encroach on His all-engrossing kingdom.
Hence, He is ever more ready to punish than to reward, to inflict
pain than to bestow pleasure, to ruin than to build. It is his singular
satisfaction to make created beings continually feel that they are
nothing else than His slaves, His tools, and contemptible tools also, that
thus they may the better acknowledge His superiority, and know His
power to be above their power, His cunning above their cunning, His
will above their will, His pride above their pride; or rather, that there is
23
Note the distinction between this and the New Testament phrase: "Of Him, and
through Him and to Him are all things" (cf. Rom. 11:36). The fact that a Muslim never
thanks the giver, but only God, for alms or kindness is a classic example of what Palgrave
asserts; wherein there is much thanksgiving to God, but no gratitude to man in Islamic
nations.
60
no power, cunning, will or pride save His own. But He himself, sterile in
His inaccessible height, neither loving nor enjoying aught save His own
and self-measured decree, without son, companion, or counsellor, is no
less barren for Himself than for His creatures; and his own barrenness
and lone egoism in Himself is the cause and rule of His indifferent and
unregarding [sic] despotism around. The first note is the key of the
whole tune, and the primal idea of God runs through and modifies the
whole system and creed that centres in Him”—Palgrave, W. G. (1865).
Narrative of a Year's Journey. London & Cambridge: Macmillan And Co.
(pp. 365-366).
Granted, the above notion given of the Deity, as monstrous and
blasphemous as it may appear, is literally that which the Qur’an conveys or
intends to convey. A critical study of the Arabic text (wherein a cursory
reading, especially in a translation, will not suffice) will undoubtedly
corroborate the foregoing. In fact, every phrase of the preceding sentences,
every touch in this horrible portrait has been taken to the best of our ability,
word for word (or at least meaning for meaning) from the above cited
publication, the truest mirror of the mind and scope of its writer. And that
such was Muhammad’s mind and idea is fully confirmed by the witness of
contemporary tradition. Of this we have many authentic (sahih) examples;
wherein the commentaries of Baidhawi, the Mishkat al-Masabih, and many
other similar works afford ample testimony to this effect.
Accordingly, the only criticism which the student of Islam can offer on
this candid examination of the Muslim idea of God is that it applies more
particularly to the Wahabi sect than to other sects of Islam. Nonetheless this
criticism only adds force to Palgrave's argument, for the Wahabi revival was
61
nothing else than an attempt to return to primitive Islam; and to go back to

Muhammad's own teaching. From an objective standpoint, the Wahabi sect
is more orthodox (closer to the Qur’an and earliest tradition) than any other
sect of Islam both in their creed 24 and their practice. What Palgrave states
regarding Allah’s relation to His creatures can be best proved and illustrated
by treating first the Islamic doctrine of Creation, and that of Providence.
One of the prevailing themes in this publication (thus far) is the fact
that, orthodox Islam is simultaneously deistic25 and pantheistic. Accordingly,
Muslim theologians and philosophers have pantheistic views of Allah,
making Him the sole force in the universe; nonetheless, the popular thought
of Him (due to the dominance of the doctrine of fatalism26) is deistic. God
stands aloof from creation; only His power is felt; men are like the pieces on
a chess-board and He is the only player. Creation itself was not intended so
much for the manifestation of God's glory or the outburst of His love, as for a
sample of His power. The following verses from the Qur’an (regarding
creation) are testament to this effect:
"We created the heavens And the earth and all Between them in Six Days,
Nor did any sense Of weariness touch US"—Qur’an 50:37 (Yusuf Ali).
24
See a paper on the Wahabis in, Ed. (1901). Journal of the Victoria Institute, Vol. XXXIII.
London: Harrison And Sons, (pp. 311-333).
25
Deistic tendency relates to the belief in God, especially a God that created the universe
but does not take part in it; whereas Pantheistic tendency relates to 1. holding or showing
the belief that God is present in all natural things, 2. holding or showing a belief in many or
all gods.
26
Fatalism is the belief that events are decided by fate and that you cannot control them;
the fact of accepting that you cannot prevent something from happening.
62
"Say (O Muhammad S.A.W. ): "Do you verily disbelieve in Him Who created
the earth in two Days? And you set up rivals (in worship) with Him? That
is the Lord of the 'Alamin (mankind, jinn and all that exists). He placed
therein (i.e., the earth) firm mountains from above it, and He blessed it,
and measured therein its sustenance (for its dwellers) in four Days equal
(i.e. all these four days were equal in the length of time) for all those who
ask (about its creation). Then He rose over (Istawa) towards the heaven
when it was smoke, and said to it and to the earth: "Come both of you
willingly or unwillingly." They both said: "We come willingly." Then He
completed and finished from their creation (as) seven heavens in two
Days and He made in each heaven its affair. And We adorned the nearest
(lowest) heaven with
lamps (stars) to be an adornment as well as to guard (from the devils by
using them as missiles against the devils). Such is the Decree of Him the
All-Mighty, the All-Knower” —Qur’an 41:9-12 (Hilali-Khan).
"He has created the heavens And the earth with truth Far is He above
having The partners they ascribe to Him! He has created man From a
sperm-drop And behold this same (man) Becomes an open disputer!"—
Qur’an 16:3-4 (Yusuf Ali).
"Allah is He Who raised the heavens without any pillars that you can see.
Then, He rose above (Istawa) [i.e., He sat on] the Throne (really in a
manner that suits His Majesty). He has subjected the sun and the moon
(to continue going round), each running (its course) for a term appointed.
He manages and regulates all affairs; He explains the Ayat (proofs,
63
evidences, verses, lessons, signs, revelations, etc.) in detail, that you may
believe with certainty in the meeting with your Lord"—Qur’an 13:2
(Hilali-Khan, bracketed-underlined emphasis ours).
"And Allah did create You from dust; Then from a sperm-drop; Then He
made you In pairs. And no female Conceives, or lays down (Her load), but
with His Knowledge. Nor is a man Long-Jived granted length Of days, nor
is a part Cut off from his life, But is in a Book (Ordained). All this Is easy
to Allah"—Qur’an 35:11 (Yusuf Ali).
Considering the foregoing, the first thing that strikes the reader is the
evident contradiction in the texts regarding the number of days in
“Creation” (cf. surahs 50:37 and 41:9); but frankly the Qur’an is riddled with
such instances. Baidhawi’s commentary tries hard to reconcile the
discrepancy, but finally gives it up. Regarding the 41st chapter, he is of the
view that “Allah did not command the heavens and the earth to come forth
in order to prove their obedience, but only to manifest His power.”
Accordingly, he explains the two days of creation wherein “Allah created the
heavens on Thursday and the sun, moon, and stars on Friday.” However,
according to the explanations of the prophet, the same Baidhawi is
convinced “Allah created the earth on Saturday, the hills on Sunday, the
trees on Monday, all unpleasant things in Tuesday, the light on Wednesday,
the beasts on Thursday, and Adam, who was the last creation was created
after the time of afternoon prayers on Friday”—Mishkat al-Masabih 24:1,
part 3.
Furthermore, in the orthodox tradition, Muhammad's idea that Allah is
the author of evil crops up. The idea especially occurs in surah 113:2: "I seek
64
refuge in the Lord of the daybreak from the evil he did make;" wherein
Zamakhshari comments thus:
“The evil of its creation and of His creatures, both those who are
responsible and those who are not responsible...”
The common Muslim idea, undoubtedly taken from the Qur’an and the
Tradition, is that Allah created hell and created Satan such as they are. He is
the creator of evil Jinn as well as of the good Jinn; and He made them evil in
the same sense as He made the scorpion poisonous and lethal. Why then did
Allah create hell? To fill it with infidels. In describing creation Muslim
theologians take pains to establish the fact that the universe is not infinite;
God alone is that and to believe two infinites possible, is “shirk” or
polytheism. To this effect, a Persian scholar once offered to give an English
traveller logical proof of this very fact as follows:
“Let us suppose that the Universe is infinite. Then from the centre of the
earth draw two straight lines diverging at an angle of 60 degrees and
produce them to infinity. Join the terminal points by another straight
line to form the base of a triangle. Since one of the angles is 60 degrees
and the two sides are equal, the remaining angles are 60 degrees each
and the triangle is equilateral. Therefore, since the sides are infinite, the
base is also of infinite length. But the base is a straight line joining two
points (viz., the terminal points of the sides), that is to say, it is limited
in both directions. Therefore, it is not infinite, neither are the sides
infinite, and a straight line cannot be drawn to infinity... Therefore, the
Universe is finite"—Browne, E. G. (1927). A Year among the Persians.
London: Cambridge University Press (p. 144).
65
Needless to say, the above argument is a classic example of orthodox Islamic

logic. Imam Dawud gives the following tradition of the prophet regarding
the order of creation:
“The first thing which God created was a pen, and He said to it, Write. It
said, what shall I write? And God said, Write down the quantity of every
individual thing to be created. And it wrote all there was and that will
be to eternity”—Hadith, Sunan Abu Dawud (English Translation) Vol. V.
No. 4700, (p. 213), Quoted in Hughes' Dictionary of Islam, (p. 472).
Regarding Qur’an 13:2, et seq. (p. 67) there occurs an expression which has
given rise to much discussion among Muslims: "Allah is He Who raised the
heavens without any pillars that you can see. Then, He rose above (Istawa) the
Throne.” The word used for “seated” (istawa27), has given rise to endless
debates. Even the last Islamic reform under Muhammad bin Abdul Wahab28
made this word the catchword of their theology. Most commentaries
interpret the word deistically, "Then he made for the throne," i.e., left the
27
From the root sawa, to intend, to be equal; VIII. conjugation istawa, to be equal, to
ascend, intend, to sit firm and square upon. See Penrice's Dictionary of the Koran, (p. 74).
28
Abdul Wahab was from Najd, Huraymila. He wrote his first work the Kitab a-Tawhid
(“Book of the Oneness [of God]”), which is the main text for Wahhabi doctrines. The
centrality of the tawhid principle to his way of thinking led adherents to characterize
themselves as muwaḥ ḥ idun, meaning “unitarians” or “those who assert tawhid.” Initially, he
condemned popular folk practices prevalent in Najd on doctrinal grounds, without seeking
to enforce his views in practical terms. Starting from 1742, Abdul Wahab would shift
towards an activist stance; and began to implement his reformist ideas. First, he destroyed
the grave of Zayd ibn al-Khattab, a companion of Muhammad, whose grave was revered by
locals; then he ordered the cutting down of trees considered sacred by locals, cutting down
"the most glorified of all of the trees" himself; and thirdly he organized the stoning of a
woman who confessed to having committed adultery.
66
world entirely and absolutely. Zamakhshari escapes the dilemma by silence

whereas Baidhawi says, "He betook Himself to the throne i.e., to preserve
and to direct." Regarding the phrase in the very last verse of Qur’an chapter
9, ‫ش ْال َعظِ ِيم‬
ِ ْ‫“ َوه َُو َربُ ْال َعر‬Lord of the Sublime Throne”, Husseini comments on the
verse (i.e., surah 9:129) thus:
“The throne of God has 8,000 pillars and the distance between each
pillar is 3,000,000 miles.”
Others make the throne more spiritual, but all are agreed that Allah is now
on the throne and that He rules the world by means of angels and jinn and
men, (all of whom) are subject to His will and decrees. One Muslim author
settled the matter of Allah's sitting in the famous dogmatic phrase, often
quoted:
“That He sits is certain; how He sits only He knows and why He sits it is
infidelity to ask.”
Why is it infidelity to ask why Allah sits—well, that is the orthodox Muslim
reply to the questions that arise in the human heart concerning the Divine
government of the world and the problem of evil. When the Mutazilite sect
(the only school of Muslim thought that ever dared to give human reason a
place of authority) in Bagdad attempted to answer theological questions
they were forbidden by the orthodox party. Accordingly, Renan (1883)
objectively concludes thus:
“Science and philosophy flourished on Musalman[sic] soil during the
first half of the middle ages; but it was not by reason of Islam, it was in
spite of Islam. Not a Musalman[sic] philosopher or scholar escaped
persecution. During the period just specified persecution is less
powerful than the instinct of free enquiry, and the rationalistic tradition
67
is kept alive; then intolerance and fanaticism win the day. It is true that
the Christian Church also cast great difficulties in the way of science in
the middle ages; but she did not strangle it outright, as did the
Musalman[sic] theology. To give Islam the credit of Averroes and of so
many other illustrious thinkers, who passed half their life in prison, in
forced hiding, in disgrace, whose books were burned and whose
writings almost suppressed by theological authority, is as if one were to
ascribe to the Inquisition the discoveries of Galileo, and a whole
scientific development which it was not able to prevent”—Renan, E.
(1883). Islamisme et la science. Lecture given at the Sorbonne, 29 March,
1883; cited in Ibn Warraq. (1995). Why I am not a Muslim. New York:
Prometheus Books (p. 274).
In Islam, the notion of Allah’s relationship to the world is such that all “free
will” not only but all freedom in the exercise of the intellect is preposterous.
Allah is so great and the character of His greatness is so pantheistically
absolute that there is no room for the human. All good and all evil come
directly from Him. In twenty passages of the Qur’an, Allah is said "to lead
men29 astray." Still worse, God is said to have created a multitude of spirits
and of men expressly for torture in such a hell as only the Qur’an and
Tradition could paint:
"…but the declaration from Me will come true: "I will fill Hell with jinn
and humans, altogether" (cf. surah 32:13).
Even for the true believer there is no sure hope; wherein one celebrated
verse in the Qur’an, surah 19:71-72 says [every one of the believers must
29
See Muir, W. (1878). The Coran. London: Tract Committee, (p. 52). “…such passages
occur all over the Coran: 6:123;125;137, 7:179;186, 10:98, 11:119, 13:29;34, 14:21,
16:35;93, 17:13, 18:16, 32:14, 38:83, 43:72, 74:37, 76:30, 81:28, 91:8, and 95:4.”
68
enter hell too]. Consequently, hope perishes under the weight of this
ironclad, and pessimism becomes the popular philosophy. Islam saw only
one side of a many-sided truth. As Clarke (1883) puts it, "Islam saw God, but
not man, saw the claims of Deity, but not the rights of humanity; saw
authority, but failed to see freedom—therefore, hardened into despotism,
stiffened into formalism,30 and sank into death"—Ten Great Religions Part II.
Boston & New York: The Riverside Press (p. 68). Elsewhere in his
publication, Clarke (1873) calls Islam:
“the worst form of monotheism in that it makes of God] pure will— will
divorced from reason and love. Instead of being a progressive and
completed idea, Islam goes to a lower level than the religions it claims
to supplant. Muhammad teaches a God above us; Moses teaches a God
above us and yet with us; Jesus Christ teaches God above us, God with
us and God in us”—Ten Great Religions Part I. Boston: James R. Osgood
And Co. (pp. 481, 483).
God above us, not as an Oriental despot, but as a Heavenly Father. God with
us, Emmanuel, in the mystery of his Incarnation, which is the stumbling
block to the Muslim. God in us through His Spirit renewing the heart and
controlling the will into a true Islam, or obedient subjection by a living faith.
This is the Beauty, and the Mystery of “The Christ.”
30
Although Clarke was a Unitarian, he has no praise for Muhammad and monotheism.
69
CHAPTER FIVE
ISLAMIC CONCEPT OF THE TRINITY
"That they ascribe a son (or offspring or children) to the Most Gracious
(Allah). But it is not suitable for (the Majesty of) the Most Gracious
(Allah) that He should beget a son (or offspring or children). There is
none in the heavens and the earth but comes unto the Most Gracious
(Allah) as a slave"—Qur’an 19:91-93 (Hilali & Khan).
"And say: "All the praises and thanks be to Allah, Who has not begotten a
son (or offspring), and Who has no partner in (His) Dominion, nor He is
low to have a Wali (helper, protector or supporter). And magnify Him
with all magnificence, [Allahu-Akbar (Allah is the Most Great)]"—Qur’an
17:111 (Hilali & Khan).
The Islamic concept of God consists not only in what is asserted of Deity, but
also, and more emphatically, in what is denied. Accordingly, Clarke (1883),
in his study of the Ten Great Religions, succinctly calls attention to this fact
regarding all false faiths in the following words:
“Of all the systems of belief which have had a widespread hold on
mankind this may be posited, that they are commonly true in what they
affirm, false in what they deny. The error in every theory is usually
found in its denials, that is its limitations. What it sees is substantial and
real; what it does not see is a mark only of its limited vision” (p. 62).
The Islamic misconception, and its attendant controversy of Christian
doctrines, primarily hinges on two issues; and although the differences of
70
opinion have significantly changed since the days of Raymund Llull 31, or
even since the time of Henry Martyn32, the emphases remain the same;
wherein the integrity of Scripture and the reasonableness of the doctrine of
the Trinity are the two points in Christianity against which Islam
emphatically testifies.
At the same time these two ideas are fundamental in the Christian system.
The doctrine of the Trinity is not only fundamental but essential to the very
existence of Christianity. Dr. F. C. von Baur of the Tubingen school (arguably
the greatest, and most controversial theologian in German Protestant
theology since Schleiermacher) acknowledges this when he says that [in the
battle between Arius and Athanasius the existence of Christianity was at
stake.] In some form, the doctrine of the Trinity has always been confessed
by the Church and all who opposed it were thrown off from its fellowship;
because, “when this doctrine was abandoned, other articles of faith, such as
the atonement, regeneration, etc., have almost always followed, by logical
necessity, as when one draws the wire from a necklace of gems, the gems all
fall asunder”—Henry B. Smith, quoted in, Strong, A. H. (1907). Systematic
Theology Vol. I. USA & Canada: The Judson Press, (p. 805).
The doctrine of the Trinity, in its widest sense, includes that of the
Incarnation and of the Holy Spirit. In studying what the Qur’an teaches on
31
Ramon Llull (1232-1315/16) was a philosopher, theologian, poet, missionary, and
Christian apologist from the Kingdom of Majorca. He invented a philosophical system
known as the Art, conceived as a type of universal logic to prove the truth of Christian
doctrine to apologists of all faiths and nationalities.
32
Henry Martyn (1781-1812) was an Anglican chaplain in India, and a missionary to
Muslim Lands. Martyn was educated at Truro Grammar School and St John's College,
Cambridge.
71
CHAPTER FIVE ISLAMIC CONCEPT OF THE TRINITY
this subject, therefore, we must examine not only what it tells of the Trinity,
but also those passages that speak of the nature of Jesus Christ and of the
Holy Spirit. The following order will be observed in our study: (i) the Qur’an
passages that speak directly of the Trinity; (ii) those that refer to the subject
indirectly; (iii) the Christology of the Qur’an as it bears on this doctrine; (iv)
the passages that speak of the Holy Spirit.
72
REFERENCES TO THE TRINITY
The direct references to the Trinity are not many in the Qur’an, and all occur
in two surahs which were supposedly revealed to Muhammed toward the
end of his prophetic career at Medina:
"O People of the Book! Commit no excesses in your religion: nor say
Of Allah aught but the truth. Christ Jesus the son of Mary Was (no
more than) A Messenger of Allah, And His Word, Which He bestowed
on Mary, and a Spirit proceeding From Him: so, believe In Allah and
His Messengers. Say not "Three": desist: It will be better for you: For
Allah is One God: Glory be to Him: (Far Exalted is He) above Having a
son. To Him Belong all things in the heavens and on earth. And
enough Is Allah as a Disposer of affairs"—Qur’an 4:171(Yusuf Ali).
"Say (O Muhammad S.A.W. ): "O people of the Scripture (Jews and

Christians)! Exceed not the limits in your religion (by believing in
something) other than the truth, and do not follow the vain desires of
people who went astray before and who misled many, and strayed
(themselves) from the Right Path"—Qur’an 5:77 (Hilali & Khan).
"And (remember) when Allah will say (on the Day of Resurrection):
"O 'Isa (Jesus), son of Maryam (Mary)! Did you say unto men:
'Worship me and my mother as two gods besides Allah?'" He will say:
"Glory be to You! It was not for me to say what I had no right (to
say). Had I said such a thing, You would surely have known it. You
know what is in my inner-self
73
CHAPTER FIVE REFERENCES TO THE TRINITY
though I do not know what is in Yours; truly, You, only You, are the
All-Knower of all that is hidden (and unseen)"—Qur’an 5:116 (Hilali
& Khan).
The third passage quoted above, is most often used as a proof-text by many
a Muslim against Christians. These passages leave no doubt that Muhammad
denied the doctrine of the Trinity and that he conceived it to be, or affirmed
it to be, a type of tritheism consisting of God, Mary, and Jesus Christ.
Whether Muhammad had a correct idea of the Trinity and deliberately put
forth this travesty of the Christian idea, we will consider later. Accordingly,
the commentaries interpret the Qur’an as follows: Zamakhshari on 4:171
remarks,
“The story received among Christians is that God is one in essence and
three persons, (akanim) the person of the Father, the person of the Son
and the person of the Holy Spirit. And they verily mean by the person of
the Father, the Being, and by the person of the Son, knowledge, and by
the person of the Holy Spirit, life. And this supposes that God is the third
of three, or, if not, that there are three gods. And that which the Qur’an
here refers to is the clear statement of theirs, that God and Christ and
Mary are three gods and that the Christ is a child (walad) of God from
Mary.”
In his bid to buttress the above Islamic viewpoint, Zamakhshari then quotes
surah 5:116, and adds:
“And it is universally known concerning Christians that they hold the
deity and humanity of Christ as regards his father and mother.”
From this it is evident that Zamakhshari had a more correct idea of the
doctrine of the Trinity than did Muhammad; and after offering a modal
74
trinity as the creed of Christians, he covers up the blatant error in the Qur’an
by asserting, without proof, that the trinity was a triad of [Father, Son, and
Mother]—Kishaf. Vol. I., (p. 241). Baidhawi’s take on surah 4:171 is
remarkably captured in Divine tone; wherein he remarks:
“Jesus is called the Spirit of God because He makes the dead to live or
quickens hearts.”
However, remarking on surah 5:116 he is doubtful; and therefore asserts,
[either God is the third of three gods or is a triad of Father, Son and Holy
Spirit]—Kishaf. Vol. I., (p. 319). He, too, avoids a real explanation of the gross
error in the Qur’an that Mary is one of the persons of the Trinity. The
Jallalayn commentary assert that Jesus cannot be God, [because He has a
spirit and everything possessed of a spirit is compounded (murakkib) and
God is absolutely without compounding arrangement (tarkib) i.e., simple.]
He says the Trinity consists of [Allah and Jesus and His mother]—Kishaf. Vol.
I., (p. 278).
It is interesting to note here that the earliest of these three exegetes is
most correct regarding Muhammad’s understanding of the Trinity; whereas
the latest one (Jallalayn) entirely ignores the apparently well-known facts as
given by Zamakhshari and admitted by Baidhawi. Testament to this effect
are the dates these authors flourished; wherein Zamakhshari, 604 AH;
Baidhawi 685 AH, and Jallalayn 864-911 AH. Regarding the other passages
of the Qur’an quoted above, these commentaries offer no new explanations
or ideas.
75
QUR’AN TEXTS REGARDING FALSE TRINITY
We now turn to other Qur’an texts that have a bearing on this Islamic false
trinity, or the tritheism of which Christians are accused. By the usage of the
word “shirk” the Qur’an and Muslims mean ascribing companions or
plurality to Deity; and according to the Wahabi writers, it is of four kinds:
i. Shirk-ul ilm —is to ascribe knowledge to others than God. Jesus

knows no secret thing and does not share in what God knows.
ii. Shirk-ul Tassaruf —is to ascribe power-to-act-independently to
anyone else than to God. All are his slaves. No one can intercede
except by God's permission (cf. surahs 2:256-257, 19:88-92,
20:109, 34:22-23, 39:45-46, 78:38). To say that Christ intercedes
by His own power or merit is shirk, polytheism.
iii. Shirk-ul Ibaada —is to ascribe a partner to God who can be
worshipped, or worshipping the created instead of the Creator, as
Christians are said to do when they worship Christ or adore Mary.
iv. Shirk-ul 'Adat —is to perform ceremonies or follow superstitions
which indicate reliance or trust on anything or anyone save God.
There is no doubt the above fourfold classification by the Wahabi sect is

rooted in the Qur’an, and it is on these four items that Christians are called
mushrikuon, or polytheists by Muslims even to this day, although that word
is specially used for the Meccan idolaters 33 in the Qur’an. Logically the use of
this term for Christians is perfectly natural and correct from an Islamic
33
Al Baghawi says on (surah 98:1) that the term “Ahl al-Kitab” people of the book, is
always used for the Jews and Christians and Mushrikuon for those who worship idols—
Hughes' Dictionary of Islam, (pp. 579, 580).
76
standpoint, for they (the Christians) certainly hold that the Son of God is
omniscient, independent of the creature, has power as an intercessor and is
worthy of worship. Practically, therefore, all the passages in the Qur’an that
speak against idolatry and assert God's unity are used by Muslims as
testimony against the doctrine of the Trinity. These texts have been
accordingly considered in Chapters 2, and 5.
77
THE CHRISTOLOGY OF THE QUR’AN
It is an open secret that the Christology of the Qur’an includes: the

apocryphal account of Jesus' birth, life, and ministry; His translation into
heaven; and the ideas regarding His second advent. Nonetheless, what
particularly concerns us is to know what Islam teaches regarding the person
of Christ. For a comprehensive treatment of this subject matter, the reader is
referred to Professor Gerock's Christology of the Qur’an (Hamburg, 1839).
Besides, much of what the Qur’an teaches concerning Christ is not germane
to this subject matter, although of curious interest. Regarding the birth of
Jesus Christ, the Qur’an and the Tradition agree that it was miraculous, but
they paradoxically deny an incarnation of Deity in the Christian sense:
"An Behold! the angels said: "O Mary! Allah hath chosen thee and purified
thee-chosen thee Above the women of all nations. O Mary! Worship The
Lord devoutly: Prostrate thyself, And bow down (in prayer) With those
who bow down…Behold! the angels said: "O Mary! Allah giveth thee Glad
tidings of a Word from Him: his name Will be Christ Jesus, The Son of
Mary, held in honour in this world and the Hereafter And of (the company
of) those Nearest to Allah; "He shall speak to the people in childhood and
in maturity. And he shall be (of the company) of the righteous. She said:
"O my Lord! How shall I have a son When no man hath touched me?" He
said: "Even so; Allah createth What He willeth: When He hath decreed A
matter, He but saith to it. 'Be,' and it is!"—Qur’an 3:42-43; 45-47 (Hilali &
Khan).
78
"And Relate in the Book (The story of) Mary, when she withdrew from her
family to a place in the East. She placed a screen (To screen herself) from
them: Then We sent to her Our angel, and he appeared Before her as a
man in all respects. She said: "I seek refuge from thee to (Allah) Most
Gracious: (come not near) If thou dost fear Allah." He said: "Nay, I am
only A messenger from thy Lord (To announce) to thee The Gif of a Pure
Son. She said: "How shall I Have a son, seeing that No man has touched
me, And I am not unchaste?" He said: "So (it will be): Thy Lord saith, 'That
is Easy for Me: and (We Wish) to appoint him As a Sign unto men And a
Mercy from US’: it is a matter (So) decreed”—Qur’an 19:16-21 (Yusuf
Ali).
Zamakhshari comments on this verse in the usual coarse, materialistic way
by saying that the virgin conceived [when the angel Gabriel blew up her
garment]—Kishaf, Vol. II., (p. 4). It is impossible to translate the gross and
utterly sensual ideas of Muslim commentators on the miraculous birth of
Jesus Christ. The above verses from the Qur’an, however, will indicate to the
thoughtful reader how far off even Muhammad was from a spiritual
conception of God's power as creator, though he believed Christ to be
merely human. From an objective standpoint, it is fair to say that, the
Muslim mind is too carnal to understand what the Christian Church means
by its doctrine of the Incarnation. Husain (another Islamic commentator,) in
his bid to explain the circumstances surrounding the Divine conception,
remarks:
“When she went eastward i.e., out of her house in an eastward direction
to perform her ablutions, Gabriel appeared to her.”
79
CHAPTER FIVE THE CHRISTOLOGY OF THE QUR’AN
Zamakhshari suggests that the above narrative of Mary’s eastward turn

during ablution is the reason Christians face east during prayers. Needless
to say, the above assertion is historically, and doctrinally untrue.
Accordingly, the Qur’an denies the Divinity and the eternal Sonship of
Christ; wherein He is a creature like Adam, and that God could destroy Jesus
and his mother without loss to himself:
"It is not befitting to (the majesty of) Allah That He should beget A son.
Glory be to Him! When He determines A matter, He only says to it, "Be",
and it is. Verily Allah is my Lord And your Lord: Him Therefore serve ye:
this is A Way that is straight”—Qur’an 19:35-36 (Yusuf Ali).
"Verily, the likeness of 'Isa (Jesus) before Allah is the likeness of Adam. He
created him from dust, then (He) said to him: "Be!" - and he was"—
Qur’an 3:59 (Hilali-Khan).
"And the Jews say: 'Uzair (Ezra) is the son of Allah, and the Christians say:
Messiah is the son of Allah. That is their saying with their mouths,
resembling the saying of those who disbelieved aforetime. Allah's Curse
be on them, how they are deluded away from the truth!"—Qur’an 9:30
(Hilali-Khan).
"Surely, in disbelief are they who say that Allah is the Messiah, son of
Maryam (Mary) Say (O Muhammad S.A.W. ): "Who then has the least power
against Allah, if He were to destroy the Messiah, son of Maryam (Mary),
his mother, and all those who are on the earth together?" And to Allah
belongs the dominion of the heavens and the earth, and all that is
80
between them. He creates what He wills. And Allah is Able to do all

things”—Qur’an 5:17 (Hilali-Khan).
Although the Qur’an and the Tradition give Jesus Christ a high place among
the prophets, and affirm His sinlessness34 and power to work miracles,35 all
this does not distinguish His person in any way as to its nature from other
prophets who came before Him. The pre-existence of the “Word of God” (a
title of Jesus in the Qur’an) is denied; whereas Tradition is full of stories
about the “Nurul- Muhammad” or "Light of Muhammad” which was created
before all things made by God. This undoubtedly, is a classic case of double
standards on the part of Islamic scholars. Specially is it to be noted that the
Qur’an denies the atonement and the crucifixion of Jesus Christ (cf. surahs
3:54-55, 4:157). Al-Waqidi (823 CE) relates that Muhammad had such
repugnance to the sign of the cross that he destroyed everything brought to
his house with that figure upon it. Even in Islamic Tradition regarding the
second coming of Jesus, this hatred of the cross comes out. Abu Huraira
relates that the prophet said:
“I swear by God it is near when Jesus, son of Mary, will descend from
heaven upon your people a just king, and he will break the crucifix and
will kill the swine and will remove the poll-tax from the
unenfranchised”—Mishkat al-Masabih Vol. II. Chap. VI. Part I., (p. 580).
It is worthy of note, the hatred toward the sign of the cross as an emblem of
the atonement is widespread among Muslims. Accordingly, Doughty (1921)
in one of his travels, noticed how Arabian Youths with swords and bats in
hand, scornfully jeered at Christians; as they drew signs of the Cross in the
34
See Mishkat al-Masabih, Book XXIII., Ch. xii. In the same book the sinlessness of Mary,
as well as of Jesus, is asserted (Bk. I., Ch. iii., pt. 1). Hughes' Dict. of Islam, p. 205.
35
Surahs 3:43-46; 5:112-115. Cf. Baidhawi’s Commentary on the latter passage.
81
CHAPTER FIVE THE CHRISTOLOGY OF THE QUR’AN
desert sand, and then defiled it to prove that they are true Muslims (p. 156).
Paradoxically, the sign of the cross is used by many a Muslim in amulets, and
on properties (as a deterrent to would-be encroachers) because of its
supposedly sinister power. All Muslims (from every sect) affirm that Jesus is
now alive and in heaven; however, they disagree as to the degree of his
exaltation. According to Tradition, Muhammad claims [he saw Jesus and His
cousin, John the Baptist, in the second heaven on the night of his Mi'raj, or
celestial journey]—Mishkat al-Masabih, Vol. II. Book XXIV., Ch. vii. (p. 692).
In the commentary known as Jamia' al-Bayyan (Vol. I., p. 656) it is said
that [Christ is in the third region of bliss; while some say He is in the fourth
heaven]—Dictionary of Islam, (p. 235). In the tradition of this Mi'raj,
Muhammad ascends to the seventh heaven, where he finds Abraham;
whereas Moses is in the sixth. The foregoing statements regarding Christ
invariably indicate that He occupies no supreme place in heaven according
to Muhammad. Furthermore, considering the character and content of
Islamic monotheism, a Christian can never forget that Jesus Christ has no
place in the Muslim idea of God; and that the portrait of Christ Jesus, the
Saviour, as given in the Qur’an and in the Tradition, is a sad caricature
deliberately invented to fit the Islamic narrative.
82
THIRD PERSON OF THE TRINITY
The third person of the Trinity, the Holy Spirit, is mentioned by that name
four times in the Qur’an (cf. surahs 2:87;253, 5:110, 16:102). Surah 16:102
speaks of Him as the inspiring agent of the Qur’an: "Say the Holy Spirit
brought it down from thy Lord in truth;" and twice in the second chapter
(2:87; 253,) The Qur’an declares: "We strengthened him (i.e., Jesus) with the
Holy Spirit." But all Muslim commentators affirm that the Holy Spirit in these
passages means the Angel Gabriel. Accordingly, why Muhammad confused
Gabriel with the Holy Spirit is far from clear. The only distinct assertion that
Gabriel was the channel of Muhammad's revelation occurs in a Medinan
surah (cf. 2:97), whereas Gabriel is literally mentioned only thrice in the
Qur’an (cf. 2:97;98, 66:4). Was this a misapprehension or a
misrepresentation on the part of the Qur’an and the commentators?
We have already seen that the commentators at least were not in
ignorance of the fact that the Holy Spirit is the third person of the Trinity
among Christians. Was Muhammad ignorant of the true doctrine of the
Trinity as held by Christians? The common idea is that he was; and this idea
finds its support in the old story of the Collyridian sect36 in Arabia. The
assertion is that Muhammad got his idea of the Trinity from this heretical
sect, [who invested the Virgin Mary with the name and honours of a
goddess,] and offered to her cylindrical cakes, hence their name.
36
See Gibbon, The Decline and Fall. Vol. III. (p. 488); Hottinger, Hist. Orient. (p. 225), also
cited in most of the later accounts of the history of Islamic teaching, e.g., Sale's Preliminary
Discourse to the Koran.
83
CHAPTER FIVE THIRD PERSON OF THE TRINITY
Accordingly, we shall attempt to ascertain the validity of the above

view. The only authority we have in proving even the existence of this
female sect is the history of heresies by Epiphanius; 37 what others tell is
quoted from his Book. Gerock (1839) says: "Epiphanius does not relate
anything definite concerning the sect, and the long chapter devoted to this
heresy contains next to nothing save controversy, in which the author seems
to delight. Granted such a sect existed at the time of Epiphanius in Arabia, it
is far from probable that, consisting only of women, it would have continued
for three centuries until the time of Muhammad and become so extended
and strong that Muhammad could mistake it for the Christian religion"—
Christology of the Koran. Hamburg & Gotha: Friedrich and Andreas Perthes
(p. 75).
Muhammad encountered Oriental Christianity (the Eastern version of
Orthodox Christianity) from three main quarters: 1. the Christians of Yemen
who frequently visited Mecca, not to mention the impact of the story of
Abraha (a Christian Aksumite general in charge of Yemen) who was turned
back in defeat with his army in the year in which Muhammad was born; 2.
Muhammad had a wife, Miriam, a Christian Coptic, who was the mother of
his son Ibrahim; 3. and Muhammad periodically travelled to Syria with (his
first wife) Khadijah's caravan of merchandise. Early Christianity in Arabia,
according to Wright (1855) was much more extended and influential than is
37
"Epiphanius," says Dr Schaff (Hist. of Christian Church, Vol. III., p. 169), "was lacking in
knowledge of the world and of men, in sound judgment and critical discernment. He was
possessed of boundless credulity, now almost proverbial, causing innumerable errors and
contradictions in his writings." Scaliger calls him "an ignorant man who committed the
greatest blunders, told the greatest falsehoods, and knew next to nothing about either
Hebrew or Greek."
84
generally supposed—Early Christianity In Arabia (p. 185); Zwemer, S. M.

(1900). Arabia: The Cradle of Islam. Chicago & Toronto: Fleming H. Revell,
(pp. 300-314).
Nearly all of Yemen and Najran (today forms part of southwestern
Saudi Arabia) was permeated with the doctrines of Christianity; wherein
there had been many martyrs. Concerning the view held by all Yemen
Christians regarding the Trinity, we have unimpeachable evidence in the
monuments found by Glaser (see remark in Chapter 2, p. 22-23). The
Abyssinian Church of the fifth century was undoubtedly corrupt and paid
high honours to the Virgin Mary and the Saints; nonetheless it is certain also
that this Church always held, as it does now, that the three persons of the
Trinity are the Father, the Son and Holy Spirit. The same is true as regards
the Nestorians, the Jacobites, the Armenians and the Maronites; because the
Monophysite controversy concerned itself not with the doctrine of the
Trinity, but with the Person of Christ—See Schaff, P. (1877). Creeds of
Christendom, Vol. I. (pp. 79-82).
Both Nestorians and Monophysites accepted the Nicene Creed38 without
the Filioque. Against this backdrop, how is it possible to imagine that
38
The Nestorians were a Christian sect that originated in Asia Minor and Syria, who
stressed the independence of the Divine and human natures of Christ and, in effect,
suggested that they were two persons loosely united.
Monophysitism or monophysism is a Christological term derived from the Greek word,
“monos,” i.e., “alone, solitary,” and “physis,” a word that has many meanings but, in this
context, means “nature.” It is identified as “a doctrine in the person of the incarnated Word
(i.e., in Jesus Christ), there was only one nature—the Divine.”
Filioque is a Latin term added to the original Niceno-Constantinopolitan creed, and
which has been the subject of great controversy between Eastern and Western Christianity.
It is a term that refers to the Son, Jesus Christ as an additional origin point of the Holy Spirit.
85
CHAPTER FIVE THIRD PERSON OF THE TRINITY
Muhammad, who knew of Arabian Christianity, who frequently visited Syria,

and married a Coptic Christian, who later became his special favourite, and
whose earliest converts took refuge in Christian Abyssinia, how is it possible
to imagine that he was ignorant of the persons of the Trinity? In addition to
the reasons given above we read in Ibn Hisham (quoted from Ibn Ishaq) that
the Christians of Najran sent a large and learned delegation to Muhammad
headed by a Bishop of the Emperor's faith (i.e., of the orthodox Catholic
Church). How is it possible that a Bishop could have represented the Holy
Trinity to consist of God, Christ, and Mary (as the Tradition says he did)
after the whole Eastern world had been resounding for ages with the
profound and sharply defined controversies concerning this fundamental
doctrine?
Summing up our investigation of this subject, can we then resist the
conclusion of Koelle (1889) succinctly captured in his critical and classical
work on Muhammed and Islam:
“Not want of opportunity, but want of sympathy and compatibility kept
him aloof from the religion of Christ. His first wife introduced him to
her Christian cousin; one of his later wives had embraced Christianity in
Abyssinia; and the most favoured of his concubines was a Christian
damsel from the Copts of Egypt. He was acquainted with ascetic monks
and had dealings with learned Bishops of the Orthodox Church. In those
days the reading of the Holy Scriptures in the public services of the
Catholic Church was already authoritatively enjoined and universally
practised; if he had wished thoroughly to acquaint himself with them,
he could easily have done so. But having no adequate conception of the
nature of sin and man's fallen state, he also lacked the faculty of truly
86
appreciating the remedy for it which was offered in the Gospel”—

Koelle, S. W. (1889). Mohammed And Mohammedanism. London:
Rivingtons Waterloo Place, (p. 471).
The above quote is from a work which is arguably one of the best literary
works on Islam and the life of Muhammad. And if Koelle is correct (as the
evidence so far infers), then Muhammad's idea of God includes a deliberate
rejection of the Christian idea of the Godhead—the Father, the Son, and the
Holy Spirit.39
39
Whether Muhammad could read and write is an important subject matter; wherein
Muslims themselves are not agreed. Some Shi’ites affirm he could, while the Sunnis deny it.
Western scholars are also divided in their opinion on this question. The following hold that
Muhammad could read and write and give good reasons for their opinion: M. Turpin in Hist.
de la Vie de Mahomet, Vol.1., pp. 285-88; Wahl, Intro. to the Koran, p. 78; Sprenger, Life of
Mohmet, Vol. 11., pp. 398-402; Weil, Intro. to the Koran, p. 39; H. Hirschfeld, Jüdische
Elemente im Koran, p. 22. Others deny it, among them: Marraci, p. 535; Prideaux, p. 43;
Ockley, Hist. of the Saracens, p. 11; Gerock's Christologie d. Koran, p. 9; Caussin de Perceval,
Vol. 1., p. 353; J. M. Arnold, p. 230; Palmer's Quran, p. 47, etc. Granted that Muhammad was
unable to read or write, it is still plain from a thoughtful perusal of any biography of the
prophet that he had abundant opportunity to learn from Christians by word of mouth first
at Mecca and specially afterwards at Medina. We must remember that all the Qur’an
teaching on the Trinity occurs in the later surahs.
87
PREDESTINATION VS FATALISM
The sixth great point of faith in Islam is Predestination; which also has a
significant bearing on the Muslim idea of God. It expresses God's relation to
creation, and to man as a moral agent. Although the terms used in
describing predestination by Muslims and Christians (especially Calvinists)
have much similarity, the result of their reasoning is as far apart as the
East40 from the West. It has often been asserted that the Islamic belief in
40
Predestination, in Christian theology, is the doctrine that all events have been willed
by God, usually with reference to the eventual fate of the individual soul. Explanations of
predestination often seek to address the "paradox of free will", whereby God's omniscience
seems incompatible with human free will.
Calvinism, a Protestant Christian theological system constructed by religious reformer
John Calvin (Jean Cauvin, 1509-64). Though educated in law, Calvin published a short
manual of religious instruction, “Institutes of the Christian Religion,” in 1536, 2 years after
leaving the Roman Catholic Church. Later he enlarged the Institutes several times until it
became a major theological treatise adopted by most Reformed churches; it also influenced
LUTHERAN and ANGLICAN theology. Among the important elements of Calvinism are the
following: the authority and sufficiency of Scripture for one to know God and one's
duties to God and one's neighbour; the equal authority of both Old and New Testaments,
the true interpretation of which is assured by the internal testimony of the Holy Spirit; the
doctrines of God as triune and as creator and sustainer of all things, of Christ the
Mediator, whose atonement for sin satisfies the divine justice, and of justification by
faith issuing in an ethic that aims to transform every aspect of life.
Fatalism is a family of related philosophical doctrines that stress the subjugation of all
events or actions to fate or destiny, and is commonly associated with the consequent
attitude of resignation in the face of future events which are thought to be inevitable.
Accordingly, the attitude of mind which accepts whatever happens as having been bound
or decreed to happen. Such acceptance may be taken to imply belief in a binding or
decreeing agent.
88
God's eternal decrees and foreknowledge of good and evil is a sort of

Oriental Calvinism. This, as we hope to show, is not the case. The word used
by the Qur’an and in the Hadith for predestination is “qadr” whereas in
theological works, scholars technically refer to it as “taqdeer.” Both come
from the same root, which means "to measure out" or "to order beforehand."
The Qur’an passages on this subject are numerous; the following verses are
representative in that regard:
"Nor can a soul die Except by Allah's leave, the term being fixed as by
writing. If any Do desire a reward in this life, We shall give it To him; and
if any Do desire a reward In the Hereafter, We shall Give it to him. And
swiftly shall We reward Those that (serve us with) gratitude"—Qur’an
3:145 (Yusuf Ali).
"It is not ye who slew them; it was Allah: When thou threwest (a handful)
of dust), it was not thy act, but Allah's: in order that He might confer on
the Believers a gracious benefit from Himself: for Allah Is He Who heareth
and knoweth (all things)"—Qur’an 8:17 (Yusuf Ali).
"Say: "Nothing will happen to us except what Allah has decreed for us: He
is our Protector": And on Allah let the Believers put their trust"—Qur’an
9:51 (Yusuf Ali).
"But Allah has created you and your handiwork!"—Qur’an 37:96 (Yusuf
Ali).
89
CHAPTER FIVE PREDESTINATION VS.
FATALISM
"…Then Allah misleads whom He wills and guides whom He wills. And He
is the All-Mighty, the All-Wise"—Qur’an 14:4 (Hilali-Khan).
"And everything, small and big, is written down (in AI-Lauh AI-Mahfuz
already beforehand i.e., before it befalls, or is done by its doer:)"—
Qur’an 54:53 (Hilali-Khan).
"Verily, this (Verse of the Qur'an) is an admonition, so whosoever wills,

let him take a Path to his Lord (Allah). But you cannot will, unless
Allah wills. Verily, Allah is Ever All-Knowing, All-Wise"—Qur’an 76:29-30
(Hilali-Khan).
The seventh passage quoted above, has often been invoked by Muslim
scholars as the great proof-text, the ever-impregnable stance in many a hot
controversy. Not to weary the reader with the numerous commentaries, we
give the orthodox interpretation of the above text in the words of Al-Berkevi:
“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 their good
actions are foreseen, willed and predestined, decreed by the writing on
the preserved tablet 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 or approval. Should any ask why God
90
willeth and produceth evil, we can only reply that He may have wise
ends in view which we cannot comprehend.”
Practically, all Sunni orthodox Muslims believe this doctrine in such a way
that [by the force of God's eternal decree man is constrained to act thus or
thus]. Testament to this effect is the catchphrase of the Hausa Muslims,
“qadara’n Allah baaye saake” meaning, “the predetermined counsel of God
cannot be averted.” This view (examples to be discussed later) is
undoubtedly in accordance with the traditional sayings of Muhammad;
those that follow are literally translated from the section on qadr in Mishkat
al-Masabih:
“God created Adam and touched his back with His right hand and
brought forth from it a family. And God said to Adam, I have created this
family for Paradise and their actions will be like unto those of the
people of Paradise. Then God touched the back of Adam and brought
forth another family and said, I have created this for hell and their
actions will be like unto those of the people of hell. Then said a man to
the prophet, of what use will deeds of any kind be? He said, When God
creates His slave for Paradise his actions will be deserving of it until he
dies, when he will enter therein; and when God creates one for the fire
his actions will be like those of the people of hell until he dies, when he
will enter therein”
“Adam and Moses were once disputing before their Lord, and Moses
said, 'Thou art Adam whom God created with his hand and breathed
into thee of His spirit and angels worshipped thee and He made thee
dwell in Paradise and then thou didst make men to fall down by thy sin
91
FATALISM
to the earth.' Adam replied, 'Thou art Moses whom God distinguished
by sending with thee his message and His Book and He gave thee the
tables on which all things are recorded. Now tell me how many years
before I was created did God write the Tawrat (the Pentateuch)?' Moses
replied, 'Forty years.' Said Adam, 'And did you find written there, Adam
transgressed against his Lord?' 'Yes,' said Moses. Said Adam, 'Then, why
do you blame me for doing something which God decreed before He
created me by forty years?”
Another tradition relates that Muhammad one day took up two handfuls of
earth and scattered them, after which he said, “God empties His hand of His
slaves, a portion for Paradise and a portion for torment”—Mishkat al-
Masabih, Delhi edition. (p. 21). Accordingly, another form of the same
tradition puts it still more vulgarly; wherein Allah supposedly says, “these
are for Paradise and I care not; and these for hell-fire and I care not”—Kisas
al-Anbiya, Persian edition, (p. 21). It is related that 'Aisha said:
“the prophet was invited to the funeral of a little Child. And I said, 'O
Apostle of God, blessed be this little bird of the birds of Paradise, it has
not yet done evil nor been overtaken by evil.' 'Not so, 'Aisha,' said the
apostle, 'verily, God created a people for Paradise and they were still in
their father's loins, and a people for the fire and they were yet in their
father's loins”—Hadith, Sahih Muslim (English Translation) Vol. VII. No.
[6767]30 - (2662) p.36; [6768], p. 37.
Considering the forgoing traditions, and their interpretations from the last
fourteen centuries in the lives of Muslims, it is fitting, therefore, to label this
kind of predestination “fatalism” and nothing else. For fatalism is the
doctrine of an inevitable necessity and implies an omnipotent and arbitrary
92
sovereign power. It is derived from the Latin fatum, what is spoken or

decreed, and comes close to the Muslim phrase so often on their lips, "Allah
kaatib" God wrote it. Among the Greeks, as in Homer, Fate had a twofold
force; it is sometimes considered as superior and again as inferior in power
to Zeus. Nor does the Greek idea of fate exclude guilt 41 on the part of man. In
both respects this idea of destiny is less fatalistic in its results than the
Islamic concept of predestination. To this effect, Tisdall (1906) succinctly
captures the core of this concept as thus:
“The God of Islam is more terrible even than the Aeschylean Zeus,
inasmuch as of Him it cannot be asserted that He fears Fate or dreads
the coming of one who shall drive Him from power. Nay, further,
instead of being subject to Fate or Necessity, Allah's will is Fate”—
Tisdall, W. (1906). The Religion of The Crescent. Second Edition Revised.
London: Society for Promoting Christian Knowledge (p. 65).
With such attributes as Muhammad ascribed to Allah, these ideas of
predestination, or better, fatalism, are in perfect accord. Islam exalts the
Divine in its doctrine of the eternal decrees, not to combine it with, but to
oppose it to, the human. This not only leads to neglect of the ethical idea in
God, but puts fatalism in place of responsibility, makes God the author of
evil, [and sears the conscience as with a hot iron]—cf. 1 Timothy 4:2. God
not only decreed the fall of Adam, but created Adam frail, and with sensuous
appetites so that it was natural he should fall—Compare the commentaries
on Qur’an 4:28—"Allah wishes to lighten (the burden) for you; and man was
created weak."
41
See article on Homer's Idea of Fate in McClintock and Strong's Encyclopaedia, Vol. III.,
p. 494.
93
FATALISM
Accordingly, "Allah kaatib" or “God decreed it,” has become the

convenient cover for many a crime for centuries. Muslim criminals often use
it before their judge in a trial; wherein the judge, remembering Qur’an 4:28
sometimes gives his verdict on the attendant basis. We can see also what
Muslims understand by predestination from their use of certain other
religious phrases which are so very common in all Muslim communities. A
classic example is Inshallah "if God wills" which is (more or less) the slogan
of comfort (useful for all Muslims) in varied situations (cf. Qur’an 18:23-24
and the Tradition). This phrase is equivalent grammatically, not logically, to
the Biblical "if God wills" (cf. James 4:15; Acts 18:21). To the Muslim, God's
will is certain, arbitrary, irresistible, and inevitable before any event
transpires; whereas to the Christian, God's will is secret until He reveals it;
when He does reveal it, we feel the imperative of duty.
The Christian prays "Thy will be done." This prayer is little less than
blasphemy to a zealous Muslim; for Allah only reveals His will in
accomplishing it; wherein man only submits. Consequently, if a Muslim were
to pray to Allah "Thy will be done on earth as it is in heaven," he would at the
least be guilty of folly. Theoretically speaking, at random, an archangel, a
murderer, a devil, or an insect could equally execute the will and purpose of
Allah every moment of their existence; logically because, He wills it. And
because Allah wills it, they are what they are and continue what they are.
The same difference appears when we study the phrase, al hamdu lil-
lah, "the Praise is to God." The Biblical phrase, "Praise ye the Lord" (cf. Jdg.
5:2, Ps 104:35, Ps 105:45, Ps 106:1; 48, etc.) implies personal responsibility,
gratitude, activity; whereas the Muslim phrase expresses submission,
94
inevitableness, passivity, fatalism. Thus, it is so often used in

circumstances42 that, to the Christian seem incongruous. Observably the one
phrase which is the exponent of Islam is, submission; whereas that of
Christianity is, joy, and gratitude. The former never occurs in Scripture;
whereas the latter is absent from the Qur’an.
The Muslim theory of prayer, also, is in accordance with this doctrine of
the decrees. Prayer is reduced to a gymnastic exercise and a mechanical act;
wherein anyone who has lived with Muslims needs no proof for this
statement. According to the Qur’an and the Tradition, prayer is always
regarded as a duty and never as a privilege. It is a task imposed on Muslims
by Allah. Allah first imposed fifty prayers a day, but Muhammad begged off
from this number, on Moses's advice; wherein Muhammad kept on
bargaining, ten after ten, until he returned triumphant with only five daily
prayers43 on his list. Muslim daily prayer consists in worship rather than in
petition; and very few Muslims admit that prayer has objective power as
well as subjective. Islamic Fatalism is distinguished, still more radically,
from even ultra-Calvinistic views of predestination. This is evident when we
consider in each case the source of the decrees and their ultimate object. For
instance, in Islam there is no “Fatherhood of God” and no “purpose of
redemption” to alleviate the doctrine of the decrees:
42
It is true that the common people sometimes use the words to express joyful
satisfaction and gratitude to the Almighty. But they use them continually in a fatalistic
ِ ‫" ِإنَّا هَّلِل ِ َوِإنَّا ِإلَ ْي ِه َر‬To Allah We belong, and to Him is our
sense, together with surah 2:156: “ َ‫اجعُون‬
return."
43
Mishkat al-Masabih and other books of Tradition in the section on prayer give this
story in detail: e.g., Hadith: Jami' At-Tirmidhi. Vol. I. Ch. 45, No. 213 (p. 238).
95
FATALISM
i. The attribute of love is absent from Allah. We have already

indicated this in our discussion of the attributes.
The Love of God in a Christian sense means either God's love to us or our
love to Him. Both ideas are strange to Islam. An inter-communion of such
tender regard between God and the creature is seldom or never spoken of in
the Qur’an. In surah 2:165 we read:
"And of mankind are some who take (for worship) others besides Allah as
rivals (to Allah). They love them as they love Allah…"—Qur’an 2:165
(Hilali-Khan).
Nonetheless orthodox exegesis explains “Allah’s love” in the verse above [as
His greatness and the impulse to obedience which He causes]—Baidhawi,
Vol. I., (p. 95). In Qur’an chapter 5:54 there is another reference to the love
of God on the part of men similarly explained. How strong is the contrast
between these two or three exceptional passages and the abundant and
plain teaching of the Old and New Testament regarding the love which
requires of man and which flows out from God to man. In like manner God's
love to man when it is referred to in the Qur’an is rather a love for his good
qualities than for the man himself. Dr Otto Pautz, who has collected all the
passages related to the subject matter, concludes that [in no case is there
any reference to an inner personal relation, when the Qur’an even hints at
this subject of which the Bible is so full]—Pautz, O. (1989). Muhammad's
Doctrine of Revelation. Leipzig: J. C. Hinrichs’sche Buchhandlung (pp. 142,
143).
Umbreit (1872) says, “the God of Muhammad is in the wind, and in the
earthquake, and in the fire, but not in the still small voice of love” (p. 240).
Incidentally, the mystic love of the Sufis (though widespread and weighty in
96
its influence) is not a characteristic of orthodox Islam, but arose in rebellion

to it. Anyway, the Fatherhood of God and the repeated declarations of
Scripture that God loves the world, loves the sinner, loves mankind—that
God is love; had its influence on Christian speculation regarding the problem
of God's decrees. In like manner the character of Allah has been the key to
the same problem among Muslims. Islam, as we have seen, reduces God to
the category of the will. He is at the very core, a despot; who stands at
dreadful heights above humanity. He cares nothing for character, but only
for submission. The only affair of men is to obey His decrees.
ii. The Islamic doctrine of hell is in accordance with their crude

beliefs regarding Predestination, and the complete lack of
spiritual conception. According to the Qur’an and the Tradition,
Hell must be filled, and so God creates infidels (cf. Qur’an 32:13,
4:18;97;168-169, 9:68-69;113; and their Commentaries.)
It is worthy of note, of all religions in the world, Islam is the most severe in
its conception of the capacity and the torments of hell:
"The Day We will Ask Hell, "Art thou Filled to the full?” It will say, "Are
there
any more (to come)?"—Qur’an 50:30 (Yusuf Ali).
The conception of hell is brutal, cruel, and to the last degree barbarous. The
whole picture, as given in the Qur’an and commented on by the Tradition, is
horribly revolting:
[Hell shall be a place of snares, wherein the only menu is thorns and
thistles. The perpetual residence of transgressors; devoid of cool breeze of
any sort. A place where the only drink served is boiling water and liquid
pus; a befitting recompense to the unfortunates who were beforehand
97
FATALISM
selected for this fate!] (cf. Qur’an 88:1-7, 2:38, 3:197, 14:21, 43:74-77,
etc.)
The word “jahan’am” or hell occurs thirty times in the Qur’an; fire (nar) is
still more frequently used; there are six other words used for the place of
torment. One cannot objectively read the traditions (which invariably
informs on what Muhammad said on this subject matter) without feeling
how heartless44 and loveless this creed of Islam is. Yet it is in connection
with such ideas of God that Muslims believe in Predestination. It is not
difficult to deduce whence Muhammad got his ideas of a Predestination
after the pattern of fatalism. Like so much of his other teachings, it seems
that the doctrine of qadr comes from the Talmud.45
Rabbi Geiger has shown how Muhammad borrowed from Judaism not
only words, conceptions, legal rules, and stories, but also doctrinal 46 views.
The Scribes and Pharisees differed even at the time of Christ in their view of
Predestination. The latter more and more followed a fatalistic idea of God's
decrees. Josephus (75 CE) writes as if, according to the [Pharisees, the chief
44
Read Chapter X. on the Islamic concept of hell in Stanley Lane-Poole's Studies in a
Mosque, (pp. 311-326).
45
The Talmud is the central text of Rabbinic Judaism and the primary source of Jewish
religious law (halakha) and Jewish theology. Until the advent of modernity, in nearly all
Jewish communities, the Talmud was the centrepiece of Jewish cultural life and was
foundational to "all Jewish thought and aspirations", serving also as "the guide for the daily
life" of Jews. The term "Talmud" normally refers to the collection of writings named
specifically the Babylonian Talmud (Talmud Bavli), although there is also an earlier
collection known as the Jerusalem Talmud (Talmud Yerushalmi). It may also traditionally
be called Shas (‫)ש״ס‬, a Hebrew abbreviation of shisha sedarim, or the "six orders" of the
Mishnah.
46
See Judaism and Islam, a Prize Essay by Rabbi Geiger, translated from the German.
Madras, 1898. Also, the original work. Wiesbaden, 1833.
98
part in every good action depended on fate “pre-ordination” rather than on

man’s doing…]—In Jewish War II, 8:14. Accordingly, Edersheim (1915)
grants that the Pharisees carried their accentuation of the Divine to the
verge of fatalism. Their ideas, he shows, were in every respect like the
present Islamic ideas; wherein “Adam had been shown all the generations
that were to spring from him. Every incident in the history of Israel had
been foreordained and the actors in it, for good or for evil, were only
instruments for carrying out the Divine Will... It was because man was
predestined to die that the serpent came to seduce our first parents” (p.
317).
The stories told in the Talmud about predestination of a man's bride,
and his position and the place and time of his death, find their duplicates
almost verbatim in the Islamic Traditions (See the references in Edersheim to
the Talmudic tractates). Accordingly, “wheresoever a man was destined to
die thither would his feet carry him,” declares the Talmud; wherein:
“on one occasion, King Solomon when attended by his two scribes
(alluding to “Elihoreph and Ahijah, the sons of Shisha” in I Kings 4:3),
suddenly perceived the Angel of Death As he looked so sad, Solomon
ascertained as its reason that the two scribes had been demanded at his
hands. On this Solomon transported them by magic into the land of Luz,
where, according to legend, no man ever died. Next morning Solomon
again perceived the Angel of Death, but this time laughing, because, as
he said Solomon had sent these men to the very place whence, he had
been ordered to fetch them”—Talmudic Tractate. Sukkah, 53a
(emphasis in bracket ours).
99
FATALISM
This same story quoted above, is told by Muslims, 47 according to the

traditions of the Prophet. Admittedly, there have been heterodox views
about predestination. But can anybody who has read the history of Islamic
sects doubt that the account given in this chapter is the orthodox side of the
narrative? The three views to which the multitude of sects can be reduced
on this tricky problem are: The Jabariyun, or extreme fatalists; the
Qadariyun, who affirm that man has free-agency (Muslim free-thinkers
belong to this school); and the 'Asharians, who are a little more moderate
than the first school. To this effect, Sell (1880) suggests, “the orthodox or
Sunni belief is theoretically 'Asharian, but practically the Sunnis are
confirmed Jabariyun; whereas other doctrines are considered quite
heretical” (p. 174).
When we consider the deadening influence of the doctrine of fatalism,
we must remember that (generally speaking) there have been two schools
of Muslim philosophy—the orthodox and the heretical. It is only the latter
school that added to the knowledge of philosophy one iota. From an
objective standpoint, the attainments of the Arabs in philosophy have been
greatly exaggerated. They were translators and transmitters of the Greek
philosophy, and whatever was added to Plato and Aristotle came not from
the side of orthodoxy, but was entirely the work of heretics, such as
Averreos, Alfarabi and Avicenna (See Ueberweg's History of Philosophy, and
Renan's History of Semitic Languages). The orthodox philosopher of Islam
was al-Ghazali, and the result of his work was the complete triumph of
unphilosophical orthodoxy (Ibid.) So utterly barren of ideas and opposed to
47
See Commentaries on Surah 32:11 and margin of Daka'ik ul-Akhbar and Shammoos-
ul-Anwar.
100
all reason did this orthodoxy become that Sprenger sarcastically remarks
concerning it thus:
“The Moslem student marvelled neither at the acuteness nor yet at the
audacity of his master; he marvelled rather at the wisdom of God which
could draw forth such mysterious interpretations. Theology, in fact, had
now made such happy progress that men looked on common sense as a
mere human attribute —the reverse being that which they expected
from Deity. And this was one of the results of Moslem speculation on
the Qur’an doctrine of predestination”—Vlieger, A. (1903). Kitab al-
Qadr. Leiden: E. J. Brill (pp. 10-34; 35-81).
101
CHAPTER SIX
DEFICIENCY IN THE NOTION OF GOD
“If we regard God merely as the Absolute Being and nothing more, we
know Him only as the general irresistible force, or, in other words, as
the Lord. Now it is true that the fear of the Lord is the beginning of
wisdom, but it is likewise true that it is only its beginning. In the
Muhammadan[sic] religion God is conceived only as the Lord. Now
although this conception of God is an important and necessary step in
the development of religious consciousness, it yet by no means exhausts
the depths of the Christian idea of God”—Hegel, G. W. F. (1840). Werke.
Vol. VI. Berlin: Berlag by Dunder Humblot (p. 226).
What is the result of our investigation thus far? Is the statement in Qur’an
chapter 29:46 true, "Our God and Your God is One?" In as far as Muslims are
monotheists and in as far as Allah has many of the attributes of Jehovah, we
cannot put Him with the false gods. But neither can there be any doubt that
Muhammad's conception of God is inadequate, incomplete, barren and
grievously distorted. It is vastly inferior to the Christian idea of the Godhead
and inferior to the Old Testament idea of God.
In the Book of Job alone there are more glorious descriptions of God's
personality, unity, power, and holiness than in all the chapters of the Qur’an.
Carlyle (1893) in his praise of the Hero-prophet acknowledges this; wherein
he remarks:
“he makes but little of Muhammad's praises of Allah, borrowed from the
Hebrew and far surpassed there." Even the Fatherhood of God is clearly
102
taught in the Old Testament but it is wholly absent from the Koran”—
Carlyle, T. (1893). The Hero as Prophet. Lahore: Islamia Press (pp. 19-
20).
In the comparative study of religious ideas there must be a standard of
judgment, and a Christian can only judge other religions by the standard of
the Gospel. Islam itself through its prophet (who came, so he says, as the
seal of all prophecy), and in its Book challenges comparison by this standard
(cf. surahs 2:23-24, 10:38, 11:13, 17:88, 52:34). We are not dealing with the
monotheism of Greek philosophy, which arose in the Court of the Gentiles
under Plato and Aristotle; but with a monotheism which arose six centuries
after Christ and professed to be an improvement or at least a restatement of
the Christian idea (See surahs 42:7, 10:37; 94, 5:77; 83, etc.)
Accordingly, the challenge explicitly enumerated in the Qur’an has been
duly accepted, and responded to. Jesus Christ proclaimed that no man
knows the Father save through the Son. He is the brightness of the Father's
glory. The impress of His essence. Whoever has seen Jesus has seen the
Father. Muhammad by denying Christ's Deity also denied that He came on a
unique and transcendent mission from the Court of heaven—to show us the
Father. Instead of arriving at his theology through the mind of Christ, as
revealed in the Gospels and developed through the Holy Spirit's teaching in
the epistles, Muhammad went back to natural theology.
He did not use, or would not use, the channel of knowledge opened by
the Incarnation. Instead of learning from Him who descended from heaven,
Muhammad asserted that he himself ascended to heaven and there had
intercourse with God (cf. Surah 17:1 and the Commentaries). Whether this
"night journey" of the prophet be considered a dream, a vision, or, as most
103
CHAPTER SIX DEFICIENCY IN THE NOTION OF
GOD
Muslims hold, a physical reality, is inconsequential. The Qur’an and

orthodox Tradition leave no doubt that Muhammad gave out this idea
himself, and often stated that he had conversation with the angels and the
prophets, as well as with God Himself in Paradise.48
From an objective standpoint, the account of the "night journey," as
given in the Tradition and widely believed, is both childish and
blasphemous. Nor does the story add anything to the total of theological
ideas as given in the Qur’an. Evidently, Muhammad's account of heaven is
borrowed from the Talmud. We conclude, therefore, that Islamic
monotheism, granting all that can be said in its favour, lacks four elements
which are present not only in the Christian idea of the Godhead, but in the
Old Testament as well:
(1) There is no Fatherhood of God.
Evidently, the Islamic notion of God is an obstruction to any Potential filial

relation on man's part toward Deity. The Muslim's fear of God is not the
beginning of wisdom; for Allah instils in them a servile, not a filial, fear of
Him.
To this effect, no one approaches God except as a slave. Accordingly, Hegel's
criticism earlier shows the opinion of a philosopher on the elementary
character of such monotheism. Logically where there is no Fatherhood
toward man, there can be no Brotherhood of Man. Islam, in this regard, is an
exclusive brotherhood of believers, not an inclusive brotherhood of
humanity. Undoubtedly, this characteristic of Islam is responsible for much
of its fanatic spirit, and its gigantic pride. The denial of God's Fatherhood
48
See Muir's Mahomet, Vol. II., p. 221. Sprenger calls the story "an unblushing forgery" on
the part of Muhammad.
104
changes Him into a desolate abstraction. Who can honestly love al-Ghazali’s
definition of Allah, or feel drawn to such a negative conception? The very
contemplation of so barren a Deity [pours ice-cubes over the tide of human
trusts and causes us to feel that we are orphaned children in a homeless
world]—Doctrine of God, (p. 110).
(2) The Islamic idea of God is conspicuously lacking in the attribute

of love.
We have seen this in our study of Allah's names. But in gathering up the few
precious fragments of this idea from the Qur’an, another thing is evident;
whatever Muhammad taught concerning God's mercy, loving kindness or
goodness has reference only and wholly to what God is external to Himself.
In the Bible, love is not a mere attribute of Deity. God is love. God's love not
only shines forth from Genesis to the Book of Revelation, but it is often
declared to have existed from all eternity (cf. Jer. 31:3, John 3:16-17; 17:23-
24, Eph. 1:4, Rev. 13:8). Fairbairn remarks:
“The love which the Godhead makes immanent and essential to God
gives God an altogether new meaning and actuality for religion; while
thought is not forced to conceive monotheism as the apotheosis of an
Almighty will or an impersonal idea of the pure reason”—quoted in,
Zwemer’s Cradle of Islam, (p. 176).
Consequently, the emergence of Islamic mysticism was a revolt against the
orthodox doctrine of Allah. The human heart craves a God who loves; a
personal God who has close relations with humanity; a living God who can
be touched with the feeling of our infirmities and who hears and answers
prayer. Such a God the Qur’an does not reveal. A being who is incapable of
loving is also incapable of being loved. And the most remarkable testimony
105
GOD
to this deficiency in the orthodox Islamic conception of Deity is the fact that
the passionate devotional poetry of the Sufis is put down as rank heresy.
Accordingly, Allah is too rich, too proud, and too independent to need or
desire the tribute of human love. Consequently, the foregoing makes Islam a
loveless creed. The Bible’s teaching that "God is love" is to the learned
blasphemy and to the ignorant an enigma. Orthodox Islam is a religion
without song; wherein the aspect of the psalms of devotion, or the hymns of
spiritual aspiration, are simply non-existent in the Qur’an or the volumes of
Tradition? There is no precept nor example in Islam enjoining love to one's
enemies. It knows nothing of universal benevolence or of a humane
tolerance (cf. Surah 8:38-39, 9:28-29). That the element of love is lacking in
their idea of God is perhaps the reason also why the Qur’an, in contrast with
the Bible, has so little for and about children—"Of such is not the kingdom of
[Allah]”—Doctrine of God, (p. 112).
(3) Allah is not absolutely, unchangeably, and eternally just.
Against this backdrop, it is fitting to admit that it is possible, as some allege,

that the Western Church may have emphasized the forensic aspect of God's
holiness and righteousness unduly49 and to excess. Nonetheless the Bible
and the human conscience in all ages also emphasize this truth; wherein it is
49
In Christian theology, justification is God's righteous act of removing the
condemnation, guilt, and penalty of sin, by grace, while, at the same time, declaring the
unrighteous to be righteous, through faith in Christ's atoning sacrifice on the Cross. The
means of justification is an area of significant difference amongst the diverse theories of
atonement defended within Roman Catholic, Eastern Orthodox and Protestant theologies.
Justification is often seen as being the theological fault line that divided Roman Catholicism
from the Lutheran and Reformed traditions of Protestantism during the Reformation.
106
found in the Greek theism. The Bible is not alone in stating that the Judge of
all the earth must do right (cf. Gen. 18:25). For Justice and judgment are the
habitation of His throne (cf. Ps. 89:14). Evidently, it is impossible for God to
lie (cf. Num. 23:19; Heb. 6:18). For He has declared He will in nowise clear
the guilty (cf. Ex. 34:7; Num. 14:18). Because the soul that sinneth it shall die
(cf. Ex. 18:4; Ex. 18:20). Therefore, the awful spectacle of Calvary can only be
explained in the terms of Divine justice and Divine love. It was, in the words
of Paul, [to declare His righteousness; that He might be just and the justifier
of him which believeth in Jesus] (cf. Rom. 3:25;26).
Now since Islam, as we have seen, denies the doctrine of the atonement
and minimizes the heinousness of sin, it is not surprising therefore that the
justice of God is not strongly insisted on and often presented in a weak, or
distorted manner. Testament to this effect, is the following candid
observation from Hauri (1882) who remarks:
“Neither in his holiness nor in his love is Allah righteous. As regards the
wicked His love does not receive its due; he is quick to punish, to lead
astray and to harden; His wrath is not free from passion. As regards
believers, it is holiness comes short of its right. Allah allows his
prophets things otherwise forbidden and wrong. Even ordinary
believers are allowed to[sic] do what is really[sic] not right because
they are believers. For example, the prophet said: ‘It is better not to
have slave-concubines, but Allah is merciful and clement 50.’”—Der
Islam. (P. 45).
In Islam, God's law is not the expression of His moral nature, but of his
arbitrary will; wherein His word can be abrogated, and His commandments
50
The Qur’an offers other examples of such clemency, cf. surahs 2:225; 5:91, etc.
107
GOD
are subject to change and improvement. Testament to this effect is the fact
that, Muslims typically are eager to prove that all the prophets were sinless;
and that their transgressions of the moral law as recorded in the Qur’an
were not really sins, but that they were permitted these slight faults or
committed them in forgetfulness. The greatest feats of exegesis in this line
are found in Ar-Razi's Commentary on the verses that tell of Adam's sin,
David's adultery, and Muhammad's prayers for pardon (cf. Surahs 7:19-23,
38:20-25, and 47:19). Accordingly, all the laws of logic and etymology are
broken to avoid the natural inference that these "prophets" were guilty
sinners. It is evident that this desire to justify "the prophets" is nothing else
than a practical lowering of the standard of ethics; wherein what Adam or
David or Muhammad did may appear to be sinful, but it really was not;
wherefore God is merciful and clement.
(4) There is a lack of harmony in Allah's attributes.
Raymund Lull, arguably the first missionary to Muslim Lands, pointed out
this weakness in the monotheism of Islam. He puts forward this proposition:
“Every wise man must acknowledge that to be the true religion which
ascribes the greatest perfection to the Supreme Being, and not only
conveys the conception worthiest of all His attributes, but demonstrates
the harmony and equality existing between them. Now their religion
[i.e., Islam] was defective in acknowledging only two active principles in
the Deity, His will, and His wisdom, while it left His goodness and
greatness inoperative, as though they were indolent qualities and not
called forth into active exercise. But the Christian religion could not be
charged with this defect. In its doctrine of the Trinity, it conveys the
108
highest conception of the Deity as the Father, the Son, and the Holy
Spirit in one simple essence. In the Incarnation of the Son, it evinces the
harmony that exists between God's goodness and His greatness; and in
the person of Christ displays the true union of the Creator and the
creature while in His Passion it sets forth the divine harmony of infinite
goodness and condescension”—Lull, R. (1721). Liber Contemplationis in
Deo, liv., (pp. 25-28).
Ironically these words are as true today as they were when addressed to the
Muslims of North Africa in the Middle Ages. In Islamic theology, mercy and
truth do not meet; righteousness and peace have never kissed each other.
The only way in which Allah pardons a sinner is by abrogating His law or
passing over guilt without a penalty. There is no Substitute, no Mediator, no
Atonement. And therefore, the law-of-the-letter, with all its terror, and the
physical hell, ever yawning for its victims, subject Muslims to the bondage of
fear; wherein formalism invariably petrifies the conscience of the faithful.
Accordingly, Hagenbach (1853) remarks:
“The distinguishing characteristic of Christianity, by which it is
differentiated from all other monotheistic systems, lies in the fact that it
does away with the law, the Kantean imperative, and in the place of it
substitutes a free and spontaneous inclination of the heart,” a sentiment
coincident with the Pauline affirmation, that the Christian, as
distinguished from the moralist, is not under the law but under grace
(Rom. 6:15)”—Hagenbach, K. R. Die Kirchengeschichte des 18 und 19
Jahrhunderts, II. 120. Quoted in Shedd, W. G. T. (1887). A History of
Christian Doctrine. Vol. I. Ninth Edition. New York: Charles Scribner’s
Sons, (pp. 219-220).
109
GOD
The law is not abolished, but fulfilled in Christ. He blotted out [the
handwriting of ordinances that was against us, which was contrary to us,
and took it out of the way, nailing it to His cross] —cf. Col. 2:14. That cross of
Christ is the missing link in the Islamic creed. Without the doctrine of the
Cross there is no possible unity in the doctrine of the divine attributes; for
the mystery of redemption is the key to all other mysteries of theology.
Furthermore, not only is the Islamic concept of God deficient in these four
essential ideas of Christian theology, but its deficiency is most of all evident
from its results, in that, conscience is petrified, and legality is the highest
form of worship; wherein virtue is to be like the prophet. Accordingly, the
Arabic language has no every-day word for conscience and the present
book-term does not even occur in the Qur’an. Fatalism has literally
paralysed progress; wherein injustice is stoically accepted, and the bulk of
the people are passive.
A stream can rise no higher than its source. Islam has no lofty
conception of ethics, and of holiness like that of the Christian Faith.
Muhammad's life soon became the standard of morality for all Moslems. In
the Qur’an he is human; whereas in the tradition he becomes sinless and
almost divine. To be as good as Muhammad is the ideal of the Muslim. By
contrast, Christ rises higher: "Be ye therefore perfect even as your Father
which is in heaven is perfect." Paul's command "to be imitators of God as
dear children," is to the orthodox Muslim a double blasphemy. Allah can
neither be imitated nor have children. He is unique and nothing can be like
Him. Martensen (1873) points out the importance which faith in the Triune
God has for ethics, and concludes:
110
“If, therefore, Christian dogmatics had not asserted and developed the
doctrine of the Trinity, ethics must postulate it in its own interests.”—
Christian Ethics. Vol. I. Edinburgh: T & T. Clark, (pp. 65-75).
All church history shows that a genuine and even a scientific knowledge of
God has been better maintained with the doctrine of the Trinity than
without it. A knowledge of God as full as we need, as full as He Himself
intended we should have, is impossible without the doctrine of the Holy
Trinity. So-called pure monotheism has always degenerated into some form
of pantheism, whether among Jews, Muslims, or in Christendom.
111
CONCLUSION
Objectively speaking, it is evident from our study that, the Islamic doctrine
of God has proven to be sterile, most especially, at its core premises.
Candidly (regarding the notion of God), it has neither grown nor been
fruitful of new ideas in all its history; wherein the contemporary scholar is
still content with the definition of al-Ghazali. On the contrary, the Christian
doctrine of the Godhead beginning with the Old Testament revelation of
Jehovah, interpreted in the fullness of time by the Incarnation, developed by
the Holy Spirit's teaching through the Apostles and systematized in the
conflict with heresies and philosophies, is even today a growing concept and
a fruitful idea. As we critically ponder over the foregoing, let us consider the
words of Shedd (1872), who begs us to:
“trace the course of thinking by the theological mind upon the doctrine
of the Trinity, and perceive how link follows link by necessary
consequence; how the objections of the heretic or the latitudinarian
only elicit a more exhaustive, and at the same time more guarded
statement, which carries the Church still nearer to the substance of
revelation and the heart of the mystery; how, in short, the trinitarian
dogma, like the Christian life itself, as described by the Apostle, 'being
fitly joined together and compacted by that which every joint supplieth,
maketh increase unto the edifying of itself' into a grand architectural
structure— let this process from beginning to end pass before a
thinking and logical mind, and it will be difficult for it to resist the
conviction that here is science, here is self-consistent and absolute
112
truth”—A History Of Christian Doctrine. Vol. I. Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark.

London: Hamilton, Adams, & Co. Dublin: J. Robertson & Co., (p. V).
Islam is proud to write on its banner, the Unity of God; but Apostle Paul says,
it is, after all, a banner to the Unknown God. Christianity humbly enters
every land under the standard of the Holy Trinity—the Godhead of
Revelation. Accordingly, these two banners represent two Kingdoms; and
unfortunately, they do not mix that well. In its origin, history, present
attitude and by the very first article of its brief creed, Islam is anti-Christian.
But that does not mean all hope is lost. Christian monotheism is as superior
to Islamic monotheism as Christ is superior to Muhammad. There is no god
but the Godhead. Islam itself is beginning to realize the strength of the
Christian idea of God, and our heartfelt prayer for the Muslim world should
be that they may know the Only True God and Jesus Christ whom He hath sent
(cf. John 17:3). When the great Islamic world acknowledges the Fatherhood
of God, they will also understand the brotherhood of men, thereby grasping
the mystery and necessity of Calvary.
Amen!
113
REFERENCES
Ali. A. Y. (1989). The Holy Qur’an. English Translation of The Meanings and Commentaries.
Revised and Edited by the Precedency of The Islamic Research, IFTA, Call and Guidance.
King Fahd Holy Qur’an Printing Complex.
Blyden, W. E. (1887). Christianity, Islam, and the Negro Race. With an Introduction by The
Hon. Samuel Lewis. W. B. Whittingham & Co.
Brockelman, C. (1891). The Poems of Lebid Translated from The Vienna Edition and Added
with Notes from The Estate of Dr. A. Hubee. E. J. Brill.
Brockelmann, C. (1898). History of the Arabic Written Tradition Vol. I. Trans. Joep Lameer
with a Preface by Jan Just Witkam. Brill.
Browne, E. G. (MCMXXVII). A Year Amongst the Persians: Impressions as To the Life,

Character, & Thought of The People of Persia Received During Twelve Months Residence
in That Country in The Years 1887-1888 With A Memoir by Sir E. Denison Ross.
Cambridge University Press A & C Black Ltd.
Carlyle, T. (1893). The Hero as Prophet. A lecture by Thomas Carlyle. Islamia Press.
Cavendish, R (2 February 2000). History Today. Volume (50 Issue), Retrieved from
http://www.historytoday.com/archive/giordano-bruno-executed" United Kingdom:
History Today Ltd. Incidentally, Giordano Bruno, "the radical Italian thinker was
burned at the stake on February 17th, 1600 for his pantheistic stance and cosmic
perspective." (Published in History Today Volume 50 Issue).
Clarke, J. F. (1873). Ten Great Religions: An essay on comparative theology. James R. Osgood
and Company, Late Ticknor & Fields, and Fields, Osgood, & Co.
De Boer, T. J. (1903). The History of Philosophy in Islam. Trans. (with the sanction of the
author) by Jones, R. E. E. J. Brill.
Derenbourg, H. Trans. (MDCCCXCIX). The Diwàn of Nabiga Dhobyani. Unedited from the
Arabe 65 manuscript from the Schefer collection. Paris National printing.
114
REFERENCES
Deutsch, E. (1874). Literary Remains of The Late Emanuel Deutsch. With a brief memoir.
Henry Holt and Company.
Doughty, C. M. (1921). Travels in Arabia Deserta. Vol. I. William Clowes And Sons, Limited.
Edersheim, A. (1915). The Life and Times of Jesus The Messiah. Vol. I. Eighth Edition, Revised.
Longmans, Green, And Co.
Edwards, P. (1967). The Encyclopaedia of Philosophy, Vol. I. Macmillan. Digitized 2 Sep,

2011. ISBN 0028646290, 9780028646299 (p. 34).
Faculties of the Universities of Chicago, Oxford, and Cambridge. (MDCCCLXXXIII). The

Encyclopaedia Britannica. A Dictionary of Arts, Sciences, And General Literature. Ninth
Edition Vol. XVI. New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons.
Gerock, C.F. (1839). Reference to a Presentation of the Christology of the Koran. Friedrich
and Andreas Perthes.
Gibbon, E. (1737, 1794, 1995). History of The Decline and Fall of The Roman Empire
Volumes I, II, III. (eds.) J. B. Bury, with the notes by Mr. Gibbon, the introduction and the
index as prepared by professor Bury; with an introduction by Daniel J. Boorstin;
illustrated from the etchings by Gian Battista Piranesi. Random House Limited. eISBN:
978-0-679-64148-3.
Hamilton, C. Tran. (MDCCXCI). The (Hidaya,) Or Guide; A commentary on the Mussulman

laws Vol. IV. Printed by T. Bensley.
Hauri, J. (1882). Islam In Its Influence on The Life of Its Believers. A Prize Letter Crowned by
the "Hague Society for The Defence of Christian Religion" E. J. Brill.
Hegel, F. G. W. (1840). Works. Complete Edition Vol. VI. Berlag by Dunder Humblot.
Hilali-Khan. (1998). Translation of the meanings of The Noble Qur'an into the English
Language and Commentaries (a Summarized Version of At-Tabari, Al-Qurtubi and Ibn
Kathir Summarized in One Volume). King Fahd Glorious Qur’ā n Printing Complex.
Hirschfeld, H. (1902). Asiatic Monographs: New researches into the composition and
exegesis of the Quran Vol. III. Royal Asiatic Society.
115
REFERENCES
Hughes, T. P. (1885). A Dictionary of Islam: Being a cyclopaedia of the doctrines, rites,

ceremonies, and customs, together with the technical and theological terms, of the
Muhammadan religion. W. H. Allen & Co.
Ibn Kathir. (1352). Stories of the Prophets. Retrieved from http://www.islambasics.com
Ibn Kathir. (May 18th 2018). Stories of the Prophets. URL:

https://pdf.yt/d/FFZIzpkiBPA9qqDp ISBN-13: 9781523738427. Books.Dar-Salam.Org
ISBN1948117525 (ISBN13: 9781948117524).
Ibn Warraq. (1995). Why I Am Not a Muslim. Prometheus Books.
Jalal al-Din al-Mahalli, Jalal al-Din al-Suyuti. (2008). Tafsir al-Jallalayn Great Commentaries
on the Holy Qur’an. Trans. Feras Hamza. Fons Vitae49. 2008932807ISBN
9781891785160.
Koelle, S. W. (MDCCCLXXXIX). Mohammed And Mohammedanism: Critically considered.

Rivingtons Waterloo Place.
Levine, P. M. (January 1, 1707). Pantheism: A non-theistic concept of deity. Routledge, First

published 1994 by Routledge. This edition published in the Taylor & Francis e-Library,
2003. Simultaneously published in the USA and Canada by Routledge NY 10001. ISBN
0-203-01477-4 Master e-book ISBN. ISBN 0-203-16234-X (Adobe eReader Format).
ISBN 0-415-07064-3 (Print Edition) (pp. 44, 274-275).
Lloyd, G. (2 October 1996). Routledge Philosophy GuideBook to Spinoza and the Ethics. (1st
ed.) Routledge. ISBN 978-0-415-10782-2. (p. 24).
Martensen, H. (MDCCCLXXIII). Christian Ethics. Translated from the Danish, with the
sanction of the Author, By C. Spence. T. & T. Clark.
Matthews, A. N. (1809). Mishcat-ul-Masabih. Or a collection of the most authentic traditions,

regarding the actions and sayings of Muhammed; exhibiting the origin of the manners
and customs; the civil, religious, and military policy of the Muslemans. Translated from
the original Arabic, Vol. I. Printed by T. Hubbard at the Hindoostanee Press.
116
REFERENCES
Matthews, A. N. (1810). Mishcat-ul-Masabih or a collection of the most authentic traditions,

regarding the actions and sayings of Muhammed; exhibiting the origin of the manners
and customs; the civil, religious, and military policy of the Muslemans. Translated from
the original Arabic. Vol. II. Printed by T. Hubbard at the Hindoostanee press. 1810.
McCurdy, J. F., Bliss, F. J., Hilprecht, H. V., Sayce, A. H., Hommel, F., Ward, W. H., Mahaffy, J.
P., Ramsay, W. M. (1896). Recent Research in Bible Lands: Its progress and results. Ed.
Herman V. Hilprecht. John D. Wattles & Co.
Muir, W. (1858). The Life of Mahomet. Vol. II. With introductory chapters on the original
sources for the biography of Mahomet, and on the pre-Islamite history of Arabia. Smith,
Elder & Co.
Muir, W. (1878). The Coran. Its composition and teaching; and the testimony it bears to the
Holy Scriptures. E. & J. B. Young & Co.
Natiq, A. Q. (2015). Sirat-e-Mustaqim Islamic Studies (Compulsory). Tahir Sons.
Noble, F. P. (MDCCCXCIX). The Redemption of Africa: a story of civilization with maps,

statistical tables and select bibliography of the literature of African missions Vol. I.
Fleming H. Revell Co.
Nö ldeke, T. (1909). History of the Qur’an. Second edition. (ed.) Friedrich Schwally.
Dieterich'sche publishing bookstore.
Ockley, S. (1857). The History of The Saracens; Comprising the lives of Mohammed and his
successors, to the death of Abdalmelik, the eleventh Caliph. With an account of their most
remarkable battles, sieges, revolts, & etc. Collected from authentic sources, especially
Arabic Mss. The sixth edition, revised, improved, and enlarged. Henry G. Bohn, Covent
Garden.
Oort, J. H. (1865). The Worship of Baalim In Israel. Based Upon the Work of Dozy, R. 'The
Israelites At Mecca.' Translated from the Dutch, and enlarged with Notes and
appendices, by John William Colenso. Longmans, Green, And Co.
117
REFERENCES
Osborn, R. D. (MDCCCLXXVIII). Islam Under the Khalifs Of Baghdad. Seeley, Jackson, &
Halliday.
Palgrave, W. G. (1865). Narrative of A Year's Journey Through Central and Eastern Arabia
(1862-63) Vol. II. Printed by Spottiswoode And Co.
Pautz, O. (1898). Muhammed's Doctrine of Revelation Examined by Sources. J. C.

Hinrichs’sche Buchhandlung.
Penrice, J. (2005). A dictionary and Glossary of the Koran: With copious grammatical
references and explanations of the text. Asian Educational Services.
Petrie, F. W. H. ed. (1892). Philosophical Society of Great Britain. Journal of The

Transactions of The Victoria Institute. (Vol. XXV. p. 149). London: (Published by the
Institute.) India: W. Thacker & Co. United States: G. T. Putnam's Sons. Australia, and
New Zealand: G. Robertson & Co., Lim; Canada: Dawson Bros., Montreal. S. Africa: Juta &
Co., Cape Town. Paris: Galignani.
Pocock, E. (1806). A Specimen of The Arabian Historical. Added history of the Arabs
through the auspices of Antony I. by Sylvester De Sacy. (ed.) Joseph White, s. T. P.
Clarendon printer.
Renan, E. (MDCCCLXIII). General History and Compared System of Semitic Languages. First
Part. General History of Semitic Languages. Third Edition, Revised and Increased. Printed
by Authorization of The Seal Guard at The Imperial Printing.
Schaff, P. (1877). The Creeds of Christendom. With a history and critical notes. Vol. I. Harper
& Brothers.
Sell, E. (1880). The Faith of Islam. Trubner And Co., Madras.
Shedd, W. G. T. (MDCCCLXXII). A History of Christian Doctrine. Vol. I. T. & T. Clark, Hamilton,

Adams, & Co., J. Robertson & Co.
Sprenger, A. M. D. (1851). The Life of Mohammad From Original Sources. Printed at The
Presbyterian Mission Press.
118
REFERENCES
Strong, A. H. (1907). Systematic Theology: A compendium and commonplace-Book designed

for the use of theological students. Vol. I. The Judson Press.
Taliaferro, C., Draper, P., Quinn, P. L. Eds. (2010). A Companion to Philosophy of Religion
Second Edition. Wiley-Blackwell A John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
Thomson, A. (2008). Bodies of Thought: science, religion, and the soul in the early
enlightenment. Oxford University Press Inc. (p. 54).
Tisdall, W. St. C. (1906). The Religion of The Crescent: Being the James Long lectures on
Muhammadanism. Persia 2nd ed. revised. Published Under the Direction of The Tract
Committee (“Society for Promoting Christian Knowledge”).
Tiele, C. P. (1896). Outlines of The History of Religion to The Spread of The Universal
Religions. Sixth edition. Translated from the Dutch by J. Estlin Carpenter. Trubner, & co.
Ltd.
Ueberweg, F. (MDCCCLXXII). A History of Philosophy, From Thales to the present time. Vol. I.
Hodder And Stoughton.
Umbreit, W. C., Ullmann, D. (1872). Theological Studies and Reviews. Friedrich Andrea
Perthes.
Vlieger, A. D. (1903). Kitab Al-Qadr. Materials to use for the study of the doctrine of
predestination. Muslim theology. E. J. Brill.
Wherry, E. M. (1882). A Comprehensive Commentary on The Quran Vol. I., Comprising Sale’s
translation preliminary discourse, with additional notes and emendations. Together with
complete index to the text, preliminary discourse, and notes. Trü bner & Co.
Wherry, E. M. (1884). A Comprehensive Commentary on The Quran. Vol. II. Comprising

Sale’s translation and preliminary discourse, with additional notes and emendations
together with a complete index to the text, preliminary discourse, and notes. Trubner &
Co.
Whiston, W. Tran. (1857). The Works of Flavius Josephus: Comprising the antiquities of the
Jews; a history of the Jewish wars; and life of Flavius Josephus, written by himself. Vol. I.
119
REFERENCES
Together with Numerous Explanatory Notes, And Three Dissertations Concerning Jesus
Christ, John the Baptist, James The Just, God's Command to Abraham, Etc. Published by
Jas. B. Smith & Co.
Wright, T. (MDCCCLV). Early Christianity in Arabia; A historical essay. Bernard Quaritch.
Zwemer, S. M. (1900). Arabia: The Cradle of Islam. Studies in the geography, people, and
politics of the peninsula with an account of Islam and mission-work. Fleming H. Revell
Company.
Whinfield, E. H. Tran. (1887). Masnavi i Ma’navi: The spiritual couplets of Maulana Jalal-din
Muhammad. Trans. Ami A. Briagcil. Trubner & Co.
Zubair, H. A. T., Khattab, H., Za'I, A., Khaliyl, A. eds. (2007). English Translation of Sahih
Muslim Volume 7. Compiled by: Imam Abul Hussain Muslim bin al-Hajjaj. Trans.
Nasiruddin al-Khattab. Darussalam. ISBN: 9960-9919-0-3 (set) 9960-9927-4-8
Zubair, H. A. T., Za'I, A. eds. (2007). English Translation of Jami' At-Tirmidhi Volume 1.
Compiled by: Imam Hafiz Abu 'Eisa Mohammad lbn 'Eisa At-Tirmidhi. Trans. Abu
Khaliyl. Darussalam.
120
121

Isamic Origins - Conflict of The Narratives - 2022

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Isamic Origins - Conflict of The Narratives - 2022

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

i

All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, distributed, or

ISBN: 978-0-000000-0 (Paperback)

ISBN: 978-0-000000-0 (Hardcover)

Library of Congress Control Number: 00000000000

Book design by Designer.

Printed by NameSOON, Inc., in the Republic of Ghana.

First printing edition 2022.

111 Address St.

City, Country, 12345

The Truth-Seeker—The one who persistently, without

1. Sirat al-Rasul Allah (the biography of the Apostle of Allah).

303. Interestingly, none of the above hadith compilers flourished

 Humphreys (1991) is of the view that, “Islam as we know it did not

In essence, what these scholars are saying is that, almost everything

in Tubingen, Germany—when Wellhausen3 asked the following hard but

1. “How do we know who Abraham was?”

1. Why in the world did it takes so long to write down Muhammad’s

Jerusalem, and Cairo; therefore, could nobody read or write in these

Incidentally, there was an entire library that was destroyed in Alexandria

This chapter seeks to ascertain the validity of scholarly criticisms of the

(‘Chronicle of John of Niku’-1602, & Nevo & Koren, 2003:234)

i. They called themselves, “The Saracens”— that was the name

deities, Orotal and Alilat. The former is doubtless a corruption of “Allah

Whereas Labid says, "Neither those who divine by striking stones or

influence on Islam and its teaching. Accordingly, Nö ldeke (1909) thinks

The word “Allah” is referred to by Muslim theologians as “Ism-ul

God is not a body.

beginning to his existence and He is not a body. ‘And HE has no equal,’

The attributes of God are referred to by Muslim theologians as “asma-ul

1. Ar-Rahmaan—The Merciful (cf. surah 1:1;3, etc.)

5. As-Salaam—The Peace, or the Peace-maker. The latter significance is

14. Al-Ghafaar—The Forgiver (cf. surah 20:82, 39:5, etc.) Sometimes

31. Al-Khabeer—The Cognizant (cf. surah 6:103.)

45. Al-Waasi’—The Capacious (cf. surah 4:130, 5:54, 53:32 etc.)

Muhammad agrees with him —Oaths, Dict. Of Islam, (p. 438).

of "The mothers of the attributes," being regarded as fundamental and

to a believer.) The word, “Righteous” is an exclusive Divine attribute;

“Abram believed the LORD, and He credited it to him as

in the Qur’an, they belong to Allah's attributes on authority of the

Granted, the above verse is couched in elegant allegorical and poetic

of [The LORD of Lords, who dwells in Unapproachable Light] (cf. 1Tim.

93. Al-Haadi—The Guide (cf. 22:54), inferred in surah 1:6, 3:8.

Noticeably, the word “Rabb” Lord (although an attribute, according to the

moral attributes or no conception at all. He saw God's power in nature, but

or,” as Wherry (1884) concludes that “sin, according to most Muslim

20:74); and the punishment is eternal (cf. 43:74-78) wherein there is no

Throne" (surah 2:255) which is often been quoted as proof of Muhammad's

The earth and what is therein,

us to all beings else, matter or spirit, instinct or intelligence, physical or

nothing else than an attempt to return to primitive Islam; and to go back to

Needless to say, the above argument is a classic example of orthodox Islamic

world entirely and absolutely. Zamakhshari escapes the dilemma by silence

"Say (O Muhammad S.A.W. ): "O people of the Scripture (Jews and

i. Shirk-ul ilm —is to ascribe knowledge to others than God. Jesus

There is no doubt the above fourfold classification by the Wahabi sect is

It is an open secret that the Christology of the Qur’an includes: the

Zamakhshari suggests that the above narrative of Mary’s eastward turn

between them. He creates what He wills. And Allah is Able to do all

Accordingly, we shall attempt to ascertain the validity of the above

generally supposed—Early Christianity In Arabia (p. 185); Zwemer, S. M.

Muhammad, who knew of Arabian Christianity, who frequently visited Syria,

appreciating the remedy for it which was offered in the Gospel”—