Question #l—Is “Allah” just another name for God?

Answer: Yes and No. It all depends on what you mean by “Allah.” If you view it as a generic term, this means it is an empty term denoting nothing except the bare concept of “deity.” When a word can mean anything and everything, then it means nothing. The Hindu pantheist could use the word “Allah” to describe the entire universe. Louis Farrakhan uses it to describe himself. It can be applied to idols.

Fundamentalist Muslims are not happy with the generic view of the word “Allah” and do not want anyone to use it except in reference to the God of the Qur˒an. Thus they have made it illegal in such places as Malaysia for other religions, such as Christianity, to use the word in reference to their God.

Perhaps the problem revolves around two deeper questions:

1. Do all religions worship the same God?

2. Do Muslims worship the same God as Christians?

Do all religions worship the same God just under different names? Are all religions “true” in the sense that they worship the same God? Since it is claimed that the God of the Bible can be worshipped under any name, it would only be logical to examine the Scriptures to see if it does in fact teach this. But when we look into the Bible, we find that it does not teach that all religions worship the same God just under different names. That this is true is demonstrated by the following propositions:

1) The First Commandment says that we are not to worship any other God than the One who has revealed Himself in the Bible (Ex. 20:3–4).

2) If all religions worshipped the same God under different names, there would be no idolatry, no false prophets, and no false religions. Yet, the Bible condemns all three. For example, Jesus warned us about “false prophets” in Matt. 7:15. Yet, if all religions were true, there could be no “false” prophets.

3) Throughout biblical history, the worship of Baal, Molech or any of the other gods of the Fertile Crescent was not viewed as the worship of the God of Israel just under a different name. Any attempt to mix other gods with the God of Israel was condemned by the Prophets and the Apostles. For example, 2 Cor. 6:14–17 condemns any attempt to mingle Christ and Baal as if they were the same deity.

4) According to Rom. 1:18–25, all the gods of other religions were invented by those who rejected the light of natural revelation and created gods in their own image. Thus pagan religions are not the result of man’s search for God but the result of his running from God! a matter of fact, no one is searching for the true God according to Rom. 3:10–18.

5) The God of the Bible revealed the names by which he wishes to be addressed and worshipped (YHWH, Elohim, Adonai, Theos, Kurios, etc.). The Jews were not allowed to make up their own names for God but were limited to revealed names.

6) Even though some people have speculated that the names of pagan gods such as Baal may have come from the same basic Semitic linguistic root as Elohim, this does not linguistically, logically or historically imply that the Jews ever thought that “Baal” was just another name for the God of Israel. While a linguistic root may imply a common language, this does not logically imply a common deity. The prophets never viewed Baal as the God of Israel because of a shared linguistic stem.

7) When the Jews and Christians translated the biblical names for God into other languages, they never used specific names for specific pagan deities. For example, the Septuagint did not use the Greek name Zeus or the Egyptian name Ra as a translation for the Hebrew YHWH, as that would confuse pagan gods with the true God.

8) Jews and Christians used generic terms for deity as a translation for the names of God found in the Hebrew and Greek Bible. Thus YHWH was translated as Theos and Kurios in the Septuagint and in the New Testament.

9) The use of a generic term for “deity” in a foreign language translation of the Bible does not logically or historically imply that the translators believed that the God of the Bible was synonymous with any god that was designated by the same generic terms. Thus the use of Theos as a translation of Elohim did not logically imply that the Jews believed that Zeus or some other Greek god was the God of the Bible.

10) The fact that Jews and Christians would translate the names of God into different languages long after the Bible was completed does not logically imply that pagan gods who shared the same generic terms were viewed as being the God of the Bible.

11) In logic, a formal similarity in name does not imply a substantial agreement in concept. For example, all major pagan religions such as Hinduism and cults such as Jehovah’s Witnesses and Mormons use the English word “God” when referring to their deity. Yet, while they use the same English word for deity that Christians use, they do not worship the same God that Christians worship.

12) The God of the Bible is not a vague “thing” that can be defined any way you please. The true God has revealed prepositional facts about Himself in the Bible. For example, the God revealed in the Bible is a personal, infinite and Triune Being of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. Any concept of “God” that is less than that is not true according to the Bible.

13) The Apostle John used the concept of the Trinity as a way to test other concepts of God. He tells us in 1 John 2:22 that:

“Such a man is an anti-Christ — he who denies the Father and the Son.”

John’s words cannot be any plainer. Any religion that denies the Father and the Son is an “anti-Christ” religion and cannot in any way be confused with true biblical religion. But what if someone claims that he worships the Father while denying the Son? John answers this in 1 John 2:23;

“No one who denies the Son has the Father; whoever acknowledges the Son has the Father also.”

The Bible is clear that any religion that does not teach the doctrine of the Trinity is an anti-Christ religion.

Lastly, since all religions contradict each other on essential concepts such as God, man, sin and salvation, either one religion is true and all the others are false or they are all false. But they cannot logically all be true.

Conclusion

No matter how you look at it, the idea that all religions worship the same God just under different names is a very ignorant and foolish belief. It contradicts logic, history and the science of comparative religion. It is actually an insult to the major religions of this world which have very carefully defined their concept of deity so as to distinguish their god from all other gods.

 

Question #2—But isn’t “Allah” just the Arabic name for God?

Answer: Given the laws of logic, linguistics, history and exegesis, the answer is “No!” “Allah” is not just another name for the one true God. In reality, in its name and concept, Allah is as pagan as Baal or Zeus. That this is true can be seen from the following propositions.

The Facts of History

Perhaps the best way to answer this question is to look at it from the viewpoint of how Islam has actually treated Christians throughout history.

First, Islam’s treatment of Christians underwent a drastic change as Muhammad’s ministry developed. In the early days, when Muhammad wanted the Christians to accept him as their “apostle,” he claimed that the Arabian deity “Allah” was actually the God of the Bible. Thus, Muslims supposedly worshipped the same deity that Christians worship.

In the Meccan Surahs of the Qur˒an, Muhammad praised the Christians and even called them the “people of the book”. These early statements were made in the hope that the Christians would convert to Islam. But the Christian and Jewish tribes in Arabia refused to acknowledge that “Allah” was their God. They knew that Allah was a pagan Arab deity and had nothing to do with the God of the Bible. Muhammad ordered that all Jews and Christians be driven out of Arabia and that no church or synagogue ever be allowed on Arabian soil. The armies of Islam have always slaughtered Christians and Jews whenever they conquered a nation. One can think of what the Muslims did in Armenia as an historical example of this.

An Inherent Contradiction

There is thus an inherent contradiction in the teaching of Muhammad concerning Christians. When Islam first comes into an area where there are Christians, the Muslims will say, “We Muslims worship the same God you do. Allah is the God of the Bible.” Now, if this were true, then Christianity would be as “true” as Islam and you would not expect that Muslims would persecute them. After all, they supposedly all worship the same deity. But instead of leaving Christians free to practice their religion, as soon as Islam is in control of a country and establishes Islamic law, it then changes its approach and seeks to destroy Christianity in one Jihad after another.

A Present Example

What has now happened in Malaysia is a good example of how Muslims change in their attitude toward Christians depending on who is running the government.

When Malaysia was under Colonial rule, the Muslims said that their god, “Allah”, was the God of the Bible. They allowed Malaysian Christians to use the Arabic word “Allah” when worshipping the Christian God. But now that Islamic law has been imposed on the country, it is now illegal for Christians to use the word “Allah” in reference to the Christian God! The Islamic government of Malaysia is presently confiscating and destroying all Bibles, hymnals, books and tracts that use the word “Allah” to refer to the Christian God. Why? The Islamic government of Malaysia has ruled by decree that since “Allah” is NOT the God of the Christians but only the god of the Muslims, then Christians cannot use “Allah” in reference to their God!

The Problem As We See It

Any rational person can see that the Muslims are trying to have it both ways. In the West, they tell Christians that Muslims worship the same God Christians worship. But in countries under Islamic law, the Christians are persecuted as “infidels”, their churches burned and their people murdered because they are NOT worshipping the same God! This is why Christians are now forbidden by Islamic law to even use the word “Allah” as a name for the God of the Bible. This is why Christians in Saudi Arabia are not allowed to build any churches. This is why the Pakistani Islamic government has passed Penal Codes 294 and 295 which mandate the death penalty for the “crime” of insulting Muhammad or Islam.

The Name “Allah”

Having examined the history of Islam and its persecution of Christians, we now turn our attention to the Arabic word “Allah”. Is it really a proper name for the God that Christians worship?

The following propositions will reveal that the word “Allah” should not be used as a name for the God of the Bible.

1. It is not a BIBLICAL name for God. The Patriarchs, Prophets, Jesus and the Apostles never at any time prayed to or worshipped “Allah”.

2. It is not a REVEALED name for God. God revealed to the prophets in the Bible many different names by which He wanted men to call Him. But not once in the Bible did He ever reveal that “Allah” was His name.

3. In pre-Islamic times, “Allah” was a pagan name for a pagan deity among pagan Arabians.

4. Christians and Jews did not use “Allah” because it referred to a specific pagan deity.

5. In Southern Arabia, “Allah” was the title of the moon god who was married to the sun goddess. Together they had three daughters who were called the “daughters of Allah”.

6. Throughout Arabia, Allah was viewed as only one of the “high” gods who was worshipped at the Kabah in Mecca.

7. The “daughters of Allah” were worshipped by the tribe into which Muhammad was born.

8. The Qur˒an does not explain who “Allah” was because Muhammad assumed that the pagan Arabians already knew who he was. He was right. Allah was one of the 360 pagan gods worshipped at the Kabah!

9. As “Allah” slowly became a generic name in the Middle East and in Asia for deity in general, other religions used it as an Arabic name for their gods. But this does not logically imply that they believed that the god of Islam was their god. The name may have been the same but the concept different.

10. By the 19th Century, because of the dominance of Islam in the Middle East, the word “Allah” was used as a generic name for deity in the Arabic Bible. This was done by British missionaries, who used “Allah” as a means to appease their Muslim oppressors and to escape death. But the time has come to correct their error and to tell the truth that “Allah” is a pagan name for a pagan god.

11. Modern Islamic countries such as Malaysia have decreed that the name “Allah” is the exclusive name of the god of Islam and not the God of Christians. Thus the Malaysian government has decreed that Christians may NOT use “Allah” in their bibles, books or hymns. They are in the process of confiscating and destroying all non-Muslim literature which uses the word “Allah”.

12. New translations have come out which do not use “Allah.” Instead, the translators go back to the names for God in their native language BEFORE the Arab armies conquered their country.

Since the Muslims are now saying that the word “Allah” is NOT a generic term for deity in general but it is a name that refers specifically to their concept of deity, the intelligent Christian cannot use the word “Allah” for God.

The Concept of Allah in Islam

The use of the generic Arabic word “Allah” in a 19th century Arabic translation of the Bible does not have any logical bearing on the issue of whether or not the god of Islam and the God of the Bible are the same God. In logic, formal similarities mean nothing.

The real issue is whether the concept of “Allah” in Islam is the same as that of the Christian God. If they are defined differently and have different or contradictory attributes, then there is no logical way to escape the conclusion that they are different deities.

The fact is that the Triune God of the Bible is not Islam’s Allah. Thus the god of Islam is not the God of the Bible any more than it would be proper to say that the “God” of the Jehovah’s Witnesses is the Christian God.

The following propositions demonstrate to the rational mind that Allah is not the God of the Bible. For the complete documentation, please consult my book, The Islamic Invasion (Christian Scholars Press).

1. Since Islam denies that Jesus is the Son of God and that God is a Father, it “denies the Father and the Son” (1 John 2:22–23). Thus Islam is an anti-Christ religion. It cannot be both a biblical religion and an anti-Christ religion at the same time.

2. Allah’s attributes are radically different from the biblical God. For example, Allah is unknowable and unpredictable. He is not a Trinity. He did not become incarnate for man’s salvation. He is not a person or a spirit. He is not limited by anything, not even by his own nature. It is impossible to enter into a personal relationship with Allah, etc.

3. Just because you believe in one god does not logically imply that you have the right one. A Greek pagan could have proclaimed Zeus the one true God just as Muhammad proclaimed Allah to be.

4. The irrefutable fact that Muslims have consistently persecuted Christians as “infidels” reveals that when “the rubber meets the road” Muslims believe that their god “Allah” is NOT the same God that Christians worship. Otherwise, Christians would have never been viewed or treated as infidels.

Conclusion

The Muslim god “Allah” is not the same God that Christians worship. The vast majority of Muslims know this to be true. This is why they call Christians “infidels” and persecute them. Thus, liberal Muslims in the West who claim otherwise, do so as an evangelistic tool to convert ignorant and unwary Westerners to Islam. That they knowingly and openly use deception is not right and it does not speak well of the religion of Islam.

 

Question #3—Are we guilty of racism and hate speech if we criticize Islam?

Answer:

1. To be against Islam is not racism because Islam is not a race but a religion. There are more Asian Muslims than Arab Muslims in the world. In the U.S., African Americans comprise over 50% of the Muslims. Thus Islam is not made up of “Arabs” per se. The majority of Arabs and Palestinians in the US are Christians, not Muslims. Thus, anyone who thinks that “Arabs” and “Muslims” are synonymous terms is a racist.

2. To criticize the religion of Islam is not “hate speech” because all religions, including Islam, criticize each other. Freedom of religion means the right to discuss what you believe about other religions as well as what you believe about your own religion.

The liberal media has joined forces with the federal government to promote ten liberal lies:

Ten Liberal Lies

1. It does not matter what you believe as long as you are sincere.

The Truth: The terrorists were sincere in their beliefs. Their sincere beliefs led them to murder thousands of people. Thus it does matter what you believe if it leads to the destruction of the property and lives of others.

2. It does not matter what you believe as long as it makes you happy.

The Truth: The terrorists were happy to kill and be killed in Jihad.

3. Religion is not a matter of True vs. False, or good vs. evil. It is a matter of subjective personal choice.

The Truth: This statement refutes itself as it can be dismissed as someone’s personal choice.

4. All religions are True. Thus, we must not judge other religions.

The Truth: Christianity is True when it says there is only one way to heaven, Jesus Christ. Our religion says to judge other religions. You cannot judge us and then pretend that you do not believe in judging others.

5. We must be tolerant of other views.

The Truth: Great! Then you must tolerate Jesus when He said to identify and reject False prophets. But if you do not tolerate Him, then you are intolerant.

6. Islam is a religion of peace.

The Truth: This is a lie. Both the Qur˒an and the Hadith teach Muslims to destroy the lives and properties of those who will not accept Islam. This is called Jihad.

7. Jews and Christians fared better under Islam than in Christian lands.

The Truth: This is refuted by Bat Ye’or in The Dhimmi: Jews and Christians Under Islam (Fairleigh Dickinson University Press, 1985).

8. The Terrorists were not True Muslims.

The Truth: No? They are acting upon what the founder of Islam taught in the Hadith and what is found in the Qur˒an. This is why they are called “Muslim Fundamentalists” as opposed to liberal Muslims who do not believe in the Qur˒an or the Hadith. It is the liberals who are not True Muslims because they deny the teachings of the founder of the religion they claim to follow.

9. This is a war against terrorists and not against the religion of Islam.

The Truth: The U.S. cannot go to war against any religion. It can only fight nations and terrorist groups. But the terrorists have declared a religious Jihad against us. Their motivation is 100% religious. The ROOT is Islam while the FRUIT is terrorism.

 

Question #4—Since the Qur˒an says in Surah 2:256 “Let there be no compulsion in religion, “doesn’t this mean that true Islam does not force its religion on others?

Answer: First, Surah 2 is a Meccan surah, which means that it was delivered while Muhammad was living in Mecca, while he only had a few followers. Later, when he moved to Medina, he gained enough followers to field an army. Once he had the ability to wage war, the prohibition against compulsion was abrogated by later Medinan verses and thus has no relevance for today.

Second, radical Isalm does not have the same idea of what constitutes “compulsion” as do Westerners.

Waliyyuddin Shareef reveals how fundamentalist Muslims interpret the “no compulsion” passage:

Mr. Morey also claims that Muhammad forced people to give up their idols and accept Islam. This statement is not true. What Muhammad did was give a choice to the pagans and idol worshippers to either give up their idols or die. No force was used, just a choice. If you believe in your idols, then are you willing to die for them is the question that was faced. I put this question to Mr. Morey and his readers: Are you willing to die for your belief in Jesus Christ?

(In Response to Robert Morey’s Islamic Invasion, p. 35.)

 

Question #5—Are the Arabs the descendents of Ishmael and thus the children of Abraham?

Answer: No, they are not the descendants of Ishmael or Abraham.

1. According to the Torah in Genesis 12, when Abraham left Ur of the Chaldees, he went West to what is now called Israel. He became a dweller in tents in that land. It was in Israel that God made a covenant with him for the land in which he was living at that time.

It was in Israel that he fathered Isaac, Ishmael and many other sons and daughters. Isaac was the only son of Abraham chosen by God to be the heir of the covenant. Abraham took Isaac to Mount Moriah to be offered up as a sacrifice to God.

2. The Torah is contradicted by the Qur˒an at nearly every point. According to Surah 2:119–121, Abraham and Ishmael did not dwell in tents in Israel but in the city of Mecca in Arabia. Together they rebuilt the Kabah and placed the black stone in the wall. It was Abraham who started the tradition of an annual pilgrimage to Mecca, throwing stones at the devil, etc. Abraham took Ishmael (not Isaac) to nearby Mount Mina to offer as a sacrifice to God.

3. Ishmael’s twelve sons were named Nebaioth, Kedar, Adbeel, Mibsam, Mishma, Dumah, Massa, Hada, Tema, Jetur, Naphish and Kedemah (Genesis 25:12–16). They intermarried with the local population in North Arabia and produced several nomadic tribes known as the “Ishmaelites.”

4. It was prophesied in the Torah that Ishmael and his family would “live to the east of all his brothers” (Genesis 16:12). “And they settled from Havilah to Shur which is east of Egypt as one goes toward Assyria” (Genesis 25:18). This broad area is the desert section east of Egypt in Northern Arabia toward the kingdom of the Assyrians.

5. The Ishmaelites are mentioned as a distinct tribe in the Assyrian records. They later intermarried with and were absorbed by the Midianites and other local tribes. In Genesis 37:25–28 and 39:1, the Ishmaelites are called the Midianites and in Judges 8:22–24 (cf. 7:1f), the Midianites are called the Ishmaelites. The identification cannot be made any stronger.

6. Abraham came from Shem while the Arabs came from Ham. Thus, it is no surprise to find that Arabia was already populated by the descendants of Ham; i.e. the Arabs, long before Abraham or Ishmael were born (Genesis 10:7). Their cities and temples have been well documented by archeologists. At the time Ishmael was born, there were over a million Arabs in existence. This fact alone refutes the myth that Ishmael was the father of the Arabs.

7. If all the Arab people descended from Ishmael as Muhammad claimed, where did all of the original Arabs go? What happened to them? Who did Ishmael marry if the Arabs did not already exist? If Arabia was unpopulated, who built Mecca? Since he moved there, obviously it existed before he was born. The facts speak for themselves. The Arab people existed before, during and after Ishmael moved and started roaming the wilderness of North Arabia.

8. The descendants of Ishmael were scattered in Northern Arabia from the wilderness of Shur to the ancient city of Havilah. They were absorbed by the local tribes such as the Midianites (Genesis 37:25–28; 39:1; Judges 8:24).

9. There is no historical or archeological evidence that Ishmael went south to Mecca and became the Father of the Arab race. Modern Arab scholars admit that before Muhammad, Qahtan was said to be the Father of the Arab people, not Ishmael.

10. One Muslim scholar by the name of Shareef admitted in his book, In Response To Robert Morey’s Islamic Invasion, that the pre-Islamic genealogies of Arab tribes do not list Ishmael as an ancestor.

“In pre-Islamic times Ishmael was never mentioned as the father of the Arabs” (p. 3).

Further documentation can be found in the references below.

“… Arabian literature has its own version of prehistoric times, but it is entirely legendary” (Encyclopedia Britannica, Volume 2:76).

“The pure Arabs are those who claim to be descended from Joktan or Qahtan, who the present Arabs regard as their principle founder…. The ˓Arabu ˓l-Musta˒ribah, the mixed Arabs, claim to be descended from Ishmael…. They boast as much as the Jews of being reckoned the children of Abraham. This circumstance will account for the preference with which they uniformly regard this branch of their pedigree, and for the many romantic legends they have granted upon it…. The Arabs, in their version of Ishmael’s history, have mixed a great deal of romance with the narrative of Scripture” (A Dictionary of Islam, pgs. 18–19).

“Muhammad was not informed about the family of Abraham” (Encyclopedia of Islam, 1:184, also pages 544–546).

“There is a prevalent notion that the Arabs, both of the south and the north, are descended from Ishmael; and the passage in Genesis 16:12, ‘He (Ishmael) shall dwell in the presence of all his brethren’, is often cited as if it were a prediction of that national interdependence which, upon the whole, the Arabs have maintained more than any other people. But this supposition is founded on a misconception of the original Hebrew, which runs literally, ‘he shall dwell before the faces of all his brethren’; i.e., (according to the idiom above explained, in which ‘before the face’ denotes the East), the habitation of his posterity shall be ‘to the east’ of the settlements of Abraham’s other descendants…. These prophecies found their accomplishment in the fact of the sons of Ishmael being located, generally speaking, to the east of the other descendants of Abraham, whether of Sara or of Keturah.

“But the idea of the southern Arabs being of the posterity of Ishmael is entirely without foundation, and seems to have originated in the tradition invented by Arab vanity that they, as well as the Jews, are of the seed of Abraham. A vanity that, besides disfiguring and falsifying the whole history of the patriarch and his son Ishmael, has transferred the scene of it from Palestine to Mecca” (Cyclopedia of Biblical, Theological, and Ecclesiastical Literature, McClintock and Strong, Volume 1:339).

“The Ishmaelites are coupled with the Midianites” (The Zondervan Pictorial Encyclopedia Of The Bible, vol. 3, pgs. 333–334).

In the Qur˒an, “Genesis 21:17–21… is identified with Mecca” (Concise Encyclopedia of Islam, pg. 19).

The Southern Arabs come from Qahtan, not Ishmael (Concise Encyclopedia of Islam, page 48).

The connection between the Midianites and the Ishmaelites is noted (The Encyclopedia of Religion, Vol. 7, page 296).

See also: The Shorter Encyclopedia of Islam, pages 178–179.

A Popular Dictionary of Islam, page 127

 

Question #6—Where did the Qur˒an come from?

Answer: Modern scholars, using sound principles of literary analysis, have determined that the Qur˒an did not come from Muhammad. He did not recite it and actually never saw a copy of it. It was not put together in its present written form until nearly one hundred years after Muhammad’s death.

This has come as quite a shock to Muslims. According to the legends, myths and stories found in the Hadith, the Qur˒an was written in heaven by Allah on a large stone tablet. The angel Gabriel brought it down and Muhammad recited it verbally but did not write any of it down. It was Muhammad’s companions who wrote down what he recited. After his death, it was gathered together and compiled by the Caliph Uthman.

The insurmountable problem that Muslims face is that they do not have any documentary evidence from the 7th or 8th century to back up any of their claims. For example, if Uthman compiled the Qur˒an as the Hadith claims (Bukhari I:63; IV:709; VI:507, 510), where is the manuscript evidence for this? Why have no Qur˒ans survived from that period? Why do we have to wait over a hundred years before we find even a scrap of the Qur˒an?

The Muslims are also guilty of circular reasoning when they document the Qur˒an by the Hadith and then document the Hadith by the Qur˒an! But there is no documentary evidence to back up the Hadith or the Qur˒an! They are both fraudulent as to authorship and dates.

Some Muslims have claimed that 7th century copies of the original Qur˒an have been found in museums at Topkapi, Turkey and Tashkent, Russia. But when they were examined by manuscript scholars, they turned out to be 9th or 10th century manuscripts.

The Qur˒an was invented in order to give spiritual unity to the vast empire created by Arab conquests. By borrowing liberally from the legends, myths and religious traditions of pagans, Jews, Christians, Hindus and Persians, they created one religion to rule over all its citizens. Thus, the Qur˒an was the product of multiple authors from different times and places. These authors contributed stories and legends from their own cultural and religious background. The sources of these stories have been well documented by many scholars.

The burden of proof is now clearly on the Muslims. They must supply scholars with the documentary evidence to support their theories on the origins of the Qur˒an and the Hadith. Until they do so, we cannot believe in the inspiration of either one.

How different is the situation with the New Testament! The manuscript evidence for it begins twenty years after the death (and resurrection) of Christ. There are literally thousands of Greek, Latin, Syriac and Coptic texts that document the reliability of the New Testament.

The same holds true for the historicity of Jesus of Nazareth. We have more than enough literary documentation for the life of Jesus from first century Jewish, pagan and Christian manuscripts. This is in sharp contrast to the life of Muhammad. We find no references to him as a prophet until 150 years after his death. No one has ever found even the smallest fragment of the Qur˒an from the 7th century. Thus, much of what is said about the life of Muhammad must now be dismissed as fiction.

The truth will triumph in the end. The Qur˒an and the Hadith were political tools used to subjugate non-Arab cultures by forcing them to accept as statutes of divine law a religion that elevated Arabian language, political laws, moral standards, dress codes, penal punishments and other cultural elements. This is why to become a Muslim you must take an Arab name, dress like an Arab, speak Arabic, eat only what Arabs eat, treat your wife as Arabs treat their wives, etc.

The religion of Islam was thus born out of Arab cultural imperialism and is rooted in a racist attitude that all things Arab are good while all things non-Arab are evil. Until this is understood, the true nature of Islam cannot be grasped.

This is why Western dress, food, movies, hairstyles, etc., are zealously denounced by the Mullahs and Imams as Satanic. Such things as blue jeans are not really condemned because they are immoral but because they are not Arab.

The truthfulness of this observation is easily demonstrated by Islam’s demand that one bow in prayer in the direction of Arabia (Mecca) and make a pilgrimage to Arabia (Mecca). The religion of Islam is Arabian paganism and culture raised to divine law and imposed upon conquered nations.

Nations such as Egypt, Turkey, Lebanon, etc., who had the misfortune of having Islam forced upon them by the sword, need to break free from Arab imperialism in order to regain their own identity and culture. Until they throw off the shackles of Islam, they cannot become free societies where human rights are honored.

 

Question #7—Was Muhammad a black man or a white man? What was his view of the black man? Was he a slave master of black slaves?

Answer: These questions are very important for black Americans because they have been conned by Wallace D. Ford, Malcom X, Elijah Muhammad, Louis Farrakhan, Muhammad Ali, Mike Tyson and other “black” Muslims into thinking that Muhammad was a black man and Islam is the black man’s religion. What is the truth?

First, Muhammad was a white man. There can be no doubt of this because the Hadith states this plain and simple. Since Bukhari is accepted by all Muslims as the greatest of all Hadith scholars, we will use his collection of Hadiths. His work is entitled “Sahih” which means that it is absolutely authentic.

In Hadith 1:63, when a man arrived at the mosque, he asked, “Who amongst you is Muhammad?” The companions of the prophet replied, “This white man reclining on his arm.”

Muhammad is described as “a white person” in Hadith 2:122. And in 2:141 when Muhammad raised his arms in prayer, we are told, “the whiteness of his armpits became visible.”

In Hadith 1:367, we read that Anas, one of Muhammad’s most trusted companions, “saw the whiteness of the thing of Allah’s prophet” when his robe moved to the side. While some Muslims, like Shabir Ally and Jamal Badawi, argue over whether the “thing” refers to the thigh or to the penis of Muhammad, they do not deny that it was “white” whatever it was.

Any black man or woman who converted to Islam because he or she was told that Muhammad was a black man and thus Islam was the “black man’s religion” should now realize that he or she was suckered into becoming a Muslim by lies and deception. The only thing he or she can do to regain his dignity and to escape being a fool is to renounce Islam.

Second, Muhammad was a slave owner of black slaves. In Hadith vol. 6:436 when Umar came to visit Muhammad, he saw “a black slave of Allah’s apostle sitting on the first step.”

Lest some Muslim will claim that Muhammad had only one black slave, we will now quote from Ibn Qayyim al-Jawiyya, a great Muslim historian. In his famous book Zad al-Ma˒ad (Part 1, pg. 160) we read:

Muhammad had many male and female slaves. He used to buy and sell them, but he purchased more slaves than he sold, especially after God empowered him by His message, as well as after his immigration from Mecca. He once sold one black slave for two. His name was Jacob al-Mudbir.

This writer also tells us on pages 114–116 the names of Muhammad’s black slaves: Bilal, Abu Hurairah, Usamah Ebn Zaayed and Rabbah were some of the black slaves of Muhammad. Among the black slaves was a black man by the name of Hahran. His story bears telling in the next section.

The most famous slave market was in Mecca during Muhammad’s day. Black people stolen from African villages were auctioned off like cattle. This same slave market in Mecca was still being used for buying and selling black slaves until the late 1960’s!

In the Sudan, as you read this material, the Muslim slave market has been revived as blacks in chains from the Dinka tribe are now being auctioned off to Muslim masters. (See Islamic Invasion, p. 199 for the documentation.) In Arabic, the common word for “Black” is “abd” which also means “slave”4.

In 1992, a book written by Jean Sasson shook the Muslim world. It was entitled Princess because it was the true story of a Saudi Princess in her own words. In her autobiography she revealed that her Muslim family had many black slaves. On page 29 we read:

“We owned a family of Sudanese slaves. Our slave population increased each year when Father returned from Haj, the annual pilgrimage to Mecca made by Muslims, with new slave children.”

The Haj is the greatest religious event in all Islam. And what do the Muslims do on their Haj? Buy more black slaves!

Third, Muhammad mistreated his black slaves. It is clear that Muhammad treated his black slaves as animals of burden. The black slave Mahran tells us his story in his own words. The great Muslim historian, Ibn Qayyim al-Jawiyya, records that:

Mahran was renamed (by Muhammad) Safina (i.e., ship). He relates his own story. He says, “The apostle of God and his companions went on a trip. When their belongings became too heavy for them to carry, Muhammad told me, ‘Spread your garment.’ They filled it with their belongings, then they put it on me. The apostle of God told me, ‘Carry it, for you are a ship.’ Even if I were carrying a load of six or seven donkeys while we were on a journey, anyone who felt weak would throw his clothes or his shield or his sword on me so I would carry that, a heavy load. The prophet told me, ‘You are a ship.’”

It does not take a Ph.D. to see that Muhammad mistreated Mahran and made him carry heavy loads. He even changed his name to “ship” to degrade him. The name “Safina” meant that the black slave Mahran was nothing more that a ship to carry Muhammad’s burdens.

“But,” one Muslim stated, “these are things from long ago. Islam does not make racist statements against blacks anymore.” But Malik Ibn Ons, one of Islam’s most respected modern scholars, states in his commentary on Muhammad’s teachings on slavery:

The master does not have the right to force the female slave to wed an ugly black slave if she is beautiful and agile unless in the case of utmost necessity (Ibn Hazm, vol. 6, Part 9, p. 469).

Referring to black men as “ugly black slaves” cannot be understood as anything less than racism.

In the Qur˒an, Surah 33:50–52 tells us that a slave master could force sex upon his female slaves. The expression “those whom thy right hand possesses out of the prisoners of war” has always been interpreted by Muslim scholars to mean that a Muslim slave master could force his slaves to have sex with him.

Only the Day of Judgment will reveal how many black women were raped by Muslim masters. Since the Muslims were in the slave business long before they got the Europeans involved, and the Muslims are still enslaving and raping slaves today in black Africa, a fearful judgment awaits the Muslims.

Fourth, Muhammad was prejudiced against black people. He said that if you dreamed of black women, this was an evil omen (Hadith 9:162,163). He referred to black people as “raisin heads” (Hadith 1:662).

It has now been demonstrated from Muslim books that Muhammad was a white, a racist, a slave owner of black slaves who treated them as animals to carry his burdens, or as sex slaves. He enslaved blacks and treated them as animals. No intelligent black man or woman should have any respect for Muhammad or his racist religion.

 

Question #8—Does the Qur˒an have scientific errors?

Answer: If the Qur˒an is the infallible Word of God, then it stands to reason that it would not contain factual errors of science. By “factual errors” we mean errors that can be physically examined. We are not talking about contradictions between scientific theories and the Qur˒an. We are talking about hard evidence that can be checked.

But first, there is a question we must answer: “Is it legitimate to judge the Qur˒an?” Many Muslims believe in the Qur˒an as a blind leap of faith. They really do not care if it is filled with mistakes and contradictions. As far as they are concerned, they were born Muslim and they will die Muslim. The more closed-minded they are, the more fanatical they become in their religion. When ignorance unites with arrogance, fanaticism is born.

We pity those whose religion is only the product of an accident of birth and culture. They blindly follow whatever religion they were born into. How sad it is to have an unexamined faith, a faith that cannot stand up to reason and science, a faith that merely shouts slogans, stamps its feet, and beats its breast in a mindless mob. They do not believe in Islam because it is true. To them Islam is true because they believe it.

“A poor player that struts and frets his hour upon the stage and then is heard no more; It is a tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing” (Mac Beth, Act V, Scene 5).

Thankfully, there are millions of Muslims today who have received a university education and understand that an unexamined faith is a worthless faith. They are openminded to scientific facts and evidence. They want the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth.

The Setting of The Sun

One of the questions that puzzled the ancient Arabs was, “Where did the sun go when night time came?” The Qur˒an gave them Allah’s answer:

He [i.e. Zul-gamaim] followed, until he reached the setting of the sun. He found it set in a spring of murky water (Kahf Surah XVIII, vs. 85–86).

We agree with Muslim scholars that Zul-gamain refers to Alexander the Great (see Yusuf Ali’s appendix on this subject in his translation of the Qur˒an). According to this surah, Alexander the Great traveled west until he found out what happened to the sun. It went down into and under the murky waters of a pond. When it was completely covered by the water, darkness fell upon the earth.

To the early Muslims, this surah gave the divine answer as to why darkness fell when the sun set in the West. They assumed that the sun like the moon was the size perceived by the human eye, about the size of a basketball. Darkness came when with a mighty hissing roar it went down under the dark waters of a pond. They boldly and proudly proclaimed that this marvelous answer proved that the Qur˒an was indeed the Word of God.

Today, modern Muslims are quite embarrassed by this passage and try to ignore it or to quickly dismiss it as poetry. But the passage is not part of a poem. Thus it cannot be dismissed as figurative language or poetic license. In the context, it is part of a historical narrative that relates several historical incidents in the life of Alexander the Great.

The Qur˒an’s mistake was based on the erroneous assumption that the earth was flat. The authors of the Qur˒an did not know that the earth was a sphere that revolved around the sun.

The reader must ask himself if he is prepared to believe and to defend the Qur˒an in this passage. Either the sun sets in a pond or it doesn’t. It is either one way or the other. There can be no middle ground, no compromise, no evading the issue. If you agree with us that the sun is shining on the other side of the earth and thus it does not go down into murky water, then you must also agree with us that the Qur˒an contains scientific errors.

 

Question #9—What is the “Nation of Islam” that is headed by Louis Farrakhan?

Answer: One of the little known facts about the Muslim movement in the African-American community is that there are at least seven “Black” Muslim cults, each claiming to be the only “true” Nation of Islam. Obviously, either one of these cults is the “true” Nation, while the other six are frauds, or they are all frauds. But they cannot all be “the” Nation of Islam.

What they are fighting over is who is the “heir” to the bizarre teachings of Elijah Poole, better known by his alias, Elijah Muhammad. He was a semi-illiterate Southern black man who was a disciple of a white cult leader by the name of Wallace Dodd Ford.

The police record on W. D. Ford is quite long and includes drug dealing and other rackets. He left the drug business and decided to set up a new religion specifically designed to draw in angry, young black men who wanted to escape from the poverty and racism rampant in Northern cities such as Detroit, Chicago, D.C., L.A., and N.Y.C. By playing on the emotions of bitterness, despair and hate, Ford manipulated poor uneducated blacks to give him their souls as well as their money.

Not being knowledgeable about the Bible, Ford utilized the cultic teachings of another white man by the name of Charles Taze Russell, the founder of the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society, or as they are called today, the Jehovah’s Witnesses. Ford combined Russellism with the teachings of the Moorish Science Temple, originally headed by Timothy Drew.

Ford changed his name frequently but is today known to his modern disciples as Master Fard Muhammad. He told his disciples that he was Allah (God) and thus they had to submit to his divine authority. To their shame they bought into his con game hook, line and sinker.

Ford also taught that there were 24 black men who were the original gods. The white race was created by a black god named Yakub. White men were created as devils and this explains why they have treated the black race with such disrespect. Due to the lies and tricks of these white devils, the Black man has forgotten that all Blacks are gods and goddesses.

These teachings are made all the more bizarre by the fact that Fard was a white man! Thus the Nation of Islam was founded by a white devil before whom black men bowed while calling him “Master” Fard Muhammad. We would laugh at such irony if not for the fact that the souls of thousands of black men and women were damned for all eternity by the false teachings of Fard.

Elijah Poole was a poor southern black who moved to Detroit in search of a better life, but all he found was crushing poverty and ruinous drunkenness. He was drawn to Ford’s racist dogma that white people are devils as a way to excuse his own indolence. Instead of accepting responsibility for his own failures in life, Poole blamed the white man as the cause of all his ills. Blaming the white race for all the evils which afflict the Black man has proven to be the most successful bait on the hook to reel in new converts to this day.

Ford changed Poole’s name to Kareem. But after Ford disappeared, Kareem changed his name to Muhammad. He went on to claim to be Allah just as Ford had done. The unquestioning devotion paid to him by his followers made it possible for him to have multiple adulterous affairs. Before long, a host of illegitimate children proved to be his undoing. After his death, the courts were besieged by women whose children had been sired by Elijah.

After Ford died, the Nation fell into at least seven competing sects. The most well known cult is the Farrakhanites who now proclaim that Louis Farrakhan is Allah. The 5% cult is another “Nation of Islam”. It has had a field day with Farrakhan’s “Million Man” March on Washington, D.C.

The 5%ers correctly point out that Elijah Muhammad said that the Muslims must never march on Washington, D.C. Thus Louis has lost all credibility so far as his claim that he is the heir of Elijah.

In the end, all the Nations will be shown by history to be frauds. By their denial of the Gospel, they have rejected the only hope for divine forgiveness and the only way to find true dignity and worth.

If you have been drawn into the web of Islam by Farrakhan, Wallace or the 5%ers, repent of your sins and turn to JESUS CHRIST for salvation. You are not a god, but a poor lost sinner in need of forgiveness and salvation. Break free from the mind control and brain washing used by the Nations of Islam. JESUS is the only Savior of sinners. Ford, Poole, Farrakhan and all other false gods will not help you on the Day of Judgment.

For a detailed examination of the history and teachings of the Nation of Islam, see Bishop Akridge’s book, Why I Am Not A Black Muslim, (1–800–41–TRUTH).

 

Question #10—Was Muhammad illiterate?

This may seem a strange question but the supposed “miracle” of the Qur˒an hangs on the answer. If he could neither read or write, how did he read and recite the Qur˒an that was brought down from heaven by Gabriel? It would take a miracle for him to do so.

While Muslims dogmatically assert that Muhammad was illiterate, when I checked their own historical writings, I found that Bukhari’s Hadith records that he could, in fact, both read and write (Bukhari IV:393)! The so-called miracle of the Qur˒an is dashed to the ground by the most reliable primary source material.

During one debate with a Muslim scholar, when I confronted him the documentation from his own writings that Muhammad was not illiterate, the Muslims in the audience began shouting the Arabic word for death!

Morey Robert A. (2002). Winning the war against radical Islam (133). Orange, CA: Christian Scholars Press.

© 2010 – 2011, Matt. All rights reserved.