Islam and the Golden Rule, a Revisitation

”A reply to a Muslim counter apologetic”

Yesterday a Jihad Watch reader wrote to me taking issue with an article I posted here at Jihad Watch four years ago, "The Golden Rule and Islam," by Ali Sina of Faith Freedom, author Understanding Muhammad: A Psychobiography of Allah's Prophet. "All religions," Sina argued, "invariably, are based on the Golden Rule. Islam is not." Here is the response I was sent:

Islamic Text on the Golden Rule: The Qur’an: “Serve God, and join not any partners with Him; and do good- to parents, kinsfolk, orphans, those in need, neighbors who are near, neighbors who are strangers, the companion by your side, the wayfarer (ye meet), and what your right hands possess [the slave]: For God loveth not the arrogant, the vainglorious” (Q:4:36)

(In fact the Qur’an goes beyond saying the Golden Rule by stating in more than four places that "Return evil with Kindness." (13:22, 23:96, 41:34, 28:54, 42:40))

Prophet Muhammad (pbuh): “None of you have faith until you love for your neighbor what you love for yourself” (Sahih Muslim)
 
“Whoever wishes to be delivered from the fire and to enter Paradise…should treat the people as he wishes to be treated.” (Sahih Muslim)

"None of you truly believes until he wishes for his brother what he wishes for himself"(Forty Hadith-Nawawi)
 
“None of you is a believer if he eats his full while his neighbour hasn’t anything.” (Musnad)
 
 “Do unto all men as you would wish to have done unto you; and reject for others what you would reject for yourselves.” (Abu Dawud)
 
 “Hurt no one so that no one may hurt you.” (Farewell Sermon)
 
 “There should be neither harming nor reciprocating harm.” (Ibn- Majah)

I asked Ali Sina for a response, and he very kindly sent me this:

Hello Robert,

The Qur’an is a book of double standards. Indeed there are exhortations to Muslims to be kind to the poor, the traveler, the orphan and the sick. This is to be expected. If you want to start a religion you must preach something good or you’d not find anyone to believe you. You cannot preach only evil. In order to attract followers you must teach things that people like and can easily identify as good. Once they accept you as a prophet, guru or their spiritual guide, then you can do whatever you want and get away with it.

The difference between a true spiritual teacher and a conman is in their consistency. There are several teachings of Muhammad that can be compared to those of Jesus, but the teachings of Jesus are consistent while those of Muhammad are not. Even a criminal can give you good advises, this does not mean this criminal is a good person.

When I was young there was a radio show in Iran called A City within Our City. Every week the producer interviewed a prison inmate on death roll and the criminal would tell the story of his life and what brought him to crime. At the end of the program the producer would ask, whether the criminal had any advice for young people. These criminals often had the best advices. They knew exactly the difference between right and wrong. I recall thinking, if only someone complied the advices of these criminals he could write the best book of guidance. Good words are dime a dozen. If they are not accompanied by good actions they are worthless. In fact the difference between a great man and a conman is in how much their word and deed differ. Even Obama came to power by giving good talks. His entire life however he befriended conmen, terrorists and hateful people. Demagogy is the domain of all charlatans and they are good at it.

We find similar good exhortations in the teachings of Jim Jones who actually based his religion on “social justice”. He even adopted children from many races to set the example.

The problem with the good teachings of Muhammad is that they are reserved for fellow Muslims. When the hadith says “None of you [truly] believes until he wishes for his brother what he wishes for himself,.” it is talking about the fellow Muslims. The brotherhood in Islam does not extend to everyone. The Qur’an (9:23) states that the believers should not take for friends and protectors (awlia) their fathers and brothers if they love Infidelity above Islam. In fact there are many verses that tell the Muslims to kill the unbelievers and be harsh to them. A clear example that Islam is not based on the Golden Rule is the verse (48:29): “Muhammad is the messenger of Allah; and those who are with him are strong against Unbelievers, (but) compassionate amongst each other.” This is the perfect definition of fascism.

There are many other verses that show the brotherhood in Islam is not universal. The non believers have no rights and should not be treated in the same way that Muslims are to be treated. The entire Qur’an is a breach of the Golden Rule. The Qur’an tells Muslims to slay the unbelievers wherever they find them (2:191), do not befriend them (3:28), fight them and show them harshness (9:123), smite their heads (47:4), etc. Are these verses compatible with the Golden Rule?

Islam is the only doctrine that calls upon its believers to do evil to others for the simple fact that they are not believers.

According to Muslims it is not the Golden Rule that defines the good and bad, it is Muhammad who does it. They believe that what is good for Islam is the highest virtue and what is bad for Islam is the ultimate evil. This is the definition of good and evil in Islam. This is the ethos of all cults. From Asahara’s “Aum Shinrikyo” to Jim Jones’ “People’s Temple”; from Sun Myung Moon’s “Unification Chruch” to David Koresh’s “Davidian Branch”, the recurring theme is that the cult’s interests override the human understanding of right and wrong. In order to advance the interest of the cult, which is regarded as the ultimate good, everything, including lying, and even murder and assassination are permissible. The end is deemed to be so lofty that it justifies the means. This is the same idea of fascism where the glorification of the state and the total subordination of the individual to it are enforced.

None of the verse quoted above have anything to do with the Golden Rule.

Verse 13:22 tells the believers to be patient and generous with their money. This is what all cults demand from their followers. The more sacrifice the cultist makes the more he or she can be manipulated. Verse 23:96 asks Muslims to repel evil, whereas the definition of evil for Muhammad was contradicting him. Verse 41:34 is a Meccan verse where Muhammad and his followers were the underdogs and here he preached patience and said repel evil with good so your enemy becomes as friend. Could he have done anything else? These orders changed when Muhammad came to power. In Medina Muhammad banished and massacred entire populations just because he suspected that they may not be friendly to him. 28:54 is a repetition of 23:96 and 42:40 says whoever forgives and amends, he shall have his reward from Allah. However, Muhammad never forgave those who mocked him. As for Muhammad’s unforgiving nature it is enough to recall the fate of Oqba the man who when Muhammad was in Mecca used to mock him and when he was captured in the Battle of Badr, Muhammad ordered his decapitation. He ventured to expostulate, and demand why he should be treated more vigorously than the other captives who were kept for ransom. ‘Because of your enmity to God and to his Prophet,’ replied Muhammad. ‘And my little girl!’ cried Oqba, in the bitterness of his soul, ‘Who will take care of her?’ – ‘Hellfire!’ exclaimed the heartless conqueror; and on the instant his victim was hewn to the ground. ‘Wretch that he was!’ continued Muhammad, ‘and persecutor! Unbeliever in God, in his Prophet, and in his Book! I give thanks unto the Lord that has slain you, and comforted mine eyes thereby.’ [1]

How do you reconcile the claim that Muhammad in his farewell sermon said, “Hurt no one so that no one may hurt you.” With the fact that in his deathbed he said, “No two religions are allowed in Arabia” and ordered the forced conversion, expulsion or ethnic cleansing of the Jews and Christian and the murder of Pagans?

The sura 9, which is the last words of Muhammad, is a manifesto of discrimination and human rights abuses. This sura alone is proof that Islam is against the Golden Rule

The first requisite to feel the pain and suffering of others is to accept that they have feelings like us and they also feel hurt the way we do. If we deny such feelings on others we do not feel any remorse in abusing them. Muhammad claimed all those who disbelieve in Allah are the worst creatures. He even said that all non-believers will end up in hell where they will be tortured for eternity. How then Muslims can treat equally those whom they believe to be worst than beast and that deserve eternal punishment?

There is nothing in the Qur’an and Hadith that would make us believe that Islam is compatible with the Golden Rule.

[1] Sir William Muir: The Life of Mohamet, Vol. 3 Ch. XII Page 115-116

Source: http://www.jihadwatch.org/archives/026277.php#respond

IHS

Does the Qur’an sanction wife beating?

”Wife here does not mean a husband’s wife, but all women that are under his protection”

By Mohammad Asghar

It is a question that has vexed many minds. The Muslims claim that the Qur’an does not sanction such a brutal act against the women. The critics of Islam say that it does sanction harsh punitive measures against, and beating of, wives, who defy their husbands and do ugly things that they are not at all supposed to do. In this connection, they cite verse 4:34 of the Qur’an, which reads:
 
“Men are the protectors and maintainers of women, because Allah has given the one more (strength) than the other, and because they support them from their means. Therefore the righteous women are devoutly obedient, and guard in (the husband’s) absence what Allah would have them guard. As to those women on whose part ye fear disloyalty and ill-conduct, admonish them (first), (Next), refuse to share their beds, (And last) beat them (lightly); but if they return to obedience, seek not against them Means (of annoyance): For Allah is Most High, great (above you all).” (Trans. by Abdullah Yusuf Ali).

The translation of the same verse by Mohammed Marmaduke Pickthall reads:
 
“Men are in charge of women, because Allah hath made the one of them to excel the other, and because they spend of their property (for the support of women). So good women are the obedient, guarding in secret that which Allah hath guarded. As for those from whom ye fear rebellion, admonish them and banish them to beds apart, and scourge them. Then if they obey you, seek not a way against them. Lo! Allah is ever High, Exalted, Great.”

A close reading of both the translations draws our attention to one important point, it being: Yusuf Ali’s translation has the words “the husband’s” in it, but Pickthall’s translation does not. That Ali has added this word in a parenthesis proves the fact that it does not exist in the Arabic version of the verse and that he has added it to his translation in order to hide a truth of gigantic proportion. We shall discuss this truth momentarily.

We find that Allah has mainly done the following three things through the Qur’an: (1) prohibited idols worshipping; (2) retained certain Pagan practices that were to His liking; (3) abolished certain social practices of the pagans, which He disliked, and (4) introduced some customs or practices that were not present among them, but He wanted them to follow them in their lives after they became Muslims.

We have stated the above facts so that the readers can easily understand what we are going to state in the following paragraphs of this narrative.

In the pre-Islamic days, the eldest sons of the Pagans inherited their fathers’ widows with the flocks and the tents. Incest between sons and stepmothers thus was not only lawful but obligatory.¹ Since this pagan practice was highly obnoxious, Muhammad retained it in the Qur’an to subtly, systematically and effectively avenge the betrayals, insults and hardships the women in the homes of his grandfather and uncle had inflicted on him, when he was living with them. With this intention in his mind, he had Allah reveal verses, permitting all Muslim men to punish all the women under their control, be they their mothers, sisters, wives and daughters. One verse reads:

“Your wives are as a tilth unto you: So approach your tilth when or how ye will: But do some good act for your souls beforehand; and fear Allah, and know that ye are to meet Him (in the Hereafter) and give these (good) tidings to those who believe.²

The translator was dishonest here. He intentionally rendered nisaa as “wives” rather than “women” to mislead the Muslims and other readers of the Qur’an. The word “nisaa” in the verse includes wives, slave-girls, and all other women over whom men exert financial control.

Effectively permitting the Muslim men to rape their women (”Approach your tilth “where,³ when or how ye will”), but only after doing some good to compensate for the heinous crime they are about to commit, Allah also told His beloved followers what we read in verse 4:34, quoted above.

Though this verse has received notoriety due to the notion that it allows the Muslim men to beat their “wives,” but hardly anyone has truly understood its true meaning and implications. To make our contention clear, we emphasize the following:

- This verse, 4:34, is part of a Sura that is titled “Women,” or “An-Nisaa” in Arabic.
- The word ‘husbands” is not in the original; instead, we find “men” in it.
- The word “wives,” or azwajaka in Arabic, is not in the original either; instead, we see “Nissa” or “women.”
- This verse has no connection with those that precede and follow it. In other words, it is not contextual and the instruction it contains stands on its own.

Keeping these facts in mind, what do we find in the verse? It says that the Muslim men are the protectors and maintainers of women, as they support them financially (and in Muhammad’s time and in many parts of the third world today, men commonly support their fathers, mothers, sisters, wives, and daughters, if they cannot support themselves). Therefore, women under the men’s patronage should obey them and guard what Allah wants them to guard (that is, their private parts). But if men simply “fear” disloyalty and bad behavior from their women, they must first warn them. If they still feel fear, they must refuse to sleep with them. And if their fear persists, the men must beat them. However, if the women “return to obedience” - presumably, extinguish the fear - then the men must not seek “means of annoyance,” - presumably, further punishment - against them.

Question is: Could Allah have given such an open and obnoxious permission to men to beat, and not to have sex with, those women who depend on them for their survival?

We leave the question to the readers’ imagination for an answer. But as far as we are concerned, we are sure this instruction came from the mind of a sick man, who not only consigned his Pagan blood relatives, including his father and mother, to the fire of Hell, he also permitted the Muslim men to beat, and have sex with, all the women they support with their means.

References
1. Cf. R. V. C. Bodley, op. cit. p. 226.
2. The Qur’an, 2:223.
3. Cf. The Qur’an, 2:222.

Source: http://www.faithfreedom.org/2009/05/25/does-the-Qur’an-sanction-wife-beating/

IHS

A Direct Question to Muslims

”Would you enjoy seeing a Religion endorsing the rape of captured women?”

Whenever Muslims are confronted with quotations from the Qur’an or Ahadith, they immediately counter with excuses. Often they claim we, the ex-Muslims and non-Muslims, have failed to understand the true meaning of a certain verse of the Qur’an or a specific hadith. This time, I will not interpret any of those Islamic teachings but merely quote from their holy books and the explanation made by the authentic Islamic scholars.

At the end, however, I will ask one simple question.

Qur’an 004.024

YUSUF ALI: Also (prohibited are) women already married, except those whom your right hands possess: Thus hath! Allah ordained (Prohibitions) against you: Except for these, all others are lawful, provided ye seek (them in marriage) with gifts from your property,- desiring chastity, not lust, seeing that ye derive benefit from them, give them their dowers (at least) as prescribed; but if, after a dower is prescribed, agree Mutually (to vary it), there is no blame on you, and Allah is All-knowing, All-wise.

PICKTHAL: And all married women (are forbidden unto you) save those (captives) whom your right hands possess. It is a decree of Allah for you. Lawful unto you are all beyond those mentioned, so that ye seek them with your wealth in honest wedlock, not debauchery. And those of whom ye seek content (by marrying them), give unto them their portions as a duty. And there is no sin for you in what ye do by mutual agreement after the duty (hath been done). Lo! All! ah is ever Knower, Wise.

SHAKIR: And all married women except those whom your right hands possess (this is) Allah's ordinance to you, and lawful for you are (all women) besides those, provided that you seek (them) with your property, taking (them) in marriage not committing fornication. Then as to those whom you profit by, give them their dowries as appointed; and there is no blame on you about what you mutually agree after what is appointed; surely Allah is Knowing, Wise.

Dr. MUHAMMAD TAQI-UD-DIN AL-HILALI and Dr. MUHAMMAD MUHSIN KHAN: Also (forbidden are) women already married, except those (captives and slaves) whom your right hands possess. Thus has Allâh ordained for you. All others are lawful, provided you seek (them in marriage) with Mahr (bridal money given by the husband to his wife at the time of marriage) ! from your property, desiring chastity, not committing illegal sexual intercourse, so with those of whom you have enjoyed sexual relations, give them their Mahr as prescribed; but if after a Mahr is prescribed, you agree mutually (to give more), there is no sin on you. Surely, Allâh is Ever AllKnowing, AllWise.

Tafsir Ibn Kathir

Allah said, (Also (forbidden are women already married, except those whom your right hands possess.). The Ayah means, you are prohibited from marrying women who are already married, (except those whom your right hands possess) except those whom you acquire through war, for you are allowed such women after making sure they are not pregnant.

Imam Ahmad recorded that Abu Sa`id Al-Khudri said, "We captured some women from the area of Awtas who were already married, and we disliked having sexual relations with them because they already had husbands. So, we asked the Prophet about this matter, and this Ayah was revealed,

(Also (forbidden are) women already married, except those whom your right hands possess). Consequently, we had sexual relations with these women.'' This is the wording collected by At-Tirmidhi, An-Nasa'i, Ibn Jarir and Muslim in his Sahih. Allah's statement, (Thus has Allah ordained for you) means, this prohibition was ordained for you by Allah. Therefore, adhere to Allah's Book, do not transgress His set limits, and adhere to His legislation and decrees. Tafsir Ibn Kathir, Abridged by a group of scholars under the supervision of Shaykh Saifur-Rahman Al-Mubarakpuri, Published by Darussalam, Riyadh, Saudia Arabia.

Sahih Muslim: Book of Marriage
 
“Abu Said Al-khudri narrated that at the Battle of Hunain, the Mesenger of Allah sent an army to Autas and encountered the enemy and fought with them. Having overcome them and taken them as captives, the Companions of the Messenger of Allah seemed to refrain from having intercourse with captive women because of their husbands being polytheists. Then Allah, the most High, revealed: “And women already married, except those whom your right hands possess...” (i.e., they were lawful for them when their Iddah period came to an end.)”(Qur’an 4:24). Sahih Muslim, compiled by Al-Hafiz Zakiuddin Abdul-Azim Al-Mundhiri, published by Darrussalam Publishers, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia

Suppose that those teachings are of a different religion and you, a Muslim or a Muslimah, live in the 7th century. Assuming that you are one of those captives:

Would you enjoy watching your wife, sister or mother being raped by her captors, while you are shackled with a chain nearby?

If an answer to the question is yes, you surely are a perfect Muslim.

However, if your answer is no: Run! Muslims, Run!! Run away from Islam as fast as you can.

Source: http://www.news.faithfreedom.org/index.php?name=News&file=article&sid=1878

IHS

Is the Qur’an Miraculous?

”The case of he the first Surah suffices”

The Qur'an claims, in Sura 11:16, that it is a book that is unmatchable in its content, and is hence miraculous. When Muslims are challenged regarding their faith, they turn to this claim as an irrefutable proof. Their defence is based almost wholly on this, since the Qur'an itself does not offer any evidence for it's claim to be of divine origin. And Muslims see this as powerful enough, to stand on its own. Just as the resurrection of Jesus Christ is the one point on which the Christian faith rests, so the entire Islamic faith rests on this. The book is so sure of its uniqueness, that it challenges any man or spirit to produce one like it, or a passage like any one in it.

In what way then, one would ask, is the Qur'an miraculous? I have heard many responses to this, the most common being:

1) In its literary eloquence.
2) In its subject matter.
3) In its preservation over the centuries.

In the following article, I want to consider only response number one. Later articles will discuss the other two, and since this article itself is lengthy, I will split number one into two sections - one regarding the meeting of the challenge (this article), and the other being a rebuttal for the Qur'an's supposed perfect eloquence. Most of the ideas in this, and the following articles are borrowed, and I have tried to give due credit wherever possible. I would like to say that it is not my intention to insult Muslim readers, so I have tried to be careful in my choice of words, in order to avoid offence and encourage serious discussion of the real issues. If I have overlooked anything it is due to my own ignorance, and readers are invited to write to the maintainer of the homepage about any corrections, they would like to see. With this out of the way, let us now discuss three cases where I believe passages have been composed that are comparable, if not superior, literarily, to the Qur'an.

CASE-1

If a person wants an opinion on something, he or she goes to an expert in the field to get it. If you want to know whether you should try a new sort of medical treatement, you go to a doctor; if you want to know what you should take up for a profession, you go to a counsellor; if you want to find out more about the Universe, you read a book by an astronomer. So what if you want to find out about language - of course, you go to a language expert. What do some Qur'anic and linguistic scholars have to say about the Qur'an's eloquence?

Ali Dashti, the famous Iranian-Arab scholar, has the following to say:

"Neither the Qur'an's eloquence, nor it's moral precepts are miraculous." (Ali Dashti, Twenty Three Years, pg 57)

Earlier on in the book, he discusses cases of other scholars who shared his point of view, such as the blind Syrian poet Abu 'l-Ala al Ma'arri, who Dashti describes differently as: "...a great and penetrating Arab thinker" (pg 53) and "...a great and universally admired poet-philosopher" (pg 94). This man considered some of his own works, to be on par with the Qur'an. If his evaluation of the facts is faulty, who then, if not a man of his learning, can be the judge of such a thing? Indeed even Muslim scholars in that age, did not believe that the Qur'an was untouchable in literary excellence. Here is a quote from Dashti concerning this:

"Among the Muslim scholars of the early period, before bigotry and hyperbole prevailed, were some such as Ebrahim on-Nazzim who openly acknowledged that the arrangement and syntax of the Qur'an are not miraculous and that work of equal or greater value could be produced by other God-fearing persons", (emphasis mine, pg 48)

This case is only one of many like it. Others who shared this view include "... Ebn Hazm and ol-Khayyat ......and several other leading exponents of the Mo' tazzilite school." (pg 48). In more recent years there is the case of some linguistic scholars, who worked in Jerusalem for sixteen years, trying to produce Biblical passages in a Qur'anic style. To deny that they have been successful in their attempts, is to deny their scholarship, and the science of Linguistics.

Of course, Muslims could accuse these people of being biased in their opinions. In the case of the Syrian poet, he may have done this to glorify his own work. The scholars in the Jerusalem, project were "obviously" biased, being Christians. I would ask if these men would be foolish enough to make such daring claims, and risk their reputations, if there were not some truth to them. Also, they have put their works out in the open, for anyone to refute them - if you honestly have a reason not to trust their claims, go ahead and refute them. If not then it would be best to accept them. In the cases of the two quotes, I do not believe there is any room for doubt. Ali Dashti, throughout his book, retains an atmosphere of neutrality, and intellectualism, without any hint of pro, or anti-Islamic bias. I invite any reader to get his book, read it, and then tell me that he is biased. Dashti's very goal in writing the book, was to give an unbiased account of Muhammad's life, and religion. In the last case I believe, if anything, there should be a bias towards Islam, as these men are Muslims - but we do not find this. In this case thus, there is no chance for an anti-Islamic bias. So in the opinions of experts, even Muslim ones, the challenge is not untouchable, and may have already been met.

CASE-2

There is evidence to the effect that Suras 1, 113, and 114 are not originally part of the Qur'an, but later additions. It is a well known fact that Abdulla ibn Masud, a man described by Muhammed as one of the, if not THE, highest authority on the Qur'an (Bukhari), did not consider these to be part of the it (Bukhari), but rather liturgical in nature, the latter point being evident from his writings. Critics in the 1930s, approaching the problem from a different perspective, also arrived at the same conclusions. There is a third reason why I believe Muslims cannot consider Surah 1 a part of their book.

Muslims believe that the Qur'an is God's DIRECT revelation - it is exactly His words; it is Him speaking. Hence, according to their concept of inspiration, God speaks directly in the first person, and passages that do not convey this cannot be His words. An example of this belief is reflected in the arguments of Muslim apologists, who state that such passages in the Bible as the Psalms cannot be God's words, as the author is directly worshipping Him. They ask: "Does God worship God?". I would ask then, how Muslims can ascribe Sura 1 to God, even if it is a direct prayer for guidance, and of worship by the author (the word "say" is not present at the beginning of the sura, so it cannot be considered instuctional)? To follow the Islamic idea of inspiration, and line of reasoning, is God praying to himself? The only logical answer, in my opinion, for a Muslim is no. There is no doubt that this Surah, is one of the more eloquent ones in the Qur'an, as it stands today. If it was composed not by God, but by a man, or men, and is considered as eloquent as any sura in the Qur'an, has the challenge not been met?

Surah 1: [In the name of Allah, the Most Gracious, the Most Merciful: All Praises to Allah, Lord of the Universe. The Most Gracious, the Most Merciful. Sovereign of the Day of Judgment. You alone we worship, and You alone we ask for help. Guide us to the straight path; The path of those on whom You have bestowed your grace, not of those who have earned Your anger, nor of those who go astray] (Link)

CONCLUSIONS

What are the conclusions one can draw from such discussion? So what if the challenge has been met? If indeed the Qur'an's challenge has been met, then it is no longer miraculous in nature. If so then the only evidence Islam has for the divine origin of it's book shatters, and Muslims are left with no justifiable reason as to why they believe, what they believe. We have already seen many objective, reasonable reasons to believe that this is the case. What then is your verdict?

A WORD TO MUSLIM READERS

I am aware that many Muslim readers will still refuse to face the objective conclusions, reached in this article. I will ask them the following question - Is your conclusion based on the facts, or on your faith? Are you a person who says - The challenge will never be met. If such is the case, then your conclusion is based on faith, and not reasoning. The challenge becomes void, in that you have already decided the outcome. Be careful here though - you are treading on dangerous ground. If you have indeed made the challenge void then the only intellectual basis for your faith has been made void. The so called miracle of the Qur'an, is the ONLY supernatural thing by which Muslims break the circularity of Muhammad's claims. What do I mean by that? Ask a Muslim - How do you know that Muhammad is a prophet? Answer: Because the Qur'an says so, and the Qur'an is the word of God. Ask them then: How do you know that the Qur'an is God's word? Answer: Because Muhammad says so. The only thing that can break such circularity, as in the case of Christianity, is some evidence outside these two sources, to substantiate these claims (Ravi Zacharias - Islam Lectures). The Qur'an claims that it is its miraculousness that does this, and the challenge substantiates the miraculousness. So if the challenge is made void, there is no corroboration for this claim, and then there is no intellectual basis for your faith - it is a blind faith - it is a faith that even the Qur'an does not support, since it always appeals to man's intelligence to guide him to the truth. Are you still determined to stick to your guns, or will you be honest with your mind, and your heart?

Reference: Ali Dashti, "Twenty Three Years: A Study of the Prophetic Career of Mohammad", Routledge Chapman & Hall, Mazda Pubs, Bibliotheca Iranica: Reprints Ser., Vol. No. 2., 1985, 246p. $15.95, ISBN 1-56859-029-6.

Source: http://www.answering-islam.org/Qur’an/Miracle/mirac1.html

IHS