Produce A Sura Like It?


Whenever we point out many of the blunders in the Quran to Muslims, their favourite reply is that their Quran is a divine book because no one can produce a book like it.

Sometimes when you ask them why this is so, they will respond, “Because the Quran says so!” Well, this is a fallacy of circular reasoning which proves nothing.

Such an assertion can only be accepted by those who have already assumed the divine origin of the Quran. Here is what the Quran itself says on the issue:

Sura 2:23 “And if you (Arab pagans, Jews and Christians) are in doubt concerning that which We have sent down (i.e the Qur’an) to Our slave [Muhammad], then produce a Surah (chapter) of the like thereof and call your witnesses (supporters and helpers) beside Allah…”

Sura 17:89 “If the whole of mankind and Jinns were to gather together to produce the like of this Qur’an; they could not produce the like thereof, even if they backed up each other with help and support.”

These were Muhammad’s “defenses” against the critics of his time and they are the same verses Muslims trot out today.

Demolish these “defenses” and the divine origin of the Quran along with the integrity of Muhammad go down the tubes. Now, this line of argument fails at least 3 major tests.

1. The Test of Logic

The claim that there can’t be a book like the Quran begs the question because every book is unique. Every human being is unique and different.

In fact, no two people are exactly the same. Even in writing or other abilities, each person’s style is different and unique.

For instance, there is a particular way I write, which could also be linked to the way I think. Even if you read what I read, you can’t write exactly like I do.

Therefore, the argument, “Until you write a book like the Quran you can’t beat it,” is puerile and silly. We don’t need to write a book like the Quran.

Muslims claim Al-Quran is beautiful and eloquent that no one can produce its like. This is a fallacy of irrelevance. First of all, beauty or elegance is subjective and cannot even be a measure of truth.

You can look at a book and call it beautiful while I see it as ugly. That is why we are unique.

If a man says, “Find a lady as beautiful as the one I love,” hardly can his challenge be met because his love for her blinds him to her defects. The same thing applies here.

Muslims have blindly believed the Quran as divinely inspired and have refused to see the many absurdities in it; they even call them “beauty.” In reality, no book can match the Quran in its confusion and negative influence.

2. The Test of Textual Stability.

When Muhammad was alive, the texts of the Quran he was reciting were anything but stable. He would recite a verse from Allah one day and edit or change it the next day. This raised the suspicions of many of his people, then ‘Allah’ explained:

When We (Allah) substitute (or change) one revelation for another (in place of another) – and Allah knows best what He reveals – They say ‘Thou art a forger’: But most of them understand not” (Sura 16:101).

Such of our revelations as We abrogate or cause to be forgotten, We bring (in place) one better or like thereof. Knowest thou not that Allah is able to do all things?” (Sura 2:106)

These verses indicate that Muhammad came under so much fire from the people that he had to find a way to excuse the constant changes in his recitations.

Notice that his listeners rightly dismissed him as a forger. Though they were illiterates, they refused to be taken for a ride. They knew that a supposed divine revelation that keeps changing must be fraudulent.

Muhammad had to do some damage control – “most of them understand not” – understand what? That God swallows His words?

He said they don’t know that “Allah is able to do all things” – Really? Changing verses like a failed redactor? What kind of a deity is that?

Wait a minute, why would the all-knowing God be bringing “a better verse?” Why didn’t Allah save us the confusion and lengthy explanations by giving a better verse from the start?

Obviously, if Muhammad had lived longer, with the way his “revelations” kept changing, the Quran wouldn’t be what it is today. Perhaps, it would have been a bigger book with a different content entirely.

Islamic biographers even recorded that Satan spoke some verses through Muhammad praising the pagan deities (daughters of Allah) mentioned in Sura 53:19-20 (see Bukhari 2:19:177 and Sirat, pp. 165-166).

If Satan can also produce a sura like the Quran, then the challenge has been met and that makes the Quran quite cheap.

3. The Test of originality.

There’s simply nothing new in the Quran. There’s nothing Allah ‘revealed’ in it that hadn’t been already known in older scriptures or religions. The only “new” thing the Quran said is that Muhammad is the prophet of God.

There is simply no shred of originality in the Quran. Much of the stories and ideas relayed in it were slight modifications of Pagan, Jewish and Christian legends and some stuff Muhammad gleaned from the Bible.

For example, the story of Abraham being thrown into the fire of a wicked king (Nimrod) in Sura 21:69-71 was an old Jewish legend found in Midrash Rabba.

The two angels “Harut and Marut” mentioned in Sura 2:102 were the very names of two idols mentioned in Talmudic fairy tales.

The idea of seven heavens and seven hells in Suras 15:44 and 17:44 was adopted from the Jewish Hagigah.

The story of the 7 sleepers in the cave which kept Allah at the guessing table, was an old Syrian Christian legend found in the writings of Jacob Sarug (d. 521 AD).

The idea of the bridge of Sirat over hell was stolen from Zoroastrianism. They called their bridge “Chinavad.”

The so-called “99 names of Allah” was a plagiarism of the “75 names of Ahura Mazda” in the Avesta.

The idea of balances weighing the works of the dead in Sura 101:5-6 was stolen from a Gnostic work called the Testament of Abraham and the Egyptian Book of the Dead.

Was it really hard work to collect old stories from different religions, modify them and use them to build your own fiction?

As if repeating something over and over magically makes it true, the editor of the hadith Mishkat’ul Masabih wrote:

“It [the Quran] repeatedly challenged the people of the world to bring a chapter like it, but they failed and the challenge remains unanswered up to this day…” (Vol. III, p. 664).

We cannot blame him for this mulish mentality. If the Quran is a challenge, why do Islamic leaders today get violent and issue death penalty whenever it is criticized or challenged? Is that not a sign of weakness?

Even after Muhammad told the people to write a sura like it, he quickly adds:

But if ye cannot and of a surety ye cannot [produce a sura like it]- then fear the fire whose fuel is men and stones – which is prepared for those who reject faith” (Sura 2:24).

On the one hand they were told to “produce a sura like it” and on the other, he said those who cannot do so must surely burn in Hell.

This was a psychological weapon because no one would want to “produce a sura like it” since Muhammad has attached a clause to it. Smart old Mo.

No, the Quran has never “repeatedly challenged” the people of the world. These are just empty, propagandist, cliches meant to psyche the naïve. Middle East scholar, Canon Sell says of the Quran:

“Men can produce its like in eloquence and arrangement. A man, named Nadir ibn Haritha, was bold enough to accept the challenge, and arranged some stories of the Persian kings in chapters and Suras and recited them” (Studies in Islam, Diocesan Press, London, 1928, p. 208).

A Case Study of Watchtower Falsehood (Part III)


The Watchtower Society being so desperate to indoctrinate their readers against the Trinity doctrine really tried to link it with Paganism (pp. 9-12). But their fabric kept falling apart at its seams.

On page 9, under the heading “The Triads of the Great Gods,” they quoted the Larousse Encyclopedia of Mythology to prove that ancient Babylonia and Assyria believed in triad of deities which influenced the Christian Trinity but they left out this part:

He [Anu] was god in the highest sense the supreme god. All other deities honoured him as their ‘Father’ that is to say their chief…” (pp. 54-55).

This wasn’t included because the Babylonian triad actually looks more similar to the Jehovah’s Witness theology of a supreme Father called Jehovah and other lesser gods – Jesus, angels, devil and men – than the historic, orthodox doctrine of the Christian Trinity!

On page 10 are pictures of triad deities and the “Christian Trinity” aimed at ‘proving’ that the Trinity came from paganism. This is actually an appeal to emotion. These deities didn’t influence the Trinity doctrine in any way.

All scholars agree that ancient Babylonian religion was polytheistic, not “trinitarian.” The same goes for ancient Egyptian, Greek, Canaanite and Sumerian religions.

The Egyptian Osiris, Isis and Horus belonged to a large family of gods like Set, Nut, Seb, Apnu etc. with their head being Amon-Ra. Is this the Christian Trinity? Absolutely not.

The tactic of trying to fault the Trinity by pointing to pre-Christian pagan cultures with similar beliefs is not only a fallacy of wrong parallel, it is in fact, lame. In another publication, they stated that:

The universality of the flood accounts is usually taken as evidence for the universal destruction of humanity by a flood … So we can confidently conclude that the Flood legends confirm the reality of the Biblical account.” (The Watchtower January 15, 1992, 8).

If the flood legends in many pagan cultures confirm the Biblical account, then the trinity beliefs in many cultures can confirm the Divine Trinity.

Another thing to note is that, most of the sources they used in an attempt to link the Trinity with paganism were either heretical or anti-Christian works. In other cases where this wasn’t done, they resorted to their favourite tactic – misquotation.

On page 9 for instance, the Encyclopedia Americana (Vol XXVII, 294) was quoted:

“Fourth century Trinitarianism did not reflect accurately early Christian teaching regarding the nature of God; it was, on the contrary, a deviation from this teaching.

But page 301 of the same work says: Neither will Unitarians accept any dogma as true because Scripture teaches it … The Unitarian church … maintains that [the Bible] writers were subject to errors.”

Here they were quoting an article on the Unitarians as an authority on the history of the Trinity! How preposterous!

Why is the Watchtower so desperate that they would resort to quoting the opinions of Bible haters for what Christians are to believe?

Again, on pages 3, 6 and 11, they quote Arthur Weigall’s The Paganism in Our Christianity (1928, 197) which is a Unitarian cultist book:

“The origin of the [Trinity] is entirely pagan.” But the final paragraph of this book has this to say:

The mistaken attitude of Christianity is very largely the fault of St. Paul … Paul was not very interested in Christ the Teacher; he was more concerned with Christ the divine Human Sacrifice.”

Why in the name of integrity would a writer quote a cultist as an authority of Christian belief?

The Watchtower writers couldn’t obviously find works by reputable Christian scholars they could use to attack the Trinity, so they had to use anti-Christians like Alvan Lamson, Andrew Norton or E. W. Hopkins.

Such a feat shows that the Watchtower Society grossly disobeys its own directives in Qualified to be Ministers (1967, p. 199):

Be very careful to be accurate in all statements you make. Use evidence honestly. In quotations do not twist the meanings of a writer or speaker or use only partial quotations to give a different thought than the person intended … And use reliable, capable authority.

On page 14, there is a section titled “Jesus a Separate Creation”. A part of it reads:

“…Jesus was a created spirit being, just as angels were spirit beings created by God…[He] was ‘the first-born of all creation.’ (Colossians 1:15 NJB) He was ‘the beginning of God’s creation.’ (Revelation 3:14, RS)…Yes, Jesus was created by God as the beginning of God’s invisible creation.”

These are claptrap arguments. First, nowhere did the Bible ever say “Jesus was created.” The idea of Jesus being an archangel is totally false and has been addressed here.

That Colossians 1:15 used as “proof” is invalid because the word “firstborn” does not imply “first created”. Two different Greek words are used for them (prototokos and protokistos) respectively.

JWs have craftily added the word “other” in brackets 4 times to Col. 1:14-18 in their translation to support the error that God created Jesus and Jesus made all other things.

But the “firstborn” means “preeminence” and “eternal preexistence” (Strong # 4416). It doesn’t mean ‘first created’. According to Greek scholar Marvin Vincent:

‘First-born’ points to eternal pre-existence …We must carefully avoid any suggestion that Christ was the first of created things, which is contradicted by the following words: ‘in Him were all things created‘” (Word Studies in the New Testament, 1946, 3:468).

The Greek word translated as “beginning” in Rev. 3:14 is “arkhe” which denotes the Creator, Originator or the One Who starts and stops time. In Rev. 21:6 and 22:13, God Himself is called Alpha and Omega, the Beginning [ar-khe] and the End. Therefore, the title applies to God as it applies to Jesus.

From pages 14-20, most of what the booklet attacked are straw man arguments about the Deity of Christ. The Watchtower Society may have convinced JWs that they are demolishing the Deity of Christ there, but what they did all through was slash away at straw man points.

Let me dig up three more misquotations.

Page 16: The Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, edited by Gerhard Kittel (1967, Vol IV, 736) says: “[Monogenes] means ‘of sole descent’ i.e without brothers or sisters … But the word can also be used more generally without reference to derivation in the sense of ‘unique’, ‘unparallel’, ‘incomparable.'”

Page 20: “The fact has to be faced that New Testament research over, say, the last thirty or forty years has been leading an increasing number of reputable New Testament scholars to the conclusion that Jesus himself may not have claimed any of the christological titles which the Gospels ascribe to him, not even the functional design ‘Christ’ and certainly never believed himself to be God” (G. H. Boobyer in John Ryland’s Library Bulletin 1697-8, 50: 251).

This was a work written by another cultic group attacking Christian belief but the magazine cleverly omitted the points which trashes their belief in Jesus as Christ yet they steal their arguments!

Page 22: “Although the NT concepts of the Spirit of God are largely a continuation of those of the OT, in the NT, there is a gradual revelation that the Spirit of God is a person. The majority of NT texts reveal God’s spirit as something, not someone, this is especially seen in the parallelism between the spirit and the power of God.” (The New Catholic Encyclopedia, 13:575)

In their conclusion on p. 30, they wrote:

“…Trinitarians have often persecuted and even killed those who rejected the Trinity doctrine…They have killed their fellow Trinitarians in wartime … all in the name of the same Trinitarian God? … Thus the teaching of confusing doctrines about God has led to actions that violate his laws.

This mode of argumentation is called “poisoning the well.” It’s an attempt to create a very negative image of your opponent such that you don’t even want to consider what he really believes or to listen to what he has to say.

By making these vague or exaggerated accusations against Christians who believe in the Trinity, the Watchtower Society seals up the trap to prevent JWs from seeing their own deception.

Interestingly, this statement is coming from a religion that is horribly stained with the blood of its own adherents who have chosen to die for their heresies instead of accepting blood transfusion.

They continued: “By honouring God and worshipping him on his terms, we can avoid the judgement that he will soon bring on apostate Christendom” (p. 31).

Such hypocrisy! Does it honour God to promote falsehoods in His name? Does it honour God to hack up quotations and hide scholarly evidence that refute your views? Does it honour God to quote people who oppose His Word and deny His nature as authorities?

Do you worship God on His own terms by getting around your own rules and misleading your followers? This booklet says it all: the Jehovah’s Witness religion is a false one!

A Case Study of Watchtower Falsehood


In 2009, a Witness gave me an anti-Trinitarian magazine titled “Should You Believe in the Trinity?” (published in 1989). She assumed it would shatter my belief in the Trinity and perhaps make me a Jehovah’s Witness. It actually backfired, as it gingered me to study more on this topic.

When she showed up again, she was disappointed. Her hope of converting me finally fizzled out like a damp squib.

They usually give this booklet to “strong Trinitarians,” and the reason is obvious, the rhetoric employed in this work is slippery.

The reader is bombarded with numerous quotes from various “Christian” scholars and historians all stating that the Trinity doctrine is confusing, a-historical, false, pagan and unbiblical. A Christian who is not well versed in Scripture, church history or theology can be easily misled by this 32 page brochure.

Reading this booklet, the first snag you will quickly run into (if you are observant) is that the sources quoted are not completely cited. They gave the names of the publications, but not the volume or page numbers. This makes it quite difficult for people to double-check the sources they quoted from. This is because, most of the quotes presented in favour of their thesis were a-contextual and spurious.

I will provide several examples of the dishonest quotations, convoluted and slippery -slope arguments that fill up this magazine. Of course, it won’t be necessary for me to refute every line in this work. Some dedicated Christian scholars have done that already.

Once the consistent errors and flawed methodology employed by the Watchtower Society in this booklet is noted, their entire thesis collapses along with their credibility. This should suffice to prevent Christians from being swayed by their arguments. It wi also show JWs that they have trusted in a deceitful organization.

Page 4: “Many sincere believers have found it [the Trinity doctrine] to be confusing, contrary to normal reason, unlike anything in their experience. How, they ask, could the Father be God, Jesus be God, and the holy spirit be God, yet there be not three Gods but only one God?”

Apart from the fact that this is an appeal to prejudice, here, the JW writers are trying to define the nature of God with human reason and experience. What happened to the transcendence, greatness and majesty of God?

God ceases to be God is all He is or able to do are only what the human mind can reason out or explain.

Can JWs explain to us by their “normal reason” or “experience” how God couldn’t have a beginning, or how He created the world out of nothing?

The next paragraph says:

This confusion is widespread. The Encyclopedia Americana notes that the doctrine of the Trinity is considered to be ‘beyond the grasp of human reason.’ Many who accept the Trinity view it that way.”

JWs are trying to say is that the Trinity doctrine should be rejected because it is beyond human comprehension. This is a double standard because in another publication, they say:

“Our minds cannot fully comprehend it. But that is not a sound reason for rejecting it … Should we really expect to understand everything about a Person who is so great that he could bring into existence the universe…?” (Reasoning From the Scriptures, 1985, pp. 148-9).

The full quote from the Encyclopedia Americana used (27:116) says:

It is held that although the doctrine is beyond the grasp of human reason, it is like many of the formulations of physical science, not contrary to reason, and may be apprehended (though it may not be comprehended) by the human mind.”

You can see that this work is saying the Trinity can be apprehended but the Watchtower magazine selectively quoted it.

The full quote on the same page from A Dictionary of Religious Knowledge (Lyman Abbot, 1875, 944) says:

“Precisely what the doctrine is, or rather precisely how it is to be explained, Trinitarians are not agreed among themselves … Sabellians … Others … Arianism … Tritheists … Swedenborgianism … the view of modern Trinitarians most current may be stated thus. It is not possible for the human intellect to comprehend fully the divine nature. The Bible represents God to us as Father, Son and Holy Ghost. It represents them as equally entitled to our highest reference, affection and allegiance.”

The parts omitted by the magazine appear in bold. The author was saying the opposite of what JWs wanted people to believe, so they selectively quoted him.

On pg. 5 we are told “that since the Trinity is such a confusing mystery” it couldn’t have come from divine revelation because “God is not a God of confusion” (1 Corinthians 14:33).

This is a fallacy of wrong conclusion based on false premises. The Bible text used here is speaking of order in a church service not the nature of God which the Scripture calls “the mystery of godliness” (1Tim. 3:16).

By juggling the word “mystery” with “confusion,” the Watchtower craftily presents its faulty conclusion.

In the same page under the heading “‘Trinity’ in the Bible?” the full quote from the Illustrated Bible Dictionary (Hodder and Stroughton, 1959, 3:1597) says:

It must be remembered that the OT was written before the revelation of the doctrine of the Trinity was clearly given. The word Trinity is not found in the Bible…It did not find a place formally in the theology of the church till the 4th century … Although Scripture does not give us a formulated doctrine of the Trinity, it contains all the elements out of which theology has constructed the doctrine.

Again, the source says the opposite of what the booklet is saying. Another full citation from the Catholic Encyclopedia (1912, 15:47) quoted in the same page reads:

“In Scripture there is as yet no single term by which the Three Divine Persons are denoted together. The word [trias] (of which the Latin trinitas is a translation) is first found in Theophilus of Antioch about A. D. 180. He speaks of the Trinity of God [the Father], His Word and His Wisdom (Ad. Auto, 11, 15. P.G VI1078). The term may, of course, have been in use before his time. Shortly afterwards it appears in its Latin form of trinitas in Tertullian.”

When you are quoting from a work, the meaning of the original quotes should be apparent, even when you use ellipses (…). But in this magazine, the Watchtower Society omits any aspect of their source that opposes their agenda.

Here, they deliberately left out the part in the work stating that  Theophilus taught the Trinity doctrine at least two generations before Tertullian.

Another example is Bernhard Lohse’s A Short History of Christian Doctrine (1966, 38) quoted on p. 6:

“As far as the New Testament is concerned, one does not find in it an actual doctrine of the Trinity … At the same time, however, there are in the New Testament the rudiments of a concept of God that was susceptible of further development and clarification, along doctrinal lines.”

You can see again that their source admits that the Trinity doctrine came from the Bible, a fact that the Watchtower didn’t want their readers to know. This is the same methodology employed throughout this booklet. Let me give one more example.

On page 6, under the heading ‘Testimony of the Hebrew Scriptures’ they quoted from the New Catholic Encyclopedia (1965, 306):

“The doctrine of the Holy Trinity is not taught in the O[ld] T[estament].”

But the very next sentence after this says: “In the N[ew] T[estament], the oldest evidence is in the Pauline epistles, especially 2Cor 13:13, and 1Cor 12:4-6. In the Gospels, evidence of Trinity is found explicitly only in the baptismal formula of Mt 28:19.”

That JWs would even use a Catholic reference work to repudiate the Trinity is enough to call their intellectual dignity into question, because everyone knows that Catholics believe in the Trinity.

Interestingly, this source also says: “The doctrine of the Lord’s Supper is not taught in the O.T

Will JWs on this basis stop celebrating the Lord’s Evening Meal yearly? The only way the Watchtower Society could deny the Trinity is by misrepresenting people’s views. This is wicked and ungodly.

Read part two here.