Islam Answers
Islamic-Christian Alliance

McLean Ministries Home

PDA Page

Palm Scriptures

New Testament Page

Favorite Links

Contact Page

Opinion Page

C.H. Spurgeon Devotional


If you are interested in Islam and its requirements for becoming a Muslim, click the link below.

How to become a Muslim



Muslim-Christian dialogs:

Several Muslim-Christian "dialogs" of the highest quality have occurred, where both parties have exchanged their common views and cares, in commendable efforts toward understanding and cooperation on our most important goals.

Muslims, Christians and several other religions share fundamental issues: The belief in one God, in the duty to respect Him, and to act best toward His other creatures. These goals can indeed present guidelines for world peace and understanding.

Such dialogs are necessary especially due to the explosion of information in our age, fostered especially through the internet and international television satellites. Man can no longer act in seclusion, and if world-wide peace is to be fostered, an understanding of other religions is imperative. This is more so true because all Muslims believe in the actual coming of Jesus, Peace and Blessings be upon him, and that the whole world would then be united under one faith. For many Muslims, it is important to build bridges between religions, and such "dialogs" are the best ways toward that end, no matter how long in the future it may occur.

Attacks against Islam.

Despite the great benefit from inter-religious "dialogs", several attacks have been aimed at Islam, which, to the uninformed person, present a totally false impression about that religion. It is therefore necessary to discuss these issues and present Islam's answer about them.

A special parable describes the story of two brothers who lost each other in the wilderness. One of them sees a shape in a distance and, thinking it is wild animal, he prepares his weapon. As he gets closer, he realizes this is a man, but holds stronger onto his weapon, preparing for an enemy or a bandit. As he gets closer, his fears diminish until he recognizes his lost brother.

Such is the case for Muslims and Christians: Alienated by centuries of lies, mistrust, and rejection of the basic truth that man's nature is essentially good. If we accept our own good intentions, we must give credit to others of being capable of the same.

Our answers will therefore address attacks against Islam from various sources, all aiming at non-informed people. If Islam is to be examined, it must be examined as taught by its own people, not as deformed by its attackers or claimants.

Some "attacks" are very well known "stereotypes", whereby their sources do not need to be mentioned. Other attacks are specific, such as Grammatical issues, and we will simply include the text of such attacks to the best of our ability.


We have attempted to select the least abrasive terms when writing our answers, yet we noticed that sometimes the mere description of facts can hurt more than words. For such instances we offer the well known advice: If you don't like the heat, don't stay in the kitchen.

Concerning Christians.

Since most attacks we are answering are from Christian theologians, a special mention must be made concerning the majority of Christians:

They are praised in our Holy Quran and by our beloved prophet (PBUH) for several important features, and all Muslims accept their praise in their hearts. Human nature is basically good, and several among us have met Christians of the highest integrity and morals.

Any negative comments we may include apply specifically only to people who willfully conceal the truth and corrupt God's revealed messages, not against the average impartial and honest Christian.


To conclude this section, the following summary is presented concerning these attacks, and the features they share in common: Several written attacks almost "shout" in a surprising display of hatred. Surprising not only because the hatred is hard to explain, but especially for what they claim to stand for: The religion of loving one's enemy, and "turning the other cheek". You can almost hear the same personality shouting from some book and another video taped debate.

Several are totally ignorant of the subject in point (as will be shown for example for the topic of the Arabic language inshaa'a llaah).

Several contain blatant refusal of historical facts. Several contain fundamental violations of logic and common sense.


Insinuations that our Prophet (PBUH) is a false prophet.

Most attacks against Islam implicitly accuse the Great Prophet Muhammad, Salla llaahu Alaihi Wasallam, of being a liar. This issue will be discussed inshaa'a llaah as the subject arises in other topics, but the following is adapted from a debate (hundreds of years ago) between Ibnul Qayyim and a priest. Each time Ibnul Qayyim mentioned a point, the priest "retreated". The last day the priest said: We admit that Muhammad was not lying, but he was not sent to us. The next day, he did not show up.

Here is our adaptation of the debate. The original text is not currently at our disposal, but we will present an exact translation as soon as possible inshaa'a llaah:

Ibnul Qayyim mentioned the great Aayahs in the Quran (Sura 69): 44 - And if he (Muhammad, PBUH) were to invent any saying in Our name,
45 - We should certainly seize him by his right hand,
46 - And We should certainly then cut off the artery of his heart:
47 - Nor could any of you withhold him (from Our reach).

Ibnul Qayyim said, based on these Aayahs (and we second him): If you accuse Muhammad (PBUH) of being a liar, you are bound by one of the following:

You absolutely do not believe that God exists (to answer such "lies" and "challenges" by this "imposter").

Or you believe that God exists, but you believe he is totally impotent: He hears such challenges (and promises) BUT CAN DO NOTHING about them. He sits and watches while the promises of the "imposter" come true, driven by a force stronger than His own.

Or you believe that God exists, and you believe that He is Most-Powerful, but you believe that He is a silly God ("sakheef": unwise and unjust), who misleads people to the utmost, by "swallowing" the challenges of "imposters" while He can actually stop them. Not only that, He also executes all their promises for them (starting by crushing his "chosen" children across the centuries, just as predicted by those "imposters").


God sacrificed his only begotten son to forgive our sins?!?!

This is the creed of "deformed Christianity". The Muslim's position clearly states that such were not the teachings of Jesus, Peace be Upon Him, in fact they contradict them.

To those Christian readers who might feel uneasy about the following discussion, we state that the "claim" under discussion, is extremely irreverent of God in many respects and we are simply showing that irreverence.

Above all, we keep respect of Jesus, Peace and Blessings Be Upon Him, in all our actions. Such is a religious duty to all Muslims. We even maintain, as will be detailed within the rest of our answers, that our code and actual actions concerning most issues (morals, values, modesty, humility, rejection of materialism, women's modesty) are nearer to the actual teachings of Jesus (PBUH) than most Christians'.

What we are addressing are the lies and deformations that were introduced to Christianity after him.


Foundations of the disagreement between Islam and Christianity Islam and Christianity have more points in common than they have differences. Yet the differences are basic, although they are mostly "theological".

Most important is the "concept" of "trinity" refused by Islam and affirmed with different "nuances" by Christian theologians (God the Father, God the Son and God the Holy Ghost). From this concept arises that of "atonement", whereby "God Sacrificed His Son in order to forgive the sins of mankind".

These differences need to be discussed by examining the foundations of the beliefs of both parties: How do they get to such beliefs, and how do they defend them.

The Muslim view on theological beliefs:

For any Muslim, there are two types of theological beliefs: Deduced by reason (logical topics):

Such as the necessary existence of a Creator, that He is Capable, Omniscient, the impossibility of "no-start" for the Universe, ...etc.

These are concepts within the normal reach of human reason and logic, and many discussions have been presented by Muslim and Christian scholars, where both camps agree on almost every detail.

No Muslim's creed on such matters is accepted if he is not logically convinced of them. Blind "following" is not acceptable: At worst, if a Muslim does not understand a logical argument, he may review different discussions of it. One is only responsible according to his own mental capabilities, thus no belief (in such matters) is required unless it is comprehensible by the person.

Conveyed from God (the unseen):

Such as descriptions of the hereafter, the dimensions of our universe that are normally not reachable by the common senses (angels, revelation), or descriptions pertaining to the attributes of God such as His self-subsistence, Omni-science, etc.

No belief on such matters is accepted (let alone "imposed") unless formulated by Allaah in the Quran, or explained unequivocally by his prophets.

Thus no such theological belief is acceptable if it is "formulated" by a Muslim scholar, no matter what his rank may be. It must originate from the Quran or Hadeeth, and all that scholars may do, is to quote from such sources, or explain how some notion can be rationally deduced from them. All such "reasonings" must conform to the universal rules of logic, and "arbitrary" choices are not acceptable.

God's "Essence":

Based on several passages of the Quran and sayings of the Prophet, the "nature" or "identity" of God is beyond the capacity of Man to grasp. The same applies to the "nature" or "essence" of his attributes: Mercy, Power, etc. His blessings can be counted, the results of His Action and Capability can be observed, his attributes (Existence, Capability, Mercy) can be rationally deduced and discussed by man, his "essence" can not: Man does not share any identical feature with his Creator (apart from "semantics" as will be explained below), and therefore he has absolutely no means to grasp the "nature" or "essence" of God, Exalted is He indeed. The "created" being is essentially different from his "Creator" in all respects; the only aspects they have in common is a concordance between words designated by man, not the essence of the attributes. Thus both God and man may be described as "merciful", but both "mercies" only share the nomenclature, not the actual meaning or "essence":


Man's Mercy needs the support of God to exist and to exert itself. God's Mercy needs absolutely no outside support.

Humane v/s Divine:

Man's Mercy is accompanied with a state of uneasiness, "weakening of the heart" with respect to the hardship of others.

God is Exalted from "weakness". His Benevolence and Will to ease our suffering is not to be described with human features such as "weakness" or "uneasiness".


Man's Mercy is self-gratifying: If I can help an innocent person under torture, I will feel pain and remorse if I do not help him, thus my Mercy always includes an element of self protection. Gods Mercy is purely altruistic.

In conclusion:

The same word "Mercy" is used for both as a metonymy: Because of what results from it -benevolence and good deeds-, not because of any common feature between the essence of God's Mercy and that of Man.

The same applies to other attributes of God: Man uses the identical words because of a concordance between what results from Mercy, Knowledge, Capability, not because such attributes have any similarities in their own essence (between God and Man).

The Christian view on theological beliefs:

Surprisingly, Christian theologians agree in principle, that God's nature is not comprehensible by man. Yet they formulate concepts and impose them as dogmas, and when challenged they respond that these pertain to the Nature of God, therefore man must accept them without analyzing them!

Islam's view of the Christian position:

An impartial study, trying to examine the foundations of such "postulates" will accept either that they are formulated by Christian theologians, or claimed to originate from God, or from a bona-fide Prophet, speaking for God.

If these concepts ("trinity", the "nature" of God) are formulated by Christian theologians, they are refuted because both religions agree that man is not capable of understanding such issues, so how can Christian theologians "formulate" them as dogmas?

If Christian theologians claim their "dogmas" to originate from God, as relayed by Jesus, Islam's answer is that such "dogmas" are the least acceptable interpretations of the words of Jesus PBUH: Accepting such interpretations results in major clashes with other unequivocal words of Jesus.

The rational procedure in analyzing any "text" (such as the Bible or the Quran) is first to maintain the unequivocal part of that text. After that, if other passages accept various interpretations, one must chose the interpretations that do not contradict the "unequivocal" portions of the text.

As will be shown below, Muslims' understanding of the words of Jesus agrees with all his words: We maintain his unequivocal meanings as a priority, and we interpret his other (ambivalent) words in accordance with them.

If Christian theologians claim their "dogmas" to originate from God, as relayed by other than Jesus, such as Paul, Islam's answer again is that such "dogmas" are in full opposition with the unequivocal words of Jesus PBUH. From this, Muslims deduce that such a source is a false Prophet, in fact, an enemy of Jesus.

Based on the above, Muslims strongly challenge that they are closer indeed to the teachings of Jesus, and that Christian theologians are more attached to their own interpretations than to the unequivocal words of Jesus, peace and blessings be upon him: "Why callest thou me good? there is none good but one, that is, God.", which they try to avoid with an enormous web of illogical acrobatics refused even by the majority of Christians.


Metaphoric Meaning:

Muslim creed has no objection to the metaphoric interpretation of of the "sonship" of Jesus: Beloved by God, honored and supported by glaring Miracles and a Virgin holy birth, the Nearest to God in his age, and among the greatest men this universe has ever been honored with.

But in par with that, the same metaphoric meaning applies, to different degrees, to other pious and obedient subjects of God: They too are the "sons" of God, although most of them not even nearing the special honorable rank of Jesus, Peace and Blessings be upon him.

Literal Meaning:

The literal meaning of "son", is: Another of the same species, produced from the original parent, and who shares all the essential characteristics of that parent.

If one maintains this literal meaning, then he means the literal meaning, and thus cannot maintain that a wall, for example, can actually have a son in the literal meaning: such a description or function simply does not apply to the wall. Similarly, the beauty of a scenery does not have a width or height: these attributes simply do not apply to it. Finally, the Creator is more elevated in His Sublime Attributes, to even be described by the function of having a son, in the literal meaning. Who Maintained the Literal Meaning?

Many Christian theologians endeavor to hunt for the words "son" and "Father" within the sayings of Jesus, and then labor to insist on their literal meaning with fallacy after fallacy. It is glaringly surprising how such interpretations are in direct contradiction to unequivocal statements of the contrary such as "The Father is Greater than I am". Such unequivocal meanings are "forgotten" or plainly omitted.

This holy sentence of Jesus PBUH is unequivocal and the word "Father" can only be understood as a metaphor. Once the word "Father" is explained in its literal meaning, the sentence falls apart in an endless loop of fallacies. The opposite is true when we explain "son" and "Father" in their metaphoric meanings: This and all similar sentences containing them, make total and perfect sense all of a sudden, in one unique and perfect structure: Such is the great impact of truth in the universe, especially on the sane "heart".

We may be told that a certain "Prophet" found it out directly from God, by revelation, inspiration, or vision. Islam's answer is: This would then be a false Prophet, because he is in major contradiction with the teachings of Jesus "Only the Father is Good", as already detailed above, to which we add: Jesus PBUH said "Why callest thou me good? there is none good but one, that is, God." How can a divine "son" not be good like the Divine Father? After all, aren't they taking it in the literal meaning of the word?

Jesus PBUH admitted he could not do miracles independently, but only by the Will and permission of God. See Matt. 12:28; Luke 11:20; John:3:2, 5:30; Acts 2:22.

Jesus PBUH clearly states that his teachings are not his own, but those of the One who sent him. See John 7:16,, 12:49, 14:24, 31.

Jesus PBUH admits that he does what he is taught by God. See John 8:28.

It says in the New Testament that Jesus prayed: How can he be God and pray to God at the same time? This is explained away with as a "mystery", and that we are not supposed to use our reason to discuss it! Fine, but why then, try to impose this whole concoction on that same intellect of ours?

Finally, Jesus called himself the son of man, not God, nor God's literal son. See Matt. 13:37; Luke 12:10; Tim 2:5.

How many more self-contradictions are we supposed to be gullible to, such as in an infinite cycle?

We send a call to every sincere Christian:

Is it any respect to Jesus just to brush his explicit words away, the essence of his message, and replace them by their opposites, which amount to no more than twisted and untenable human fabrications!?

Any one who truly loves Jesus knows the answer. Aren't we supposed to respect Jesus and accept that not only was he making sense, but he was also actually giving us a commandment worthy of our full attention: Why callest thou me good? There is none good but one, that is, God. To every honest Muslim, such a commandment is crisp-clear and should by no means be met with "ifs" and "buts" and "I thought" and "He meant not what he said".

Finally, the Quran disproves the divinity of Jesus with an unparalleled subtlety yet with such irresistible power! {The Messiah, son of Mary, was no other than a messenger; messengers (the like of whom) had passed away before him, his mother was a saintly woman, and they both used to eat food. See how we make the revelations clear for them, and see how they are turned away! S5, A 75.}

The Quran does not spell out the common knowledge of what bodily functions occur as a result of eating food, such as bowel movements and whatever happens when we "go to the toilet": It subtly alludes to it, leaving it for the reader to deduce the actual implications of the argument in question.

Such is the forceful impact of truth: The more one attempts to fight it, the worse his position becomes. It is indeed not an enviable position to defend any divinity (the utmost perfection), while the opponent has the power of raising questions about a God that goes to the toilet and makes "------".

Again, we are not trying to be impolite toward our opponents: We simply are not giving up our right (in the discussion) to point out the opponent's fallacy, and his extreme irreverence to our common Creator. If one's position is that flimsy, then one must accept it and live with it, not blame others for mentioning its grave, untenable and irreverent defects.

Only begotten son:

We are told this as a great favor: "Only"... So we challenge: Why "Only", and who said so?: Why "Only"? Any human who can get one son can normally get another. Almost any living being can do that too.

Man, the created being, with his limited knowledge, has succeeded in genetic cloning, and somebody wants to invite mankind to the notion that God has a son in the literal meaning, and that furthermore, he is an only son?! Such a premise is an insult to the Capability of God, besides the point that maintaining the literal meaning of "sonship" itself, is false and irreverent as discussed above.

Who said so?

We need to point here that a very convenient "cheat" for the Christian clergy, is to falsely classify their theological fallacies under the topic: God's nature is not explicable to mankind, nor are the reasons of all His Actions. This is expected to dismiss this issue but it is an insult to human intelligence.

This faulty "dismissal" accuses itself:

Yes, the notion of "only son" precisely pertains to the Nature of God, yet it is not stated by the Creator nor by Jesus. Any man "formulating" it, is specifically "peeking" into the Nature of God, which is not possible according to both our creeds. How can any man state it from his own authority and then say: It pertains to the Nature of God, so don't think about it? We may be told again, that a certain "Prophet" found it out directly from God. Islam's answer was detailed above under SON:

Who Maintained the Literal Meaning?


In the New Testament the verb "sire" is also used, i.e through intercourse. (Random House Webster's: To sire: To beget; procreate as the male parent) Such a premise is so irreverent of God, in addition to being totally untenable in many respects.

Jesus is no more accepted as the "begotten" son of God (as it used to say in John 3:16), since that word has been cancelled from the Revised Standard Version (RSV), as well as from many other new versions of the Bible.

We thank Allaah that not all Christians today maintain this outward meaning of "begotten", yet for the sake of comprehensiveness the reader can review the above discussions "SON" and "Only begotten son".

Sacrificed to forgive our sins:

Based on that premise, that God Sacrificed in order to forgive, we add: Why not sacrifice other sons? that would give all of us a much greater lift?

This may seem abrasive although such is not our intention. This question is a true challenge: God is All Powerful and Most Merciful. If they claim that He did such an act out of Mercy, aren't we allowed to ponder why He did not do another similar act?

If the counter argument is mentioned "This pertains to the nature of God, and to God's purpose and Wisdom", we answer that such an argument is not true: You are again formulating human premises in meticulous details "For God so loved the World that He Sacrificed...", then you are claiming them to be God's Nature or Intentions, as discussed in detail in the above discussions "SON" and "Only begotten son".

Sacrificed to forgive our sins:

"To Forgive" is to cease to feel resentment against... (Webster's). If a human wants to forgive your sin against him, well he just forgives it: He just works on "ceasing to feel resentment" until he succeeds, which normally does not take long if you did not hurt him deeply.

Jesus (PBUH) taught us all to: Turn the other cheek. Can't this invented God do the same? Shouldn't He do the same, if not much better? Can't He "cease to feel resentment" for something we did that cannot even hurt Him?! But we are told, instead, that this invented God has so much "Mercy" that He will kill His only begotten son to forgive us.

Why? What's preventing Him from just forgiving? Is there another force that requires it? Are we dealing with multiple gods of some ancient pagan mythology? Or are we again going to be told that this pertains to the Nature of God, so we are not supposed to think about it, we must just accept what we are being told?

We maintain that linking "sacrifice" with "forgiveness" is not part of Divine Nature nor Divine Purpose as explained in the above discussions. Such "linking" is an untenable and irreverent fabrication by man, and hundreds of millions of rational people challenge it by offering their total submission only to God and His Words, not to dogmas formulated by "mortals".

In addition to our "rebuttals" above, the truth still has to be said:

What Christian Theologians are inventing fits the profile of a psychopathic killer, not that of The All-Merciful Omnipotent All-Powerful Creator of the Universe.

As Ahmad Deedaat once said, it is as if a thief robbed your house, and you wanted to forgive him, so you kill your son... to forgive him...!

To those who feel their beliefs insulted by our words, we simply ask:

Do you blame us for proving FORCEFULLY how SOME CREED implies grave insults and irreverence against The One God whom we both worship and respect?

We are criticizing false human logic. Our tone remains by far more polite than the implications against the Attributes of God - Mercy and Capability. To any person jumping to criticize our tone, and ignoring the offense that we are addressing, we quote the warning from Jesus PBUH not to see the straw in other peoples' eye, and ignore the "trunk" in one's own.

We conclude on this subject that our common Creator (whom we dearly call Allaah) is Elevated indeed, beyond the best of our praises, let alone these irreverent notions (to put it in mildest possible manner).


Claiming "grammatical mistakes" in the Quran:

Such an attack is a losing attack by its very nature, according to any person with minimal knowledge of the Arabic language and its history.


If a person writes an article claiming that a concrete beam has been designed wrong, we expect him to be qualified in the field he is discussing, and that he passes its most basic tests. If then we find in his article obvious and repetitious errors in addition and multiplication, we conclude that he does not have the minimal qualifications to discuss the subject.

We are not claiming expertise in the Arabic language, nor are we requiring it for unrelated subjects, such as history or mathematics. We are requiring that a critic in any subject must pass its preliminary tests, otherwise his discussions would not deserve any consideration.

Our point is this: When reading through sources that attack Islam on the issue of grammar, we were surprised to find elementary errors in the Arabic language that prove beyond the least doubt, that the person/s writing them would not pass elementary school.

To mention one "eliminating" factor:

The recurring interchange of the Arabic letters "zain" and "zhaal" in the very pages where the Quran is criticized. We have saved the original sources, and if we get the time, we will attempt to highlight such errors in red and offer them through links inshaa'a llaah. Enemies of Islam well versed in the Arabic language have just avoided the topic of Arabic language. They know better. The attacks that occurred are proven to originate from people not even qualified to discuss it (as mentioned above, and as will be shown below). Yet we have decided to discuss the issue anyway, for the benefit of the curious reader.

Historical review:

Because of the singular feature of "juzoor" and "tasreef" of the Arabic language, the early Arabs used to derive the words and compose sentences according to rules that they knew first-hand: Mentally, and not in written treaties. They would judge a person's literary abilities by his manipulation of the language and how well he used its features to construct words and sentences.

The people witnessed to be the most proficient in Arabic were the Arab Bedouins. The prophet salla llaahu `alaihi wasallam was raised away from the city in the "baadiyah", as was the norm then: to acquire the better rules of the language.

The Prophet's literary style was witnessed by his contemporaries and by later analysts to be the most eloquent among Arabs, yet it was still "human".

But when the Quran was revealed, its literary style was recognized by many to be beyond the powers of man. Several Arabs and especially "Bedouins", accepted Islam only upon hearing the Quran. This is history, annotated and related with an authenticity far superior to the Bible and the New Testament (and we challenge comparison on any level, provided it is rational).

Surah Al Kawthar was written on a wall (the smallest Surah of the Quran!). Upon reading it, a "Bedouin Arab" wrote next to it: Maa haazha biqawlil bashar (this is not human speech). This is a qualified testimony, not that of persons who cannot even differentiate between "zain" and "zhaal".

Another "Bedouin Arab" accepted Islam upon hearing the aayah: "...fasda` bimaa tu'mar" ("... obey what your are commanded with"). He was asked for the reason and he answered that there was no word in the whole Arabic language stronger to use in that specific instance than "fasda`" (the literal meaning of "fasda`" is "crack down", which implies total submission far beyond normal obedience).

Enemies of Muhammad PBUH attempted to seize any opportunity to attack his "credibility", this is a well known fact of history. If they spotted the least flaw in any grammatical construct of the Quran, they would have jumped on the occasion. The Companions themselves would have deserted Islam in masses: Arabic language and poetry were the foremost and dearest facets of their culture: Whether pondering alone, happy or sad, rejoicing or complaining, remembering a loved one, proposing for marriage or even asking for divorce, addressing a group of people, praising somebody, addressing an opposite army before battle, criticizing an enemy, undergoing mortal torture (!), moaning at their death beds: The Arabs' expression was through poetry (unlike any other culture). First and foremost, any text pretending to be revealed from Allaah needed to pass their uncompromising scrutiny.

The opposite was the case as witnessed to by history:

Even those who refused Islam, implicitly accepted the "supernatural" literary nature of the Quran and that it was beyond the powers of man. How then, did they explain it to themselves and maintain their rejection? Simply by saying that it was witchcraft, and that they were bewitched by it (thus implicitly accepting its unparalleled superiority). Although as invalid, this is by far a more educated attempt (concerning grammar and literature).

According to these experts in the language, any attack against the Quran on that basis would have ridiculed them to the utmost. The issue was the opposite for such experts: They tried to explain AWAY why it was superior.

Sources of the rules of Arabic Grammar:

The known rules of Arabic grammar were deducted from studying the spoken Arabic language, its poetry, and most of all: the Quran.

The first treatise on Arabic grammar ever, was written down by ibn Ajroom during the khalifate of imaam Ali ibn abi Taalib (radiallaahu `anhu), thus after the Quran's revelation. Ali once heard his daughter commit a grammatical error, upon which he ordered Ibn Ajroom to write down the rules of the Arabic language. Imaam `Ali himself "coined" the word "nahoo" (with "h" like in Al Rahmaan) which means grammar: He explained to Ibn Ajroom how a couple of rules could be stated, and told him to follow that example: unhu `alaa haazal nahoo. Ibn Ajroom deducted the rules of grammar from his knowledge of the spoken language, poetry and above all, the Quran. What he wrote was the first collection of the rules of Arabic grammar, and became known as "Al Ajroomiyyah", and the science was termed 'ilm al Nahoo. (This information can be found in the introduction of most versions of "Al Ajroomiyyah", available from specialized bookstores.)

Before Ibn Ajroom, there were simply no written rules for the Arabic Grammar. In the centuries after him, other linguists and scholars also analyzed the Arabic language and elaborated further on its rules, all deduced from previous literature, poetry and the Quran.

An example "attack":

One such attack objects against the Quran for using the word "asbaatan" in the masculine, instead of using the feminine gender. For any person with simple Arabic knowledge, the following is clear: Being able to use masculine words to describe feminine objects is an elementary fact of the Arabic language but it does not seem to be known by people attempting the grammatical attack against Islam.

This is precisely the beauty of the Arabic language: It is a sign of better Arabic style when used appropriately. Example: We say that a woman is haa-id (in her monthly period) instead of haa-idah, and a woman is `aroos (bride) instead of `aroosah (haa-id and `aroos are the masculine forms, and haa-idah and `aroosah are the feminine).

In these specific examples of "haa-id" and "`aroos", and concerning the word "asbaatan", insisting on using the feminine forms is simply poor and clumsy usage of the Arabic language.

Other grammatical "objections":

This was a typical example about claims on the subject of grammar. Since the same treatment would apply to all other (grammatical) claims, we will satisfy ourselves with that one detailed example, otherwise we will have to write a long manual, explaining how the rules of grammar apply to each grammatical form in the Quran that may be above somebody's grammatical level of knowledge.

But to summarize other attacks (on the subject of grammar) we note a mixture of ignorance and fallacy (no abrasiveness intended: this is just a factual statement).

To maintain "truthfulness" (amaanatul naql) we point out that some of those who ventured to attack the Quran on the subject of grammar get jubilant when they "select" a comment where someone else wrongly seems to perceive a grammatical irregularity in the Quran. Hence, they present these erroneous opinions as the final and only comment on the subject, and conveniently suppress the more qualified comments of linguists who explain those very instances, and who even bring forth examples from Arabic poetry, written according to the same Quranic constructs.

Such comments and quotes by linguists are in the sources mentioned by the "attackers", but they failed the minimal academic honesty to mention them. "Asbaatan", which was discussed in the example above, is precisely such an instance, where the writers suppress the obvious explanations of scholars and the examples they provided.

Thus we distinguished three categories of errors:

Missing the goal of the attack:
The writers forget (conveniently) that they are attacking the notion of the supernatural nature of the Quran, and their approach amounts to changing the goal of the proclaimed attack:

The existence of occasional wrong grammatical opinions among Arabs just indicates errors in humans, not in the Quran:
Not all humans are supposed to know all verses of the Arabs: it is absurd to require it. If I study an English article, and say that such a construct is incorrect, but you quote a similar construct from a well know English writer, it means I am wrong, and you are right, and the article under discussion is correct.

Suppressing evidence:
To add insult to the injury, the writers suppress the detailed explanations and quotations of linguists as detailed above. Quoting biased opinions, hiding their biased nature: The writers mentioned Al Zamakhshari's opinions, "hiding" that, as a mu`tazili, his opinions are often formulated intentionally in opposition to that of the Sunnah and Jamaa`ah (whom we represent). Because of this intentional bias, his opinions are only accepted if they conform to those of Muslim scholars and other Arab linguists: On such issues, the latter are the reference authority, not him.

Not surprisingly, this non-academic concealment recurs in most attacks on other subjects. If such writers were Muslims, they would have been termed "dishonest" (contradicting amaanatul naql), but we will not hold them to the high standards of our scholars, we will suffice with the most apologetic description: Non-academic.


Linguistic experts have used the Quran to formulate the rules of the Arabic language, not vice versa, and attacking the Quran as committing grammatical mistakes amounts to putting the carriage before the horse.

Those choosing to attack the Quran on the issue of grammar, are only proclaiming their ignorance to the whole world, as if proud of inventing the square wheel. For us it seems more like a Chinese high school kid attacking Shakespeare of on the subject of English Literature.



Opponents of Islam, and those who do not analyze it fairly and deeply, find so many issues of criticism on this subject indeed. The permission of polygamy from the holy Quran:

First (as requested by one of our visitors) we cite the permission of polygamy from the holy Quran. {And if ye fear that ye will not deal fairly by the orphans, marry of the women, who seem good to you, two or three or four; and if ye fear that ye cannot do justice (to so many) then one (only) or (the captives) that your right hands possess. Thus it is more likely that ye will not do injustice.‏} (S:4, A:3) The condition must be noted: {... and if ye fear that ye cannot do justice, then one (only)...}

In addition to the following, which according to many is almost a "freeze" on the above permission: {Ye will not be able to deal equally between (your) wives, however much ye wish (to do so).} (S:4, A:129)

Thus in summary, the holy Quran grants us the permission to marry more than one wife, PROVIDED we can deal equally between them, yet it mentions that we will NOT be able to deal equally no matter how hard we wish to do so.

In any society, this "profile" is that of those who are having difficulties observing the law restricting polygamy. Such people will violate this prohibition in practice, whether they are Muslims, Christians, Buddhists or atheists.

The result to anybody still in control of himself is that polygamy is NOT allowed; but normally, Muslims who are already "out of control" revert to the basic "permission". As is the case for all Islamic and other laws, our discussion concerns the great majority of cases and not their exceptions such as Prophets or their Companions: Witnessed to by history as the ultimate examples of self control and self denial.

The criticism and Islam's answer:

Next is a translation of our answer to an e-mail directed to us, criticizing at length Islam's permission of polygamy. Within our answer below, we include in italics quotes from the question. We have edited our original answer to present it in this section. The full text of the original criticism follows at the bottom in smaller size print.

Assalamu alaikum

In the Name of Allaah, the Most Merciful, the Most Compassionate. I praise Allaah for blessing us with the religion of Islam, a clear light despite what accusers may falsify. And I send blessings and peace to His Noble Prophet, the beacon of light to all worlds.

Yes, Islam has an answer.

It will become clear to you, insha'allaah (God Willing) after contemplating what follows, rationally, objectively and based on reality, that the storms aimed at Islam normally reach our truthful and innocent emotions in sheep's clothing; for is there any clothing more worthy of this title (sheep's clothing) than the rights of woman, the subject of allowing polygamy for man in Islam, and its deep effect on woman?

You will also see insha'allaah concerning all attacks aimed at Islam, how it becomes clear after a fair and logical study that Islam is the one with the right to attack, not the other way around.

What follows includes only a summary of our main ideas. The fair person seeking the truth can ponder about them. Then, after viewing their correctness, he can carry on and "complete the picture" by himself.

As for the stubborn person whose goal is only to attack Islam despite facts and contrarily to reason and logic, we have no business with him in the first place.

So we say, and by Allah's help is our success:

First an important fact must be realized: That all religious and secular laws across history are not based on the premise that man is perfect. In other words, Islam and usually other laws and religious rules, do not base their rules on the fact that man is a perfect creature.

Only God is Perfect. Man is an imperfect creature, and laws come to specify the limits of his rights and obligations, and to diminish the effect of his mistakes on other members of the society. It must be noted that Islam succeeded in this goal in the rules it provided, whereby we find other legislations have faltered, as you will see in the next paragraph.

Introduction about Divorce

In comparison to Christianity for example, Islam relied on the reality that something may occur in marriage, whereby forcing the parties to separate (i.e. rendering it impossible to continue living together). So Islam allows divorce, whereas numerous sects among the Christians prohibit divorce for ever.

It is obvious how much hardship may exist in such special cases, and that prohibiting divorce is but theoretical and unrealistic. How far is this from the Prophet's saying, peace be upon him: <>

This deep expression is a general reminder about the extreme "dislike" for divorce in the eyes of God, yet it stays in par with reason by accepting the inescapable: That despite divorce remaining the least liked to Allah among allowable things, yet it may be unavoidable in some cases. As a result we find some members of other religions that prohibit divorce reaching impossible situations upon which they resort to "civil divorce".

So what good was the prohibition for?

I say "prohibition" remains only for pride, false pretense, and self righteousness that "this religion is better than the one allowing divorce". This is either mistaken, untruthful, or hypocritical.


The case is the same if not far more serious and dangerous concerning polygamy. Islam brought forth regulations to benefit society as a whole, admitting the imperfection of the human race, starting from that premise, and attempting to minimize the harms resulting from that imperfection.

It did not rush blindly, ignorant about that subject, as happened in several other religions and civil laws, and here is the difference:
Yes, Christian clergy prohibited polygamy, and Islam allowed it (under strict conditions).

Numerous civil laws prohibited polygamy and Islam allowed it. Yet we sadly challenge anybody to prove the success of prohibiting polygamy in any society, not only in our age, but throughout history.

In other words, the prohibition rule exists but its application is totally missing; on the contrary, what is being practiced is the opposite of the spirit of that law, which applies to all classes of society, whereby you even find the president of France speaking casually about his illegitimate daughter, with no law to hold him accountable for his action. So what good is this law for?

And we find adultery proven against the candidate for Presidency of the United States but the law "prohibiting polygamy" does not prevent his election. Furthermore, other known sexual acts are proven against him, yet he resumes his leadership, and the law does not even discuss his marital infidelity.

And we find the scandals of Prince Charles, husband of the late Princess Diana...

So where is that law, and what is Islam's crime?

So if what you mean by "prohibiting polygamy" or "allowing it", only what is written in the texts of the laws, the answer is: Yes, the texts of other laws prohibited polygamy, but does this drive the pain away from the woman who discovers that her husband had a mistress for eight years (as happened to Clinton before his election)? Will his wife bring home a copy of the law and hang it on the wall instead of her husband's picture so as to find solace and comfort?

And what is the crime of that woman whose husband brings home the AIDS virus or other sexual diseases? Shall she bring the text of the law, soak it in water and drink it as medicine? And what about the innocent illegitimate children, thrown at the doors of orphanages? Do we read to them the law to comfort them?

My wife was answering an American lady about the same subject and said:
If my husband marries another woman, at least I know who she is, and that he did not leave me for a dancer or a prostitute, and I know where he is in the middle of the night or if an accident happens to me or to his children, and I know he is not carrying viruses, and ... and... The American lady answered: You are right.

In summary, other laws and religions failed to prevent the actual practice of polygamy in spite of their boasting about the text of the law; but because they ignored the reality of mankind, they limited themselves to the prohibition whereby they deeply harmed society, violated the fundamental rights of children (fruits of marital infidelity) who demand their rights as members of the human race: Their rights to life and not to be murdered through abortion, or to live with a father and mother, not in an orphanage. This right upon humanity is far more important than the emotions of any of the parents, of course without denying the importance of woman's feelings, but truth must be said.

As for Islam, the law of the Lord of Creation, it did not "wind around" but addressed the problem directly and truthfully. So why do we just look at the inescapable, that it is impossible to prevent (practical) polygamy?

Why don't we also look beyond, and what results from that reality? That polygamy cannot be stopped, not because Islam allowed it, but because of the nature of man, for if God so wanted, we would all have been like angels, not committing mistakes nor hurting the feelings of others, and man's nature would have been different; but God All-Eminent did not so want, and He created us imperfect {He who Created death and life to test you who among you has better deeds}.

So since it is not possible to prevent (practical) polygamy, what then are the laws necessary to minimized its harms on society? What did the other laws do about this matter with the likes of Clinton and Charles, and what did they do about the millions of illegitimate children who were deprived of their right to life, or to a father, a mother and a home?

Several Muslim sisters insisted to add the following to our answer:
Outside Islam, the "second" woman is deprived of her rights to be treated as humanly as the wife, while Islam grants the same rights to both.

We did not notice this issue in our original answer, yet our sisters insisted, demanding the second woman's rights to a home, shelter, family, respect: To be treated with dignity, not just as a temporary sexual object.

There is no doubt that there are the other considerations that you mentioned in your letter, but you have their answer (in addition to the answers that follow) if you admit that Islam did not impose polygamy but simply acknowledged that it was impossible to prevent, so it limited it and imposed rules about it for the benefit of society, then established a strong fortress by prescribing the most severe penalties on whoever threatens the sacred fabric of the family.

As for the other laws and religions that prohibited polygamy, they prohibited it while ignoring reality. As a result they neglected the rights of society in addition to their failure in the prohibition itself, so in that matter they restricted themselves to boasting about something that does not exist, about an action they did not perform, then they aggravated the matter by deeply damaging society's structure and human rights. {Do not think those who cheer about what they did, and like to be praised about what they did not perform, do not think them safe from pain: they will have grievous pain} (S: 3, A: 188)

Let it be noted that this failure (to prevent actual polygamy) is severely compounded:

It is almost impossible to "hide" polygamy in a Muslim society. Rights of inheritance are in action, as well as establishing a dwelling for the additional family. Thus the actual desire to marry an additional wife is met by severe social pressures, starting from man's own children, even his father, mother, and relatives. Only a stubborn and unfair person would deny that. As a result, there is an enormous natural pressure against Islam's legalized polygamy. In contrast, adultery is normally committed in secret in non-Islamic societies. Compared to Islam it is encouraged and even rewarded.

Thus the prohibition of polygamy, in the only way that it is applied (i.e. with no measures to enforce it because it actually can never be enforced) is a compounded failure: Not only has it failed to achieve what it boasts about, it has even encouraged "actual" polygamy by making it so carefree, non-accountable, non-punishable and with no attached responsibilities whatsoever.

I mention below some of what you wrote, followed by our brief answers, asking Allaah to guide you to ponder objectively about them.

...when Islam allowed polygamy, it blew away all her feelings (i.e. the feelings of a Woman whose husband married another woman)

It is her husband who blew them away. And shall we forget that another woman had the major role in this injustice against "women's rights", by accepting to be part of a new polygamous marriage? Polygamy wouldn't exist without the second wife's consent.

As for Islam, it addressed the feelings of (illegitimate) children who would exist in enormously higher numbers if polygamy was prohibited; non-Islamic societies are witnesses to that. as to satisfy man's objective. I am not talking here about marrying another woman if the wife is sterile or ill; I am talking about cases devoid of any reason but to serve man's pleasure...

This is answered in the detailed explanations of our introduction, for Islam did not impose polygamy; it started based on the impossibility to prevent it, so it designated rules about it in order to minimize its harm on society as a whole, not only regarding the feelings of one group.

Thus woman bears hardship in this instance while, for example, man risks even death in the case of military service (jihad), and if you say "his reward is with Allaah" then the same answer would also apply to woman.

The Prophet PBUH said concerning this: Allah Most-Eminent decreed (sensitive) jealousy upon woman and jihad upon men, so whoever among them (women) is patient out of belief and anticipation (for God's reward), she will have the reward of a martyr. Narrated by Tabarani, citing Ibn Masoud, Good hadeeth according to Suyuti.

Woman is extremely jealous (i.e. in a sensitive manner) by nature, and the presence of the husband with another woman causes her immense psychological pains.

The same applies in societies prohibiting polygamy, for the psychological pains exist, whether due to polygamy among Muslims, or to marital infidelity elsewhere.

How many women had their husbands marry another, The ratio of adultery in non-Islamic societies is still much higher than polygamy among Muslims: It is obvious that one man may commit adultery with a married woman and another and another, which is a fact; whereby in an Islamic society, since the number of men is equal to that of women if not slightly less, therefore making it impossible for polygamy to multiply; it remains relatively rare except in cases of war.

and were afflicted with psychological disturbances close to madness... resulting in family destruction...

My son currently living in the USA informed me that the divorce rate there is 80% (for new marriages) - believe it or not; the main reason for that being marital infidelity, so this would also correspond to destroying 80% of the families. Furthermore, as mentioned above, there are enormous social pressures against the act of polygamy itself (starting from man's own children, father, mother, etc.) whereas in non-Islamic societies, adultery is normally committed in secret, with no accountability nor responsibility whatsoever.

I turned away from marriage for fear that my husband may marry another,

But what about the fear of infidelity in societies that prohibit polygamy, ignoring that such is impossible? Thus man may go loose there like a wanton animal spreading discord (or his "seed") left and right, whereas Islam prescribed the most severe penalties for adultery.

Which of the two solutions is better for society? And would you imagine, if woman can marry another man, would you be able to bear it then?

Based on the words of our Prophet PBUH (concerning women's pain in polygamous situation), I believe its impact on me would be the same as death, and its reward the same as martyrdom; I am not shy of the answer. But I draw your attention to the existing reality, whether Islam allows polygamy or non-Islamic laws prohibit it:

It is absolutely impossible to prevent the practice of polygamy, either in the form of marital infidelity in non-Islamic societies (be it for long or short durations), or in the form of allowing polygamy in Islam.

But delving further on this issue, woman's marriage to an additional man is usually against her nature, each woman knows that deep in herself. Furthermore it does not benefit society, on the contrary it harms it, for shall we see her running from house to house about the needs of her children dispersed among four houses? It is obvious that man's responsibility is normally to work for the living, while woman's responsibility is the house and raising the children, and what a noble human responsibility indeed this is when compared to man's "materialistic" responsibility: Building children's character based on higher morals and ethics.

We must add something necessary to complete the picture in case of identical "rights", maybe you will smile a little:
What would be society's fate if woman had four husbands, each having four wives... each having four husbands... each having four wives. Each wife will have one day with each of her husbands, while each of her husbands will have one day with each of his wives. So the possibility for man to meet his wife accidentally is one day out of sixteen (4x4=16), but they can improve the situation through close cooperation among all concerned parties!!!

And is this the son of which husband, and if one man dies, shall we go to his four wives to distribute his inheritance among their children, or are they not his children, and if medicine can solve this problem by analyzing the DNA, would everybody be able to afford the expenses, or will this be funded by the government?

If we let our imagination proceed further we will find numerous other problems; the weirdest coincidence is that moral dissolution - specifically adultery - in many non-Islamic societies has actually caused this specific genetic chaos among families, thereby further weakening the family ties.

... so where is man's role the rest of the days?? is it only pleasure with his other women??

It cannot be denied that his responsibility has increased by four folds, to toil for four families all day; I mean at work, which is exhausting.

As for his wife, her responsibility remained and did not increase during the whole day (except for her responsibility raising the children which has increased due to his partial absence), so why look only at pleasure?

Furthermore, man's intellect has not produced an alternative to the thoroughly integrated Islamic solution which also specifies man's responsibility in that case.

A young man spoke to me in the US, joking friendly with me:
Is it true that you are allowed to marry four wives?

I answered: Yes this is true.

He smiled, showed excitement and looked "sideways" at me with humor.

I continued, smiling: Yes, I can marry four wives, provided I can shelter each of them, spend on them equally... And I proceeded listing my duties until he succumbed with a smile. Let Islam after that come and say that the goal of marriage is to build a wholesome family...

And let man-made rules, ignoring actual reality (that it is not possible to prevent practical polygamy), come and prohibit polygamy "legally"; but as a result they will actually increase it, and family ties will be weakened because of the lack of regulations, restrictions and responsibilities (in case of practical polygamy, in the form of marital infidelity) and I do not see that this harmonizes with marrying more than one woman.

How can this opinion be executed?

And did it ever occur throughout history in any society? This is more of a "wish" than it is an "opinion": There is a difference between us wanting something and being able to have it. There is no doubt that your "wish" is good, but applying this "opinion" has never succeeded in other societies except on paper. What you "want" did not result from it (protecting woman's feelings and other wishes), the opposite happened.

1- Polygamy is widespread in the form of marital infidelity, which is much higher than the ratio of polygamy among Muslims. In the 70s, marital infidelity in the US (I was a student there) was about 30% among men and 20% among women, it is much higher now. The same applies to Europe.

Obviously the ratio of polygamy is much lower in Muslim societies because it is impossible to have 30% additional women in a normal society (except in cases of war), in addition to what we mentioned above concerning natural social pressures against actual polygamy in Islam, as opposed to the lack of any regulation, restriction or accountability in non-Islamic societies.

2- In addition to hurting her feelings by being with another woman (in non-Islamic societies just like in Islamic ones).

3- ... the matter is further aggravated by his being with a prostitute or the like. So I plead the question to you: What will be the feelings of a woman like Clinton's wife, when she discovers that her husband had a sexual love affair for eight years with an "artist". How will she accept, in addition to his being with "another woman", the vast difference between the two persons, i.e. between Clinton's wife and that "artist"? How will her self-esteem be? And how will she meet people in society, everybody knowing that her husband prefers an "artist" over her, and had a relationship with her for eight years? Maybe she wishes she never existed.

4- In addition for example to bringing deadly diseases to her and those in her womb.

5- In addition to violating the most fundamental rights of children by killing them through abortion or throwing them at the doors of orphanages.

6- In addition to the widespread weakening of family ties because of the spread of adultery, and how will it not spread if "polygamy" is not allowed?

Then after that we zeal about doubting the wholesomeness of the Islamic family?

Obviously, if we were ideal creatures in a hypothetical world, this problem would not have existed (men not wishing to marry more than one wife) as well as all other mankind's problems, by doing what we are commanded and never disobeying God; but God Willed that this is the feature of Angels, not of Humans.

So we must not be blind to reality, otherwise we will be like the ostrich digging a hole in the sand and putting its head there, believing that the hunter does not see it any more. No, we must first recognize reality, then deal with its problems, then study Islam while maintaining that reality in our minds despite its bitterness (the inescapability of polygamy).

For by God, we are but in an abode of testing. A scholar once said: Do not despair when something you dislike happens because such occurrences happen in order to bring the reality of your personality out into existence. Which means that what we dislike occur to us, then we react, and in the hereafter we will be judged according to that: According to our actions and responses, not based on the fact that we were "nice persons" and "fine folks", and "if" something we disliked happened then "we would have" acted correctly, and "if" we had money "we would have" given it to the poor... and so on.

No, judgment will be: This is what happened to us, this was our reaction, based on that we will be judged, and our situation evaluated.

I ask Allaah to open your heart to the truth, to unveil the wisdom of His matters to you, and to Merciful to both you and us, Aameen.


Following is the original question sent to us (about polygamy), translated from Arabic, without omissions. We added a few clarifications between parentheses

================================================== We know Sir that Islam honored woman and placed her in a high standing... and ... and urged to treat her well, being a sensitive creature... and as the noble Prophet (Mohammad) said: Deal kindly with the glasses.. (the glass cup being a symbol for woman, for its delicacy and ease of breaking).

Yet when Islam allowed polygamy, it blew away all her feelings in order to satisfy man's objective. I am not talking here about marrying another woman if the wife is sterile or ill; I am talking about cases devoid of any reason but to serve man's pleasure...

Woman is extremely jealous (i.e. in a sensitive manner) by nature, and the presence of the husband with another woman causes her immense psychological pains. How many women had their husbands marry another, and were afflicted with psychological disturbances close to madness... resulting in family destruction...

Sir please know that we (i.e. Muslims) cannot object to a matter decreed by Allah (i.e. the fact that polygamy occurs) but it contains great psychological harm to the woman... and Islam totally neglected that aspect of the matter and did not address it ;but even though it imposed the condition of "justice" (dealing equally between wives) yet most (men) are not just, so the matter relieves nothing or woman's psychological damage. No woman has the power to bear this matter, no matter how Islamic she may be. And would you imagine, if woman can marry another man, would you be able to bear it then?

I once read in a newspaper that a woman volunteered her kidney to her husband, but the first thing he did after leaving the hospital was to marry another... which shook me a lot... especially after hearing a man say that what he did was not a sin and that he was allowed to marry another... so is this Islam's view of woman?

Sir, I do not hide from you... I turned away from marriage for fear that my husband may marry another, for I will not bear the matter whatever happens; and this is widespread in our society... especially that no matter how devoted and sincere the woman may become: this will not prevent her husband from marrying another woman, and he will be not considered guilty in the eyes of anybody... not in Islam nor according to any Muslim... for Islam did not place any exceptions... all it considered was mans' desire, even if this hurts the woman, and how easy is it for man to say without considering woman's feelings and sincerity "This is my right"... So you can feel how cheap she is after all she has done for him... so there is not the least consideration for her feelings...

And I do not believe it is just for man to enjoy four women, whereby woman's right to her husband diminished to its quarter... for she (then) sees him once every four days then becomes responsible 3 days for her house, becoming mother and father at the same time... so where is man's role the rest of the days?? is it only pleasure with his other women??

Let Islam after that come and say that the goal of marriage is to build a wholesome family... and I do not see that this harmonizes with marrying more than one woman.

So please enlighten me, May Allaah reward you well..


End of Question