A liar, madman, or prophet? This article examines Muhammed’s claim to prophethood.

Muhammed claimed to be a prophet. He brought the Quran, a scripture which claims to be from God. The existence of the Quran cannot be denied. Therefore, if we do not accept the book’s claim of being a revelation, then we must come up with an explanation as to its origin.

People who reject the Quran’s claim to originate from God throughout the ages have come up with explanations and theories as to the origin of the Quran. No matter what the details of the particular theory might be, they all reduce to basically two hypotheses:

1) “Muhammed was a liar“. He got his information from the outside and presented it to people as a revelation from God. The proponents of this hypothesis claim that the Quran was composed by Muhammed who “borrowed” information from other sources.

2) The second hypothesis suggests that “Muhammed was deceived or deluded” in that he believed that he was a prophet when in fact he was not. To the people who offer this hypothesis, the Quran is the product of the “deluded” mind of Muhammed; it is Muhammed’s hallucinations.

These are the two alternatives to the Quran’s claims of originating from God. It may sound surprising but the book that is being attacked, the Quran, is also well aware of these two hypothesis that people have been presenting throughout the ages in trying to reject it:

Hypothesis 1 suggests that Muhammed was a liar. The Quran states:

“And they wondered that a warner should come to them, from among them. The disbelievers said: “A magician, a liar.” (Quran 38:4)”

Hypothesis 2 suggests that Muhammed was deluded. The Quran states:

“And those who disbelieve would almost smite you with their eyes when they hear the Reminder (Quran), and they say: “Most surely he (Muhammed) is mad.” (Quran 68:51)”.

Most people who present these hypotheses are forced to take them together in conjunction. Logically speaking however, both these hypothesis are mutually exclusive and cannot be taken together. In other words, they can stand on their own, if facts support them, but taken together they collapse.

Gary Miller explains what this means clearly in one of his lectures, entitled “the Amazing Quran”:

For example, if one is deluded and really thinks that he is a prophet, then he does not sit up late at night planning, “How will I fool the people tomorrow so that they think I am a prophet?” He truly believes that he is a prophet, and he trusts that the answer will be given to him by revelation. As a matter of fact, a great deal of the Quran came in answer to questions. Someone would ask Muhammed (peace be upon him) a question, and the revelation would come with the answer to it. Certainly, if one is crazy and believes that an angel put words in his ear, then when someone asks him a question, he thinks that the angel will give him the answer. Because he is crazy, he really thinks that. He does not tell someone to wait a short while and then run to his friends and ask them, “Does anyone know the answer?” This type of behavior is characteristic of one who does not believe that he is a prophet. What the non-Muslims refuse to accept is that you cannot have it both ways. One can be deluded, or he can be a liar. He can be either one or neither, but he certainly cannot be both! The emphasis is on the fact that they are unquestionably mutually exclusive personal traits.

The following scenario is a good example of the kind of circle that non-Muslims go around in constantly. If you ask one of them, “What is the origin of the Qur’an?” He tells you that it originated from the mind of a man who was crazy. Then you ask him, “If it came from his head, then where did he get the information contained in it? Certainly the Quran mentions many things with which the Arabs were not familiar.” So in order to explain the fact which you bring him, he changes his position and says, “Well, maybe he was not crazy. Maybe some foreigner brought him the information. So he lied and told people that he was a prophet.” At this point then you have to ask him, “If Muhammed was a liar, then where did he get his confidence? Why did he behave as though he really thought he was a prophet?” Finally backed into a corner, like a cat he quickly lashes out with the first response that comes to his mind. Forgetting that he has already exhausted that possibility, he claims, “Well, maybe he wasn’t a liar. He was probably crazy and really thought that he was a prophet.” And thus he begins the futile circle again.

Hypothesis 1 and its implications:

If the Quran is the product of a man’s mind who is a “liar”, then we have the problem of evidence against hypothesis 1′s implications:

1) We have to explain the confidence portrayed by Muhammed and the various statements in the Quran. One must ask, “if Muhammed was a liar, then where did he get his confidence? Why did he behave as though he really thought he was a prophet?” A confidence that shows that Muhammed, who is presenting the Quran, is convinced that he indeed has the truth.

The prophet behaved in a way that clearly indicated his belief in his own prophethood:

Miller quotes two examples:

For example, the Prophet (peace be upon him) had an uncle by the name of Abu Lahab. This man hated Islam to such an extent that he used to follow the Prophet around in order to discredit him. If Abu Lahab saw the Prophet speaking to a stranger, he would wait until they parted and then would go to the stranger and ask him, “What did he tell you? Did he say, ‘Black.’? Well, it’s white. Did he say, ‘Morning.’? Well, it’s night.” He faithfully said the exact opposite of whatever he heard Muhammed (peace be upon him) and the Muslims say. However, about ten years before Abu Lahab died, a little chapter in the Qur’an was revealed to him. It distinctly stated that he would go to the Fire (i.e., Hell). In other words, it affirmed that he would never become a Muslim and would therefore be condemned forever. For ten years all Abu Lahab had to do was say, “I heard that it has been revealed to Muhammed that I will never change – that I will never become a Muslim and will enter the Hellfire. Well I want to become a Muslim now. How do you like that? What do you think of your divine revelation now?” But he never did that. And yet, that is exactly the kind of behavior one would have expected from him since he always sought to contradict Islam. In essence, Muhammed (peace be upon him) said, “You hate me and you want to finish me? Here, say these words, and I am finished. Come on, say them!” But Abu Lahab never said them. Ten years! And in all that time he never accepted Islam or even became sympathetic to the Islamic cause. How could Muhammed possibly have known for sure that Abu Lahab would fulfill the Qur’anic revelation if he (i.e., Muhammed) was not truly the messenger of Allah? How could he possibly have been so confident as to give someone 10 years to discredit his claim of Prophethood? The only answer is that he was Allah’s messenger; for in order to put forth suck a risky challenge, one has to be entirely convinced that he has a divine revelation.

Another example of the confidence which Muhammed (peace be upon him) had in his own Prophethood and consequently in the divine protection of himself and his message is when he left Makkah and hid in a cave with Abu Bakr during their emigration to Madeenah. The two clearly saw people coming to kill them, and Abu Bakr was afraid. Certainly, if Muhammed (peace be upon him) was a liar, a forger and one who was trying to fool the people into believing that he was a prophet, one would have expected him to say in such a circumstance to his friend, “Hey, Abu Bakr, see if you can find a back way out of this cave.” Or “Squat down in that corner over there and keep quiet.” Yet, in fact, what he said to Abu Bakr clearly illustrated his confidence. He told him, “Relax! Allah is with us, and Allah will save us!”

The Quran also shows a great confidence by the claims it makes:

a) The Quran says in 4:82: “Do they not consider the Qur’an (with care)? Had it been from other than God, they would surely have found in it much discrepancy“. Now only a person who is convinced about what he has can make such a claim. Do you know of any religious book that makes a claim that it doesn’t contain any errors and that if it had a human origin it would contain many?

Miller says:

This is a clear challenge to the non-Muslim. Basically, it invites him to find a mistake. As a matter of fact, the seriousness and difficulty of the challenge aside, the actual presentation of such a challenge in the first place is not even in human nature and is inconsistent with man’s personality. One doesn’t take an exam in school after finishing the exam, write a note to the instructor at the end saying, “This exam is perfect. There are no mistakes in it. Find one if you can!”. One just doesn’t do that. The teacher would not sleep until he found a mistake! And yet this is the way the Qur’an approaches people. Another interesting attitude that exists in the Qur’an repeatedly deals with its advice to the reader. The Qur’an informs that reader about different facts and then gives the advice: “If you want to know more about this or that, or if you doubt what is said, then you should ask those who have knowledge.” This too is a surprising attitude. It is not usual to have a book that comes from someone without training in geography, botany, biology, etc., who discusses these subjects and then advises the reader to ask men of knowledge if he doubts anything.

In other words, the problem with hypothesis 1 is that if a man is a liar, he should behave in a manner of one who knows he is lying, but Muhammed did not behave in such a manner. He fully believed that he was a prophet.

2) Another problem with Hypothesis 1 is that if the Quran is a lie, the product of a man’s lying mind, how do you account for the information in it? The Quran claims that it contains information that was “new” to the people it was being read to. The Meccans hated Muhammed, so if this statement in the Quran was not true and the information was not “new” they would have loved to point out the source. Yet they never answered this challenge to produce similar “knowledge”, as the Quran had done. Here are two examples:

a) The Quran mentions the wall of “Zulqarnain” (“the two-horned one”). It gives a description of this wall and how it was built to protect a people from outside invaders (Quran 18:96-98). The Arabs had never heard of it, or what it looked like, neither had the Arab Jews or the Arab Christians. Now, after the death of the prophet, some were curious about this wall mentioned in the Quran. Umar the Khalif/Caliph (ruler of the Muslims) sent out travelers to verify the existence of this wall. It is in Durbent in the former Soviet Union. It is referred to as Alexander’s wall however modern historians dispute on whether Alexander had anything to do with it.

Compare what the Quran said over fourteen centuries back, before any Arab had set foot on Derbent to what the Columbia Encyclopaedia says:

“Derbent was founded (A.D 438) by the Persians as a strategic fortress at the Iron Gates. There are remains of the Caucasian Wall (also called Alexander’s Wall), built by the Persians in the 6th century. as a bulwark against northern invaders. (6th Edition, 2000).”

If Muhammed was a liar, who told him about this wall thousands of miles to the east, about which no one in his area knew anything?

b) The Quran mentions a city by the name of Iram where a prosperous people the Aad lived. It was a city of “tall pillars”:

“Have you not considered how your Lord dealt with Ad, (the people of) Iram, possessors of lofty buildings? (Quran 89:6-7)”

Until very recently no historic or non-historic record existed about Iram. However in 1973, the ancient city of Ebla was excavated in Syria. While going through the tablet library of Ebla archaeologists came across a list of cities that Ebla traded with and on that list was a city named Iram. When reporting it in the National Geographic of December 1978, the only reference to Iram they could cite other than the tablets was the Quran, chapter 89.

In 1992 using SIR-C imaging [Synthetic Aperture Radar] using the Space Shuttle, GPR [Ground Penetrating Radar] and GMT [Geophysical Diffraction Tomography], scientists discovered Iram [also called Ubar] in southern Oman, buried under 12 meters of sand. The city contained evidence of “tall pillars” exactly as mentioned in the Quran chapter 89. The Quran described this fact, over fourteen centuries back at a time when no one in the world could have had access to this city. Now, if Muhammed was a liar how did he know these things?

3) Another problem with Hypothesis 1 is that Muhammed was known for his honesty. In-fact, before Islam, he was well-known to his own people to be trustworthy and reliable, an honest man, a person of integrity, who did not lie. It was due to this reason they nicknamed him “Al-Ameen”, or “the Trustworthy”. (This paragraph has been copied with adapations from link)

A good Muslim apologist website, Bismikaallahum, explains about his honesty in an article:

” The behavior and mannerisms of a person tells someone whether he is a truthful person or a habitual liar. This can be known from his habitual life and daily manners especially with long companionship and experiencing interaction with the individual in question. If someone is truthful all the time, this is clearly recognized. And if he sometimes tells lies, this is also quickly recognized. This is something we frequently experience in our daily life; if anyone lived amongst a certain society for a long time, the members of this society can easily tell whether this one is truthful or not. People who are close to a certain person for a long time are able to tell whether this person habitually lies or not, especially in major issues.

Those who were close to prophet Muhammed (peace be upon him) had a solid belief that he is a truthful person that had never lied in his entire life. Even those who disbelieved in his Prophethood did not deny this fact. This is evident in the following report in Sahih Muslim:

It is reported on the authority of Ibn ‘Abbas that when this verse was revealed (from God to Muhammed): “And warn thy nearest kindred” the Messenger of Allah (may peace be upon him) set off till he climbed Safa’ (a hill/mountain) and called loudly: “Be on your guard!” They said: “Who is it calling aloud?” They said: “Muhammed”. They gathered round him, and he said: “O sons of so and so, O sons of so and so, O sons of ‘Abd Manaf, O sons of ‘Abd al-Muttalib”, and they gathered around him. He (Muhammed) said: “If I were to inform you that there were horsemen emerging out of the foot of this mountain, would you believe me?” (Because Muhammed was standing on Safa’, only he could see over Safa’) They said: “We have not experienced any lie from you“. He said: Well, I am a warner to you before a severe torment. He (the narrator) said that Abu Lahab then said: “Destruction to you! Is it for this you have gathered us?” He (the Holy Prophet) then stood up, and this verse was revealed: “Perish the hands of Abu Lahab, and he indeed perished”. (this verse is part of the chapter discussed earlier in point 1).

Our witness (that Muhammed was someone known for his truthfulness) in this report is the statement by the Prophet’s own kin: “We have not experienced any lie from you”, this means that his truthfulness was something very apparent and well known to them. Also, it does demonstrate that his truthfulness was agreed upon amongst them, for no one objected to this statement despite the fact that it was said in the open where all people were present. In fact, they refused his call and disbelieved in his prophethood, but they did not belie his truthfulness, preferring instead to abuse him.

In their response to his call, they actually preferred abusing him to belying him!

One should put in consideration that Muhammed (peace be upon him) was born, grew up, lived and married, before he claimed prophethood, in the midst of his people, so they should be the best judge on his manners especially truthfulness. Despite the fact that many of them did not follow him — and rather, opposed him — they have all agreed that they never heard a single lie from him.

Another proof of this fact is given in the long report of Abu Sufyan, a man who before eventually converting to Islam was one of its fiercest enemies, and Heraclius when the latter asked the former: “Have you ever accused him (Muhammed) of telling lies before his claim (to be a prophet)?” Abu Sufyan answered: “No”. This event took place before Abu Sufyan embraced Islam. The comment of Heraclius regarding Abu Sufyan’s reply is interesting, he further said: “I further asked whether he was ever accused of telling lies before he said what he said, and your reply was in the negative. So I wonder how a person who never told a lie about others could ever tell a lie about Allah?”

This brings us to a discussion on Argument of Priority.

Argument of Priority is one form of logical arguments formulated by Muslim scholars. An example of this type of argument is that if Sam is able to carry five kilograms of any material, then it is assumed that prior to that he is able to carry only one kilogram of the same material. Yes, it is not mentioned in the first statement that Sam can carry one kilogram — it is only stated that he could carry five — but this logical argument leads us to conclude that as long as he could carry five kilograms, then he is able to carry one kilogram as well.

…In fact, this logical argument is derived from the Quran; the Quran employs it to answer those who deny the belief in Resurrection and the Hereafter, it answers them that it is God who was able to create man from nothing is thus also able to revive man again in the Last Day, for if God is able to create man from nothing, it is of course logical to accept that prior to that He would be able to revive him again from death.5

More of such examples are available in the Qur’an, but we will not be referring to those examples in this article.

Back to our discussion on the truthfulness of Prophet Muhammed (peace be upon him), we find that Heraclius employed the Argument of Priority as proof of Muhammed’s prophethood; he said: “how could a person who never told a lie about others ever tell a lie about God?”

This is a true argument indeed; for if someone refrains from telling lies to others in worldly matters, it is of course acceptable to admit that prior to that he would not to tell lies against God. If telling lies was never one of his attributes — in fact, to the contrary, people had never heard of any lie coming from him — and he abstains from lying to people, then his abstaining from telling lies against God is prior. ”

This is a grave problem with Hypothesis 1.

4) One last problem, that will be mentioned, with Hypothesis 1 is that if Muhammed lied, then why did he lie? What was his motive for lying?

The website IslamGuide writes in an article (sources of the Hadiths mentioned below are not included):

” Before his mission as a prophet, Muhammed had no financial worries. As a successful and reputed merchant, Muhammed drew a satisfactory and comfortable income. After his mission as a prophet and because of it, he became worse off materially. To clarify this more, let us browse the following reports on his life:

Aisha, Muhammed’s wife, said, “O my nephew, we would sight three new moons in two months without lighting a fire (to cook a meal) in the Prophet’s houses.” Her nephew asked, “O Aunt, what sustained you?” She said, “The two black things, dates and water, but the Prophet had some Ansar neighbors who had milk-giving she-camels and they used to send the Prophet some of its milk.”

Sahl Ibn Sa’ad, one of Muhammed’s companions, said, “The Prophet of God did not see bread made from fine flour from the time God sent him (as a prophet) until he died.”

Aisha, Muhammed’s wife, said, “The mattress of the Prophet, on which he slept, was made of leather stuffed with the fiber of the date-palm tree.”

Amr Ibn Al-Hareth, one of Muhammed’s companions, said that when the Prophet died, he left neither money nor anything else except his white riding mule, his arms, and a piece of land which he left to charity.

Muhammed (peace be upon him) lived this hard life till he died although the Muslim treasury was at his disposal, the greater part of the Arabian Peninsula was Muslim before he died, and the Muslims were victorious after eighteen years of his mission.

Is it possible that Muhammed might have claimed prophethood in order to attain status, greatness, and power? The desire to enjoy status and power is usually associated with good food, fancy clothing, monumental palaces, colorful guards, and indisputable authority. Do any of these indicators apply to Muhammed? A few glimpses of his life that may help answer this question follow.

Despite his responsibilities as a prophet, a teacher, a statesman, and a judge, Muhammed (peace be upon him) used to milk his goat, mend his clothes, repair his shoes, help with the household work, and visit poor people when they got sick. He also helped his companions in digging a trench by moving sand with them. His life was an amazing model of simplicity and humbleness.

Muhammed’s followers loved him, respected him, and trusted him to an amazing extent. Yet he continued to emphasize that deification should be directed to God and not to him personally. Anas, one of Muhammed’s companions, said that there was no person whom they loved more than the Prophet Muhammed, yet when he came to them, they did not stand up for him because he hated their standing up for him,10 as other people do with their great people.

Long before there was any prospect of success for Islam and at the outset of a long and painful era of torture, suffering, and persecution of Muhammed and his followers, he received an interesting offer. An envoy of the pagan leaders, Otba (also spelt Utba), came to him saying to Muhammed:

“…If you want money, we will collect enough money for you so that you will be the richest one of us. If you want leadership, we will take you as our leader and never decide on any matter without your approval. If you want a kingdom, we will crown you king over us…”

Only one concession was required from Muhammed in return for that, to give up calling people to Islam and worshipping God alone without any partner. Wouldn’t this offer be tempting to one pursuing worldly benefit? Was Muhammed hesitant when the offer was made? Did he turn it down as a bargaining strategy leaving the door open for a better offer?

The following was Muhammed’s answer: “In the Name of God, the Most Gracious, the Most Merciful”, and he recited to Otba the verses of the Quran 41:1-38.

Otba returned to the pagans saying, “I have heard words the like of which I have never heard. This (the Quran) is neither poetry, nor sorcery, nor soothsaying. Do not interfere with this man or his vocation but leave him alone. The words which I have heard will spread far and wide.”

On another occasion and in response to his uncle’s plea to stop calling people to Islam, Muhammed’s answer was as decisive and sincere: “I swear by the name of God, O Uncle!, that if they place the sun in my right-hand and the moon in my left-hand in return for giving up this matter (calling people to Islam and preaching there is no other god except God), I will never desist until either God makes it triumph or I perish defending it.”

Muhammed and his few followers did not only suffer from persecution for thirteen years but the pagans (or non-believers) even tried to kill Muhammed several times. On one occasion they attempted to kill him by dropping a large boulder, which could barely be lifted, on his head. Another time they tried to kill him by poisoning his food. ”

Muhammed was offered all the earthly things he could want, power, glory, riches, and so on. He was persecuted for teaching that only God should be worshipped, and not idols or pagan gods. He had few possessions and was so poor that he was often hungry. He was driven out of his home and several attempts were made on his life.

It would have been far far easier for Muhammed to stop preaching. In-fact, he was offered anything he wanted in exchange. Yet he continued to preach. It is clear then that not only did Muhammed sincerely believe in his own prophethood, but that he was committed without limit to preaching Islam.

Hypothesis 2 and its implications:

Point 1) Hypothesis 2 suggests that the Quran is the product of a man’s deluded mind. If the Quran is a product of a man’s hallucinations then what comes out as a result are things that are in his mind.

If one assumes that the Qur’an is the product of a man’s mind, then one would expect it to reflect some of what was going on in the mind of the man who “composed” it. In fact, certain encyclopaedias and various books claim that the Qur’an was the product of hallucinations that Muhammed underwent. If these claims are true – if the Qur’an indeed originated from some psychological problems in Muhammed’s mind – then evidence of this would be apparent in the Qur’an. Is there such evidence? In order to determine whether or not there is, one must first identify what things would have been going on in his mind at that time and then search for these thoughts and reflections in the Qur’an.

It is common knowledge that Muhammed had a very difficult life. He was an orphan to start with, then his grandfather who looked after him died when he was six years old. All of his sons and daughters died in his lifetime except one daughter. In the same year, his uncle who had been his protector under the old tribal way of life, as well as his life companion, his wife Khatijah of twenty-four years, died. Muhammed loved both of them deeply. He took no other wife while Khatijah was alive, even though polygamy was the norm. Although these examples are only a few of the subjects that could have been on Muhammed’s mind, they are sufficient in intensity to prove the point: The Qur’an does not mention any of these things – not the death of Muhammed’s children, not the death of his beloved companion and wife, not his fear of the initial revelations, which he so beautifully shared with his wife – nothing; yet, these topics must have hurt him, bothered him, and caused him pain and grief during periods of his psychological reflections;  these subjects, as well as others, should be prevalent or at least mentioned throughout the Quran. Yet there is no mention of them at all in the Quran.

2) If Muhammed was  insane and deluded, one must explain why there is information contained in the Quran that no man living anywhere in the 7th century could have know.

Here are some scientific examples, which should make the point clear:

1. The Origin of Life

The Quran mentions that all life originated from water (Quran 21:30) and that man himself is “created” of water and so are all the animals on earth (Quran 25:54, and 24:45). Now these statements to an Arab would have sounded atrocious in that day and age. Even today such statements in the Quran might cause you to wonder if scientific facts about them are unknown. The fact that all life originated in water is well established by the scientific community today. They establish that life began in water. The fact that human beings and animals are created of water is also well established since the cytoplasm in any animal cell is over 80% water.

2. The Female Bee

The Quran mentions the bee, which leaves its home in search for food, in the verses that discusses honey (Quran 16:68,69). It uses the female verb in describing the bee, in Arabic “faslukee”. This, to the Arab, suggests that the bee, which leaves its home in search for food, is female.

Does anyone except an expert know how to differentiate between a male and a female bee? Even today, let alone in Muhammed’s time, 1400 plus years back, we need a specialist to differentiate between a male and a female bee. The Quran is accurate when it mentions that the female bee leaves its home in search for food; the males never leave their homes for food, it is the females who have to feed them.

3. Embyro Sex Determination

The Quran says that the “ejaculated drop” determines the sex of a human baby (Quran 53:45). It is common knowledge that semen is the fluid that is ejaculated by males during sexual acts. Females do not possess such “ejaculated semen.”

The sex of the baby, whether it be male or female, will indeed be determined by the ‘ejaculated drop’, i.e. the father’s sperm, as mentioned by the Quran. It has been scientifically established only recently that the female ovum contains only the X-chromosome. If the ejaculated drop, the father’s sperm bears the Y chromosome, the offspring will be male, and otherwise the offspring will be female. No one living at the time of Muhammed or even Darwin for that matter had any knowledge of such genetics foretold centuries earlier in the Quran.

4. The Gaseous Origin of the Universe

The Quran mentions that the universe originated, at a stage, from a “gaseous material” (Quran 41:11). It uses the Arabic word “Dukhan” which stands for smoke. A perfect analogy for gas and particles in suspension and the gases being hot.

Scientists have only very recently confirmed that the universe did indeed originate from a gaseous mass composed of hydrogen and helium, a big mass of hot gasses, a mass over 300,000 times that of the earth. That mass then fragmented to form galaxies. Muhammed, who had no schooling of any kind and was illiterate could not have possibly known this.

5. The Big Bang

The Quran gives an accurate visual description of the Big Bang theory of the creation of the universe. In the 21st chapter, verse 30 (21:30), the Quran states:

“Do not the rejecters see that the heavens and earth were a unit joined together then we split them apart (21:30).”

This is exactly how the ‘rejecter’ scientists envision the creation of the universe, from one singularity, which then exploded, termed the ‘big bang’. Thus the Quran told us about the “common origin” of everything in the universe much before scientists described it in the 20th century. How do we explain this information in the Quran if it is not what it claims to be, the words of an all-knowing ?

Professor Alfred Kroner, chairman of the Department of Geology at the Institute of Geosciences, Johannes Gutenburg University, Mainz, Germany stated about this verse in the Quran:

“Somebody who did not know something about nuclear physics 1400 years ago could not, I think, be in a position to find out from his own mind for instance that the earth and the heavens had the same origin, or many others of the questions that we have discussed here.(Rehaili 1995)”

6. The Expanding Universe

The Quran talks about a universe that is continually “expanding” (Quran 51:47).

The concept of an expanding universe is very popular with scientists today, however no one knew of it until recently. Do you know that the universe is expanding? Can you feel or see it expanding? No, the verification of this requires specialized knowledge and instruments, which no one at the time of Muhammed had access to. The Quran states:

“And the sky we built it with might and We cause the ‘expansion’ of it (Quran 51:47).”

7. Human Embryology

You can read about human embryology in the Quran, here: http://www.islam-guide.com/frm-ch1-1-a.htm

8. The Cerebrum and Lying

You can read about “the cerebrum and lying” in the Quran, here: http://www.islam-guide.com/ch1-1-d.htm It is a brilliant article.

If we deny the Quran’s claim of being God’s revelation, we have to account for the above information, and how it made its way into the Quran, always without error, and always accurate. We must remember that this information was either only partially available in a primitive form or not available at all, at the time of the revelation of the Quran.

Point 2) If Hypothesis 2 is true and Muhammed was self-deluded, one must wonder why the Quran gives so much detailed information on the previous prophets (especially prophets mentioned in the Bible).

The prophet lived initially in Mecca and then later migrated in Medina, which had three tribes of Jews. Mecca had no Jewish or Christian presence. There are many facts supporting this, but it can be simply shown by quoting one piece of evidence. Islamic Awareness, one of the best Muslim websites, explains this evidence:

“Ibn Ishaq (an early Muslim historian) narrated in al-Sirah al-Nabawiyyah (the life of the prophet) about four people from the tribe of Quraysh (in Mecca) who were among the generation that preceded the prophet Muhammad (peace be upoon him) and who had abandoned their people’s faith (paganism) and went in search for monotheism. They “scattered into different countries seeking the Haneefite (monotheistic) religion, the religion of Abraham”. Ibn Ishaq said that Waraqah bin Nawfal had converted to Christianity as a result of his search.

…The migration of these four men out of Mecca shows that the city was completely a pagan society for if there was any significant Christian or Jewish presence in Mecca, it wouldn’t be necessary for these men to travel in search for it.”

Why is important? The Quran was revealed gradually over a period of more than twenty years. Muhammed received most of the chapters and verses talking about the previous prophets while living in Mecca. In other words, in a place absent of Jewish and Christian sources, where did Muhammed get the stories of the previous prophets? Islamic Awareness illustrates this clearly:

(note: “surat” means chapter)

Adam	| 7: 11~25 Mecca | 15: 26~44 Mecca | 17: 61~ 65 Mecca | 18: 50 Mecca | |20: 115~126 Mecca | 38: 67~88 Mecca
Enoch	|19:56~57 Mecca |
Nuh Noah	| Surat Noah (the complete chapter) Mecca | 7: 59~64 Mecca | 10: 71~73 Mecca | 11: 25~49 Mecca | 21:76~77 Mecca | 23: 23~30 Mecca | 26: 105~122 Mecca | 29: 14~15 Mecca | 37: 76~82 Mecca | 54: 9~17 Mecca | 4:163~165 Madina | 6: 83~87 Mecca | 9:70 Madina | 14: 9 Mecca | 17:3 -17:7 Mecca | 38:12~14 Mecca | 40:5~6 Mecca | 42:12 Mecca | 50:12~14 Mecca | 51:46 Mecca | 53:52 Mecca | 57:26 Madina | 66:10 Madina |
Hud	|11:50~60 Mecca | 7:6~27 Mecca | 23:31~41 Mecca | 26:123~140 Mecca | 41:15~16 Mecca.| 46:21~25 Mecca | 51:41~42 Mecca | 53:50~55 Mecca | 54:18~22 Mecca | 69:6~8 Mecca | 89:6~14 Mecca |
Saleh	| 7:73~79 Mecca | 11:61~68 Mecca | 15:80~84 Mecca | 17:59 Mecca | 26:141~159 Mecca | 27:45~53 Mecca | 41:17~18 Mecca | 54:23~32 Mecca | 91:15 Mecca |
Ibrahim Abraham	|14: 35~40 Mecca | 6:74~83 Mecca | 21:51~70 Mecca | 26:69~83 Mecca | 29:16~27 Mecca | 19:41~48 Mecca | 37:83~98 Mecca | 2:124~141 – 2:258 Madina | 22:26~27 Madina | 16:120~123 Mecca | 53:37 Mecca |
Ismail Ishmael	| 14:37 Mecca | 2:127~129 Madina | 37:99~113 Mecca |
Ishaq Isaac	|37:112~113 Mecca | 11:69~73 Mecca | 15:51~56 Mecca | 51:24~30 Mecca | 19:49 Mecca |
Lut	| 7:80~84 Mecca | 11:69~83 Mecca | 15:51~77 Mecca | 26:160~175 Mecca | 27:54~58 Mecca | 29:28~35 Mecca | 37:133~138 Mecca | 51:31~37 Mecca | 54:33~40 Mecca |
Shuaib	| 7:85~93 Mecca | 11:84~95 Mecca | 15:78~79 Mecca | 26:176~191 Mecca |
Yusuf Joseph	Surat Yusuf (The complete chapter) Mecca
Ayoub Job	| 6:84 Mecca | 4:163 Madina | [21:83~84] Mecca | 38:41~44 Mecca |
Yunus Jonah	| Surat Yonus [10:98] Mecca | 21:87~88 Mecca | 37:139~148 Mecca | |68:48~50 Mecca |
Moses	| 19:51~53 Mecca | 28:1~44 – 28:76~83 Mecca | 20:9~100 Mecca | 27:7~14 Mecca | 17:101~104 Mecca | 7:103~155 – 7:159~174 Mecca | 43:46~56 Mecca | 33:69 Mecca | 26:10~68 Mecca | 79:15~25 Mecca | 41:45 Mecca | | 10:75~93 Mecca | 40:23~54 Mecca | 2:49~103 Madina | 18:60~82 Mecca |
Jesus	|3:33~62 Madina | 5:72~77 – 5:110~120 Madina | 19:16~40 Mecca | | 21:90~91 Mecca | 4:156~159 Madina | 61:14 Madina | 57:27 Madina |

Arranged according to Qisas al-Anbya – Stories of the Prophets – by Ibn Kathir

There can be no satisfactory answer as to how Muhammed knew such great information about the previous prophets, when there were no sources for him to learn from. The Quran tells us that Muhammed received his information from God:

Your Companion is neither astray nor being misled. Nor does he say (anything) of (his own) Desire. It is no less than inspiration sent down to him. He was taught by one mighty in Power (i.e. God). [Quran 53:2-5]

What is even more astounding is that Muhammed was illiterate – he could not read or write. Many Arabs were illiterate. So he could not have read any sources for knowledge about the previous prophets.

In addition to all this, these stories in the Quran about the prophets don’t contain the errors often found when reading the stories about these same prophets in the Bible. For example, in the Bible Joseph has a prophecy in the form of a dream in which he sees his family, including his mother, bowing to him. This prophecy however did not come true, because although his family bowed to him, the Bible says that his mother had died previously in childbirth. The Quran does not make this mistake and so the prophecy is fulfilled in the Quran. You can read about this in greater detail here: http://www.pathofislam.net/2008/quran-and-bible/prophet-joseph%E2%80%99s-dream/

Point 3) If Hypothesis 2 is true, that Muhammed is self-deluded, then this implies he was crazy, insane man. Islamguide, a Muslim website, writes:

“Someone who has dealt with mentally ill knows people can be identified by their symptoms. Muhammad displayed no symptom of insanity at any time in his life. No friend, wife, or family member suspected or abandoned him due to insanity. As for the effects of revelations on the Prophet, such as perspiration and the likes, it was due to the intensity of the Message which he had to bear and not due to any epileptic fit or instance of insanity.

Quite to the contrary, Muhammad preached for a long time and brought a Law unknown in its completeness and sophistication to ancient Arabs. If the prophet was insane, it would have been obvious to those around him at one point in a period of twenty three years. When in history did an insane man preach his message to worship One God for ten years, three of which he and his followers spent in exile, and eventually became the ruler of his lands? Which insane man has ever won the hearts and minds of people who met him and earned the respect of his adversaries?

… The Meccans (pagans living in Mecca) of old rejected his call out of tribal partisanship, and they were not truthful in their accusations of his insanity. They threw accusations of insanity at him, for they considered his religion a sacrilege against the tradition of their forefathers. ”

How could Muhammed have achieved so many great things if he was insane?

The website Beautiful Islam quotes historians and thinkers commenting on Muhammed (peace and blessings be upon him). Here are a few:

Lamartine, a renowned historian speaking on the essentials of human greatness wonders:

“Philosopher, orator, apostle, legislator, warrior, conqueror of ideas, restorer of rational dogmas, of a cult without images, the founder of twenty terrestrial empires and of one spiritual empire, that is MUHAMMAD. As regards all the standards by which Human Greatness may be measured, we may well ask, IS THERE ANY MAN GREATER THAN HE?” (Lamartine, HISTOIRE DE LA TURQUIE, Paris, 1854, Vol. II, pp 276-277)

Thomas Calyle in his book Heroes And Hero Worship was simply amazed as to:

“how one man single-handedly, could weld warring tribes and wandering Bedouins into a most powerful and civilized nation in less than two decades”

Michael H. Hart in his published book on ratings of men who contributed towards the benefit and upliftment of mankind writes:

“My choice of Muhammad to lead the list of the world’s most influential persons may surprise some readers and may be questioned by others, but he was the only man in history who was supremely successful on both the religious and secular levels.” (M.H. Hart, THE 100: A RANKING OF THE MOST INFLUENTIAL PERSONS IN HISTORY, New York, 1978, p. 33)

REFERENCES

This article was originally based on http://members.aol.com/masadi/sci.htm but has been greatly modified. The following sources were used in the original article:

1. Miller, Gary. The Amazing Quran. (Video Recording, transcribed, Sept 1990, Asadi, Muhammed. Lahore, Pakistan).
2. Asadi, Muhammed A. 1992. Koran: A Scientific Analysis. Lahore. Pakistan.
3. Asadi, Muhammed A. 1995. The Message of Qur’an and Islam. Lahore, Pakistan: Ferozsons’ Ltd.
4. Asadi, Muhammed A. 2000. The Unifying Theory of Everything: Koran & Nature’s Testimony.Writer’s Club Press. New York.
5. Koran/Quran. Translated from the Arabic.
6. Maurice. What is the Origin of Man? 1987. Seghers, Paris.
7. Bucaille, Maurice. The Bible, the Qur’an and Science. 1985. Seghers. Paris.
8. Rehaili. Abdullah. M. This is the Truth. 1995. Riyadh. Saudi Arabia.

©2010 Path of Islam. All Rights Reserved.

The prophet Abraham, peace be upon him, was so devoted to God that he was prepared to offer his son to God as a sacrifice.

There is a disagreement over which son was sacrificed. Jews and Christians say that the son who was almost sacrificed was Isaac. Whereas, Muslims say that Ishmael was almost sacrificed. This article will only use the Bible to determine which son was almost sacrificed.

It is important to determine which son was offered to God, because it would seem to validate one position over another: A common Jewish/Christian position is that Isaac and his descendants are far better than the rest of mankind, whereas the Muslim position is that Isaac and Ishmael are equal, and that their descendants are only superior if one is more pious than the other.

1) A common argument used against the idea that Ishmael was the son offered as a sacrifice, is that the Bible came before the Quran, and so the Bible is correct. There are a number of problems with this argument, the most obvious being that simply because the Bible is older, it doesn’t make it more accurate. It could easily have been changed (and has been done. For example, 1 john 5:7, the only explicit verse which supports the trinity, is an insertation). Also, Muslims believe that the Quran is a Revelation from God, it corrects mistakes in Jewish and Christian belief. Therefore, it is irrelevant when the Quran was revealed.

2) Jews and Christians assume that the Bible supports the belief that it was Isaac and not Ishmael who was almost sacrificed. However this is an incorrect assumption which has resulted from a lack of analysis of the text: There are a number of problems with the chapters regarding Abraham and his sons which reveal many deliberate and one or two accidental changes in the text. In other words, the text has been changed to support Isaac as the sacrifice and not Ishmael. However, let us first establish the existence of problems in the text:

a) If we calculate the ages of Abraham and his sons using the information given in the chapters, we can establish when Ishmael was a baby and when he was a teenager/man (the idea of a teenager has been invented within the last century and so it is perhaps incorrect to call him a teenager).

Let us begin by determining the ages of the people involved:

Genesis 16:16 “Abram was eighty-six years old when Hagar bore him Ishmael”.

Abraham was 86 years old and Ishmael was 0 years old (he was less than a day old since he had just been born).

Genesis 17: 24 Abraham was ninety-nine years old when he was circumcised, 25 and his son Ishmael was thirteen; 26 Abraham and his son Ishmael were both circumcised on that same day.

So 13 years later, Abraham was 99 and Ishmael was 13 when they were circumcised.

Genesis 21:5 Abraham was a hundred years old when his son Isaac was born to him.

So in chapter 21, 1 year later, Abraham was 100 and Isaac was 0 (just been born). Ishmael, by obvious deduction, was 14.

However, examining the next group of verses in chapter 21 shows a sudden change in the age of Ishmael; Ishmael changes from a teenager/young man to a baby.

We do not know how old Hagar is. If we assume her to be a very young teenager (13) when she gives birth to Ishmael, then fourteen years later, she will be at least 27 years old. If we assume her to be a fully-grown woman (21-40), then fourteen years later, she will be around 35 to 54 years old. She was most likely in her thirties or forties, in chapter 21, after the birth of Isaac.

Now let us examine the next group of verses in chapter 21 to determine the age of Ishmael. A reader may ask why it is necessary to establish Ishmael’s age in chapter 21 when we have already deduced it is 14? The answer is that Ishmael’s age suddenly changes; in the wrong direction. He is no longer a teenager/man, but a baby or a young child:

Genesis 21: 9 But Sarah saw that the son whom Hagar the Egyptian had borne to Abraham was mocking, 10 and she said to Abraham, “Get rid of that slave woman and her son, for that slave woman’s son will never share in the inheritance with my son Isaac.”

Sarah wants Ishmael and Hagar to be gotten rid of.  (On a side-note, it appears to be rather cruel of Sarah to deprive Ishmael of receiving the inheritance owed to him for being the son of Abraham, simply because he had mocked Isaac. She deprives him of his inheritance for doing something wrong, even she wasn’t perfect herself; for example, mistreating Hagar).

14 Early the next morning Abraham took some food and a skin of water and gave them to Hagar. He set them on her shoulders and then sent her off with the boy. She went on her way and wandered in the desert of Beersheba.

For some reason Abraham puts the food and water on Hagar’s shoulders and not Ishmael’s. Why put them on a woman and not on a man? Why put them on a woman who, if not already old, is far from her youth? Why not put them on the shoulders of a man in his youth and in his prime?

15 When the water in the skin was gone, she put the boy under one of the bushes.

The reason is now apparent. Hagar “put” the boy under a bush. The fact that she, herself, put the boy under the bush shows that Ishmael is a baby or a child in this passage, small enough to be lifted and moved. This is a real conflict since we know that Ishmael is at 14 years old from verses earlier in the same chapter.

A Jew or Christian may be adamant and say that Hagar DID put Ishmael under a bush and his age did not change. But since when did thirty or forty year old women have the strength to lift and place a fourteen year old teenager/man under a bush?

The fact that Hagar put Ishmael under a bush, rather than Ishmael putting himself under a bush, shows that he was a baby or a child.

Furthermore, the fact that Ishmael was put under a bush (obviously to keep him safe or to protect him, for example from the sun in the desert of Beersheba) shows that he is a baby or young child. This is reinforced by Ishmael being small enough to fit under a bush. If someone claims that the bushes were large enough for a young man to fit underneath, why did Hagar not join him? It makes no sense that she, a middle age/old woman, rather than a man in his youth, would go looking for water.

This is also supported by the use of the word ‘boy’ to describe Ishmael, rather than the word ‘son’, which has been the word used to describe Ishmael throughout the chapters so far. (This point needs to be confirmed).

16 Then she went off and sat down nearby, about a bowshot away, for she thought, “I cannot watch the boy die.” And as she sat there nearby, he/she began to sob.

Note: “he/she”. Two Biblical text sources, the Hebrew and Septuagint, of this passage differ on whether it was “he” or “she” crying. This copyist error can be resolved by looking at the context. In terms of context, it is Ishmael crying, not Hagar, and not both. This is seen by the next verse where God “heard the boy crying”.

(The fact that Ishmael started to cry emphasises he can’t be a teenager/young man. It is very unlikely that Ishmael would cry when the water had run out; it would be demoralising to his mother.)

Further evidence that Ishmael is a baby or young child is that according to Hagar, Ishmael will die very soon (due to the lack of water).  “I cannot watch the boy die” shows us that Ishmael is going to die soon, and she will be alive to see it. But why would a teenager/man in his youth die very soon, and a woman, not in her youth die after? Unless of course Ishmael is a baby or young child.

If more verses were quoted from this chapter, we would see further, but unnecessary, evidence that clearly Ishmael is a baby or a child in verses 14 of chapter 21 onwards. But even in the same chapter, verse 5 says that Abraham is 100 and therefore Ishmael is 14*. This sudden change in ages shows editing of the passages. Otherwise, we would wonder how Ishmael managed to “ungrow”!

*(Genesis 16:16 says Abraham is 99 and Ishmael is 13, so when looking at Genesis 21:5 which says Abraham is 100, Ishmael is logically 14).

3) In chapter 22, God tells Abraham to sacrifice his son. We see that God Himself tells Abraham more than once to sacrifice “your son, your only son” (see verses 2, 12, 16).

But the fact is, Abraham has two sons (at this time; although he later has more). His sons are Ishmael and Isaac (in descending order of age). Yet God Himself, who does not make mistakes and is perfect, tells Abraham to sacrifice “your son, your only son” son.

There are three possibilities: EITHER i) God made a mistake OR ii) Abraham’s other offspring don’t count as sons OR iii) Abraham only had one son at that time.

a) We can eliminate the first possibility on the basis that God is perfect and does not make mistakes. His Words are perfect.

b) The second possibility is the one used by Jews and Christians to defend their position. They claim that Hagar was not Abraham’s wife and so Ishmael did not count as a real ‘son’, because he was an illegitimate child. However this position is flawed in both theory and reality.

In theory, if a son is illegitimate, why would it make him any less of a son? The child still bears his father’s genes. The only difference between an illegitimate and a legitimate child (apart from the fact that an illegitimate person’s parents aren’t married at the time of conception/birth) is that in some cultures, the illegitimate children might not be able to bear his father’s name or inherit his father’s aristocratic title or wealth. This wouldn’t stop the child being the son of the father, illegitimate or not. Logically speaking a child does not stop being the son of a father. The illegitimate son is still a son, even if he’s illegitimate.

In reality, the argument considering illegitimacy is unnecessary because the Bible confirms that Ishmael is not only a son of Abraham, but a legitimate one too because Hagar was a wife of Abraham.

Genesis 16: 3 So after Abram had been living in Canaan ten years, Sarai his wife took her Egyptian maidservant Hagar and gave her to her husband to be his wife. 4 He slept with Hagar, and she conceived. When she knew she was pregnant, she began to despise her mistress.

Here it clearly says that Hagar became the wife of Abraham. It also says that Ishmael was conceived after they were married. This clearly makes Ishmael a legitimate son.

Perhaps the Bible still doesn’t consider Ishmael a son of Abraham? The next verses clearly call Ishmael Abraham’s son.

Genesis 16:15 So Hagar bore Abram a son, and Abram gave the name Ishmael to the son she had borne.

Genesis 17: 23 On that very day Abraham took his son Ishmael and all those born in his household or bought with his money, every male in his household, and circumcised them, as God told him. 24 Abraham was ninety-nine years old when he was circumcised, 25 and his son Ishmael was thirteen; 26 Abraham and his son Ishmael were both circumcised on that same day.

Genesis 21: 9 But Sarah saw that the son whom Hagar the Egyptian had borne to Abraham was mocking, 10 and she said to Abraham, “Get rid of that slave woman and her son, for that slave woman’s son will never share in the inheritance with my son Isaac.” 11 The matter distressed Abraham greatly because it concerned his son.

Some Christians claim that at this point Ishmael is disinherited. But just because Ishmael has been deprived of his inheritance (or so it seems), doesn’t stop him being Abraham’s son. Regardless, the Bible confirms that Ishmael is still Abraham’s son. See:

Genesis 25: 8 Then Abraham breathed his last and died at a good old age, an old man and full of years; and he was gathered to his people. 9 His sons Isaac and Ishmael buried him in the cave of Machpelah near Mamre, in the field of Ephron son of Zohar the Hittite,

Genesis 25:12 This is the account of Abraham’s son Ishmael, whom Sarah’s maidservant, Hagar the Egyptian, bore to Abraham.

So we have a problem. God tells Abraham to sacrifice “your only son”, but Abraham has two sons, “his sons Isaac and Ishmael” (Genesis 25:9). Since we have ruled out the possibility of God being wrong or Ishmael not being the son of Abraham, we are forced to conclude that this conflict and contradiction was not in the original text that God revealed. Therefore, some changes must have been made.

These conflicts show undoubtedly that the Bible obviously contradicts itself. Since God makes no mistakes and is perfect Himself, and there was no problem in the original text revealed by God to Moses. But as we see above, there are conflicts in the present version of the text. This shows, therefore, that there have been changes to the text.

c) Changes are of two natures: deliberate and accidental.

An accidental error would be a copying or translational error. We have seen one copyist error in Genesis 21:16 where two Biblical sources differed on whether “he” or “she” was crying. The context determined the correct variant is “he”, since the next verse said that God heard the boy (male, therefore he) cry.

The other conflicts and contradictions described above however are of a deliberate nature. It would be illogical to claim that accidental errors, perhaps in copying, occurred, when entire passages contradict! It is conceivable for someone to incorrectly copy a word. But to incorrectly copy entire passages into the wrong places?  But to continually incorrectly copy one particular word again and again? Only a deliberate change would greatly change the consequential order and only a deliberate change would replace the name of someone with another name throughout a passage.

All the chapters mentioning Ishmael up to verse 12 of chapter 21 show Ishmael growing until he becomes 14; Whereas later in chapter 21, verse 12 to 21 describe Ishmael as a baby or young child. Chapter 21 says that Isaac is Abraham’s only son.

“Your only son” is not incorrectly translated and the Biblical text sources, such as the Hebrew and Septuagint agree on the words “your only son”, so there is no evidence of a copying error; (If it had been a copying error, different copies would disagree on the words, whereas a deliberate change would change all new copies). “Your only son” is repeated more than once in the passage so it cannot be a copying error.

4) So what did the original verses say?

“Your only son” can only refer to Ishmael since the only time when Abraham had one son was when Isaac and Abraham’s later sons had not been born; therefore the verses that say “Your only son Isaac” must actually be “Your only son Ishmael”.

Genesis 21 which shows Ishmael suddenly turning from a 14 year old to a baby/young child cannot be resolved so easily. It is obvious that the passage has been moved from its original location. The first part of chapter 21 must be moved back to sometime before the birth of Isaac.

5) Why would Ishmael’s name be replaced with Isaac’s?

a) The Jews did not like that Ishmael was the one who Abraham almost sacrificed. There is also a strong connection between the son who offered as a sacrifice and the covenant to bless Abraham’s descendants. It is undeniable that the Jews pride themselves with their claim that they are the chosen nation and so are far greater than any other nation. (Christians too agree with this claim, although some find it difficult to then explain why they choose Christianity over the “chosen” nation). Muslims disagree with this claim; They acknowledge that the Jews received a great many blessings from God, but that other nations have been blessed too. And so while a Muslim finds it acceptable to believe that both Ishmael and Isaac were blessed through Abraham, a Jew finds it acceptable to believe that Isaac received all of the great blessings from God through Abraham, and that Ishmael was simply given some small blessings. Such beliefs have led to switching the name; “your son, your only son Ishmael” became “your son, your only son, Isaac”. The damage of the editing (conflicts, contradictions, and so on) is evident.

More on this topic can be read at http://www.islamicweb.com/beliefs/comparative/sacrifice.htm . The quotes from Encyclopaedia Judaica on that page are particularly interesting.

©2010 Path of Islam. All Rights Reserved.

The verse in question reads: “Truly, truly, I say to you, before Abraham was, I am” (John 8:58).

1) Christians often point out the Jew’s reaction to John 5:58.

“Look at the Jews’ reactions. They knew he was claiming to be god! That’s why they tried to stone him. That proves he said he was god”.

However, it is unimportant what the Jews thought. Because,

a) We are looking at what Jesus SAID, not what other people THOUGHT HE SAID…

b) The Jews constantly misunderstood him throughout the gospels. For example, when Jesus said “eat my flesh and drink my blood”, the Jews, even Jesus’ disciples, all became very confused.

2) A Christian might say that “Jesus said ‘I am’…therefore he claimed to be Yahweh”.

The verse says:
Jesus said: “Truly, truly, I say to you, before Abraham was, I am” (John 8:58).

a) If Jesus was claiming to be Yahweh, why didn’t he say “i am Yahweh”? Why did he instead say “I am”? How does saying “I am”, mean he is claiming to be Yahweh? Maybe he’s claiming to be someone else? Perhaps Moses. In-fact, how do we even know he’s claiming to be someone? That verse doesn’t look like he’s claiming to be someone, let alone God Almighty. If someone says to you “I am”, do you automatically think “He’s claiming to be Yahweh?”, No.

b) Assuming that Jesus was claiming to be Yahweh, then if Jesus was saying that he is Yahweh then the name would be untranslated.

This example explains what I mean: Names often have meaning. The name “stephen” means “crown” in Hebrew. If i want to say “my name is Stephen” or “i am Stephen”, then I say “I am stephen”…i don’t say “i am crown”. You don’t translate names. So, if Jesus is claiming to be god, he would say “i am Yahweh”, not “i am”. Jesus didn’t say “Yahweh”, he said “i am”.

Jesus doesn’t say “I am Yahweh”. He simply says “I am”. There is no “I AM [Yahweh]” and no “MY NAME IS [Yahweh]“. If I say “Moses”…am i claiming to be Moses? No: I simply said his name. So why is Jesus apparently claiming divinity, because he says “i am”?

c) If Jesus is claiming to be Yahweh by translating it, why didn’t he say all of the meaning of the name ‘Yahweh’? The meaning of Yahweh is “I am who I am” or “I will be who I will be”? Why did he say “I am” instead of the proper meaning?

d) If Jesus is claiming to be Yahweh, then (remembering part b and ignoring part c), the verse actually reads:
Jesus said:”Truly, truly, I say to you, before Abraham was, Yahweh” (John 8:58).

Points to notice:
-Anyone capable of speaking English will tell you that isn’t even a proper sentence.
-Remember to notice how Jesus doesn’t say “I AM (yahweh)”. He simply says “Yahweh”. There is no “I AM [Yahweh]” and no “MY NAME IS [Yahweh]“. If I say “Moses”…am i claiming to be Moses? No: I simply said his name.

3) So what is the actual translation of this verse? The Greek words “ego eimi” are translated as “I Am”. However, the literal translation mentioned in the marginal notes of the New American Standard Bible reads; “I have been”.

Here are some translations which support this:

New World Translation of the Holy Scriptures
“Jesus says to them:”Most truly I say to you, Before Abraham came into existence, I have been.”

The New Testament Or Rather The New Covenant-S.Sharpe:
“I was before Abraham”.

A Bible, A New Translation- J.Moffatt:
“I existed before Abraham was born”

The New Testament in the Language of the Day-W.G.Beck:
“I was before Abraham”

The Simple English Bible:
“I was alive before Abraham was born”

The Twentieth Century New Testament:
“before Abraham existed I was”

The New Testament in the Language of the People- C.B.Williams:
“I existed before Abraham was born”

The Bible-An American Translation-E.Goodspeed(NT):
“I existed”

The Unvarnished New Testament-A.Gaus:
“I have already been”

The Authentic New Testament-H.J.Schonfield:
“I existed”

The Complete Gospels-R.J.Miller(Editor):
“I existed”

New American Standard Bible 1963-1970 editions:
“I have been”-

Why do all these Bible translate it as “was” or “have been”? This is because although the Greek is in the present tense, it is using the historical present. This is supported by Jesus saying he was in existence before Abraham. Read more on the issue of translation here and here.

4) a) Now let us consider the verse correctly translated; Will it make sense? “Truly, truly, I say to you, before Abraham came into being, I was”. Yes! It makes sense! Jesus is saying he was around (i.e. in existence) before Abraham. Whereas before, the sentence did not make sense at all.

A reminder: Jesus didn’t say “my name is” or “i am called or “i am”. And the correct translation is “i was”. If Jesus is claiming to be god, obviously he didn’t stop being god (‘was’).

b) A Christian might say “okay, okay, so Jesus was claiming to have existed before Abraham. Being eternal makes you God! Therefore Jesus was claiming to be god anyway! The Jews knew this. That’s why they tried to stone him”.
I have already responded to why it is unimportant to what the Jews thought. And the Christian has changed what he/she thinks the Jewish reaction to Jesus’ words was.

c) Claiming to be around before someone, doesn’t mean you’re eternal. For example, I was before my son. I’m not eternal because i’m around longer than someone. So just because Jesus was claiming to be around before Abraham, doesn’t mean Jesus is eternal.

Even if I claim to be around before someone who has been dead for centuries. It doesn’t mean i’m eternal. It means i was around before that person. God could have created me before that person. So i’m not eternal, but i’m still around before that person.

d) Even if Jesus was claiming to be eternal. Does this make him god? No. Because according to the Bible, King Melchizedek of Salem was an ETERNAL priest with no records of his beginning and ending. (Hebrews 7:1-3)
So if Jesus is claiming to be god because he is claiming to be eternal, than Melchizedek IS also god, because he is eternal.

5) Although I have said the Jewish reaction is unimportant, and it isn’t, I will consider the Jewish reaction just to complete this article.
Christians claim the Jews wanted to stone Jesus for claiming to be Yahweh. When we consider the passage, this obviously isn’t true.

56 [Jesus said] “Your father Abraham rejoiced at the thought of seeing my day; he saw it and was glad.”
57 “You are not yet fifty years old,” the Jews said to him, “and you have seen Abraham!”
58 “I tell you the truth,” Jesus answered, “before Abraham came into being, I was!”
59 At this, they picked up stones to stone him, but Jesus hid himself, slipping away from the temple grounds.

Points to notice:
-Jesus is talking about Abraham being happy at seeing Jesus’ day (verse 56)
-The Jews respond that Jesus isn’t old enough to have seen Abraham (verse57)
-Jesus swears that he was around before Abraham (verse 58)
-The Jews take offence for whatever reason and try to stone him (verse 59)

Obviously this supports my earlier point that Jesus is claiming to be around before Abraham. It also supports the correct translation by context of the passage. It does not support the incorrect (it’s “i was” not “i am because of the context and historical present) and twisted (it doesn’t make sense) trinitarian translation…because if Jesus is claiming to be god, then why did he do so randomly during a conversion about Jesus having seen Abraham? This is further supported by verse 58, where Jesus says “before Abraham”.

Conclusion
Jesus said he had seen Abraham. The Jews said he wasn’t even fifty years old (and Abraham had been dead for centuries…to have seen Abraham, Jesus would have had to be very old). Notice the Jews did not say it was impossible for him to be centuries old nor take offence; only that they knew he wasn’t centuries old (Jesus is part of the community so they know him and he’s grown up before their eyes). Jesus responds by saying he was around before Abraham.

Jesus did not claim to be Yahweh!

©2010 Path of Islam. All Rights Reserved.