Did the prophet of Islam perform any miracles? No. None.

While this channel isn't intended for discussing Islam, the topic of whether the prophet of Islam performed miracles could be relevant for a brief discussion. Both atheists and Christian apologists have debunked almost all aspects of Islam, while both atheists and Muslim apologists have similarly debunked almost all aspects of Christianity. Nevertheless, I can put the final nail in the coffin. Except for a few verses, there is hardly any truth in Islam or Christianity. One must be deeply brainwashed to still believe in it. Numerous channels, led by both atheists and Christian apologists, are dedicated to refuting Islam. Let’s see if you Muslim apologists can effectively counter their arguments.  Yet, Muslim apologists often steer clear of these channels and run from individuals like David, Chris, Bob, and others, particularly someone like Christian Prince, a Christian Arab who speaks Arabic.

There is no evidence that Allah has ever performed miracles; rather, the Quran recounts stories of miracles from the Old Testament and New Testament, substituting Allah for the Jewish God. Before Islam, Allah was the deity worshipped by pagan Arabs. Allah had three daughters: Al-Lat, Al-Uzza, and Al-Manat. Therefore, Allah is not the God of the Bible who performed miracles.

Notably, the author of the Quran did not demonstrate any miracles, a fact that the Quran itself acknowledges. Here are some pertinent verses:

“They swear by Allah, with their most solemn oaths, that if a miracle were to come to them, they would believe in it. Say, “The miracles are only with Allah.” But how do you know? Even if it did come, they still would not believe.” – Quran 6:109.

“And they say, ‘If only a miracle was sent down to him from his Lord.” Say, ‘The realm of the unseen belongs to Allah; so wait, I am waiting with you.’“ – Quran 10:20.

“Those who disbelieve say, “Why was a miracle not sent down to him from his Lord?” You are only a warner, and to every community is a guide.” – Quran 13:7. Also see Quran 2:118, Quran 2:145, Quran 6:37.

 

The prophet of the Quran acknowledges the existence of hierarchies among the prophets/messengers. Quran 2:253 states, “These messengers: ‘We gave some advantage over others. To some of them Allah spoke directly, and some He raised in rank. We gave Jesus son of Mary the clear miracles,…. ‘“. This passage implies that prophets who manifest miracles hold a higher status compared to those who do not.

The prophet of the Quran claims his only function was to warn people, not to perform miracles.

“And they said, ‘If only a miracle from his Lord was sent down to him.’ Say, ‘Miracles are only with Allah, and I am only a clear warner.’“ – Quran 29:50. (Also See Quran 7:188, Quran 11:12, Quran 13:7, Quran 29:50, Quran 22:49, Quran 38:65, Quran 67:26)

While certain Muslim apologists reference Sura 54:1 to assert that the prophet of Islam performed miracles, consensus among Muslim scholars is lacking. Interpretations of this verse diverge, with many scholars seeing it as depicting an eclipse. When you have different interpretations among Muslim scholars regarding a specific verse, it points to the problem of interpretation, which implies that a false interpretation cannot be from God. If a concept or statement was received as a revelation from God by a prophet or holy man and has been interpreted in various ways by scholars, then either only one of the interpretations is true and from God, or all of them are false and not from God.

Muslims are relying solely on biased interpretations from their scholars, neglecting to seek the true meaning directly from God or through unbiased, non-Muslim holy individuals who are connected to God and can verify it firsthand.

The evidence collected by Muslim scholars has been interpreted differently by equally qualified non-Muslim scholars. Therefore, you cannot rely solely on the biased interpretations of your scholars. When conflicting interpretations arise and if they are all false, it undermines the claim that the text is the word of God.

When scrutinizing a verse in the Quran and assessing the diverse translations and interpretations offered by scholars, one often encounters discrepancies and contradictions. Yet, Muslims favor explanations provided by their biased scholars. This does not faithfully represent the word of God; rather, it reflects the interpretations of fallible human scholars, who are neither prophets (holy men) nor possess comprehensive understanding of reality.

When Muslims interpret the Quran and the Hadiths with bias, as opposed to an objective interpretation by unbiased scholars, several logical fallacies may come into play. Here are some relevant fallacies: Confirmation Bias (flawed reasoning), Appeal to Authority (Argumentum ad Verecundiam), Cherry Picking, Groupthink, Appeal to Emotion (Argumentum ad Passiones), Bandwagon Fallacy (Argumentum ad Populum), Straw Man Fallacy, and False Consensus Effect.

Intellectual scholars rely solely on their logical faculties, unlike true spiritual individuals who have additional means on the true path to merging with God. We strive for clarity beyond the influence of biased interpretations by Muslim scholars. For example, in exploring the verse 'Allah is closer than the jugular vein,' I turn to direct divine revelation, prioritizing unfiltered understanding straight from the source.

Let me use the verse "Allah is closer than the jugular vein" (Surah Qaf 50:16) to illustrate the issue of interpretation in Islam. Words are symbols, like Egyptian hieroglyphs. It’s the meaning that the author tries to convey that counts. In the Quran, the original Quranic script, known as the 'Uthmani script' after Caliph Uthman ibn Affan, did not include diacritical marks or dots. These marks and dots were added to the Arabic script centuries later, after the death of the Prophet. The placement or absence of these marks and dots can impact the meaning of Arabic words. Therefore, the words of Allah have already been altered, and Muslims cannot use the verses in the Quran to argue anything definitively.

Let's assume these were the words of the Prophet. They can only be interpreted in one way: that Allah is right inside your body. This poses a significant issue for Islam because Allah is supposed to physically come to Earth and reveal His shin, and He is also described as having a throne. See Sahih al-Bukhari, Volume 9, Book 93, Hadith 532, and Sahih al-Bukhari, Volume 9, Book 93, Hadith 529. (I am using these verses from the Hadith to illustrate what Muslims believe, not to imply that the Hadith are the words of the same individual who authored the Quran.)

As per the Quran, Allah will gather, separate, judge, and then send some to Hell and others to Heaven, followed by the miraculous resurrection. All these concepts lose their meaning if Allah is already inside your body or if we interpret Him as omnipresent. Muslims apologists oppose this interpretation because the notion of an omnipresent God aligns with Hinduism, not Islam. Do you see the problem?

For someone truly connected to God, God’s omnipresence is undeniable. Any other possibility would lead to numerous unresolved issues. God must be omnipresent to be truly God. To me, this is a direct revelation from God confirming God’s omnipresence. Other interpretations, in contrast, are merely the speculations of ignorant men and do not represent the authentic Word of God.

The logical fallacies often employed by Muslim apologists to justify Islam can just as readily be turned towards scrutinizing the authors of the Quran and the Hadith, potentially undermining the credibility of Islam. Among these fallacies are: Bare Assertion Fallacy, Appeal to Authority (Argumentum ad Verecundiam), Appeal to Tradition (Argumentum ad Antiquitatem), Appeal to Ignorance (Argumentum ad Ignorantiam), False Dichotomy (False Dilemma), and Ad Hominem attacks.

Now, let's examine Sura 54:1:

"The Hour has come near, and the moon has split [in two]." (Sahih International)

"The Hour (of Judgment) is nigh, and the moon is cleft asunder." (Yusuf Ali)

Surah Al-A'raf (7:187) clearly states that the knowledge of the Hour's timing is exclusively with Allah. Similarly, Matthew 24:36 states, 'But about that day or hour no one knows, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but only the Father.' Therefore, Surah Al-Qamar (54:1) should be interpreted as Allah saying the Hour has come near, and the moon has split [in two].

Assuming for a moment that this is precisely what the Prophet stated, there are a couple of concerns. First, it does not specify that the Prophet performed this miracle. Second, there's a persistent lack of context throughout the Quran, including in this verse. In contrast, the Gospels provide contextual details for the miracles attributed to Jesus. Moreover, the Quran lacks chronological organization, often leaving its verses open to various subjective interpretations. Muslim scholars, fully aware of this, have deliberately interpreted these verses in ways that defend Islam rather than rigorously pursuing truth.

When one is honest with themselves and seeks true interpretation through logic, only two unbiased interpretations become apparent, remembering that the Quran is to be interpreted literally rather than metaphorically. According to one interpretation, 1400 years ago marked the commencement of the Day of Judgment (the last days) when the moon split into two. If we are still in the prophesied final days, then the moon should remain split. However, this is not the case; therefore, it never happened and is a lie.

The second interpretation suggests that 1400 years ago, the Day of Judgment began with the moon splitting into two and later reuniting at the end of this period known as the last days. However, the Quran does not mention this, so we cannot make such an assumption. Furthermore, there are no eyewitness accounts of these events. If such a miraculous event had occurred, there should have been millions of witnesses worldwide to the moon splitting and reuniting. Since there are none, it never happened and a lie.

There are many other issues with Sura 54:1, but I won't delve into those details now. This is enough to prove that it never happened.

To conceal the mistakes in the Quran, Muslim apologists often turn to Hadith. However, this tactic frequently backfires on them, as it requires defending all aspects of the Hadith, including issues such as the Aisha narrative and numerous verses that are embarrassing.

The truth is, the author of the Quran is not the same individual as the authors of the Hadiths. The Hadiths were fabrications penned by ordinary men. The Hadiths were based on legend and hearsay, compiled 200-300 years after the author of the Quran had passed away. This includes works like Sahih Bukhari by Muhammad al-Bukhari (d. 870 A.D. / 256 AH) and Sunan Ibn Majah by Ibn Majah (d. 887 A.D. / 273 AH), for instance. These texts are littered with fabrications. It's noteworthy that even Bukhari himself rejected a staggering 99% (592,725) of the Hadith he came across, underscoring the extent of corruption that has seeped into Islamic tradition.

The Hadiths, written 200-300 years later to align with the Quran, share a similarity with the New Testament, which was crafted to harmonize with the Old Testament by the Romans. However, during that era, meticulous care wasn't taken, resulting in errors that exposed the truth. The Hadiths are essentially fabrications concocted by laymen centuries after the prophet's passing.

The rejection of 99% of the Hadiths by Bukhari presents a compelling case against the authenticity of the teachings attributed to the prophet. This rejection highlights a glaring inconsistency within the tradition, revealing a pervasive level of corruption and manipulation. Such a staggering dismissal of the majority of Hadiths suggests that either they have been heavily tampered with over time or the invention of stories by ordinary men, falsely attributing them to the prophet. The wholesale rejection of the majority casts a shadow of doubt over the entire tradition.

Furthermore, the rejection of such a large proportion of the Hadiths suggests potential cherry-picking or confirmation bias on the part of Bukhari. By accepting only a tiny fraction of the material, he may have been predisposed to favor certain Hadiths that aligned with his own beliefs or agenda while disregarding others that challenged or contradicted them. This bias undermines the objectivity and impartiality of his evaluation, further diminishing the credibility of the accepted teachings.

Now, let's examine the verses in the Hadith relating to Quran verse 54:1:

Narrated Anas bin Malik:

"The people of Mecca asked Allah's Messenger (ﷺ) to show them a miracle, so he showed them the moon split in two halves between which they saw the Hira' mountain." (Sahih al-Bukhari, Vol. 4, Book 56, Hadith 830)

Narrated Abdullah ibn Mas'ud: "While we were with the Messenger of Allah (ﷺ) at Mina, the moon was split into two parts. One part was behind the mountain and the other one was on this side of the mountain. The Messenger of Allah (ﷺ) said to us: 'Bear witness to this.'" (Jami` at-Tirmidhi, Vol. 5, Book 44, Hadith 3283)

Narrated by Abdullah bin Masud: "During the lifetime of the Prophet, the moon was split into two parts and on that, the Prophet said, 'Bear witness (to this).'" (Sahih Bukhari, Volume 5, Book 58, Hadith 208.)"

If we juxtapose these verses with Quran verse 54:1, several discrepancies become apparent. The first hadith portrays it as a miracle attributed to the prophet, a notion conflicting with the Quranic verse where he consistently disavowed such capabilities, asserting, 'We withhold these signs only because the people of earlier times rejected them as false' (Quran 17:59). (Also see Quran 6:109, Quran 10:20, Quran 13:7.)

In contrast, the second and third hadiths depict it as a natural event in the sky, like an asteroid impact, in harmony with the essence of the Quranic verse 54:1.

According to the third hadith, the moon was split into two parts during the lifetime of the Prophet. Such a significant event spanning decades should have been witnessed by millions of people around the world and thousands of astronomers actively observing the sky. Yet, no one reported it, which suggests it never happened.

The Quran verse 54:1 states, "The Hour (of Judgment) is nigh, and the moon has been split into two." This verse describes a cosmic event where the moon is split into two parts as a sign of the approaching Day of Judgment, signifying a major cosmic phenomenon that heralds the end times.

In contrast, a Hadith narrates, "The people of Mecca asked Allah's Messenger (ﷺ) to show them a miracle, so he showed them the moon split into two halves between which they saw the Hira' mountain." This Hadith recounts a specific incident where the prophet responded to a request for a miracle by showing the people of Mecca the moon split into two halves, with the Hira' mountain visible between them. This event is distinct from the cosmic event mentioned in Quran verse 54:1. It is a localized miracle supposedly performed by the prophet to demonstrate his supernatural abilities, rather than a cosmic sign of the Day of Judgment.

Both verses mention the splitting of the moon but describe different events. The first verse refers to a cosmic event, like an asteroid impact, signaling the Day of Judgment, while the second verse narrates a specific miracle performed by the prophet in response to a request from the people of Mecca. These two events are unrelated.

If the author of the Hadith intended the first Hadith verse to serve as an explanation or interpretation of Quran verse 54:1, suggesting that the splitting of the moon described in the Hadith correlates with the cosmic event mentioned in Quran verse 54:1, this interpretation is fundamentally flawed. The two statements refer to entirely different occurrences, and conflating them as if one elucidates the other is a misinterpretation. Each statement must be understood within its own context and not conflated. I am not implying that both of these events actually took place. Instead, it is an error made by the author of the Hadith, in an effort to provide some explanation and context for Quran verse 54:1.

This misinterpretation represents a logical fallacy known as a false analogy or false equivalence. This fallacy arises when two distinct situations are compared or equated, suggesting a similarity or relationship that does not exist. In this scenario, attempting to interpret the Hadith as an explanation of the Quranic verse creates an erroneous connection between two unrelated events.

During the period from 570 to 632 CE, several historians made significant contributions to recording and analyzing historical events, particularly in regions such as the Byzantine Empire, the Arabian Peninsula, Persia, India, and China. Notable historians from that time include Procopius of Caesarea (c. 500–c. 565 CE), Agathias (c. 532–c. 582 CE), Jordanes (6th century CE), Bede (673–735 CE), and Simā al-Azdī (died c. 653 CE).

Between 550 and 650 AD, several hundred to a few thousand individuals worldwide could be considered astronomers or were actively engaged in astronomical observation, research, or teaching. Notable astronomers of that time, such as Severus Sebokht, Brahmagupta, and Anania Shirakatsi, were keen observers of the heavens, documenting various celestial phenomena, including lunar and solar eclipses, as well as the positions of stars and planets.

If the moon had split into two, they would have noticed and recorded it in their writings. Such an event would have been visible to the naked eye and witnessed by millions of people.

Here are some key astronomical observations and advancements made from that period:

Severus Sebokht:

Astrolabe: Severus Sebokht wrote about the astrolabe, an ancient instrument used for solving problems related to time and the position of the stars. His work included descriptions of how to use the astrolabe for astronomical measurements.

Star Catalogs: He contributed to the compilation and preservation of star catalogs, which were essential for tracking the movements of celestial bodies.

Brahmagupta:

Planetary Positions: In his work "Brahmasphutasiddhanta," Brahmagupta provided methods for calculating the positions and movements of planets. He developed formulas to predict planetary conjunctions and oppositions.

Eclipses: Brahmagupta described the causes of lunar and solar eclipses and provided rules for predicting them. He understood that lunar eclipses occur when the Moon enters the Earth's shadow and solar eclipses when the Moon passes between the Earth and the Sun.

Spherical Earth: He asserted that the Earth is spherical and provided a method for calculating the circumference of the Earth.

Anania Shirakatsi:

Cosmology: In his work "Cosmology" (Ashkharhatsuyts), Anania Shirakatsi described the structure of the heavens and the Earth, providing insights into the known world and its celestial phenomena.

Calendar System: Shirakatsi made significant contributions to the development of the Armenian calendar, improving the accuracy of timekeeping and the prediction of astronomical events.

Other Islamic World Contributions:

Star Maps and Catalogs: Astronomers in the early Islamic world began to compile detailed star maps and catalogs.

These observations and advancements laid the foundation for future astronomical research. The meticulous recording of celestial events and the development of mathematical methods to predict them were key achievements of this era.

 

The absence of any record of a comic event such as the splitting of the moon suggests that it never occurred.

Muslim apologists often assert the existence of a chain of narration for these Hadiths. However, this assertion lacks substantiation. It is commonly believed that the transmission of Hadiths relies on chains of narrators (isnad) spanning multiple generations, from the time of the prophet to the supposed compilers of Hadith collections. Given the two-century gap and an average of 30 years per generation, we can infer approximately 7 generations between Anas bin Malik and Imam Bukhari in the chain of narration for this Hadith. Seven generations constitute a significant time span. Consequently, one would anticipate the existence of numerous documents authored by these narrators within the chain, facilitating the transmission of the Hadith to subsequent generations. However, such documentation is notably absent. For instance, if we examine a Hadith narrated by Anas bin Malik, a companion of the Prophet (assuming this for the sake of discussion), its chain of narration should include the names of the narrators along with accompanying documents that transmitted it from Anas bin Malik to Imam Bukhari. Unfortunately, such documents do not exist. The direct chain of narration (isnad) for the specific Hadith about the splitting of the moon from Anas bin Malik to Imam Bukhari is not available.

If the Hadith were compiled by individuals such as Sahih al-Bukhari, Sahih Muslim, and others, rather than being personally written by them, there should indeed be documents or collections in the form of written manuscripts or scrolls. Yet, there is nothing. This absence of evidence serves as some indication that they were personally written down by individuals like Sahih al-Bukhari and Sahih Muslim, rather than being compiled by them.

Instead, we have claims of chains of narration for certain hadiths by individuals who lived 200-300 years after the Prophet's death. Using this as evidence for all the hadiths constitutes a logical fallacy. Explicit evidence for each link in the chain of narration is lacking for the vast majority of hadiths. For example, the Hadith on the moon splitting does not indicate that Sa'id ibn al-Musayyab specifically heard it from Abu Huraira, as the chains for individual hadiths not detailed in available sources. Without specific documentation proving that Sa'id ibn al-Musayyab heard this particular hadith directly from Abu Huraira, it cannot be considered reliable evidence. There is no proof that he transmitted this hadith specifically from Abu Huraira.

Instead of placing trust solely in the words of the prophet himself, Muslims rely on the accounts of individuals who lived 200-300 years after his death. These individuals claim that the collective efforts of generations of scholars diligently transmitted, preserved, and authenticated the prophet 's teachings. This belief primarily stems from the assertions of Hadith authors like Bukhari, who hailed from present-day Uzbekistan, a significant 3,500 kilometers away from the prophet's birthplace in Saudi Arabia.

According to modern Muslim scholars, individuals such as Bukhari meticulously scrutinized each narrator's integrity, reliability, and memory, while also cross-referencing with other sources to verify the authenticity of the transmitted material. Out of the purported 598,712 hadith, a staggering 99% were rejected. This seemingly insurmountable task raises doubts about its feasibility, suggesting that the process may not have occurred as claimed. Concrete evidence for the transmission of each individual hadith from one specific narrator to another is notably absent in reality.

Let's entertain the idea that figures like Sahih al-Bukhari and Sahih Muslim rigorously verified the authenticity of the Hadith they encountered from preceding generations. Nonetheless, it's improbable that they could have personally authenticated Hadith spanning back six generations, as the individuals who possessed such knowledge would likely have already passed away.

Let's explore a hypothetical scenario where Sahih al-Bukhari directly interacts with narrators from earlier generations to verify a Hadith. In this scenario, Bukhari would simply be relying on the claims of the narrators he engages with. It’s impossible to determine whether the narrators are telling the truth. After all, Sahih al-Bukhari and others were laymen, not prophets or enlightened holy men. He didn't fit the mold of a scholar as we envision scholars today, nor did he attend a formal university in the modern sense, given that such institutions, as we know them today, didn't exist during his time.

During this period, many individuals asserted their interpretations as definitive statements from the prophet, aiming to enhance their own standing in the growing Islamic community. Consequently, such claims lack substantive evidence.

The information about the preservation and transmission of hadiths comes from the writings of Hadith authors like Imam Bukhari and others who lived 200-300 years later. The absence of contemporaneous written documents casts doubt on the reliability of hadith literature. For example, biographical literature detailing the compilation, preservation, and authentication processes of hadiths from the early Islamic period, particularly within the first 200 years after the prophet's death, does not exist in the form of documents or treatises.

What we possess presently are the Quran and the Hadith. There isn't any additional evidence to gather; rather, it's about interpreting them. Interpretations by Muslim scholars frequently prioritize defending Islam over impartial truth-seeking, resulting in convoluted reasoning. Biased scholars naturally steer clear of openly disagreeing with one another to protect their positions, fearing potential repercussions. However, non-Muslim scholars hold divergent views and have accused Muslim scholars of deceiving humanity. In a revealing interview, Yasir Qadhi, a Muslim scholar, openly acknowledges that the standard narrative has holes in it and should not be discussed publicly, essentially implying a concealment of truth from the Muslim community.

The truth is, the men who wrote the Hadith were ignorant. This is why some Hadiths are contradictory, both with each other and with the Quran, prompting modern Muslim scholars to dismiss many as 'weak hadith.' In the hadith literature, there isn't a specific saying of the Prophet that uses the term 'weak hadith' in the exact manner it's employed by scholars today. The classification of hadith into categories such as authentic, good, weak, and fabricated is a product of modern Islamic scholarship. The process of determining the strength or weakness of a hadith involves a combination of historical research, textual analysis, and expert judgment. However, different scholars may arrive at different conclusions based on their methodologies and interpretations. Besides Jami' at-Tirmidhi, known for its mix of authentic and weak hadiths, several other collections also contain varying degrees of weak narrations. Examples include Sunan Ibn Majah, Musnad Ahmad ibn Hanbal, Sunan ad-Darimi, Musannaf of Abd al-Razzaq, and Al-Muwatta' of Imam Malik. Together, these compilations encompass around 50,000 hadiths. When modern Muslim scholars reject a Hadith in these collections as 'weak,' they are essentially rejecting the methodology behind the entire collection. The reason they refrain from rejecting the Hadith in collections like Sahih al-Bukhari and Sahih Muslim is due to the implications; such rejection would invite ridicule, potentially undermining the credibility of the entire corpus of Hadith, suggesting they were fabricated by individuals 200-300 years after the death of the prophet.

If a leader of a religious cult writes a book with unsubstantiated claims that remain unfulfilled for 1400 years, several logical fallacies might apply to both the leader and the followers who consider the book the word of God. Applying this to Islam, the concept of the 'last days' was borrowed from a failed 1st-century prophecy in the Christian Bible (Gospels) and has remained unfulfilled for 2000 years. Consequently, several logical fallacies apply to the author of the Quran and Muslims who consider the Quran the word of God. These fallacies include Appeal to Authority (Argumentum ad Verecundiam), Appeal to Tradition (Argumentum ad Antiquitatem), Appeal to Faith (not typically classified as a formal logical fallacy but a type of epistemological stance that bypasses empirical validation), False Prophecy or Failed Prophecy, Confirmation Bias, Post Hoc Rationalization, and Circular Reasoning (Begging the Question).

If Muslim apologists and fundamentalists claim there is a chain of narration for the 200-year gap when there isn't, and instead, we have individuals asserting that such a chain exists 200-300 years later without evidence, several logical fallacies might be at play. These include: Appeal to Tradition (Argumentum ad Antiquitatem), Appeal to Authority (Argumentum ad Verecundiam), Appeal to Ignorance (Argumentum ad Ignorantiam), Bare Assertion Fallacy, Hasty Generalization, False Appeal to Common Practice (Argumentum ad Consuetudinem), Genetic Fallacy, and Circular Reasoning (Petitio Principii).

If an omnipotent God, as conceived in Islam, is found to be unable to clearly express fundamental concepts, it not only prompts inquiries into the coherence of the concept of omnipotence itself but also raises profound questions about the nature of divine communication. The expectation that an omnipotent being would communicate clearly and unambiguously is deeply rooted in the theological understanding of divine attributes. Therefore, when ambiguity persists despite this expectation, it not only challenges the notion of divine omnipotence but also invites scrutiny into the very nature of the divine-human relationship and the mechanisms through which divine messages are conveyed. In essence, the existence of ambiguity in divine communication disrupts the foundational assumption of omnipotence, casting doubt on the very essence of the divine.

The fallacy of the Muslim apologist's stance on the Hadith's chain of narration is vividly illuminated through a contemporary analogy. Picture a modern-day author crafting a book filled with fabricated anecdotes, presenting it akin to Hadiths. To bolster its authenticity, the author meticulously fabricates a lineage of transmission, alleging its transmission through generations. In this hypothetical scenario, the deceptive process elucidates the vulnerability of relying solely on the 'claimed' chain of narration to authenticate religious texts. Here's how such a scenario might unfold:

 

Title: "The Hidden Origins of the Quran" by Dr. Alex Johnson

Description:

Dr. Alex Johnson, a contemporary historian, writes a book titled "The Hidden Origins of the Quran," in which he claims to have compiled his work using ancient documents that purportedly exist from previous eras. He asserts that these documents reveal a chain of narration stretching back 1400 years, alleging that the Quran was actually fabricated by an Arabic poet. Dr. Johnson states that this information comes from a Gnostic Christian individual who referred to himself as Angel Gabriel and claimed to have taught the poet. According to Dr. Johnson, this Christian taught a select few, and this chain of narration has been preserved and continued until today. However, he provides no concrete evidence to support these claims.

Example Claim:

"In this groundbreaking book, I uncover the true origins of the Quran, based on ancient documents preserved through a secret chain of narration spanning 1400 years. According to these documents, the Quran was parroted by an Arabic poet under the influence of a Gnostic Christian who called himself Angel Gabriel. This Christian, who was part of a Gnostic Christian group, claimed to have taught the poet the contents of what would become the Quran. This knowledge was then passed down through a select group of individuals, maintaining an unbroken chain of narration up to the present day."

This scenario illustrates how various logical fallacies can undermine the credibility of claims that lack evidence. To reject the claim made by Dr. Alex Johnson, one must also dismiss the assertion put forth by the authors of the Hadith, who lived 200-300 years after the prophet's demise.

In order to conceal the possibility that the author of the Quran simply parroted what he heard or was taught by others, Muslim scholars concocted various ideas, including the assertion that both the New Testament Bible and Jewish scriptures were corrupted, despite there being no evidence whatsoever. The presence of scribal errors and a few additional verses in the New Testament doesn't necessarily imply fundamental doctrinal differences or serve as validation for the existence of an Injil aligning with Quranic teachings.

Neither the Torah nor the New Testament Bible is corrupted in the manner portrayed by some Muslim apologists. There is no evidence to support such assertions, which are often made to justify the Quran. This scenario is analogous to the notion of a new prophet emerging, akin to Joseph, whom Mormons recognize as their prophet. Would they then accept the Quran as corrupted if it were similarly challenged?

Muslim apologists often assert that the Quran supersedes the previous scriptures of Christianity and Islam, rectifying errors and introducing novel teachings absent in both. Yet, some of the most crucial teachings from the Bible are notably absent in the Quran, including: the notion of 'God created man in his own image (if interpreted correctly),' the principle of 'You reap what you sow' (the concept of karma), the commandment to 'Love one another,' the virtue of 'Forgiveness,' the concept of 'I and God are one,' and the acknowledgment and promotion of miracles, as exemplified by Jesus and his encouragement for others to perform them.

When a Muslim apologist fails their challenge, they often resort to more mental gymnastics, pissing contest, and finally playing the 'you cannot speak Arabic' card. There is absolutely no need to learn Arabic to read the Quran; professional translations serve that purpose effectively. Insisting otherwise implies that if one were to learn Arabic, they might translate the Quran better than expert Muslim translators, potentially casting doubt on the credibility of arguments presented in English by Muslims. If Arabic is considered essential for understanding the Quran, a comparable case can be made for the New Testament Bible, demanding proficiency in Greek, and the Old Testament, grounded in Hebrew. Additionally, understanding Hindu scriptures necessitates familiarity with Sanskrit. It's worth noting that many Muslim apologists who advocate this position often lack proficiency in these languages, yet they readily criticize doctrines of other faiths. Arabic-speaking Christian apologists present arguments against Islam that are identical to those presented by non-Arabic-speaking Christian apologists. This highlights that proficiency in Arabic is not a prerequisite.

 

Not only did he not perform any miracles, but he also did not introduce any new teachings (except for a few verses— even these verses were the beliefs of some Gnostic Christian groups), a fact that the Quran itself acknowledges. Quran 41:43 states, 'Nothing is said to you but was said to the Messengers before you.' The author of the Quran explicitly states that he is only a plain warner (Quran 29:50). Basically, he was nothing more than a poet. The concepts of hell, heaven, the last days, judgment, resurrection, and salvation, as described in the Bible and Quran, are essentially identical. Therefore, he didn’t introduce anything new. I agree with many of the statements made in the Quran, such as the belief in one God, the rejection of the Trinity, and the denial of Jesus as the son of God. However, these doctrines were part of Judaism and Gnostic Christianity during that time. I support the verses Quran 3:80, Quran 3:84, Quran 6:42, Quran 40:78, Quran 4:164, Quran 4:157, Quran 4:171, Quran 5:72, Quran 5:75, Quran 9:31, Quran 5:116, and Quran 19:88-92. However, all of these could fit on one page. The rest was simply borrowed from the Mishnah, New Testament Apocrypha, and the Talmud and expressed them poetically. Many who have read both the Bible and the Quran often claim they are nearly identical except for a few verses. The sole distinction lies in their poetic expression, which suggests that the author of the Quran is a poet.

 

There is no truth in Islam or Christianity except for a few verses. They are false religions that are harming humanity. By defending falsehoods and attempting to validate them through mental gymnastics, Muslim apologists are essentially doing the work of the devil. Their actions divert people from understanding the true concept of God and how to establish a connection with the divine during one’s lifetime. The concept of salvation as described in the Bible or the Quran doesn’t exist in reality.