Revisiting the Issue of the Quran and the Falsification Test

Sam Shamoun

This is a brief reply to another one of Bassam Zawadi’s attempts of defending the indefensible. Zawadi tries to take a stab at refuting my article which details how the Quran fails a Muslim falsification test.

Zawadi writes:

Zawadi’s assertion that Q. 111 specifically mentions Abu Lahab by name along with his wife, whereas Q. 6:93 doesn’t do so, is a distinction without a difference for a couple of reasons. First, how does Zawadi know who Abu Lahab is? In fact, how does he know that Abu Lahab is even a proper name as opposed to a description of his character, or perhaps an insulting way of referring to some unknown antagonist that Muhammad was really upset with? After all, Abu Lahab means “father of the flames,” and may be describing the fact that he had a fiery temper which he was incapable of controlling, and therefore prone to fits of rage.

Moreover, can Zawadi point out what the sin of Abu Lahab and his wife was which caused Muhammad to curse them to hell in a fit of unbridled rage?

The only way that Zawadi can even answer these questions is by consulting sources such as the hadith, sirah and/or the commentaries, which brings me to my second point.

The same sources which tell us the who, what, why, when, where and how of Q. 111 are the very same ones which inform us that Q. 6:93 and 16:106 have at least one specific person in view, namely Abdullah ibn Sad ibn Abi Sarh. Therefore, Zawadi cannot simply take the explanation of the hadith, sirah etc. when it comes to Q. 111, while then brushing aside what these same sources say concerning the reason and meaning of Q. 6:93 and 16:106. In other words, Zawadi needs to stop trying to have his cake and eat it too since this only exposes his inconsistency, dishonesty and deception.

This now leads me to my third problem with Zawadi’s assertion. Zawadi knows full well that, according to his own scholars and sources, the verse of Q. 16:106 was also “revealed” in connection to Ammar ibn Yasar who was forced to recant and deny his faith due to the torture he underwent at the hands of the disbelievers:

And:

However, the text itself does not mention Yasar by name but speaks in generalities, much like the verse of Q. 6:93 supposedly does. Yet despite the fact that the former verse speaks in general terms this doesn’t mean that it doesn’t have a specific person or event in view. By the same token, just because Q. 6:93 is alleged to be making a general statement this doesn’t mean that it didn’t have a particular person or group of individuals in mind when it was initially “revealed” to Muhammad.

Zawadi continues:

A couple of replies are in order to expose this rather feeble and desperate attempt of salvaging Muhammad’s gross mistake. First, it is irrelevant as to what Muhammad thought. What is important is what the Quranic texts say will be the fate of the person who turned away from the “faith” and who claimed to be just as inspired as Zawadi’s false prophet. The Quran is quite clear that the person(s) in question is(are) doomed to destruction for what s/he/they have done.

Secondly, the very fact that Muhammad did want Ibn Abi Sarh murdered for running around telling people how he manipulated Zawadi’s false prophet into including the uninspired statements of his scribe is simply further confirmation that the Quran failed the Muslim falsification text. It shows that Allah and his messenger were unable to bring about the predicted destruction upon an apostate even though this is what Muhammad’s deity said he would do. The fact is that both Uthman ibn Affan and Ibn Abi Sarh were able to successfully thwart the purposes of Allah and Muhammad, thereby turning the Quran into a lie!

Third, that Muhammad’s companions supposedly never raised this issue against Muhammad is also irrelevant, and a classic example of a red herring, and simply proves that, much like Zawadi, they were brainwashed into believing whatever Muhammad and his god told them, no matter how absurd or illogical their instructions may have been.

For instance, just ask any non-Muslim whether s/he believes that:

• Satan stays in the upper part of a person’s nose and needs to be flushed out with water.
• Satan passes wind and urinates in people’s ears.
• Stars are missiles which Allah hurls at jinn (Q. 15:16-18; 37:6-10; 67:5; 72:8-9).
• The sun sets in a muddy spring (Q. 18:83-86).
• Adam was originally 90 feet tall.
• Moses chased a stone which ran off with his clothes while he was taking a bath.
• A group of Jews were transformed into rats and that these rats refused to drink the milk of camels.
• A group of monkeys stoned a she-monkey for committing illegal sexual intercourse.
• A person should dip a house fly that has fallen into his/her drink since one wing has the disease whereas the other has its cure.
• Food would talk and glorify Allah right before Muhammad would consume it.
• Food wasn't the only thing that spoke. Muhammad claimed that both stones and trees would converse with him! In fact, on one occasion he even heard a date-palm tree crying like a child!

These are some of the teachings of Muhammad which Muslims such as Zawadi believe are divinely revealed truths!

Any rational person that hasn’t been brainwashed would see these absurdities for what they truly are, but a mind that has been taken captive by Satan will find ways of defending and justifying such nonsense.

It is obvious that Zawadi underestimates just how powerful satanic deception and mind-control are, and the effects that brainwashing can have, on individuals.

Sadly, Zawadi himself is a victim of such deception and manipulation, and perfectly illustrates the lengths that those who have been spiritually deceived will go to in order to defend the lies which they have been duped into believing are revelations from God.

For instance, instead of focusing his energies on trying to defend the Quran for failing a test employed by Muslim dawagandists to prove its alleged divine origin, Zawadi should have spent his time pondering over the implications of the Ibn Abi Sarh story.

According to the Muslim expositors like al-Qurtubi, the reason Ibn Abi Sarah apostatized is because Muhammad took his uninspired exclamations and incorporated them into a book which he claimed was sent down by the lord of the worlds. This led Ibn Abi Sarh to reason that if Muhammad was inspired then so was he, since the former took the words of his scribe and claimed that they were revelations from God. Ibn Abi Sarh further concluded that if Muhammad was lying that the Quran is divine in origin then this means that the words of an uninspired scribe were just as eloquent as Muhammad’s, there being no difference between them. As one expositor explains the story:

Now to folks who haven’t been blinded by the deception of Islam this story would convince them that Ibn Abi Sarh was right and that Muhammad was a fraud and a plagiarist. Yet to those who have been deceived by Satan and have bought into the lie that the Quran is miraculous, such evidence will never be sufficient enough to cause them to see Islam for what it truly is.

Sadly, Zawadi happens to be one of those who would rather remain blind and oblivious to the truth. This is why he tries so desperately to refute all of the insurmountable problems with his Islamic faith, but to no avail.

It is time for Zawadi to come to grips with the evidence and accept the fact that the Allah of the Quran is a false god, that Muhammad was a false prophet, and that the Quran is an incoherent, unintelligible book of deception used by Satan to keep people away from the true God and his Gospel. Zawadi needs to awaken to reality and see the Quran for what it truly is, namely, a book which is easily exposed and refuted for the lie that it is.

For more on the topic of Ibn Abi Sarh manipulating Muhammad to change the so-called revelations and the implication this has on Muhammad’s credibility we recommend the article How Allah killed his prophet.

So much for Zawadi’s “rebuttal.”