Monday, 31 May 2021

The Prophecy that Exposed Muhammad as a Fraud: Addendum

In this section ( I am going to show that even if we take the traditional interpretation of Q. 30:1-5 that this is a prediction of the Romans defeating the Persians, this still ends up being a false prophecy exposing Muhammad as a fraud and charlatan.

According to Muslim scholarship Q. 30:1-5 was supposedly “sent down” approximately around 615 AD and refers to the defeat of the Romans at the hands of the Persians. This means that the Quran predicted that the Romans would become victorious anywhere between 618-624 AD since, as we saw in the previous sections, the Muslim sources stated that the Arabic word bidi in v. 4 signifies a time period of 3-9 years. However, when we consult the encyclopedias and other sources we discover that the Roman victory didn’t occur until 13 years later, not the 3-9 years stipulated by the Quran.

The Encyclopedia Americana, 2000 Edition, Volume 4, p. 115 under the heading of Heraclius, states:

Heraclius found the empire in domestic turmoil. The Slavs threatened in the Balkans, the Persians and Visigoths in Asia Minor; in 615 the Persians reached the Bosporous, and in 619 they conquered Egypt. At first, Heraclius concentrated on internal reorganization of the empire. Then, in 622, he left Constantinople to begin a counterattack against the Persians. His military reforms bore fruit WHEN HE DESTROYED THE PERSIAN ARMY AT NINEVAH IN 627. (Bold and capital emphasis mine)

On p. 421, under Khosrow II, the Americana writes:

… In 614 Khosrow’s army entered Jerusalem, sacked the Holy Sepulchre, and carried off the “True Cross” to the Sassanian capital at Ctesiphon. In 617 the Persians took Chalcedon, opposite Constantinople. Not until the forces of Emperor Heraclius crossed the Black Sea and took the offensive in the east were the armies of Khosrow and his chief general, Shahrbaraz, defeated in a series of brilliant campaigns (622-625). 

In 626, Khosrow’s army, now rallied under his general Shahin, besieged Constantinople. But Heraclius again invaded Persian by way of Armenia and marched on the royal residence of Dastagird, from which Khosrow fled. A dynastic revolution led to Khosrow’s execution in 628-an end, as poets sang, that was the more ignominious for the glory lost. (Bold and capital emphasis mine)

Under Heraclius, Encyclopedia Britannica writes:

In 614 the Persians conquered Syria and Palestine, taking Jerusalem and what was believed to be Christ’s Cross, and in 619 occupied Egypt and Libya…

In 622, clad as a penitent and bearing a sacred image of the Virgin, he left Constantinople, as prayers rose from its many sanctuaries for victory over the Persian Zoroastrians, the recovery of the Cross, and the reconquest of Jerusalem

The next two years he devoted to campaigns in Armenia, the manpower of which was vital to the empire, and to a devastating invasion of Persia. In 625 Heraclius retired to Anatolia. He had encamped on the west bank of the Sarus River when the Persian forces appeared on the opposite bank. Many of his men rushed impetuously across the bridge and were ambushed and annihilated by the enemy.

Emerging from his tent, Heraclius saw the triumphant Persians crossing the bridge. The fate of the Empire hung in the balance. Seizing his sword, he ran to the bridge and struck down the Persian leader Persians conquered Syria and Palestine, taking Jerusalem and what was believed to be Christ’s Cross, and in 619 occupied Egypt and Libya…

In 622, clad as a penitent and bearing a sacred image of the Virgin, he left Constantinople, as prayers rose from its many sanctuaries for victory over the Persian Zoroastrians, the recovery of the Cross, and the reconquest of Jerusalem

The next two years he devoted to campaigns in Armenia, the manpower of which was vital to the empire, and to a devastating invasion of Persia. In 625 Heraclius retired to Anatolia. He had encamped. His soldiers closed rank behind him and beat back the foe.

In 626 the Persians advanced to the Bosporus, hoping to join the Avars in an assault on the land walls of Constantinople. But the Romans sank the primitive Avar fleet that was to transport Persian units across Bosporus and repelled the unsupported Avar assault. Heraclius again invaded Persia and in December 627, after a march across the Armenian highlands into the Tigris plain, met the Persians near the ruins of NinevehThere, astride his renowned war-horse, he killed three Persian generals in single combat, charged into enemy ranks at the head of his troops, killed the Persian commander, and scattered the Persian host.

A month later, Heraclius entered Dastagird with its stupendous treasure. Khosrow was overthrown by his son, with whom Heraclius made peace, DEMANDING ONLY THE RETURN OF THE CROSS, the captives, AND CONQUERED ROMAN TERRITORY. Returning to Constantinople in triumph, he was hailed as a Moses, an Alexander, a Scipio. IN 630 HE PERSONALLY RESTORED THE CROSS TO THE CHURCH OF THE HOLY SEPULCHRE IN JERUSALEM. (Bold and capital emphasis mine)

Another scholarly source concurs that the complete defeat of the Persians took place around 628 AD:

“The threatening attitude of the Avar Khan made it essential for the Emperor to return to Constantinople. The tribute paid to the Avars was then raised and near relatives of the Emperor were sent to the Khan as hostages, so that Heraclius was able to resume the war with Persia by March 623. In spite of the defeat of the previous year, Chosroes II REFUSED TO CONSIDER A TRUCE, and he sent the Emperor a letter full of the most insulting expressions and blasphemous utterances against the Christian faith. Passing through Cappadocia, Heraclius again moved towards Armenia. Dvin was taken by storm and razed to the ground, and many other cities suffered the same fate. The Emperor then made a drive towards the south and marched on Ganzak, the capital of the first Sassanid Ardasir and an important religious centre for Persia. Chosroes was forced to fly from the city, which fell into the hands of the Byzantines, and the great Persian sanctuary, the fire-temple of Zoroaster, was destroyed in revenge for the plundering of Jerusalem. Heraclius then retired with countless prisoners to winter behind Araxes. Here he got into touch with the Christian Caucasian tribes and was able to reinforce his army with Lazi, Abasgi and Iberians. The position, however, was difficult, and he spent the following year on Armenian territory in an exhausting struggle against the attacking Persians. He did not succeed in the attempt to break through to Persia. In 625 he tried to reach enemy soil by means of a detour through Cilicia, but again without any DECISIVE result, and IN SPITE OF SOME VICTORIES he withdrew through Sebastea to the region of Pontus as winter approached.

The Persians were now able to take the offensive again, and in 626 Constantinople had to face the terrible danger of a two-faced attack from the Persians and Avars. It was this which Heraclius had always feared and had tried to avert by buying off the Avars with humiliating concessions…

“At the time when his capital was in deadly peril, Heraclius and his army had been in distant Lazica. He now negotiated an alliance with the Khazars, as he had earlier done with the Caucasian peoples, and the resulting Byzantino-Khazar understanding became from now onwards one of the main features of imperial eastern diplomacy. As allies of the imperial troops the Khazars fought the Persians on Caucasian and Armenian soil. In the autumn OF 627 the Emperor began his great advance south into the heart of the enemy’s territory. Here he had to rely on his own resources, since the Khazars could not stand up to the rigours of the campaign and return home. In spite of this, AT THE BEGINNING OF DECEMBER Heraclius stood before Nineveh. IT WAS HERE THAT THE DEADLY BATTLE WAS FOUGHT WHICH REALLY DECIDED THE OUTCOME OF THE CONFLICT BETWEEN THE PERSIANS AND BYZANTINES. THE PERSIAN ARMY WAS PRACTICALLY WIPED OUT AND BYZANTINE HAD WON THE WAR. Heraclius CONTINUED HIS VICTORIOUS ADVANCE AND AT THE BEGINNING OF 628 he occupied Dastagerd, the Persian king’s favourite residence from which he had had to beat a hasty retreat. IN THE SPRING OF 628 events occurred in Persia WHICH MADE ANY FURTHER FIGHTING UNNECESSARY. Chosroes was deposed and murdered and his son Kavadh-Siroe, who succeeded him, immediately came to terms with the Byzantine Emperor. As a result of their own successes and the total collapse of the Persians, the Byzantines secured the return of all the territory which had formerly belonged to them, and Armenia, Roman Mesopotamia, Syria, Palestine and Egypt were restored. A few months later Siroe on his death-bed named the Byzantine Emperor as his son’s guardian: Chosroes II had once called the Emperor his slave, BUT THE POSITION WAS NOW REVERSED, and Siroe declared his son and heir to be the slave of the Byzantine Emperor.1

“After six years’ absence Heraclius returned to his capital. His son Constantine, the Patriarch Sergius, the clergy, the senate and the people received him on the coast of Asia Minor with olive branches and lighted candles, with hymns and acclamations of joy. While the Roman provinces were being cleared of Persians, Heraclius went to Jerusalem IN THE SPRING OF 630. Here on 21 March amid great rejoicing he once more set up the Holy Cross won back from the Persians, and by this solemn act SYMBOLIZED THE VICTORIOUS CONCLUSION OF THE FIRST GREAT HOLY WAR OF CHRISTENDOM. The foes before whom Byzantium had once trembled now lay prostrate. THE STRUGGLE AT NINEVAH HAD CRUSHED THE PERSIAN MIGHT, and the battle of Constantinople had brought the pride of the Avars to the dust…” (George Ostrogorsky,  History of the Byzantine State [Rutgers University Press, Revised Edition 1969], pp. 101-104; bold and capital emphasis ours)

According to Nicephorus 20 f. he wrote to Heraclius: ‘In the same way as you say that your God was presented to the old man Symeon, so I present your slave, my son, into your hands’. (Ibid., p. 103)

Ironically, even the Muslim scholars agree with the secular dating of the victory of the Romans over the Persians. The late Muslim translator A. Yusuf Ali in an appendix to his English translation stated:

16. In these desperate circumstances Heraclius conceived a brilliant plan. He knew that the Persians were weak in sea power. He used his sea power to attack them in the rear. In 622 (the year of the Hijra) he transported his army by sea through the AEgeanSea to the bay just south of the Taurus Mountains. He fought a decisive battle with the Persians at Issus, in the same plain in which Alexander the Great had defeated the Persians of his day in his famous march to Syria and Egypt. The Persians were taken by surprise and routed. BUT THEY HAD STILL A LARGE FORCE IN ASIA MINOR, which they could have brought into play against the Romans if Heraclius had not made ANOTHER and equally unexpected dash by sea from the north. He returned to Constantinople by sea, made a treaty with the Avars, and with this help kept the Persians at bay round the capital. Then he led THREE CAMPAIGNS, IN 623, 624 AND 625, along the southern shore of the Black Sea and took the Persians again in the rear in the region round Trebizond and Kars. Through Armenia he penetrated into Persia and got into Mesopotamia. He was now in a position to strike AT THE VERY HEART OF THE PERSIAN EMPIRE. A DECISIVE BATTLE WAS FOUGHT ON THE TIGRIS NEAR THE CITY OF MOSUL IN DECEMBER 627. Before this battle, however, he had taken care to get the alliance of the Turks and with their help to relieve Constantinople IN 626 against the Persians and the treacherous Avars who had then joined the Persians.

17. Heraclius CELEBRATED HIS TRIUMPH IN CONSTANTINOPLE IN MARCH 628. PEACE WAS THEN MADE BETWEEN THE TWO EMPIRES ON THE BASIS OF THE STATUS QUO ANTEHeraclius, in pursuance of a vow he had made, went south in the autumn to Emessa (Hims) and from there marched on foot to Jerusalem TO CELEBRATE HIS VICTORIES, AND RESTORE TO ITS PLACE THE HOLY CROSS WHICH HAD BEEN CARRIED AWAY BY THE PERSIANS AND WAS RETURNED TO THE EMPEROR AS A CONDITION OF PEACE. Heraclius’s route was strewn with costly carpets, AND HE THOUGHT THAT THE FINAL DELIVERANCE HAD COME FOR HIS PEOPLE AND HIS EMPIRE… (Ali, appendix X, pp. 1073-1074; bold and capital emphasis ours)

Ali’s claim leaves us with a time period after 628 AD for the Roman victory, making this a false prophecy. Muhammad is, therefore, a false prophet. The late Muslim scholar and Quran translator Muhammad Asad agree with Ali:

2 Lit., “before and after”. The defeats and victories spoken of above relate to the last phases of the centuries-long struggle between the Byzantine and Persian Empires. During the early years of the seventh century the Persians conquered parts of Syria and Anatolia, “the lands close-by”, i.e., near the heartland of the Byzantine Empire; in 613 they took Damascus, and in 614, Jerusalem; Egypt fell to them in 615-16, and at the same time they laid siege to Constantinople itself. At the time of the revelation of this surah – about the seventh year before the hijrah, corresponding to 615 or 616 of the Christian era – the total destruction of the Byzantine Empire seemed imminent. The few Muslims around the Prophet were despondent on hearing the news of the utter discomfiture of the Byzantines, who were Christians and, as such, believed in the One God. The pagan Quraysh, on the other hand, sympathized with Persians who, they thought, would vindicate their own opposition to the One-God idea. When Muhammad enunciated the above Qur’an-verses predicting a Byzantine victory “within a few years”, this prophecy was received with derision by the Quraysh. Now the term bid’ (commonly rendered as “a few”) denotes any number between three and ten; and, as it happened, in 622 – i.e., six or seven years after the Qur’anic prediction – the tide turned in favour of the Byzantines. In that year, Emperor Heraclius succeeded in defeating the Persians at Issus, south of the Taurus Mountains, and subsequently drove them out of Asia Minor. By 624, he carried the war into Persian territory and thus put the enemy on the defensive; and IN THE BEGINNING OF DECEMBER 626, the Persian armies were COMPLETELY ROUTED by the Byzantines. (Asad, The Message of the Qur’an, p. 841; Bold and capital emphasis ours)

Hence, both secular and Islamic sources expose Muhammad as a false prophet since they demonstrate that the alleged prophecy of Q. 30:1-5 that the Romans would be victorious within the 3-9 years as stipulated by the Arabic term bidi in Q. 30:4, did not take place within that time frame. Rather, it took the Romans over 13 years to vanquish the Persians.

Therefore, no matter from what angle one chooses to analyze this so-called prediction, the result is the same, namely, Muhammad was a false prophet and the Quran is not the word of the true God of the Holy Bible.



The Prophecy that Exposed Muhammad as a Fraud Pt. 2

I continue with my exposition of the alleged prophecy of Q. 30:1-5 (

The term bid’i is used at least twice in the Quran, here in Q. 30:4 and also in Q. 12:42. Ibn Kathir comments on the meaning of this term in Q. 12:42:

<But Shaytan made him forget to mention it to his master.>

that it refers to the man who was saved. As was said by Mujahid, Muhammad bin Ishaq and several others. As for ‘a few years’, or, Bida’ in Arabic, IT MEANS THREE TO NINE, according to Mujahid and Qatadah. Wahb bin Munabbih said, “Ayub suffered from the illness for seven years, Yusuf remained in prison for seven years and Bukhtanassar (Nebuchadnezzar – Chaldean king of Babylon) was tormented for seven years.” (Tafsir Ibn Kathir (Abridged): Surah Hud to Surat Al-Isra’, Verse 38, abridged by a group of scholars under the supervision of Shaykh Safiur-Rahman Al-Mubarakpuri [Darussalam Publishers & Distributors, Riyadh, Houston, New York, Lahore; First Edition: July 2000], Volume 5, pp. 170-171; bold and capital emphasis ours)

In light of Ibn Kathir’s time specification for the term, this means that there was nothing stopping Allah from causing the Romans from being victorious within 3 years. Seeing that the Romans didn’t become victorious until much later, it comes as no surprise that Muslims opt for the later time frame.

Interestingly, the hadith literature highlights the embarrassment Muslims faced due to the imprecise nature of the time stipulated by the expression:

Jami` at-Tirmidhi

Chapters on Tafsir

Narrated Sa’eed bin Jubair:

from Ibn ‘Abbas, regarding the saying of Allah, Most High: Alif Lam Mim. The Romans have been defeated. In the nearest land (30:1-3)” he said: “Ghulibat wa Ghalabat (defeated and then victorious).” He said: “The idolaters wanted the Persians to be victorious over the Romans because they too were people who worshiped idols, while the Muslims wanted the Romans to be victorious over the Persians because they were people of the Book. This was mentioned to Abu Bakr, so Abu Bakr mentioned that to the Messenger of Allah and he said: ‘They will certainly prevail.’ Abu Bakr mentioned that to them, and they said: ‘Make a wager between us and you; if we win, we shall get this and that, and if you win, you shall get this or that.’ He made the term five years, but they (the Romans) were not victorious. They mentioned that to the Prophet and he said: “Why did you not make it less (than)” – He (one of the narrators said): I think he said: “ten?” He said: Sa’eed said: “Al-Bid’ is what is less than then” – he said: “Afterwards the Romans have been victorious.” He said: “That is what Allah Most High said: ‘Alif Lam Mim. The Romans have been defeated’ up to His saying: ‘And on the day, the believers will rejoice – with the help of Allah. He helps whom He wills (30:1-5).’ Sufyan said: “I heard that they were victorious over them on the Day of Badr.”

Grade: SAHIH (Darussalam)

English reference: Vol. 5, Book 44, Hadith 3193

Arabic reference: Book 47, Hadith 3497 (; capital and underline emphasis ours)


Jami` at-Tirmidhi

Chapters on Tafsir

Narrated Ibn ‘Abbas:

that regarding “Alif Lam Mim. The Romans have been defeated” (In the nearest land, and they, after their defeat, will be victorious. Within Bid’ years…) (30 1 & 2)” The Messenger of Allah said to Abu Bakr about the wager: “Why were you not more cautious Abu Bakr? For indeed Al-Bid’ refers to what is from three to nine.”

Grade: Sahih (Darussalam)

English reference: Vol. 5, Book 44, Hadith 3191

Arabic reference: Book 47, Hadith 3495 (; underline emphasis ours)


… Imam Ahmad recorded that Ibn `Abbas commented on this Ayah

He [said, “They were defeated and then they were victorious.” He said, “The idolators wanted the Persians to prevail over the Romans, because they were idol worshipers, and the Muslims wanted the Romans to prevail over the Persians, because they were People of the Book. This was mentioned to Abu Bakr who mentioned it to the Messenger of Allah. The Messenger of Allah said…

((They will prevail.))

Abu Bakr mentioned this to the idolators, and they said, “Set a time limit for that, and if we prevail, we will get such and such; and if you prevail, you will get such and such.” So he set A LIMIT OF FIVE YEARS, AND THEY (THE ROMANS) DID NOT PREVAIL. Abu Bakr mentioned that to the Messenger of Allah and he said…

((Why did you not make it less than))

[I (the narrator) think he meant less than ten]. Sa’id bin Jubayr said: “Bid’ means less than ten.” Then the Romans were victorious…

Abu ‘Isa At-Tirmidhi recorded that Niyar bin Mukram Al-Aslami said: “When the following Ayat were revealed…

<Alif Lam Mim. The Romans have been defeated. In the nearest land, and they, after their defeat, will be victorious. In Bid’ years.> on the day they were revealed, the Persians were prevailing over the Romans. The Muslims wanted the Romans to prevail over them (the Persians), because they were both people who followed a Book. Concerning this Allah said… 

<And on that day, the believers will rejoice- with the help of Allah. He helps whom he wills, and He is the All-Mighty, the Most Merciful.>

The Quraysh, on the other hand, wanted the Persians to prevail, neither of them were people who followed a Book and neither of them believed in the Resurrection. When Allah revealed these Ayat, Abu Bakr went out proclaiming throughout Makkah…

< Alif Lam Mim. The Romans have been defeated. In the nearest land, and they, after their defeat, will be victorious. In Bid’ years.>

Some of the Quraysh said to Abu Bakr: ‘This is (a bet) between us and you. Your companion claims that the Romans will defeat the Persians WITHIN THREE TO NINE YEARS, so why not have a bet between us and you?’ Abu Bakr said, ‘Yes.’ This was before betting had been forbidden. So, Abu Bakr and the idolators made a bet, and they said to Abu Bakr: ‘What do you think, Bid’ means something between three and nine years. So let us agree on the middle.’ So they agreed on six years. Then six years passed without the Romans being victorious, so the idolators took what had bet with Abu Bakr. When the seventh year came and the Romans were finally victorious over the Persians, the Muslims REBUKED Abu Bakr for agreeing on six years. He said: ‘BECAUSE ALLAH SAID: “In Bid’ years.”’ At that time many people became Muslims.” (Tafsir Ibn Kathir Abridged: Surat An-Nur to Surat Al-Ahzab, Verse 50 [Darussalam Publications, First Edition, August 2000], Volume 7, pp. 518-520; bold and capital emphasis ours)

What an embarrassment!

Notice that Muhammad and the rest of the Muslims only corrected Abu Bakr AFTER he lost the bet since the supposed victory didn’t transpire within the five-six year period. This proves that Abu Bakr was only corrected to save face in the eyes of the pagans. It also highlights the huge embarrassment the expression turned out to be even for the Muslims. I.e., the imprecision of the phrase led Abu Bakr to bet that the prophecy would be fulfilled within five-six years.

This in itself demonstrates that nothing in the Arabic phrase led the first Muslims to assume that Allah would only empower the Romans to win during the latter part of the stipulated time period. And yet this could have all been prevented had Allah simply given the exact number of years from the start, instead of referring to an imprecise, vague time frame that ended up embarrassing the Muslims.

However, the problem gets much worse for Muslims since the ahadith claim that this so-called prophecy was actually “revealed” AFTER the Romans had won a victory against the Persians!

Jami` at-Tirmidhi

Chapters on Recitation

Narrated Abu Sa’eed:

On the Day of (the battle of) Badr, the Romans had a victory over the Persians. So the believers were pleased with that, THEN THE FOLLOWING WAS REVEALED: Alif Lam Mim. The Romans have been defeated…” up to His saying: ‘…the believers will rejoice. (30:1-4)” He said: “So the believers were happy with the victory of the Romans over the Persians. 

Grade: Hasan (Darussalam)

English reference: Vol. 5, Book 43, Hadith 2935

Arabic reference: Book 46, Hadith 3186 (; capital and underline emphasis ours)

Jami` at-Tirmidhi

Chapters on Tafsir

Narrated ‘Atiyyah:

Abu Sa’eed narrated: “On the Day of Badr, the Romans had a victory over the Persians. So the believers were pleased with that, THEN THE FOLLOWING WAS REVEALED: ‘Alif Lam Mim. The Romans have been defeated, up to His saying: ‘the believers will rejoice – with the help of Allah… (30:1-5)'” He said: “So the believers were happy with the victory of the Romans over the Persians.”

Grade: SAHIH (Darussalam)

English reference: Vol. 5, Book 44, Hadith 3192

Arabic reference: Book 47, Hadith 3496 (; capital and underline emphasis ours)

These narrations prove that Muhammad was a fraud, a charlatan, who concocted supposed prophecies around events that had already transpired.

In other words, Q. 30:1-5 wasn’t a prediction of what was to take place, but a prophecy that was written after the fact, when the Romans had already defeated the Persians!

(This assumes, of course, that the “traditional” rendering of the passage, which has been widely accepted by the majority of Muslim sects across the board, is the correct understanding of the Arabic consonantal text. See part 1 for the reasons why this may not the case at all.)

Hence, the so-called prophecy of Q. 30:1-5 turns out to be anything but a prediction of the Roman victory over the Persians. It is actually proof that Muhammad would make things up as he went along, such as shamelessly forging prophecies around certain events that had already transpired, in order to deceive his followers into thinking that he had predicted things that were going to come to pass even before they had occurred.

These ahadith also highlight the utter dishonesty of the Muhammadan compilers of the hadith literature. After all, if Q. 30:1-5 was only composed AFTER the defeat of the Persians at the hands of the Romans, then this shows that the story of the bet Abu Bakr made with the pagans concerning the time it would take the Romans to win is a farce, a fraudulent tale which the Muslims concocted in order to make it seem as if this part of the surah was “revealed” before the victory of the Romans over against the Persians.

So much for Muhammad being a prophet of the true God. It’s time for Muslims to abandon this charlatan and turn to Jesus Christ, the unique, beloved Son of God since he is the only Hope of salvation that mankind has.

In the addendum (, I will cite Muslim and secular sources proving that the Roman victory over against the Persians did not take place within 9 years of their defeat, but within 13-15 years of this so-called prediction.



The Prophecy that Exposed Muhammad as a Fraud Pt. 1

The following is supposed to be a prophecy, which confirms Muhammad’s prophetic claims:

In the name of God, Most Gracious, Most Merciful A. L. M. The Roman Empire has been defeated – In a land close by; but they, (even) after (this) defeat of theirs, will soon be victorious – Within a few years (bid’i). With God is the Decision, in the past and in the Future: on that Day shall the Believers rejoice – With the help of God. He helps whom He will, and He is exalted in might, most merciful. S. 30:1-5 Yusuf Ali

Muhammad is allegedly referring to the defeat of the Roman at the hands of the Persians and their subsequent victory, which was supposed to take place within a few years.

Suffice it to say, this so-called prophecy raises a host of problems, all of which expose Muhammad as a false prophet.

To begin with, this passage is a great example of just how incoherent, incomplete and unintelligible the Quran truly is. The prophecy states that the Romans have been defeated in a land close by. Yet we are not told who exactly defeated them, when exactly were they defeated, and where exactly were they defeated.

For instance, is the “land close by” referring to the Muslims or the Romans? If one claims that it is addressing the Muslims then this still leaves us with the problem of identifying the precise location of the land. A land close by the Muslims can be a reference to Medina (provided that this was “revealed” during the time they were still in Mecca), Mecca, Syria, Turkey, Lebanon, Jerusalem, Persia, etc.

However, if it is directed at the Romans themselves, then the land close by can refer to land near either Turkey (Constantinople) or Rome. How does anyone know for certain?

Second, who defeated the Romans and how does one know for certain seeing that the passage fails to provide the name of the victors?

Third, when was this “prophecy” given? Is it pre-Hijrah or post-Hijrah? Since the prophecy states that the Romans would be victorious within a few years, knowing the precise date of this alleged prophecy is an essential and integral part of verifying whether it came to pass or not.

Fourth, this alleged prophecy refutes the Quran’s own assertion that it is a clear book which provides complete details for all of its verses:

“… Shall I seek a judge other than Allah while it is He Who has sent down unto you the Book (The Qur’an), explained in detail…” S. 6:114 Hilali-Khan

“Certainly, We have brought to them a Book (the Qur’an) which We have explained in detail with knowledge, – a guidance and a mercy to a people who believe.” S. 7:52 Hilali-Khan

“… And We have sent down on thee the Book making clear everything, and as a guidance and a mercy, and as good tidings to those who surrender.” S. 16:89 Arberry

“A Book whereof the Verses are explained in detail; A Qur’an in Arabic for people who know.” S. 41:3 Hilali-Khan

Yet, as I already noted, this particular texts fails to identify who defeated the Romans, the place where they were defeated, and when exactly they were defeated. And, as I also indicated, these details are vitally important since they help us to determine whether the victory came to pass exactly as stated within the Quran.

Unfortunately for Muslims, the Quran fails to provide such crucial information, leaving them no choice but to consult documents that were written centuries after Muhammad’s death in order to make sense out of this so-called prediction.

As such, this alleged prophecy not only establishes that Muhammad was a false prophet, but it also demonstrates that the Quran is grossly mistaken for claiming to be a fully detailed scripture.

The other problem that Muslims are faced with is that they do not know for certain whether this text is speaking of the Romans being defeated and then experiencing a victory.

The reason why they cannot be sure that this is the original meaning is because the Muslim scripture was initially written without vowel markings. As such, the Arabic word sayaghlibuna, “they [Romans] shall be victorious,” is what some of the later scribes took the consonantal text to mean.

However, the text without vowel markings could just as easily have meant the Romans were going to be defeated. The difference is in the addition of two vowels so that instead of having sayaghlibuna, the verse could have legitimately been read as, sayughlabuna, “they (i.e. Romans) shall be defeated.” The same is the case with the word ghulibati, “have been defeated.” This could have easily been ghalabat, “have defeated.”

The Quran would, therefore, be saying that though the Romans are victorious some unnamed group would soon defeat them. In fact, this is precisely how some of the older Quranic versions interpreted the consonantal text!

The late, great Christian missionary C. G. Pfander explains:

“But Al Baizawi shatters the whole argument of the Muslims by informing us of certain varied readings in these verses of Suratu’r Rum. He tells us that some read غَلَبَتِ  instead of the usual غُلِبَتِ, and سَيُغْلَبُونَ  instead of سَيَغْلُبُونَ. The rendering will then be: ‘The Byzantine have conquered in the nearest part of the land, and they shall be defeated in a small number of years,’ &c. If this be the correct reading, the whole story about Abu Bakr’s bet with Ubai must be a fable,2 since Ubai was dead long before the Muslims began to defeat the Byzantines, and even long before the victories which Heraclius won over the Persians. This shows how unreliable such Traditions are. The explanation which Al Baizawi gives is, that the Byzantines became the conquerors of “the well-watered land of Syria” (على ريف آلْشام)and that the passage predicted that the Muslims would soon overcome them. If this is the meaning, the Tradition which records the ‘descent’ of the verses about six years before the Hijrah must be wrong, and the passage must belong to A.H. 6 at earliest. It is clear that, as the vowel points were not used when the Qur-an was first written down in Cufic letters, no one can be certain which of the two readings is right. We have seen that there is so much uncertainty about (1) the date at which the verses were ‘sent down’, (2) the correct reading, and (3) the meaningthat it is quite impossible to show that the passage contains a prophecy which was fulfilled. Hence, it cannot be considered to be a proof of Muhammad’s prophetic office.

“Therefore the whole argument founded upon the supposed prophetic element in the Qur’an breaks down when examined…” (Pfander, Mizan-ul-Haqq – The Balance of Truth, revised and enlarged by W. St. Clair Tisdall [Light of Life P.O. Box 18, A-9503, Villach Austria], PART III. A Candid Inquiry Into The Claim Of Islam To Be God’s Final Revelation, IV. An Examination of the Contents of the Qur’an, in order to decide whether these prove its inspiration, pp. 279-280; bold and capital emphasis ours)

Interestingly, this is exactly how the following modern versions of the Quran translate the passage!

The Romans HAVE WON. At the lowest part on the earth. But after THEIR VICTORY, THEY WILL BE DEFEATED. In a few more years. The decision before and after is for God, and on that day the believers will rejoice. The Message: A Translation of the Glorious Qur’an

The Romans HAVE WON, At the lowest point on the earth. But after THEIR VICTORY, THEY WILL BE DEFEATED. In a few more years. The decision before and after is for God, and on that day those who acknowledge will rejoice. (Quran Reformist Translation, translated and annotated by Edip Yuksel, Layth Saleh al-Shaiban, & Martha Schulte-Nafeh, Brainbow Press 2007)

Here are the comments of the translators to the Reformist Quran, explaining why they rendered the verses the way they did:

030:002-05 You might have noticed that we translated the reference of the verb “GHaLaBa” differently than the traditional translations. Instead of reading the verb in 30:2 as “ghulibat” (were defeated) we read as “ghalabat” which means just the opposite, “defeated.” Similarly, we also read its continuous/future tense in the following verse differently. The prophecy of this verse was realized in 636 four years after the death of Muhammad, when Muslims confronted the army of Byzantine Empire around Yarmuk river, in one of the most significant battles in history. Under the command of Khalid bin Walid, the Muslim army beat the Christian imperial army of four or more times their numbers. The six-day war, Yarmuk, occurred in area near the Sea of Galilee and Dead Sea, which are located in the lowest land depression on earth, 200-400 meters below the sea level. (Ibid., p. 268)

Thus, since vowel points were not added until sometime after the death of Muhammad, Muslims, therefore, have no way of knowing with absolute certainty that the version, which the masses have come to accept as the original, is actually the correct reading and understanding of the consonantal text. As such, the Muslims have no way of definitively proving that the reading preferred by these modern Quranic translators is mistaken.

But it gets a whole lot worse for Muslims, as we are about to see in the next part of my discussion



Sunday, 25 April 2021

Unveiling the Identity of Allah's Offsprings

The Islamic scripture testifies that it has a mother from which it originates:

We have made it a Qur’an in Arabic, that ye may be able to understand (and learn wisdom). And verily, it is in the Mother of the Book, in Our Presence, high (in dignity), full of wisdom. S. 43:3-4 Yusuf Ali

The Quran argues that the only way Allah can have an offspring is if he were to take on a consort:

The Originator of the heavens and the earth! How can He have a child, when there is for Him no consort, when He created all things and is Aware of all things? S. 6:101 Pickthall

The implication here is that one must have a partner in order to procure a child. This means for the Quran to have a mother it must also have a father. Now since the Quran is supposed to be the eternal word of Allah this means that Allah is none other than the Quran’s father. Notice the logic behind this argument:

1.       The Quran has a mother.

2.       The Quran’s mother must have a consort in order to have offspring.

3.       The Quran is the word of Allah.

4.       Allah must, therefore, be the Quran’s father, and the consort of the mother of the book.

A Muslim may wish to challenge this claim by saying that term “mother of the book,” is a metaphorical expression referring to the heavenly exemplar from which the Quran originates. In other words, the phrase refers to the Quran’s source, not to an actual conscious mother. This understanding is reflected in the following translations and commentaries:

And Lo! in the Source of Decrees, which We possess, it is indeed sublime, decisive. S. 43:4 Pickthall

It is truly exalted in the Source of Scripture kept with Us, and full of wisdom. Abdel Haleem

And, verily, [originating as it does] in the source, with Us, of all revelation, it is indeed sublime, full of wisdom. Muhammad Asad

And it is indeed fixed in the Mother Book the source of all the scriptures namely the Preserved Tablet which is with Us ladaynā substitutes for fī ummi’l-kitābi ‘in the Mother Book’ and it is indeed exalted above all the scriptures that came before it wise containing excellent wisdoms. (Tafsir al-Jalalayn; bold and underline emphasis ours)

However, this argument doesn’t solve the dilemma for the Muslims since it actually proves that Allah is the Quran’s father. After all, if the heavenly exemplar is the Quran’s mother because it happens to be the source from which the Quran originates, then this means that Allah is its father because Allah is the source of the Quran seeing that it is supposed to be his eternal word from whom it originates. Again, note the logic behind this reasoning:

1.       The heavenly exemplar is the mother of the Quran because it is the source of the Quran from which it originates.

2.       The Quran is the eternal word of Allah, which makes Allah the source of the Quran since, as his word, it originates from him.

3.       Therefore, as the source from whom the Quran originates Allah must be its father.

There is simply no logical way of getting around this argument, and Muslims are therefore stuck with the fact that the Quran is the son of Allah.

Now What About Jesus? 

Interestingly, the same logic used to prove that the Quran is the offspring of Allah can also be applied to Jesus Christ. Pay close attention to the following verses:

She said: My Lord! How can I have a child when no mortal hath touched me? He said: So (it will be). Allah createth what He will. If He decreeth a thing, He saith unto it only: Be! and it is. S. 3:47 Pickthall

She said: “How shall I have a son, seeing that no man has touched me, and I am not unchaste?” He said: “So (it will be): Thy Lord saith, ‘that is easy for Me: and (We wish) to appoint him as a Sign unto men and a Mercy from Us’: It is a matter (so) decreed.” S. 19:20-21 Yusuf Ali

Ironically, Mary responds in a similar manner that the Quran does in Q. 6:101 with respect to Allah having a son. And yet by Allah being the direct cause of Mary’s conception, causing her to conceive the human nature and physical body of Christ while she was still a virgin, by breathing his spirit into her body,

And mention in the Book Mary when she withdrew from her people to an eastern place, and she took a veil apart from them; then We sent unto her Our Spirit that presented himself to her a man without fault. She said, ‘I take refuge in the All-merciful from thee! If thou fearest God … He said, ‘I am but a messenger come from thy Lord, to give thee a boy most pure. S. 19:16-19 Arberry

And Mary, daughter of Imran, who guarded her private parts, and we breathed therein of our spirit and she verified the words of her Lord and His books, and was of the devout. S. 66:12 Palmer

Allah basically becomes the father of her child, and Jesus is, therefore, his Son.

Hence, not only does this prove that Mary is the consort of Allah, but it also proves that Allah doesn’t need to have sex with a woman to have an offspring. He can cause a woman to get pregnant with his offspring without having sex with her.

Note, once again, the logic of this argument:

1.       Mary conceived and gave birth to a son.

2.       Mary could not have conceived a child without a consort.

3.       Allah is responsible for Mary’s conception since he directly caused her to conceive a son by breathing his spirit into her.

4.       Allah is, therefore, Mary’s consort and the father of Christ.

This is further confirmed by the fact of the Quran identifying Jesus as the very Word of Allah:

O People of the Book! Go not beyond the limits in your way of life and say not about God but The Truth: That the Messiah, Jesus son of Mary, was a Messenger of God and His Word that He cast to Mary and a Spirit from Him. So believe in God and His Messengers. And say not: Three. To refrain yourselves from it is better for you. There is only One God. Glory be to Him that He have a son! To Him belongs whatever is in the heavens and whatever is in and on the earth and God sufficed as a Trustee. S. 4:171 Dr. Laleh Bakhtiar(1)

Here’s another rendering:

People of the Book! do not go to excess in your deen. Say nothing but the truth about Allah. The Messiah, ´Isa son of Maryam, was only the Messenger of Allah and His Word, which He cast into Maryam, and a Spirit from Him. So have iman in Allah and His Messengers. Do not say, ´Three.´ It is better that you stop. Allah is only One God. He is too Glorious to have a son! Everything in the heavens and in the earth belongs to Him. Allah suffices as a Guardian. Aisha Bewley(1)

We once again break down the logical implication of the Quran’s statements:

1.       Jesus is the Word of Allah.

2.       As such, Allah is the Source of his Word.

3.       Being the Source, this makes Allah the Father of his Word.

4.       Since Jesus is Allah’s Word, Allah is, therefore, the Father of Christ.

Muslims you now have a problem since according to the logic employed by your prophet, both the Quran and Jesus are the S/sons of Allah!

Further Reading

The Quran’s Use of Filial Terms (


(1) It is ironic that this very text denies that God has a son in the very same context of affirming that Jesus is God’s very own Word whom he then cast down as a Spirit proceeding from him into Mary in order to become flesh. Thus, contrary to this passages’ assertion, how can Jesus not be Allah’s Son seeing that he is Allah’s very own Word that originates from Allah, thereby making Allah his Source, and therefore his Father?