Answering Dr. Jamal Badawi:

Jamal Badawi's Misinformation and Misquotations - Part 3

[ Part 1 | Part 2 | Part 3 | Part 4 | Part 5 | Part 6 ]

Sam Shamoun

Badawi on the Preservation of Previous Revelation

The following point is an argument made by Badawi in one of his lectures titled, The Preservation of the Quran. The lecture was held in Toronto Canada on July 13, 1996. In dealing with the question often posed by Jews and Christians as to why God would personally preserve the Quran but not the previous revelation, Badawi cited the following verse:

"It was We who revealed the Torah (to Moses): therein was guidance and light. By its standard have been judged the Jews, by the prophets who bowed (as in Islám) to Allah's will, by the rabbis and the doctors of law: for to them was entrusted the protection of Allah's book, and they were witnesses thereto: therefore fear not men, but fear Me, and sell not My signs for a miserable price. If any do fail to judge by (the light of) what Allah hath revealed, they are unbelievers." S. 5:44

Badawi claimed that this verse states that God entrusted the protection of the previous revelation to the religious leaders. These leaders failed in their responsibility of preserving God's Word. Yet, unlike the previous revelation, Allah claims that it would be his responsibility to preserve and compile the Quran:

"We have, without doubt, sent down the Message; and We will assuredly guard it (from corruption)." S. 15:9

"Move not thy tongue concerning the (Qurán) to make haste therewith. It is for Us to collect it and to recite it:" 75:16-17

Several comments are in order. First, the passage says nothing about the Jews failing to preserve their scripture. Badawi reads this erroneous assumption into the text. All it says is that God entrusted the Jews with his book. But this is the same with the Quran. Allah did not personally come down and give the Muslim community a compiled Quranic manuscript in its exact order. Rather, as Badawi believes, the Muslims collected, compiled and arranged the Quran. And it has been the Muslims who have tried to preserve and protect the Quran ever since.

This means that Badawi must assume that Allah used fallible men to collect and arrange the Quran in the form we find it today. Badawi believes that these men were able to do this perfectly, but that is his belief. The evidence does not support this. Both the Muslim traditions and the extant Quranic manuscripts demonstrate that the Quran has been transmitted with literally thousands of variant readings along with additions and omissions. In fact, the Quran itself refers to persons who tried tampering with its message:

"Like as We sent down on the dividers Those who made the Quran INTO SHREDS. So, by your Lord, We would most certainly question them all, As to what they did." S. 15:90-93 Shakir

Scholar in Islamic studies Alphonse Mingana comments on this passage:

"Finally, if we understand correctly the following verse of Suratul-Hijr (xv. 90-91): 'As we sent down upon (punished) the dividers (of the Scripture?) who broke up the Koran into parts,' we are tempted to state that even when the Prophet was alive, some changes were noticed in the recital of certain verses of his sacred book. There is nothing very surprising in this fact, since Muhammad could not read or write, and was at the mercy of friends for the writing of his revelations, or, more frequently, of some mercenary amanuenses." (Mingana, "Three Ancient Korans", The Origins of the Koran - Classic Essays on Islam's Holy Book, ed. by Ibn Warraq [Prometheus Books, Amherst NY, 1998], p. 84; bold emphasis ours)

Mingana records the Muslim reaction to Uthman b. Affan's burning and wholesale destruction of primary, competing Quranic codices:

"The book, drawn up by this method, continued to be authoritative and the standard text till 29-30 A.H. under the caliphate of 'Uthman. At this time the wonderful faithfulness of Arab memory was defective, and according to a general weakness of human nature, the Believers have been heard reciting the verses of the Koran in a different way. This fact was due specially, it is said, to the hundreds of dialects used in Arabia. Zaid was again asked to put an end to these variations which had begun to scandalize the votaries of the Prophet. That indefatigable compiler, assisted by three men from the tribe of Quraish, started to do what he had already done more than fifteen years before. The previous copies made from the first one written under Abu Bakr were all destroyed by special order of the caliph: the revelation sent down from heaven was one, and the book containing this revelation must be one. The critic remarks that the only guarantee of the authenticity of the Koran is the testimony of Zaid; and for this reason, a scholar who doubts whether a given word has been really used by Muhammad, or whether it has been only employed by Zaid on his own authority, or on the meagre testimony of some Arab reciters, does not transgress the strict laws of high criticism. If the memory of the followers of the Prophet has been found defective from the year 15 to 30 A.H. when Islam was proclaimed over all Arabia, why may it not have been defective from 612 to 632 C.E. when the Prophet was often obliged to defend his own life against terrible aggressors? And if the first recension of Zaid contained always the actual words of Muhammad, why was this compiler not content with re-establishing it in its entirety, and why was the want of a new recension felt by 'Uthman? How can it be that in the short space of fifteen years such wonderful variants could have crept into the few copies preceding the reign of the third caliph that he found himself bound to destroy all those he could find? If 'Uthman was certainly inspired only by religious purposes, why did his enemies call him 'THE TEARER OF THE BOOKS' and why did they fasten on him the following stigma: 'He found the Korans many and left one; HE TORE UP THE BOOK'?…" (Ibn Warraq, p. 84-85; bold and capital emphasis ours)

Mingana, in his article The Transmission of the Koran, cites Muslim historian al-Tabari:

"…''Ali b. Abi Talib, and 'Uthman b' Affan wrote the Revelation to the Prophet; but in their absence it was Ubai b. Ka'b and Zaid b. Thabit who wrote it.' He informs us, too, that the people said to 'Uthman: 'The Koran was in many books, and thou discreditedst them all but one'; and after the Prophet's death, 'People gave him as successor Abu Bakr, who in turn was succeeded by 'Umar; and both of them acted according to the Book and the Sunnah of the Apostle of God- and praise be to God the Lord of the worlds; then people elected 'Uthman b. 'Affan WHO… TORE UP THE BOOK.'" (Ibn Warraq, p. 102; bold and capital emphasis ours)

In the same article Mingana cites another ancient writer regarding the compilation of the Quran. The writer, a Christian apologist named Abd al-Masih al-Kindi, wrote an apology titled The Apology of Al-Kindi at the Court of al-Mamun circa A.D.830., approximately forty years before Al-Bukhari compiled his hadith collection. Al-Kindi mentions the Muslim reaction to the conflicting readings that existed amongst the different Quranic codices circulating shortly after Muhammad's death:

"… Then the people fell to variance in their reading; some read according to the version of 'Ali, which they follow to the present day; some read according to the collection of which we have made mention; one party read according to the text of ibn Mas'ud, and another according to that of Ubai ibn Ka'b. When 'Uthman came to power, and people everywhere differed in their reading, 'Ali sought grounds of accusation against him. One man would read verse one way, and another man another way; and there was change and interpolation, some copies having more and some less. When this was represented to 'Uthman, and the danger urged of division, strife, and apostasy, he thereupon caused to be collected together all the leaves and scraps that he could, together with the copy that was written out at the first. But they did not interfere with that which was in the hands of 'Ali, or of those who followed his reading. Ubai was dead by this time, as for Ibn Mas'ud, they demanded his exemplar, but he refused to give it up. Then they commanded Zaid ibn Thabit, and with him 'Abdallah ibn 'Abbas, to revise and correct the text, eliminating all that was corrupt; they were instructed, when they differed on any reading, word, or name, or to follow the dialect of the Quraish.

When the recension was completed, four exemplars were written out in large text; one was sent to Mecca, and another to Medina; the third was dispatched to Syria, and is to this day at Malatya; the fourth was deposited in Kufa. People say that this last copy is still extant at Kufa, but this is not case, for it was lost in the insurrection of Mukhtar (A.H. 67). The copy of Mecca remained there till the city was stormed by Abu Sarayah (A.H. 200); he did not carry it away; but it is supposed to have been burned in the conflagration. The Medina exemplar was lost in the reign of terror, that is, in the days of Yazid b. Mu'awiah (A.H. 60-64).

After what we have related above, 'Uthman called in all the former leaves and copies, and destroyed them, threatening those held any portion back; and so only some scattered remains, concealed here and there, survived. Ibn Mas'ud, however, retained his exemplar in his own hands, and it was inherited by his posterity, as it is this day; and likewise the collection of 'Ali has descended in his family.

Then followed the business of Hajjaj b. Yusuf, who gathered together every single copy he could lay hold of, and caused to be omitted from the text a great many passages. Among these, they say, were verses revealed concerning the House of the Umayyah with names of certain persons, and concerning the House of 'Abbas also with names. Six copies of the text thus revised were distributed to Egypt, Syria, Medina, Mecca, Kufa, and Basra. After that he called in and destroyed all the preceding copies, even as 'Uthman had done before him. The enmity subsisting between 'Ali and Abu Bakr, 'Umar and 'Uthman is well known; how each of these entered in the text whatever favored his own claims, and left out what was otherwise. How, then, can we distinguish between the genuine and the counterfeit? And what about the losses caused by Hajjaj? The kind of faith that this tyrant held in other matters is well-known; how can we make an arbiter as to the Book of God a man who never ceased play into the hands of the Umayyads whenever he found opportunity?" (Ibn Warraq, pp. 108-109; bold emphasis ours)

Mingana concludes:

"Then al-Kindi, addressing his Muslim friend, says: 'All that I have said is drawn from your own authorities, and no single argument has been advanced but what is based on evidence accepted by yourselves; in proof thereof, we have the Kur'an itself, which is a confused heap, with neither system nor order.'" (Ibn Warraq, pp. 109-110; bold emphasis ours)

Muslim sources are in agreement with the claims made by al-Tabari and al-Kindi regarding the irreparable loss of passages and the corrupt state of the Quran. For instance, Ibn Abi Dawud wrote:

"Many (of the passages) of the Qur'an that were sent down were known by those who died on the day of Yamama… but they were not known (by those who) survived them, nor were they written down, nor had Abu Bakr, Umar or Uthman (by that time) collected the Qur'an, nor were they found with even one (person) after them." (Ibn Abi Dawud, Kitab al-Masahif, p. 23; bold emphasis ours)

Ibn 'Umar exclaimed:

"It is reported from Ismail ibn Ibrahim from Ayyub from Naafi from Ibn Umar who said: 'Let none of you say "I have acquired the whole of the Qur'an". How does he know what all of it is when much of the Qur'an has disappeared? Rather let him say "I have acquired what has survived."'" (as-Suyuti, Al-Itqan fii Ulum al-Qur'an, p.524; bold emphasis ours)

Ibn Khaldun comments on the incompetence of the Arabic scribes:

"Arabic writing at the beginning of Islam was, therefore, not of the best quality nor of the greatest accuracy and excellence. It was not (even) of medium quality, because the Arabs possessed the savage desert attitude and were not familiar with crafts. One may compare what happened to the orthography of the Qur'an on account of this situation. The men around Muhammad wrote the Qur'an in their own script which was not of a firmly established, good quality. Most of the letters were in contradiction to the orthography required by persons versed in the craft of writing… Consequently, (the Qur'anic orthography of the men around Muhammad was followed and became established, and the scholars acquainted with it have called attention to passages where (this is noticeable). No attention should be paid in this connection with those incompetent (scholars) that (the men around Muhammad) knew well the art of writing and that the alleged discrepancies between their writing and the principles of orthography are not discrepancies, as has been alleged, but have a reason. For instance, they explain the addition of the alif in la 'adhbahannahU 'I shall indeed slaughter him' as indication that the slaughtering did not take place (lA 'adhbahannahU). The addition of the ya in bi-ayydin 'with hands (power),' they explain as an indication that the divine power is perfect. There are similar things based on nothing but purely arbitrary assumptions. The only reason that caused them to (assume such things) is their belief that (their explanations) would free the men around Muhammad from the suspicion of deficiency, in the sense that they were not able to write well. They think that good writing is perfection. Thus, they do not admit the fact that the men around Muhammad were deficient in writing." (Muqqadimah, Ibn Khaldun, vol. 2, p.382; bold emphasis ours)

Yet despite all this evidence Badawi still chooses to blindly believe and propagate that the Quran has been perfectly preserved.

Therefore, much like Badawi believes that Allah preserved and collected the Quran by using fallible men, we believe that the true God Yahweh also sovereignly used fallible agents to preserve and transmit his infallible truth, the Holy Bible. And we have much better historical, archaeological and textual evidence supporting our position than do the Muslims.

Second, even if this verse did prove that the people failed to preserve God's word, this would only be true of the Hebrew Bible. The passage says nothing about the Christians failing to preserve their revelation, nor does the Quran say that Allah entrusted the protection of the Gospel to the Christians. Badawi is therefore guilty of misapplying the text on two counts. He first reads Bible corruption into the text even though it is not mentioned. He then applies the verse to the preservation of the Gospel when this passage doesn't even refer to the Christian scripture or to its protection.

Third, the passages immediately before and after S. 5:44 actually refute Badawi's point. The surrounding passages presume the existence of an uncorrupt Torah that was available during the time of Jesus and Muhammad:

"But why do they come to thee for decision, WHEN THEY HAVE (THEIR OWN) TORAH BEFORE THEM?- THEREIN IS THE (PLAIN) COMMAND OF ALLAH; yet even after that, they would turn away. For they are not (really) People of Faith." S. 5:43

"We ordained therein for them: 'Life for life, eye for eye, nose or nose, ear for ear, tooth for tooth, and wounds equal for equal.' But if any one remits the retaliation by way of charity, it is an act of atonement for himself. And if any fail to judge by (the light of) what Allah hath revealed, they are wrong-doers." S. 5:45

These passages refer to instruction contained within the Torah, even citing it, which the Jews of Muhammad's time needed to judge by. Yet how could the Quran claim that the Jews had the Torah wherein is God's plain command if in fact the Torah had been tampered with? The passage does not say that the Jews had a corrupted version of the Torah. This assertion must be read into the text.

Interestingly, this verse where the Torah is actually cited is used as a basis in determining the law of retaliation:

Yahya related to me from Malik that he had heard that Marwan ibn al-Hakam wrote to Muawiya ibn Abi Sufyan to mention to him that a drunkard was brought to him who had killed a man. Muawiya wrote to him to kill him in retaliation for the dead man.

Yahya said that Malik said, "The best of what I have heard on the interpretation of this ayat, the word of Allah, the Blessed, the Exalted, 'The free man for the free man and the slave for the slave - these are men and the woman for the woman,' (Sura 2 ayat 178) is that retaliation is between women as it is between men. The free woman is killed for the free woman as the free man is killed for the free man. The slave-girl is slain for the slave-girl as the slave is slain for the slave. Retaliation is between women as it is between men. That is because Allah, the Blessed, the Exalted, said in His Book, 'We have written for them in it that it is a life for a life and an eye for an eye, a nose for a nose, and an ear for an ear, and a tooth for a tooth, and for wounds there is retaliation.' (Sura 5 ayat 48) Allah, the Blessed, the Exalted, mentioned that it is a life for a life. It is the life of a free woman for the life of a free man, and her injury for his injury."

Malik said about a man who held a man fast for another man to hit, and he died on the spot, "If he held him and he thought that he meant to kill him, the two of them are both killed for him. If he held him and he thought that he meant to beat him as people sometimes do, and he did not think that he meant to kill him, the murderer is slain and the one who held him is punished with a very severe punishment and jailed for a year. There is no killing against him."

Malik said about a man who murdered a man intentionally or gouged out his eye intentionally, and then was slain or had his eye gouged out himself before retaliation was inflicted on him, "There is no blood-money nor retaliation against him. The right of the one who was killed or had his eye gouged out goes when the thing which he is claiming as retaliation goes. It is the same with a man who murders another man intentionally and then the murderer dies. When the murderer dies, the one seeking blood-revenge has nothing of blood-money or anything else. That is by the word of Allah, the Blessed the Exalted, 'Retaliation is written for you in killing. The free man for the free man and the slave for the slave.'"

Malik said, "He only has retaliation against the one who killed him. If the man who murdered him dies, he has no retaliation or blood-money."

Malik said, "There is no retaliation held against a free man by a slave for any injury. The slave is killed for the free man when he intentionally murders him. The free man is not slain for the slave, even if he murders him intentionally. It is the best of what I have heard." (Malik's Muwatta, Book 43, Number 43.21.15a)

Furthermore, we are told in S. 32:23-25 that:

We did indeed aforetime give the Book to Moses: be not then in doubt of its reaching (thee): and We made it a guide to the Children of Israel. And We appointed, from among them, leaders, giving guidance under Our command, so long as they persevered with patience and continued to have faith in Our Signs (Ayat- Verses). Verily thy Lord will judge between them on the Day of Judgment, in the matters wherein they differ (among themselves)

This passage demonstrates that God entrusted the Torah to Israelite leaders that believed and judged by it, and that this very Torah was available to Muhammad. This clearly refutes Badawi's claim.

Continuing further:

"And in their footsteps We sent Jesus the son of Mary, CONFIRMING THE TORAH THAT CAME BEFORE HIM: We sent him the Gospel: therein was guidance and light, AND CONFIRMATION OF THE TORAH THAT HAD COME BEFORE HIM: a guidance and an admonition to those who fear Allah. Let the people of the Gospel judge by what Allah hath revealed therein. If any do fail to judge by (the light of) what Allah hath revealed, they are (no better than) those who rebel." S. 5:46-47

Here are Ibn Kathir's comments regarding this passage:

"<'Isa, son of Maryam, confirming the Tawrah that had come before him,> meaning, he believed in it AND RULED BY IT…

<and confirmation of the Tawrah that had come before it,> meaning, HE ADHERED TO THE TAWRAH, except for the few instances that clarified the truth where the Children of Israel differed. Allah states in another Ayah that 'Isa said to the Children of Israel,… <…and to make lawful to you part of what was forbidden to you.>

So the scholars say that the Injil abrogated some of the rulings of the Tawrah…" (Tafsir Ibn Kathir, Abridged, Volume 3, Parts 6, 7 & 8, Surat An-Nisa, Verse 148 to the end of Surat Al-An'am, Abridged by a group of scholars under the supervision of Shaykh Safiur-Rahman Al-Mubarakpuri [Darussalam Publishers & Distributors, Riyadh, Houston, New York, Lahore; January 2000, first edition], pp. 193-194; bold and capital emphasis ours)


"And Allah will teach him the Book and Wisdom, THE TORAH and the Gospel, And (appoint him) as a messenger to the Children of Israel, (with this message): 'I have come to you, with a Sign from your Lord, in that I make for you out of clay, as it were, the figure of a bird, and breathe into it, and it becomes a bird by Allah's leave: And I heal those born blind, and the lepers, and I bring the dead into life, by Allah's leave; and I declare to you what ye eat, and what ye store in your houses. Surely therein is a Sign for you if ye did believe; (I have come to you), TO ATTEST THE TORAH WHICH WAS BEFORE ME. And to make lawful to you part of what was (Before) forbidden to you; I have come to you with a Sign from your Lord. So fear Allah, and obey me. S. 3:48-50

"Then will Allah say: 'O Jesus the son of Mary! Recount My favor to thee and to thy mother. Behold! I strengthened thee with the Holy Spirit, so that thou didst speak to the people in childhood and in maturity. Behold! I taught thee the Book and Wisdom, THE TORAH and the Gospel. And behold! thou makest out of clay, as it were, the figure of a bird, by My leave, and thou breathest into it and it becometh a bird by My leave, and thou healest those born blind, and the lepers, by My leave. And behold! thou bringest forth the dead by My leave. And behold! I did restrain the Children of Israel from (violence to) thee when thou didst show them the Clear Signs, and the unbelievers among them said: "This is nothing but evident magic".'" S. 5:110

"And remember, Jesus, the son of Mary, said: 'O Children of Israel! I am the messenger of Allah (sent) to you, CONFIRMING THE TAURAT (Law) (which came) before me, and giving Glad Tidings of a Messenger to come after me, whose name shall be Ahmad.' But when he came to them with Clear Signs, they said, 'This is evident sorcery!'" S. 61:6

Ibn Kathir comments on S. 3:48-50:

<the Tawrah and the Injil>. The Tawrah is the Book THAT ALLAH SENT DOWN TO MUSA, son of Imran, while the Injil is what Allah sent down to Isa, son of Maryam, peace be upon them, AND ISA MEMORIZED BOTH BOOKS…

<If you believe. And I have come confirming that which was before me of the Tawrah,> affirming the Tawrah AND UPHOLDING IT," (Tafsir Ibn Kathir, Abridged, Volume 2, parts 3,4 & 5, Surat Al-Baqarah, Verse 253, to Surat An-Nisa, Verse 147 [March 2000], pp. 163, 165; bold and capital emphasis ours)

As well as his commentary on S. 61:6:

"'Isa said, 'The Tawrah conveyed the glad tidings of my coming, and my coming CONFIRMS THE TRUTH OF THE TAWRAH…'" (Tafsir Ibn Kathir, Abridged, Volume 9, Surat Al-Jathiyah to the end of Surat Al-Munafiqun [September 2000, first edition], p. 617; bold and capital emphasis ours)

Due to the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls in 1947, along with Jesus' extensive use of the OT as documented in the pages of the New Testament, we know what the text of the OT used by first century Jews was like. It is virtually identical to that found in our modern Bibles. This solidifies the case that the Torah has not been corrupted. These passages also indirectly demonstrate that the Jews were not the only ones entrusted with the Torah's protection. From the time of Christ, Christians have used and cherished the Torah as God's inspired, infallible Word, copying and preserving it from that time till today. They did this precisely because their risen Lord and Master, along with the Apostles, affirmed it as God's revealed truth.

The Lord Jesus is not the only one that confirmed the authority and preservation of the Hebrew text. Muhammad did as well:

"But (now), when the Truth has come to them from Ourselves, they say, 'Why are not (Signs) sent to him, like those which were sent to Moses?" Do they not then reject (the Signs) which were formerly sent to Moses? They say: 'TWO KINDS OF SORCERY, EACH ASSISTING THE OTHER!' And they say: 'For us, we reject all (such things)!' Say: 'Then bring ye a Book from Allah, which is a better guide THAN EITHER OF THEM, that I may follow it! (Do), if ye are truthful!'" S. 28:48-49

In Ibn Kathir's commentary we find:

<Two kinds of magic, each helping the other!>

‘Ali bin Abi Talhah and Al-‘Awfi reported that Ibn ‘Abbas said that this refers to THE TAWRAH and the Qur‘an, because Allah says next ...

<Say: "Then bring a Book from Allah, which is a better guide than these two that I may follow it.">

Allah often mentions the Tawrah and the Qur‘an together, as in the Ayat ...

<Say: "Who then sent down the Book which Musa brought, a light and a guidance to mankind…"> until ...

<And this is a blessed Book which We have sent down.> (6:91-92)

And at the end of the same Surah, Allah says ...

<Then, We gave Musa the Book, to complete (Our favor) upon those who would do right> (6:154) ...

<And this is a blessed Book which We have sent down, so follow it and have Taqwa of Allah, that you may receive mercy> (6:155).

(Tafsir Ibn Kathir (Abridged) Volume 7 (Surat An-Nur to Surat Al-Ahzab, Verse 50), First Edition, August 2000, p. 418; bold and capital emphasis ours)

Two things stick out from this passage. First, the unbelievers claimed that both the Torah and the Quran assisted each other. This implies that the Torah must have been available for examination. Otherwise they would not have been able to know whether the two books confirmed each other. Their statement also confirms that the Quran did not come to expose corruption to the Torah, but rather it came to confirm and assist it.

Secondly, Muhammad challenges the unbelievers to produce a book containing better guidance than either the Torah or the Quran. This would have been a very foolish request on Muhammad's part, if in fact the Torah had been tampered with. Defending a book that was no longer the pure word of God, but contained additions or deletions, having the words of fallible men mixed in with God's words would only have discredited Muhammad. It would have proven to the unbelievers that much like the Torah, the Quran was nothing more than the words of Muhammad combined with preexisting Biblical and mythical stories. Such a book could be easily matched and refuted. The fact that Muhammad defends it only reaffirms that the Quran does not teach Biblical corruption.

"They are whom (Children of Israel) We gave the Scripture, the Judgment and the Prophethood, but if those (Meccans) disbelieve them, We have entrusted them (Scripture, Judgment and Prophethood) to a nation (Children of Israel) who do not disbelieve them; they are those whom Allah have guided, so [O Muhammad] follow their Guidance..." S. 6:89-90

Muhammad is told to follow the guidance given to the Children of Israel since they are a nation entrusted with and also believe in the revelation given by God. Yet why would Muhammad follow the guidance given to the Jews if in fact they were corrupt enough to tamper with the Biblical text? And if they had tampered with the Holy Bible how then could the Jews have known the guidance of God?

Furthermore, that S. 15:9 claims that Allah would personally preserve the Quran only proves that the Holy Bible has been preserved as well. This is based on the fact that the Quran claims that it is contained in previous revelation:

"And indeed it is a revelation of the Lord of the worlds - brought down by the trustworthy spirit – upon your heart, so that you be one of the warners – [revealed] in a clear Arabic dialect - and indeed it IS [also] IN the scriptures (Arabic- Zubur) of old. Is it no evidence for them that the scholars of the Israelites know him [to be a true prophet]?" 26:192-197

Ibn Kathir claims:

The Qur'an was mentioned in the Previous Scriptures

Allah says: this Qur'an was mentioned and referred to in the previous Scriptures that were left behind by their Prophets who foretold it in ancient times and more recently. Allah took a covenant from them that they would follow it, and the last of them stood and addressed his people with the good news of Ahmad...

Zubur here refers to Books; Zubur is the plural of Az-Zabur, which is also the name used to refer to the Book given to Dawud...

<Is it not a sign to them that the learned scholars of the Children of Israel knew it?> meaning, is it not a sufficient witness to the truth for them that the scholars of the Children of Israel found this Qur'an mentioned in the Scriptures which THEY STUDY? The meaning is: the fair-minded among them admitted that the attributes of Muhammad and his mission and his Ummah were mentioned in their Books, as was stated by those among them who believed, such as 'Abdullah bin Salam, Salman Al-Farisi and others who met the Prophet. (Tafsir Ibn Kathir, Abridged, Volume 7, Surat An-Nur to Surat Al-Ahzab, Verse 50 [August 2000, first edition], pp. 276-277; bold italics and capital emphasis ours)

According to Ibn Kathir, the scriptures of old containing the description of Muhammad and the Quran were available during the time of Muhammad. Another interesting point is that the Hadiths actually apply the title Quran to the Psalms of David:

Narrated Abu Huraira:

The Prophet said, 'The recitation of the Quran was made light and easy for David that he used to have his riding animal be saddled while he would finish the recitation of the Quran before the servant had saddled it.' (Sahih al-Bukhari, Volume 6, Book 60, Number 237)


Narrated Abu Huraira:

The Prophet said, 'The reciting of the Zabur (i.e. Psalms) was made easy for David. He used to order that his riding animals be saddled, and would finish reciting the Zabur before they were saddled. And he would never eat except from the earnings of his manual work." (Sahih al-Bukhari, Volume 4, Book 55, Number 628)

Since the Quran is contained in previous scriptures, and since David's Psalms are actually called the Quran, this means that God has preserved the Holy Bible intact. Otherwise, to claim that the Holy Bible has been tampered with implies that Allah failed to preserve the Quran from corruption. Let us break this down:

1.Allah has promised to preserve the Reminder given to Muhammad.
2. The Reminder is the Quran.
3. Allah claims that the Quran is in the previous scriptures, i.e. the Holy Bible.
4. Therefore, the Holy Bible, which supposedly contains the Quran, has also been preserved.
5. To claim otherwise means that Allah failed to preserve the Quran since the scriptures that contained it have been corrupted.

Another text which refutes Badawi is the following:

And recite that which hath been revealed unto thee of the Scripture of thy Lord. There is none who can change His words, and thou wilt find no refuge beside Him. S. 18:27 Pickthall

The above passage specifically says that none can change the words of God, which in this context refers to the book of the Lord, to the inscripturated revelation given by God. This obviously includes the revelation which God entrusted to the Children of Israel since it is specifically called the book or scripture of Allah. Note once again what Surah 5:44 says:

Lo! We did reveal the Torah, wherein is guidance and a light, by which the prophets who surrendered (unto Allah) judged the Jews, and the rabbis and the priests (judged) by such of Allah's Scripture as they were bidden to observe, and thereunto were they witnesses. So fear not mankind, but fear Me. And barter not My revelations for a little gain. Whoso judgeth not by that which Allah hath revealed: such are disbelievers. Pickthall

When we combine the two texts together we end up with the following conclusion:

1. None can change the inscripturated words of Allah, the words which are recorded in God's books.
2. The Torah/Old Testament is explicitly called the book of Allah.
3. Therefore, none can change the Torah/Old Testament.

This being the case on what basis does Jamal Badawi claim that the previous revelation has been corrupted?

Badawi might use the following passage to show that the Quran does claim that the Holy Bible has been tampered with:

"To thee We sent the Scripture in truth, confirming the scripture that came before it, and guarding it in safety (muhaimin alayhi): so judge between them by what Allah hath revealed, and follow not their vain desires, diverging from the Truth that hath come to thee. To each among you have we prescribed a Law and an Open Way. If Allah had so willed, He would have made you a single people, but (His plan is) to test you in what He hath given you: so strive as in a race in all virtues. The goal of you all is to Allah; it is He that will show you the truth of the matters in which ye dispute;" S. 5:48

Badawi claims that the word muhaimin refers to the Quran as a quality control agent. The Quran was sent to affirm whatever remained intact in previous revelation, as well as exposing any tampering to the Biblical text.

Muslims are known for committing the root fallacy. They often build their case on the root meaning of a word. Yet different words have different meanings in different contexts, specifically in different times. Therefore, it is necessary to allow the historical, cultural and grammatical context to define the specific meaning of any given word. For instance, Allah is said to be Al-Muhaimin:

He is Allah, besides Whom there is no God; the King, the Holy, the Author of Peace, the Grantor of Security, Guardian (muhaimin) over all, the Mighty, the Supreme, the Possessor of greatness. Glory be to Allah from that which they set up (with Him)! S. 59:23

Ibn Kathir notes:

"<Al-Muhaymin,> means, according to Ibn 'Abbas and others, 'The Witness for His servants actions,' that is, the Ever-Watcher over them… (Tafsir Ibn Kathir, volume 9, p. 579; bold emphasis ours)

According to Ibn Abbas, when the term muhaimin is used of Allah it simply means watcher or witness. Hans-Wehr Arabic dictionary states that muhaimin can mean protector or watcher. This affirms that the word can have multiple meanings and it is only the context that specifies the precise meaning.

When we look at the previous verses we see that muhaimin can only mean that the Quran confirms, protects and safeguards the previous revelation. It does not expose corruption to it. Muslims who agree with this interpretation include the well-known and respected commentator Al-Baidawi. He understood muhaimin to mean that the Quran was sent as:

"A keeper over the whole sacred books, such as shall preserve them from change, and witness to their truth and authority." (Abdiyah Akbar Abdul-Haqq, Sharing Your Faith With a Muslim [Bethany House Publishers, 6820 Auto Road Minneapolis MN, 55438 1980], p. 39 citing W. Muir, CORAN, p. 205; bold emphasis ours)

Muslim commentator Ahmad b. Mahmud al-Nasafi concurs:

"[The phrase] 'confirming the Book that was before it' means that the Quran confirms what the Torah says and offers. 'Assuring it' means bearing witness to it. The Quran did not say, 'Believe what I have believed and disbelieve what I have disbelieved and what I keep silent on, neither believe it nor disbelieve it,' but it says, 'who so judges not according to what Allah has sent down.' Muhammad also said: 'I am the first who fulfills Allah's command and his Book (i.e., The Torah and the Gospel).'" (See al-Nasafi's commentary on Sura al-Maida 5:43-48)." (True Guidance [Light of Life, PO Box 13, A-9503 Villach, Austria 1994], pp. 96-97 citing Tafsir al-Nasafi vol. 1-4, Cairo, Egypt, 1961; bold emphasis ours)

Hopefully, this will put to rest Badawi's erroneous exegesis of the Quran whereby he seeks to prove that the Islamic scripture does not confirm the authenticity of the Holy Bible.

Badawi on the Metamorphosis of Jews

The Quran claims that Allah transformed certain Sabbath breaking Jews into monkeys and pigs:

And well ye knew those amongst you who transgressed in the matter of the Sabbath: We said to them: "Be ye apes, despised and rejected." S. 2:66

Say: "Shall I point out to you something much worse than this, (as judged) by the treatment it received from Allah? those who incurred the curse of Allah and His wrath, those of whom some He transformed into apes and swine, those who worshipped evil;- these are (many times) worse in rank, and far more astray from the even path!" S. 5:60

When in their insolence they transgressed (all) prohibitions, We said to them: "Be ye apes, despised and rejected." S. 7:166

These passages have proved to be quite an embarrassment to Badawi. In his debate with Anis Shorrosh titled "Quran - Word of God or Muhammad", as well as his debate with Dr. Robert A. Morey titled "Is the Quran the Word of God?", Badawi was forced to deny that the Jews literally metamorphosed into monkeys and pigs. Rather, Badawi claims that certain Muslim authorities indicated that the Jews' characters became like that of monkeys and pigs.

Instead of refering to some later Muslim interpreters, Badawi would have done well to quote the opinion of Muhammad and of his companions. Both Muhammad and his followers believed that the Jews literally transformed into monkeys and pigs.

From Ibn Ishaq (Sirat Rasulullah)

... 'And stand in awe of Me,' i.e. lest I bring down on you what I brought down on your fathers before you - the vengeance that you know of, BESTIAL TRANSFORMATION and the like ... (Alfred Guillaume, The Life of Muhammad [Oxford University Press, Karachi, thenth impression 1995], p. 250; bold capital emphasis ours)

From Sahih al-Bukhari

Narrated Abu Huraira:

The Prophet said, "A group of Israelites were lost. Nobody knows what they did. But I do not see them except that they were cursed and changed into rats, for if you put the milk of a she-camel in front of a rat, it will not drink it, but if the milk of a sheep is put in front of it, it will drink it." I told this to Ka'b who asked me, "Did you hear it from the Prophet?" I said, "Yes." Ka'b asked me the same question several times; I said to Ka'b. "Do I read the Torah? (i.e. I tell you this from the Prophet.)" (Sahih al-Bukhari, Volume 4, Book 54, Number 524)

The translator has footnotes at this point in which he says:

[1] It was illegal for the Israelites to eat the meat or drink the milk of camels while they were allowed to eat the meat and drink the milk of sheep. The Prophet inferred from the rats' habit that some Israelites had been transformed into rats.

[2] Later on the Prophet ... was informed THROUGH INSPIRATION about the fate of those Israelites: They were transformed into pigs and monkeys.

Returning to al-Bukhari, we also read:

Narrated Abu 'Amir or Abu Malik Al-Ash'ari:

that he heard the Prophet saying, "From among my followers there will be some people who will consider illegal sexual intercourse, the wearing of silk, the drinking of alcoholic drinks and the use of musical instruments, as lawful. And there will be some people who will stay near the side of a mountain and in the evening their shepherd will come to them with their sheep and ask them for something, but they will say to him, 'Return to us tomorrow.' Allah will destroy them during the night and will let the mountain fall on them, and He will transform the rest of them into monkeys and pigs and they will remain so till the Day of Resurrection." (Sahih al-Bukhari, Volume 7, Book 69, Number 494v)

Narrated Abu Huraira:

The Prophet said, "On the Day of Resurrection Abraham will meet his father Azar whose face will be dark and covered with dust. (The Prophet Abraham will say to him): 'Didn't I tell you not to disobey me?' His father will reply: 'Today I will not disobey you.' Abraham will say: 'O Lord! You promised me not to disgrace me on the Day of Resurrection; and what will be more disgraceful to me than cursing and dishonoring my father?' Then Allah will say (to him): 'I have forbidden Paradise for the disbelievers.' Then he will be addressed, 'O Abraham! Look! What is underneath your feet?' He will look and there he will see a Dhabh (an animal,) blood-stained, which will be caught by the legs and thrown in the (Hell) Fire." (Sahih al-Bukhari, Volume 4, Book 55, Number 569)

Again, here is the translator's footnote regarding the above metamorphosis:

[1] Ibrahim's (Abraham's) father will be transformed into an animal and thrown into the Fire, for his Muslim son's intercession will not avail, as he was an infidel. Ibrahim (Abraham) then will repudiate his father.

Here is a final example as an added bonus:

Narrated 'Amr bin Maimun:

During the pre-Islamic period of ignorance I saw a she-monkey surrounded by a number of monkeys. They were all stoning it, because it had committed illegal sexual intercourse. I too, stoned it along with them. (Sahih al-Bukhari, Volume 5, Book 58, Number 188)

From Sahih Muslim

Abu Huraira reported that Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him) said: A group of Bani Isra'il was lost. I do not know what happened to it, but I think (that it underwent a process of metamorphosis) and assumed the shape of rats. Don't you see when the milk of the camel is placed before them, these do not drink and when the milk of goat is placed before them, these do drink. Abu Huraira said: I narrated this very hadith to Ka'b and he said: Did you hear this from Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him)? I (Abu Huraira) said: Yes. He said this again and again, and I said: Have I read Torah? This hadith has been transmitted on the authority of Ishaq with a slight variation of wording. (Sahih Muslim, Book 042, Number 7135)

Abu Huraira reported that the rat (is the result of) metamorphosis (of a group of Bani Isra'il) and the proof of this is that when the milk of goat is placed before it, it drinks it, and when the milk of the camel is placed before it, it would not taste it at all. Ka'b said: Did you hear it from Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him)? Thereupon he said: Has Torah been revealed to me? (Sahih Muslim, Book 042, Number 7136)

Abdullah reported that Umm Habiba, the wife of Allah's Apostle (may peace be upon him), said: O Allah, enable me to derive benefit from my husband, the Messenger of Allah (may peace be upon him), and from my father Abu Sufyan and from my brother Mu'awiya. Allah's Apostle (may peace be upon him) said: You have asked from Allah about durations of life already set, and the length of days already allotted and the sustenances the share of which has been fixed. Allah would not do anything earlier before its due time, or He would not delay anything beyond its due time. And if you were to ask Allah to provide you refuge from the torment of the HellFire, or from the torment of the grave, it would have good in store for you and better for you also. He (the narrator) further said: Mention was made before him about monkeys, and Mis'ar (one of the narrators) said: I think that (the narrator) also (made a mention) of the swine, which had suffered metamorphosis. Thereupon he (the Holy Prophet) said: Verily, Allah did not cause the race of those which suffered metamorphosis to grow or they were not survived by young ones. Monkeys and swine had been in existence even before (the metamorphosis of the human beings). (Sahih Muslim, Book 033, Number 6438)

From Ibn Kathir

Here is Ibn Kathir's commentary regarding S. 2:66:

"Allah says to the Jews: You know of the punishment that befell the people of 'Ilah, when they disobeyed Allah's order to glorify the Sabbath and not to work on that day. They used a stratagem to catch the fish which came up to their water channels or pools on the Sabbath day (Saturday). They prepared the nets, ropes and hooks to trap fish during the whole day of the Sabbath. They would then come to take the catch of fish on Sunday claiming that they had not fished on the Sabbath. However, since the actual act of fishing took place on the Sabbath day, Allah cursed them for it and TRANSFORMED THEM INTO REAL DESPISED APES.

… 'Ata al-Khurasani said: 'The people of the township were told: "O people of the township, be you apes, despised and rejected". When those who forbade fishing saw them they asked: "Did we not warn you?" They nodded in agreement. They were doomed TO STAY AS APES FOR THREE DAYS without food, drink or reproduction, TILL THEY DIED…'" (Tafsir Ibn Kathir, Part 1, Surah Al-Fatiah Surah Al-Baqarah, ayat 1 to 141, abridged by Sheikh Muhammad Nasib Ar-Rafa'i [Al-Firdous Ltd., London, second edition 1998], pp. 146-147; bold and capital emphasis ours)

And his commentary on S. 5:60:

<those of whom He transformed into monkeys and swine,> as we mentioned in Surat Al-Baqarah (2) and as we will mention in Surat Al-A'raf (7), Sufyan Ath-Thawri narrated that Ibn Mas'ud said, "Allah's messenger was asked IF THE CURRENT MONKEYS AND SWINE WERE THOSE WHOM ALLAH TRANSFORMED. He said,… <Allah never destroyed a people BY TRANSFORMING THEM AND MAKING OFFSPRING OR DESCENDANTS FOR THEM. The monkeys and swine EXISTED BEFORE THAT.> This was also recorded by Muslim. (Tafsir Ibn Kathir, Abridged, Volume 3, Parts 6, 7 &8, Surat An-Nisa, Verse 148 to the end of Surat Al-An'am, abridged by a group of scholars under the supervision of Shaykh Safiur Rahman Al-Mubarakpuri [Darussalam Publishers & Distributors, Riyadh, Houston, New York, Lahore; first edition, January 2000], p. 216; bold and capital emphasis ours)

In light of the preceding citations, it is little wonder that Badawi chooses to cite Muslims that deny the literal metamorphosis of the Jews as opposed to quoting Muhammad and his followers. To cite Muhammad and his followers causes serious embarrassment as well as major problems for presenting Islam as a rational, thinking man's religion. Badawi seems to be aware that no open-minded and intelligent person would ever accept such fairy tales. The fact that the Quran contains them only proves that it is not God's word.

Further reading: Did Allah transform Jews into apes and pigs?, The quranic attitude towards unbelievers.

Badawi On the Drowning and Preservation of the body of Pharaoh

Throughout his debates and lectures, one often finds Badawi claiming that the Quran foretold the discovery of the body of the Pharaoh of the Exodus:

"We took the Children of Israel across the sea: Pharaoh and his hosts followed them in insolence and spite. At length, when overwhelmed with the flood, he said: 'I believe that there is no god except Him Whom the Children of Israel believe in: I am of those who submit (to Allah in Islám).' (It was said to him): 'Ah now!- But a little while before, wast thou in rebellion!- and thou didst mischief (and violence)! This day shall We save thee in thy body, that thou mayest be a sign to those who come after thee! But verily, many among mankind are heedless of Our Signs!'" S. 10:90-92

Badawi cites Maurice Bucaille where the latter asserts that Loret discovered Pharaoh's body in in 1898 at Thebes in the Kings' Valley (see The Bible, the Qur'an and Science by Dr. Maurice Bucaille, p. 238).

Several responses are in order. First, scholars are in disagreement over the identity of the Pharaoh of the Exodus. Some scholars are of the opinion that the Exodus took pace in the 19th dynasty period of Egypt, making Seti 1 and Rameses 2 the Pharaohs of the oppression and Exodus. Others, citing 1 Kings 6:1 as evidence, believe that the Exodus took place in 1446 BC. This is due primarily to the statement in 1 Kings that Israel's deliverance from Egypt took place 430 years before "The fourth year of Solomon's reign over Israel" (i.e. 966 BC.). This would make Thutmose 3 and his son Amunhotep 2 the Pharaohs of that period.

This is a fact with which at least one Muslim commentator agrees:

Lit. 'We shall save thee in thy body': Probably an allusion to the ancient Egyptian custom of embalming the bodies of their kings and nobles and thus preserving them for posterity. Some Egyptologists assume that the 'evil Pharaoh' of the Quran and the Bible was Ramses II (about 1324-1258 B.C.), while others identify him with his unlucky predecessor, Tut-ankh-amen, or even with Thotmes (or Thutmosis) III, who lived in the 15th century B.C. However, all these 'identifications' are purely speculative and have no definitive historical value. In this connection it should be remembered that the designation 'Pharaoh' (fir'awn in Arabic) is not a proper name but a title born by all the kings of ancient Egypt.' (Muhammad Asad, The Message of the Qur'an [Dar Al-Andalus Limited, 3 Library Ramp, Gibraltar; rpt. 1993], p. 306, f. 112)

Another Muslim, in response to a question regarding the Pharaoh of the Exodus, provides a host of quotes to prove that scholars are uncertain regarding his identity:

My dear brother, whether you think there is room for much debate or not is not material. The fact is that there, in fact, is a lot of debate on the issue. To ascertain this difference of opinion, all you have to do is to look at some of the material written on the topic.

At one instance, the Encyclopedia Britannica states that the Pharaoh of the Exodus was Ramses II, at another instance, the Britannica names him to be Thutmose III. One research article on Ramses II writes:

It is hoped that the study of the artifacts, hieroglyphics, and information from the mummies can be used to confirm whether Ramses II is indeed the pharaoh in the bible of the Hebrew's enslavement and exodus. (

Another research article 'Who was the Pharaoh of the Exodus?' writes:

Before concluding that Amenhotep II was, indeed, the pharaoh of the Exodus, we will need to study further other evidence that can be presented. For instance, when comparing Exodus 7:7 with Acts 7:23, we learn that Moses was in Midian approximately forty years. Assuming the pharaohs mentioned in Exodus 1:8, 22 and 2:23 are all the same person, he would have had to reign for over forty years. Amenhotep's predecessor, Thutmose III, is the only pharaoh within the time specified in I Kings 6:1 who reigned long enough (54 years) to have been on the throne at the time of Moses' flight and to die shortly before his return to Egypt. This would make Thutmose III the pharaoh of the Oppression and Amenhotep II the pharaoh of the Exodus.

... Although the final verdict is not yet in, we can be reasonably sure that Amenhotep II was the pharaoh of the Exodus. (

In yet another article titled: "Who was the Pharaoh of the Exodus?", the author writes:

The first pharaoh, the pharaoh of the Oppression, was Phiops II (sometimes called Pepi II). He reigned for more than ninety years, matching the Biblical account. The pharaoh of the Exodus is Merenre Antyemsaf II. He succeeded Phiops II and reigned for only one year. They were the final two pharaohs of the Old Kingdom. (

In contrast to all the foregoing information, the Easton's Bible Dictionary writes:

The Pharaoh of the Exodus was probably Menephtah I., the fourteenth and eldest surviving son of Rameses II. (See: Note on 'Pharaoh')

To add further to the varying opinions, Smith's Bible Dictionary writes:

Either Thothmes III., as Wilkinson, or Menephthah son of Rameses II., whom Brugsch thinks was probably the Pharaoh of the exodus, who with his army pursued the Israelites and were overwhelmed in the Red Sea. (See: Note on 'Pharaoh')

According to the Wyatt Archaeological Research website, in the article titled "Red Sea Crossing - Identity of the Egyptian Dynasty" (, according to the conclusion drawn by the author, the Pharaoh of the Exodus was Thutmoses IV, who is also known as Amenhotep III. The problem is rendered into further complexity by the following finding of the Wyatt Research:

Egyptian evidence shows that every native Egyptian king from the time of the so-called 5th dynasty was titled "Son of the Sun" or "Rameses" in addition to his other names. This has caused massive confusion among the Egyptian scholars, who have zeroed in on one particular pharaoh, "Rameses II", and proclaimed him the "greatest pharaoh of all Egypt". All one needs to do is go to the museum in Cairo and view the 4 statues of "Rameses II" in the main entrance hall- each one is clearly a different person. The inscriptions referring to "Rameses" refer to many different pharaohs. (

I really cannot understand how in view of the foregoing citations can anyone be of the opinion that 'there is not room for debate' as to who was the Pharaoh of the Exodus. You, indeed, have all the right to agree with the research of one or the other scholars of the field. But, my dear brother, please bear in mind that your or my agreement with one point of view does not make it a universally acknowledged 'scientific' fact[1]. (Moiz Amjad, Further exchange regarding scientific information in the Qur'an, September 2, 2001; source)

Second, the story of Pharaoh's repentance at the face of destruction along with the preservation of his body was not a new revelation. Both the Holy Bible and the Jewish Talmud documented this story long before the Quran was ever compiled:

"The water flowed back and covered the chariots and horsemen - the entire army of Pharaoh that had followed the Israelites into the sea. Not one of them survived. But the Israelites went through the sea on dry ground, with a wall of water on their right and on their left. That day the LORD saved Israel from the hands of the Egyptians, and Israel saw THE EGYPTIANS LYING DEAD ON THE SHORE. And when the Israelites saw the great power the LORD displayed against the Egyptians, the people feared the LORD and put their trust in him and in Moses his servant. Exodus 14:28-30

That this included Pharaoh can be seen from the following passage:

"To him who divided the Red Sea asunder His love endures forever. And brought Israel through the midst of it, His love endures forever. But swept Pharaoh and his army into the Red Sea; His love endures forever." Psalm 136:13-15

We are further told in the Talmud:

"Perceive the great power of repentance! Pharaoh, king of Egypt, uttered very wicked words — ‘Who is the god whose voice I shall obey?’ (Exod. 5:2). Yet as he repented, saying, ‘Who is like unto thee among the gods?’ (Exod. 15:2). God saved him from death; for it saith; Almost had I stretched out my hands and destroyed; but God let him live, that he might declare his power and strength." (Pirke Rabbi Elieser, xliii; Midrash Yalkut, ccxxxviii, as cited in T.P. Hughes, Dictionary of Islam [Kazi Publications Inc., Chicago Il. 1994], p. 241; bold emphasis ours)

The late Syed Abu-Ala' Maududi concedes the fact that the Quranic story of the drowning of the Pharaoh at S. 10:90-91 finds parallels in the Talmud:

"... Though this is not mentioned in the Bible, it is explicitly recorded in the Talmud in the following words: 'Who is like Thee, O Lord, among the gods?'" (Towards Understanding the Qur'an - Volume IV, Surahs 10-16, an English translation of Tafhim al-Qur'an by Zafar Ishaq, assisted by A.R. Kidwai [The Islamic Foundation (printed and bound in Great Britain by the Cromwell Press), rpt. 1999], p. 63, n. 91; bold emphasis ours)

Using Badawi's logic we are forced to conclude that God revealed the Talmud to the Rabbis since they knew of Pharaoh's body being preserved even before the Quran was written!

Third, according to Muslim commentators God preserved Pharaoh's body as a sign to the Israelites. Ibn Kathir stated:

<So this day We shall deliver your (dead) body (out from the sea) that you may be a sign to those who come after you!>

Ibn 'Abbas and others from among the Salaf have said: "Some of the Children of Israel doubted the death of Fir'awn so Allah commanded the sea to throw his body- whole, without a soul- with his known armor plate. The body was thrown to a high place on the land so that the Children of Israel could confirm his death and destruction." That is why Allah said,

<"So this day We shall deliver your.."> meaning we will put your body on a high place on the earth. Mujahid said,

<your (dead) body> means, "your physical body."

<that you may be a sign to those who come after you!> meaning, so that might be a proof of your death and destruction for the Children of Israel. (Tafsir Ibn Kathir, Abridged, Volume 4, Surat Al-A'raf to the end of Surah Yunus, abridged by a group of scholars under the supervision of Shaykh Safiur-Rahman Al-Mubarakpuri [Darussalam Distributors & Publishers Riyadh, Houston, New York, Lahore; first edition, May 2000], pp. 653-654; bold emphasis ours)

So much for Badawi's alleged evidence for the Quran's inspiration.

Badawi on Muhammad as the Universal Messenger

Badawi often claims that unlike Muhammad, all other prophets were sent to their own nations. Badawi asserts that this claim is supported by the hadiths:

Narrated Jabir bin 'Abdullah:

The Prophet said, "I have been given five things which were not given to any one else before me.

1. Allah made me victorious by awe, (by His frightening my enemies) for a distance of one month's journey.
2. The earth has been made for me (and for my followers) a place for praying and a thing to perform Tayammum, therefore anyone of my followers can pray wherever the time of a prayer is due.
3. The booty has been made Halal (lawful) for me yet it was not lawful for anyone else before me.
4. I have been given the right of intercession (on the Day of Resurrection).
5. Every Prophet used to be sent to his nation only but I have been sent to all mankind. (Sahih al-Bukhari,Volume 1, Book 7, Number 331)


Narrated Jabir bin 'Abdullah:

Allah's Apostle said, "I have been given five things which were not given to any amongst the Prophets before me. These are:

1. Allah made me victorious by awe (by His frightening my enemies) for a distance of one month's journey.
2. The earth has been made for me (and for my followers) a place for praying and a thing to perform Tayammum. Therefore my followers can pray wherever the time of a prayer is due.
3. The booty has been made Halal (lawful) for me (and was not made so for anyone else).
4. Every Prophet used to be sent to his nation exclusively but I have been sent to all mankind.
5. I have been given the right of intercession (on the Day of Resurrection.) (Sahih al-Bukhari, Volume 1, Book 8, Number 429)

These statements are clearly wrong. Both the Holy Bible and the Quran teach that certain prophets were sent to nations other than their own. One example would be the prophet Jonah, called Yunus in the Quran. Instead of being sent to his own nation Israel, God sent him to Nineveh:

If only there had been a single township (among those We warned), which believed,- so its faith should have profited it,- except the People of Jonah? When they believed, We removed from them the Chastisement of Ignominy in the life of the present, and permitted them to enjoy (their life) for a while. S. 10:98

"And remember Zunnün, when he departed in wrath: He imagined that We had no power over him! But he cried through the depths of darkness, "There is no god but Thou: glory to Thee: I was indeed wrong!" So We listened to him: and delivered him from distress: and thus do We deliver those who have faith. S. 21:87-88

So also was Jonah among those sent (by Us). When he ran away (like a slave from captivity) to the ship (fully) laden, He (agreed to) cast lots, and he was of the rebutted: Then the big Fish did swallow him, and he had done acts worthy of blame. Had it not been that he (repented and) glorified Allah, He would certainly have remained inside the Fish till the Day of Resurrection. But We cast him forth on the naked shore in a state of sickness, And We caused to grow, over him, a spreading plant of the gourd kind. And We sent him (on a mission) to a hundred thousand (men) or more. And they believed; so We permitted them to enjoy (their life) for a while. S. 37:139-148

Ibn Kathir comments on S. 10:98:

"…The point is that between Musa and Yunus, there was no nation in its entirety that believed except the people of Yunus, the people of Naynawa (Nineveh). And they only believed because they feared that the torment from which their Messenger warned them, might strike them. They actually witnessed its signs. So they cried to Allah and asked for help. They engaged in humility in invoking Him. They brought their children and cattle and asked Allah to lift the torment from which their Prophet had warned them. As a result, Allah sent down His mercy and removed the scourge from them and gave them respite.

…In interpreting this Ayah, Qatadah said: 'No town has denied the truth and then believed when they saw the scourge, and then their belief benefited them, with the exception of the people of Yunus. When they lost their prophet and they thought that the scourge was close upon them, Allah sent through their hearts the desire to repent. So they wore woolen fabrics and they separated each animal from its offspring. They then cried out to Allah for forty nights. When Allah saw the truth in their hearts and that they were sincere in their repentance and regrets, He removed the scourge from them.' Qatadah said: 'It is mentioned that the people of Yunus were in Naynawa, the land of Mosul.' This was also reported from Ibn Mas'ud, Mujahid, Sai'd bin Jubayr and others from the Salaf." (Tafsir Ibn Kathir Kathir, Volume 4, p. 660; bold emphasis ours)

And also Ibn Kathir's comments on S. 21:87-88:


This story is mentioned here, and in Surat As-Saffat and Surah Nun. Yunus bin Matta, upon him be peace, was sent by Allah to the people of Nineveh, which was a town in the area of Mawsil [in northern Iraq]… (Tafsir Ibn Kathir, Abridged, Volume 6, Surat Al-Isra', Verse 39 to the end of Surat Al-Mu'minun, p. 481; bold emphasis ours)

Second, both the Quran and early Muslim authorities testify that Jesus' mission had universal significance:

"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 her Our Spirit, 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 gift 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.'" S. 19:16-21

"And (remember) her who guarded her chastity: We breathed into her of Our spirit, and We made her and her son a sign for ALL PEOPLES." S. 21:91

"And We made the son of Mary and his mother as a Sign: We gave them both shelter on high ground, affording rest and security and furnished with springs." S. 23:50

Abdullah Yusuf Ali in his translation of the Quran stated two times that Jesus is a sign for the world:

"Mary the mother of Jesus, chastity was her special virtue: with a son of virgin birth, she and Jesus became a miracle to all nations. This was the virtue with which they (both Mary and Jesus) resisted evil." (Ali, The Holy Qur'an-Text and Commentary, p. 815, f. 2748)


"The mission of Jesus is announced in two ways (1) he was to be a sign to men: his wonderful birth and wonderful life were to turn an ungodly world to Allah: and (2) his mission was to bring solace and salvation to the repentant…" (Ibid., p. 748, f. 2473)

Muslim exegete Ar-Razi, commenting on the different types of elections, notes:

"As for the second type of election… it is that God granted her (Mary) Jesus without a father. He moreover, made Jesus speak as soon as he was separated from her, so that he testified to her innocence from all suspicion. God also made her and her son a sign for humankind." (Ayoub, The Qur'an and Its Interpreters, Volume II, The House of Imran [State University of New York Press, Albany 1992], p. 126; bold emphasis ours)

In Ibn Ishaq's Sirat Rasulullah we are told:

"'God has sent me (Muhammad) to all men, so take a message from me, God have mercy on you. Do not hang back from me as the disciples hung back from Jesus son of Mary.' They asked how they hung back and he said, 'He called them to a task similar to that which I have called you. Those who had to go a short journey were pleased and accepted. Those who had a long journey before them were displeased and refused to go, and Jesus complained of them to God. (T. From that very night) every one of them was able to speak THE LANGUAGE OF THE PEOPLE TO WHOM HE WAS SENT.' (T. Jesus said, 'This is a thing that God has determined that you should do, so go.')

"Those whom Jesus son of Mary sent, both disciples and those who came after them, in the land were: Peter the disciple AND PAUL WITH HIM, (Paul belonged to the followers and was not a disciple) to Rome. Andrew and Matthew to the land of the cannibals; Thomas to the land of Babel, which is in the land of the east; Philip to Carthage and Africa; John to Ephesus the city of the young men of the cave; James to Jerusalem which is Aelia the city of the sanctuary; Bartholomew to ARABIA WHICH IS THE LAND OF HIJAZ; Simon to the land of Berbers; Judah who was not one of the disciples was put in place of Judas.'" (Alfred Guillaume, The Life of Muhammad, Oxford University Press Karachi, p. 653; bold and capital emphasis ours)

And from al-Tabari:

"He (Jesus) began to use such language announcing his death. Then he said, 'The truth is that one of you shall deny me thrice before the cock-crow, and one of you will shall sell me for a few coins, and he shall eat my price.' They walked out and dispersed. The Jews were looking for him. They seized Simeon, one of the apostles, and said, 'This one is a companion of his.' But he denied it, and said, 'I am not his companion.' So they left him. Then another caught him, but he denied it again. Then he heard the cock crow, and wept. When morning came, one of the apostles came to the Jews, and said, 'What will you give me if I lead you to Christ?' And they set for him thirty pieces of silver. He took those, and led them to him. Before that they were not sure of Christ. But now they seized him, chained him, tied him with cord, and began to lead him away, saying, 'You revived the dead, chased away the devil, and cured the possessed, will you not set yourself free from this cord?' They spat upon him and threw thorns upon him, until they brought the wooden board upon which they wanted to crucify him. But God raised him up to Himself and they crucified 'only a likeness of that shown them.' A week passed. Then his mother and the woman whom Jesus healed and cured from derangement came weeping at the place of crucifixion. But Jesus came to them and said, 'Why are you weeping?' They said, 'Because of you;' whereupon he replied, 'God raised me up to Himself, and nothing but good has happened to me. Only a likeness was shown to them. Instruct the apostles to meet me at place such and such. They met him at that place, eleven of them, as the one who had betrayed him and led the Jews to him was missing. Jesus asked the apostles about him. They said, 'He rued what he had done, and strangled himself to death.' Jesus said, 'Had he repented, God would have forgiven him.' He asked them about John, a youth who was following them, and said, 'He is with you. Go! EACH OF YOU WILL SPEAK THE LANGUAGE OF A PEOPLE TO WARN AND SUMMON THEM'…

"Among the apostles, and the followers who came after them were the Apostle Peter and Paul who was a follower and not an apostle; they went to Rome. Andrew and Matthew were sent to the country whose people are man-eaters, a land of blacks, we think; Thomas was sent to Babylonia in the east, Philip to Qayrawan (and) Carthage, that is, North Africa. John went to Ephesus, the city of the youths of the cave, and James to Jerusalem, that is, Aelia. Bartholomew was sent to Arabia, namely, the Hijaz; Simeon to the land of the Berbers in Africa. Judas was not then an apostle, so his place was taken by Ariobus. He filled in for Judas Iscariot after the latter had perpetrated his deed." (The History of al-Tabari - The Ancient Kingdoms, Vol. IV, trans. Moshe Perlmann [State University of New York Press, Albany 1987], pp. 121-122, 123; bold emphasis ours)

The Quran even asserts that both the Torah and the Gospel were given as guidance to all of mankind, not just to some people or to Israel:

It is He Who sent down to thee (step by step), in truth, the Book, confirming what went before it; and He sent down the Law (of Moses) and the Gospel (of Jesus) Before this, AS A GUIDE TO MANKIND, and He sent down the criterion (of judgment between right and wrong). Then those who reject Faith in the Signs of God will suffer the severest penalty, and God is Exalted in Might, Lord of Retribution. S. 3:3-4 Y. Ali

These citations clearly show that Jesus' mission was universal in nature, and not simply limited to Israel. Badawi might reply that the Quran specifically limits Jesus' mission to the nation of Israel, citing the following passages:

"And will make him (Jesus) a Messenger to the Children of Israel (saying): 'I have come to you with a sign from your Lord, that I design for you out of clay, as it were, the figure of a bird, and breathe into it, and it becomes a bird by Allâh's Leave; and I heal him who was born blind, and the leper, and I bring the dead to life by Allâh's Leave. And I inform you of what you eat, and what you store in your houses. Surely, therein is a sign for you, if you believe.'" S. 3:49

"And (remember) when Jesus, son of Maryam (Mary), said: 'O Children of Israel! I am the Messenger of Allâh unto you confirming the Taurât before me, and giving glad tidings of a Messenger to come after me, whose name shall be Ahmed.' But when he came to them with clear proofs, they said: 'This is plain magic'." S. 61:6

The obvious response is that these verses do not prove Badawi's point. Not one of them says that Jesus was sent ONLY to the Israelites. Nor do they deny that Jesus' mission was also for the Gentiles. In fact, when these verses are read in the context of those stating that Jesus was a sign to all humanity, it only affirms Jesus' universal mission. This serves to expose Badawi's shallow exegesis of both the Holy Bible and the Quran.

Badawi On Abraham's Lies

In the question and answer session of their debate, The Divinity of Jesus - Christian and Muslim Perspective, Dr. Anis Shorrosh mentioned the sins committed by the prophets, with Christ being the sole exception. Shorrosh referred to Abraham's lie when he claimed that Sarah was his sister. Badawi retorted that the Quran doesn't accuse Abraham of lying about his wife. This gave the impression to the audience that whereas the Holy Bible degrades prophets by attributing atrocious sins to them, the Quran is free from such slanderous accusations.

Two necessary comments are in order. First, the Quran not only fails to mention Abraham's lie regarding Sarah, it actually fails to mention Sarah by name at all! Furthermore, the Quran actually gives the impression that Abraham's two sons are from the same woman since the Quran doesn't mention Hagar either explicitly or implicitly. In fact, the Quran implies that Abraham had only one wife. It is only when consulting the Holy Bible or the Islamic traditions is one able to discover that Abraham actually had more than one wife.

Noted Christian Apologist John Gilchrist in his book, The Christian Witness to the Muslims, commenting on the child of sacrifice notes:

Of even further significance is the complete absence of any mention of Hagar in the Qur'an, even of the slightest allusion to her. One writer states:

It is strange that the name of Hagar should not be mentioned in the Qur'an. (Stanton, The Teaching of the Qur'an, p. 46).

In actual fact, the Qur'an has no reference to her whatsoever, let alone by name. In this section we shall shortly see that the Qur'an speaks plainly of Isaac's mother as the wife of Abraham, the only wife of the prophet to whom there is any reference. Is not the complete silence in the Qur'an about Hagar, the mother of Ishmael, a testimony to the fact that Sarah alone was the wife of Abraham and that Hagar was merely her mistress? The Muslim argument that Ishmael was the sacrificial son quite clearly has no solid evidence to substantiate it. The plain statements in the Bible that it was Isaac must obviously be preferred to the Qur'an's nebulous and at times confusing treatment of the identity of the son whom Abraham was commanded to sacrifice…

Earlier in this chapter we quoted Surah 11.71 which states that God gave to Abraham's wife glad tidings of Isaac, and after him, of Jacob. As the son is specifically named as Isaac there can be little doubt as to the identity of his mother. Yusuf Ali has no difficulty identifying her as Sarah (The Holy Qur'an, p. 533), and Muhammad Asad likewise, in his commentary names the wife spoken of as Sarah (The Holy Qur'an, p. 326). The whole text reads, in Arabic, Wamra'atuhuu qua 'imatun fadhahikat, fabash- sharnaahaa bi-Ishaaq - And his wife was standing there and laughed, but we announced to her Isaac (Surah 11.71). The word for wife in this text, imra' ah, is in the singular. Now if Hagar had also been one of Abraham's wives, surely the text would have said "one of his wives", or it would positively have identified her as "his wife Sarah". When it purely speaks of Abraham's wife in the singular, however, without any form of identification, it is quite clearly implied that Abraham had only one wife and that his wife was Sarah.

When the promise of Isaac came to Abraham and Sarah, Ishmael had already been born, and the mention of Sarah at this point as Abraham's only wife is a clear testimony that Hagar was not one of his wives. We also note once again that there is no mention of Hagar in the Qur'an whatsoever, a strange omission if she also was a wife of Abraham. In fact no one reading through the Qur'an without reference to any other work could possibly guess that there was another woman in Abraham's life. The only such woman mentioned is described as the single wife of Abraham and she is expressly described as the mother of Isaac. If, therefore, Sarah is mentioned in the Qur'an alone as the wife of Abraham and is also so described in the Bible, can there be any further objection to the description of Isaac as "your only son" in Genesis 22.2 when the command comes to Abraham to sacrifice him? If Sarah is the only legitimate wife of Abraham, is it not perfectly in order to describe her son Isaac as Abraham's only son as well?

This matter begs further scrutiny. We must bear in mind that a promise was made to Abraham that he would bear a son through his wife. In the Bible the promise comes directly by the Word of God to Abraham (Genesis 17.19), whereas in the Qur'an it comes through the heavenly messengers who have come to destroy the people of Lot (Surah 11.70). In both cases, however, it is the express promise of God that a son would be born to Abraham and that the son would be Isaac. In Surah 15. 53 the narrative is repeated and the promise of a son again appears, though this time Isaac is not mentioned by name. The same goes for Surah 51.28-29 where once again the promise of a son to Abraham's only wife (again imra 'ah in the singular) is repeated. Once again Yusuf Ali, in a footnote, takes it to be Sarah (The Holy Qur'an, p. 1424). Finally, as we have seen, the promise of a son to Abraham appears again at the introduction of the story of the sacrifice (Surah 37.101) and a little lower down the promised son is again specifically named Isaac (Surah 37.112). There can be no doubt that Isaac is the only son promised to Abraham in the Qur'an and he must therefore be identified as the intended sacrificial son.

Ishmael is nowhere mentioned as the child of promise. (Wherry, A Comprehensive Commentary on the Qur'an, Vol. 2, p. 360).

As Sarah alone is mentioned in the Qur'an and as the single wife of Abraham, it is surely too hard to believe that God would announce to him the birth of a ghulamin halimin, a righteous boy (Surah 37.101), by an illegitimate union with a slave woman, especially as no mention whatsoever of this woman appears in the Qur'an. The only son promised to Abraham in the Qur'an is Isaac and, as Surah 37.102 makes it quite plain that it was this very same promised son who was to be sacrificed, the only reasonable conclusion we can draw is that the Qur'an takes no issue with the Bible on the specific identification of the sacrificial son as Isaac. It is only the popular sentiment of the Muslims that it was Ishmael and that for obvious reasons. We have shown just how the promise of a son to Abraham was inextricably linked to the subsequent command to sacrifice him and how Abraham, through a deliberate consideration of all that was involved against the background of God's unchanging faithfulness, foresaw the coming of the Son of God into the world together with his sacrificial death and subsequent resurrection. (source of quotation; bold emphasis ours)

This leads us to our second point, namely the use of Islamic traditions, specifically the hadiths, for a better understanding of the Quran. Seeing that Badawi has studied the hadiths and even appeals to them throughout his lectures and debates, he must have known that the hadiths actually confirm that Abraham lied about his relationship with Sarah:

Narrated Abu Huraira:

Abraham did not tell a lie except on three occasions. Twice for the Sake of Allah when he said, "I am sick," and he said, "(I have not done this but) the big idol has done it." The (third was) that while Abraham and Sarah (his wife) were going (on a journey) they passed by (the territory of) a tyrant. Someone said to the tyrant, "This man (i.e. Abraham) is accompanied by a very charming lady." So, he sent for Abraham and asked him about Sarah saying, "Who is this lady?" Abraham said, "She is my sister." Abraham went to Sarah and said, "O Sarah! There are no believers on the surface of the earth except you and I. This man asked me about you and I have told him that you are my sister, so don't contradict my statement." The tyrant then called Sarah and when she went to him, he tried to take hold of her with his hand, but (his hand got stiff and) he was confounded. He asked Sarah. "Pray to Allah for me, and I shall not harm you." So Sarah asked Allah to cure him and he got cured. He tried to take hold of her for the second time, but (his hand got as stiff as or stiffer than before and) was more confounded. He again requested Sarah, "Pray to Allah for me, and I will not harm you." Sarah asked Allah again and he became all right. He then called one of his guards (who had brought her) and said, "You have not brought me a human being but have brought me a devil." The tyrant then gave Hajar as a girl-servant to Sarah. Sarah came back (to Abraham) while he was praying. Abraham, gesturing with his hand, asked, "What has happened?" She replied, "Allah has spoiled the evil plot of the infidel (or immoral person) and gave me Hajar for service." (Abu Huraira then addressed his listeners saying, "That (Hajar) was your mother, O Bani Ma-is-Sama (i.e. the Arabs, the descendants of Ishmael, Hajar's son)." (Sahih al-Bukhari, Volume 4, Book 55, Number 578)

The translator mentions the other two lies:

[1] The idolaters invited Ibrahim (Abraham) to join them in their celebration outside the city, but he refused, claiming that he was sick. When he was left alone, he came to their idols and broke them into pieces. When the idolaters questioned him, he claimed that he had not destroyed their idols but the chief idol had, which Ibrahim (Abraham) left undisturbed and on whose shoulder he had put an axe to lay the accusation on it.

The Quran alludes to two of these lies:

We bestowed aforetime on Abraham his rectitude of conduct, and well were We acquainted with him. Behold! he said to his father and his people, "What are these images, to which ye are (so assiduously) devoted?" They said, "We found our fathers worshipping them." He said, "Indeed ye have been in manifest error - ye and your fathers." They said, "Have you brought us the Truth, or are you one of those who jest?" He said, "Nay, your Lord is the Lord of the heavens and the earth, He Who created them (from nothing): and I am a witness to this (Truth). And by Allah, I will certainly plan against your idols - after ye go away and turn your backs." So he broke them to pieces, (all) but the biggest of them, that they might turn (and address themselves) to it. They said, "Who has done this to our gods? He must indeed be one of the unjust!" They said, "We heard a youth talk of them: he is called Abraham." They said, "Then bring him before the eyes of the people, that they may bear witness." They said, "Art thou the one that did this with our gods, O Abraham?" He said: "Nay, this was done by this, the biggest one! Ask them, if they can talk!" So they turned to themselves and said, "Surely ye are the ones in the wrong!" Then were they confounded with shame: (they said), "Thou knowest full well that these (idols) do not speak!" (Abraham) said, "Do ye then worship, besides Allah, things that can neither be of any good to you nor do you harm?" S. 21:51-66


Verily from his party was Abraham. Behold! he approached his Lord with a sound heart. Behold! he said to his father and to his people, "What is that which ye worship? Is it a falsehood- gods other than Allah, that ye desire? Then what is your idea about the Lord of the worlds?" Then did he cast a glance at the Stars. And he said, "I am indeed sick (at heart)!" So they turned away from him, and departed. Then did he turn to their gods and said, "Will ye not eat (of the offerings before you)? What is the matter with you that ye speak not?" Then did he turn upon them, striking (them) with the right hand. S. 37:83-93

In fact, Muhammad claimed that it is primarily due to the lies told by Abraham that the latter will be unable to intercede for believers:

Narrated Abu Huraira:

Some (cooked) meat was brought to Allah Apostle and the meat of a forearm was presented to him as he used to like it. He ate a morsel of it and said, "I will be the chief of all the people on the Day of Resurrection. Do you know the reason for it? Allah will gather all the human being of early generations as well as late generation on one plain so that the announcer will be able to make them all-hear his voice and the watcher will be able to see all of them. The sun will come so close to the people that they will suffer such distress and trouble as they will not be able to bear or stand. Then the people will say, 'Don't you see to what state you have reached? Won't you look for someone who can intercede for you with your Lord' "Some people will say to some others, 'Go to Adam.' So they will go to Adam and say to him. 'You are the father of mankind; Allah created you with His Own Hand, and breathed into you of His Spirit (meaning the spirit which he created for you); and ordered the angels to prostrate before you; so (please) intercede for us with your Lord. Don't you see in what state we are? Don't you see what condition we have reached?' Adam will say, 'Today my Lord has become angry as He has never become before, nor will ever become thereafter. He forbade me (to eat of the fruit of) the tree, but I disobeyed Him. Myself! Myself! Myself! (has more need for intercession). Go to someone else; go to Noah.' So they will go to Noah and say (to him), 'O Noah! You are the first (of Allah's Messengers) to the people of the earth, and Allah has named you a thankful slave; please intercede for us with your Lord. Don't you see in what state we are?' He will say.' Today my Lord has become angry as He has never become nor will ever become thereafter. I had (in the world) the right to make one definitely accepted invocation, and I made it against my nation. Myself! Myself! Myself! Go to someone else; go to Abraham.' They will go to Abraham and say, 'O Abraham! You are Allah's Apostle and His Khalil from among the people of the earth; so please intercede for us with your Lord. Don't you see in what state we are?" He will say to them, 'My Lord has today become angry as He has never become before, nor will ever become thereafter. I had told three lies (Abu Haiyan (the sub-narrator) mentioned them in the Hadith) Myself! Myself! Myself!'"… (Sahih al-Bukhari, Volume 6, Book 60, Number 236)

In light of the preceding points, it is sad to see how Badawi withholds information from his audience to get a cheap advantage over Christianity in his debates.

This concludes Part 3. Continue with Part 4.

Further responses to Dr. Badawi
Articles by Sam Shamoun
Answering Islam Home Page