1

A critique of the response of

Answering Islams Answer against
Islamic Awareness.
First it is necessary to the produce Islamic Awarenesss Answer then Answering
Ismams answer before beginning the criticism.

Answer Of Islamic Awareness

To Moo Or Not To Moo, That Is The Question!

Elias Karim, M S M Saifullah & Muhammad Ghoniem
Islamic Awareness, All Rights Reserved.
First Composed: 21st October 2001
Last Updated: 21st January 2006

Assalamu-`alaykum wa rahamatullahi wa barakatuhu:

1. Introduction
Christian missionaries have claimed that the Qur'an contains a historically impossible narration
when it mentions the name al-Samiri which some translate as the "Samaritan" (Qur'an 20:85, 87
and 95). They claim that:
The Qur'an says that the calf worshipped by the Israelites at mount Horeb was molded by a Samaritan (Sura
20:85-87, 95-97). Yet the term 'Samaritan' was not coined until 722 B.C., which is several hundred years
after the events recorded in Exodus. Thus, the Samaritan people could not have existed during the life of
Moses, and therefore, could not have been responsible for molding the calf.

We have already discussed the origins of the Samaritans in the paper The "Samaritan" Error in
the Qur'an. We had mentioned that until the middle of the 20th century it was commonly
believed that the Samaritans originated from a mixed race people living in Samaria at the time of
the Assyrian conquest (722 BCE). In recent years however, new research based on a more careful
study of the Samaritan Chronicle has led to a re-evaluation of their origins. The Samaritans are
the direct descendants of the Joseph tribes, Ephraim and Manasseh, and until the 17th century
C.E. they possessed a high priesthood descending directly from Aaron through Eleazar and
Phinehas.
The Qur'anic mention of the name al-Samiri sometimes translated as the "Samaritan" (Qur'an
20:85, 87 and 95) is entirely consistent with modern investigations into the origin of the
Samaritan sect.
This paper responds to a different allegation, that the Qur'anic story mentioned in surah 20: 8595 was in fact based on Jewish myths and fables.
The Christian missionary Tisdall attempts to explain the origin of the "Samaritan" story in his
book The Original Sources Of The Qur'an:
This legend also comes from the Jews, as is evident from the following
extract which we translate from Pirqy Rabbi Eli'ezer, 45, "And this calf came out
lowing [the sound uttered by cattle; moo], and the Israelites saw it. Rabbi Yehdah says that Sammal was
hidden in its interior, and was lowing in order that he might deceive Israel." The idea that the calf was able to
low must come from the supposition that, though made of gold (Exodus 32. 4), it was alive, since it "came
out" (5. 24) of the fire. Here, again, we see that the figurative expression, when taken literally, led to the
growth of a myth to explain it. The Muhammadan commentator in explaining the words "a calf in body" in the
Qur'an as signifying that it had "flesh and blood" has only gone a step further, and he does this to explain
how it was that the animal could low. Muhammad seems to have understood most of the Jewish legend
correctly, but the word Sammal puzzled him. Not understanding that this is the Jewish name of the Angel of
Death, and perhaps misled as to the pronunciation, he mistook the word for the somewhat similar "Samiri",
which means "Samaritan." Of course he made this mistake because he knew that the Jews were enemies of
Samaritans, and he fancied that they attributed the making of the calf to one of the latter. He was doubtless
confirmed in his belief by some indistinct recollection of having heard that Jeroboam, king of what was
afterwards called Samaria, had "made Israel to sin" by leading them to worship the calves which he made and
placed in Dan and Beth-el (I Kings 12. 28, 29). But since the city of Samaria was not built, or at least called
by that name, until several hundred years later after Moses' death, the anachronism is at least amusing, and
would be startling in any other book than the Qur'an, in which far more stupendous ones frequently occur. [1]

He believes that the story is entirely Jewish in origin, and furthermore, he also mentions the
"amusing anachronism" in the Qur'an concerning the mistaken usage of the term "Samaritan".
This "amusing anachronism" has already been refuted.
Now, concerning the Jewish origins of the story, Tisdall would like us to believe that Muhammad
lifted this material from a Rabbinical source called Pirke De-Rabbi Eli'ezer. Tisdall presumably
used Abraham Geiger's book, Was hat Mohammed aus dem Judenthume aufgenommen? as his
source. Concerning the golden calf Abraham Geiger writes:
[2]

Muhammad says that the calf lowed as it come forth. With this is to be
compared the Rabbinical statement: "There came forth this calf lowing
and the Israelites saw it. Rabbi Jehuda says that Samael entered into it
and lowed in order to mislead Israel." In the Qur'an it is said that among the people of
Moses there was a tribe which kept the truth. This seems to refer to the tribe of Levi and especially to their
behaviour about the calf, although possibly it may refer also to their belief in Moses' mission to Pharaoh of
which we have spoken before. In the biblical accounts a statement is made, which is explained by the Rabbis
as follows: "From Exodus 32. 26, it is clear that the tribe of Levi was not implicated in the matter of the
golden calf." [3]

Not surprisingly, Geiger also uses the rabbinical source called Pirke De-Rabbi Eli'ezer to
support his theory that Muhammad copied this story (or 'legend' as Tisdall prefers to call it) from
Jewish sources. Similar claims have been made by Robert Morey, `Abdallah `Abd al-Fadi and
N. A. Newman.
[4]

[5]

[6]

[7]

Thus, Tisdall proposes that Muhammad used the source Pirke De-Rabbi Eli'ezer to compose the
account found in surah 20:85-95.

2. The Case Against Pirke De-Rabbi Eli'ezer

But Tisdall's explanation is probably the most inaccurate and inexcusable suggestion he has yet
put forward. An examination of the another contemporary source of Tisdall's time reveals the
answer. The Jewish Encyclopaedia published in 1905, in the same year as the publication of
Tisdall's book, states under "Pirke De-Rabbi Eli'ezer":
Josh was the first to point out that in the thirtieth chapter, in which at the end the author distinctly alludes to
the three stages of the Mohammadan conquest, that of Arabia, of Spain, and of Rome, the names of Fatima
and Ayesha occur beside that of Ishmael, leading to the conclusion that

the book originated in the

time when Islam was predominant in Asia Minor . As in ch. 36, two brothers reigning
simultaneously are mentioned, after whose reign the Messiah shall come, the work might be ascribed to the

4
beginning of the ninth century, for about that time the two sons of Harun al-Rasid, El-Amin and El-Mamun,
were ruling over Islamic realm. [8]

Thus, according to Tisdall, Muhammad composed the account found in surah 20: 85-95 using a
source that had not yet been compiled until hundreds of years after his death! Long before Tisdall
wrote The Original Sources Of The Qur'an, Jewish scholars had already mentioned that Pirke
De-Rabbi Eli'ezer post-dated Islam. But surprisingly the famous Rev. W. St. Clair Tisdall was
oblivious to this fact!
Abraham Geiger's book Was hat Mohammed aus dem Judenthume aufgenommen? has also
been subject to recent criticisms by scholars such as Norman Stillman:
... it did tend to give exaggerated view of the Jewish contribution to the Qur'an. Many of the traditions that he

Our chronology of
rabbanic literature is better today than in Geiger's, and many more texts Muslim, Jewish, and Christian - have since being published. In the light of
this we know now that in some instances what was thought to be a Jewish
haggadic influence in an Islamic text might well be quite the reverse. The
Pirqe de Rabbi Eli'ezer, for example, would seem to have been finally
redacted after the advent of Islam .
cites are in oriental Christian as well as talmudic and haggadic literature.

[9]

This view of late compilation of Pirke De-Rabbi Eli'ezer (as well as Midrash Tanhuma!) is also
echoed in Encyclopaedia Of Islam:
the Kur'an appears to present the
earliest record of this midrashic development; aspects of it which are
found in the Jewish sources (e.g., Pirke De-Rabbi Eli'ezer and Tanhuma)
would seem to date from after the rise of Islam .
Regardless of how the story [of al-Samiri] came about,

[10]

A detailed analysis of the dating and composition of Pirke De-Rabbi Eli'ezer is available here.
Since Tisdall lifted most of his material from his master Abraham Geiger, it is not at all
surprising to find that Tisdall's sense of poor chronology matches greatly with Geiger's. Other
examples of Tisdall's poor and embarrassing scholarship are exposed in his discussions
concerning the Prophet's wives teaching him stories from the Bible, Salman the Persian and the
story of Cain & Abel as possible Judeo-Christian sources of the Qur'an.
Finally, Stillman advises us in his conclusion:
4

5
In conclusion, it should be emphasized that one should be extremely cautious about assigning specific origins
to the story discussed here - or for that matter, any other story in the Qur'an. [11]

Christian missionaries would of course choose to ignore this advice as "The Promotion Of
Christian Knowledge" by any means is sometimes more important than accuracy and truth!

3. To Moo Or Not To Moo?

The Christian missionaries seem to also have a problem with the golden calf: Did the golden calf
moo? They write:
Has Allah given a miracle to this false idol even though idolatery is so detested by him?

We will simply reply by saying that Christians themselves report the idols or statues of Virgin
Mary performing "miracles" for believers. This has been reported in both Europe and Latin
America. Does that now mean that their (Trinitarian) god has given these idols the power to
perform miracles, even though idolatry is so much detested by God?
It is quite clear in the Qur'an that God will test people:
Do men think that they will be left alone on saying, "We believe", and that they will not be tested? We did test
those before them, and Allah will certainly know those who are true from those who are false.[Qur'an 29:2-3]

Some of these trials will expose the hypocrisy and falsehoods in the hearts of those who claim to
believe; and for others it will strengthen their faith and resolve - for they are indeed the true
believers. This whole life is but a test for the true believer. Just as the Children of Israel were
tested, other nations were also tested. The people of Thamud for example were tested by the shecamel.
There's no such thing as a free ticket to Paradise!
And Allah knows best!

Related Articles
A related article is on the 'historical' error in the Qur'an.
The "Samaritan" Error In The Qur'an

References
[1] Rev. W. St. Clair Tisdall, The Original Sources Of The Qur'an, 1905, Society For The
Promotion Of Christian Knowledge, London, pp. 112-113.
[2] ibid., pp. 7.
[3] A. Geiger, Judaism And Islam (English Translation Of Was hat Mohammed aus dem
Judenthume aufgenommen?), 1970, Ktav Publishing House Inc., New York, pp. 132.
[4] ibid., See footnotes on p. 132.
[5] R. Morey, The Islamic Invasion: Confronting The World's Fastest Growing Religion, 1992,
Harvest House Publishers: Eugene (OR), p. 150.
[6] `Abdallah `Abd al-Fadi, Is The Qur'an Infallible?, 1995, Light of Life: Villach (Austria), p.
316.
[7] N. A. Newman, Muhammad, The Qur'an & Islam, 1996, Interdisciplinary Biblical Research
Institute: Hatfield (PA), p. 367.
[8] "Pirke De-Rabbi Eli'ezer", The Jewish Encyclopaedia, 1905, Volume X, Funk & Wagnalls
Company, p. 59.
[9] N. A. Stillman, "The Story Of Cain & Abel In The Qur'an And The Muslim
Commentators: Some Observations", Journal Of Semitic Studies, 1974, Volume 19, p. 231.
[10] "Al-Samiri", Encyclopaedia Of Islam, 1993, Volume VIII, E. J. Brill: Leiden, p. 1046.
[11] ibid., p. 239.

Responses to Islamic Awareness

6

7
To Moo Or Not To Moo, That Is The Question!
or
The Art of Selective Quotation and the Tu Quoque Fallacy
Introduction

The "Islamic Awareness" team desperately attempts to save the Qur'an from a serious
historical and philosophical error - the Qur'an's claim that a Samaritan tempted the
Israelites to worship the Golden Calf and that the calf mooed.
Saifullah and Company use a combination of ad hominem attacks against (in their
words) the famous Reverend and Saint Rev. W. St. Clair Tisdall and his master
Abraham Geiger, and incomplete and selective quotations from various publications
in order to defend, what they believe to be, the Word of God.
2. The Case Against Pirke De-Rabbi Eli'ezer

The "Islamic Awareness" team quotes the The Jewish Encyclopaedia which says that
the Pirke De-Rabbi Eli'ezer was written during the post-Islamic period. They
conveniently omitted a point that was made in another response to "Islamic
Awareness" - that there are at least two ancient manuscripts of the Pirke De-Rabbi
Eli'ezer. The ancient Vienna manuscript, which has only in recent years been
translated into English, shows every evidence of being pre-Islamic.
The "Islamic Awareness" team cites the Encyclopedia Of Islam to bolster their case
that the Midrashic traditions (e.g., Pirke De-Rabbi Eli'ezer and Tanhuma) which
contain this story post-date Islam. However, this is not true.
Meyer Waxman's A History of Jewish Literature, a source also used by the "Islamic
Awareness" team, tells us on page 139:
Besides the cycle of Rabba, i.e. Large Midrashim on the
Pentateuch, there exists another Midrashic cycle on these
books known as the Tanhuma-Yelamdenu-Midrashim. The first
name given to it because of the numerous homiletic
interpretations of verses quoted in the name of Tanhuma, the
son of Abba, a famous Palestinian Agadist who lived
towards the end of the fourth century. The second name of
this cycle arises from the fact that a very large number of
7

homilies open with the formula Yelamdnu Rabnu i.e. may our
master teach us. It begins with a question in Halakah, and
while the Halakic matter is dispensed with in a few words, the
discussion turns to Agada and homiletic interpretation.
Of this kind of Midrashim, we have several versions: (1) An older Midrash
which was known to the early scholars of Italy and France by the
name Yelamdnu, but which is now practically lost except for a few fragments;
(2) the printed Tanhuma; (3) the manuscript Tanhuma which was edited and
published in 1883 by the late Solomon Buber. All three belong to one
Midrashic cycle, and the Yelamdnu seems to have been the earliet, as
collections of such homilies where the Halakah was joined to the Agada,
inasmuch as the preacher was a teacher of both, existed in large numbers. It is
these collections which served as the background and source books for the
late Midrashim, the compilers of which drew upon them in abundance. For
this reason, we find the homilies beginning with the formula, "May our master
teach us," scattered through all Midrashic cycles such as the Tanhuma,
Pesiktu (Sec. 84) and in the books of the Rabba (Sec. 82). The date of
the Yelamdnu collection is, therefore, an early one and is probably
contemporaneous with the Genesis Rabba, about the beginning of the sixth
century C.E., and the place of origin, Palestine.
Of the other two versions, namely the Tanhumas, the printed one seems to have
been earlier, but it could not have been the work of the author whose name it
bears, as there are evidences which show definitely that the compiler was
aquainted with the Karaite movement, with the works of Geonim written in the
eighth century and other late events. The date of compilation is, therefore,
placed by most scholars to be the second half of the ninth century.... The
manuscript Tanhuma is not much younger than the printed one. It dates most
likely from the end of the ninth century and is an incomplete version, as it
contains new material only on the first three books of Moses; the other two are
alike in both.
Please notice that Waxman tells us that the compilation dates from the second half of
the ninth century. The man who compiled this Midrash, most likely included material
dating from his lifetime in addition to older8material dating from the pre-Islamic

period. This process is how the Midrashim evolved over the centuries. The compiler
was not the author of the entire work, as another source quoted by "Islamic
Awareness" points out in another article.
Samuel Berman's A History of Jewish Literature, on page x, tells us:
The name Tanhuma Yelammedenu was assigned arbitrarily to
this homiletical compilation and is found in a number of
manuscripts and in several printed editions. The first half of the
title, Tanhuma, was adopted from the name of Tanhuma bar
Abba, one of the most prolific aggadists in Jewish literature,
who lived in the fourth century C.E.. Numerous sayings
quoted in his name in the text account for the attribution of
this work to him. The second half of the title Yelammedenu, is,
in fact, part of the formula yelammedenu rabbenu, "may our
master teach us," which is repeated frequently in this Midrash.
Scholars are in agreement that this formula was the title of a
midrashic text that existed long before our Midrash was
compiled. Though that work has been lost to us, quotations
using the formula are to be found in a number of other
Midrashim, as well as in our Tanhuma Yelammedenu.
The Encyclopedia Of Islam entry cited by the "Islamic Awareness" team (page 1046)
has some interesting perspectives concerning how, and where, Muhammad lifted the
information which he used to create his tale:
Speyer suggested a reference to the story of Zimri (and thus
al-Samiri) ben Salu from Numbers 25:14, who was guilty of
defying Moses in having relations with a Moabite woman. More
recently, Schwartzbaum, developing a suggestion of Yehuda,
has suggested that we have a tale in which the story of King
Jeroboam's calves (one of which, according to Talmudic
tradition, was able to talk, thus being parallel to the Kur'anic
idea of the golden calf "lowing") has merged with that of Moses
and the golden calf. The conflation stemmed from Jeroboam's
9 Israel, that brought you up
statement "here are your gods,

10

from Egypt" (I Kings 22:28) in reference to his two golden

calves, a statement which also appears in Exodus 32:4 in the
mouth of Aaron. Providing the link to al-Samiri is the point that
Jeroboam's capital was Shechem (I Kings 12:25), the Samaritan
sacred centre.
3. To Moo Or Not To Moo, or Tu Quoque

The "Islamic Awareness" team desperately attempts to side step the issue of Almighty
God being so deceitful as to trick the Israelites into the worship of an idol, something
God detests, by causing the Golden Calf to moo.
The question of whether, or not, God would deceive people into sinning highlights the
differences between the God of Christianity and the god of Islam. The Quran testifies
that Allah is a deceiver:
Lo! the hypocrites seek to beguile Allah, but it is He Who
beguileth them. When they stand up to worship they perform it
languidly and to be seen of men, and are mindful of Allah but
little; (Sura 4:142)
Further passages which claim that Allah is a deceiver or schemer include Suras 8:30
and 3:54. Allah even misleads people and has actually created people to burn in Hell:
"Whomsoever Allah guides, he is rightly guided, and whom He
leads astray, they are the losers! We have created for Hell
many Jinns and men... Do ye desire to guide him whom Allah
led astray? Whom Allah leads away, you will find no way for
him." Sura 4:87, 90 (c.f. S. 11:118, 120)
"Those whom Allah wills to guide, He opens their breast to Islam; Those whom
He wills to leave straying, - he makes their breast close and constricted, as if
they had to climb up to the skies: thus does Allah lay abomination on those who
refuse to believe." Sura 6:125
"Many are the Jinns and men we have made for Hell." Sura 7:179
10

11

"Allah leads astray whomsoever He will and guides whomsoever he will." Sura
14:4
With this view of God, I wonder if the "Islamic Awareness" team has ever considered
the possibility that Allah is deceiving them? If we compare the Muslim god with the
God worshiped by Christians, we find that God is Holy and Faithful,
Know therefore that the LORD your God is God; he is the
faithful God, keeping his covenant of love to a thousand
generations of those who love him and keep his commands.
Deuteronomy 7:9
The quality of Faithfulness is essential to God's being because without it, He would
not be God. If God acted in a way that was unfaithful, it would be to act contrary to
His nature, and this is impossible:
"... if we are faithless, he will remain faithful, for he cannot
disown himself." 2 Timothy 2:13
"Let us hold fast the profession of our faith without wavering; for He is faithful
that promised." Hebrews 10:23
For God to mislead the Israelites into worshiping an idol is unthinkable based on the
Faithfulness and Holiness of God. God does not test people through deception:
"There has no testing taken you but such as is common to
man; but God is faithful, who will not allow you to be tested
above that you are able; but will with the testing also make a
way to escape, that you may be able to bear it." 1 Corinthians
10:13
The "Islamic Awareness" team then employs the Tu Quoque fallacy in a somewhat
bizarre argument:
We will simply reply by saying that Christians themselves
report the idols or statues of Virgin Mary performing "miracles"
for believers. This has been reported in both Europe and Latin
11

12

America. Does that now mean that their (Trinitarian) god has
given these idols the power to perform miracles, even though
idolatry is so much detested by God?
In other words, if my religion has a problem, then so does yours. As a Bible believing
Christian, I do not accept such things as a sign of anything - God is not the deceiver,
that distinction belongs to Satan. Bleeding statues, crying icons, milk drinking Ganesh
statues, the Shahada in the tomato, and false prophets such as Muhammad, Joseph
Smith, and Sun Yung Moon are deceptions created by man and/or Satan.
The Bible warns us:
Dear friends, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits to
see whether they are from God, because many false prophets
have gone out into the world. (1 John 4:1)
For false Christs and false prophets will appear and perform great signs and
miracles to deceive even the elect--if that were possible. (Matthew 24:24)
Does this prove that Muhammad borrowed his tales from the Midrash? No, it does
not. In fact, Jewish scholars, such as Berman, tell us that they have no idea of the
original text of the Midrash Tanhuma-Yelammedenu, or how much of it can be
attributed to Rabbi Tanhuma. However, the question cannot be so easily dismissed
with the selective quotations of the "Islamic Awareness" article.
Andrew Vargo

Responses to Islamic Awareness

Answering Islam Home Page

The story of Calf is not only found in Al Qura:n but also in Tanach/Tanakh
[JewishBible] as well.
12

13
This does not imply that Qura:n Hath borrowed it from Bible stated above. Similarly
if the same or similar story is found in some other books like it is not implied
that they have borrowed it from It.
The borrowing theory is based from the Axiom of disbeleave.. The Axiom is that Al
Qura:n is neither a Divine Revelation nor a Divine Aspiration. This Axiom implies
that what so ever is stated in al Qura:n must be borrowed either as it is or with
some modifications. An Atheist who does neither believe in Supreme Being
[ God/god] not believe in Divine Revelation believes that these are borrowed, since
If Almighty Being Doeth not exist then it is impossible that IT can Reveal any thing.
But a theist or one who do believe in a Divine Supreme Being consider the
Possibility of Revelation and Aspiration from the Supreme Being stated above. In
this case a theist or a believer cannot deny the Possibility that what so ever is
mensioned in Noble Qura:n is a Divine Revelation in general and this Calf story
inparticular. If Revelation is Impossible even if there is a Supreme Being then not
only the claim of Quran becometh incorrect but also the claims of Bible and New
Testament.
To claim that Revelation in Qura:n is impossible but the revelation of each and
every book in Bible and New Testament are Possible is incorrect and impossible. To
make such distinctions is incorrect and wrong.
If there is a Supreme Being and if Divine Revelations are Possible then it is possible
that not only Quran or Books of Bible are Divine Revelations but it is POSSIBLE THAT
they both are. In other words If there is a Supreme Being and if Revelations or
Aspirations or Both types of them are Possible ; and if there is a Supreme Being then
it is not only possible for Quran or books of Tanach or of New Testament to be
Revelations or Aspiration or both but it is possible for each one of them to be Divine
Revelation or Divine Aspiration or Both.
In this case the claim that Qura:n Hath borrowed some material from some books
which were written prior to the emergence of Al Quran with certainty and
certitude is falsified. There is a Possibility that Qura:n is a Divine Revelation or
Divine Aspiration or Both. As the certainty Ceaseth it reduces to the case of
Probability. Whether it is a high probability or a low ,it is an other matter. This is
however the case that the claim of certainty of borrowing is False.
It may be claimed that there are two types of Impossibilities. 1] Absolute
Impossibility. 2] Relative Impossibility. Probability in both cases is Zero or Cipher.
For example probability that God/god Shall make Himself Cease to Exist is Zero
even according to Trinitarian Standard, and the Probability that the Hypostatic Union
Shall Cease to Exist is also Zero or Cipher; yet the former mentioned act is
13
Absolutely Impossible, while the latter mentioned
act is Relatively Impossible. An

14
other example is that to incarnate in an other human nature , other then of Iesous is
Relatively impossible and to incarnated in lower or higher natures are absolutely
impossible.
Yet the probability of both acts is Zero.
So the only thing which can be claimed by a rational opponent of Qura:nic Truth is
that the It is absolutely Possible that Qura:n is a Divine Aspiration or a Divine
Revelation and there is neither logical impossibility nor Absolute Impossibility in it
that Qura:n is Divine, and From the Supreme Being, yet it is Relatively Impossible.
So the claim of certainty is not falsified.
Refutation Of Objection:=
If a thing is Not Absolutely Impossible then it is Absolutely Possible.
If it is Absolutely Possible then in a number of cases it is Relatively Impossible, like
the incarnation of First or Third Hypostases in the Divine Ousia of God the Trinity as
according to Athanasian Christianity, and in an other number of cases it is not.
But the original claim that Qura:n is not a Divine Revelation is based on at least one
of the following preliminaries :=
1] The Existence of Supreme Being is Absolutely Impossible.
If there is no Supreme Being then It Is Absolutely Impossible for the for the Non
Existent to Reveal or to Aspire any thing. Only an A theist can hold this Preliminary.
2] The Revelation or Aspiration is Absolutely Impossible, even if there is a Supreme
Being.
But this view if it is assumed to be true Falsifies not only Qura:n but each and
every Book of Bible and New Testament.
3] Divine Revelation is Possible in case of Books other than Qura:n stated above,
and Absolutely Impossible for Quran.
This is the most illogical claim and is it self Absolutely Impossible wrong and
incorrect.
So any claim based on the Absolute Impossibility is incorrect.
Turing back our attention to words Relative Impossibility one does require any
argument as according to
The standard of other Relative Impossibilities.
14

15
But uptill now there is none.
So if a thing is Absolutely Possible and not Relative Impossible its Probability cannot
be Zero or Cipher.
This does falsify the claim of certainty stated above.
Now we come to an other problem.
If it is said that it is however Absolutely Possible that Supreme Being Doeth Reveal
Quran yet Supreme Being Doeth lack the Power to do so, is just to believe that
Divine Power is not Omnipotence.
Anti Islam elements have coined a formula type argument to disbeliebe in Qura:n in
any case.
1] If Quran or Canonical Hadis reporteth any thing at it is which is found in books
existing on earth prior to Qura:n , the claim that this is a case of borrowing.
2] If Qura:n or Hadis reporteth any thing which is found in books existing on earth
prior to Quran with some differences, they claim that the material was borrowed
with some modification or errors ; distorting the materials from their original sources
what so ever.
3] If Qura:n or Hadis reporteth some thing unique not found in previous work, they
claim that it is a work of pure imagination.
So to any logically possible case as there is no forth case they are making one of
the three claims, in order to disbelieve in Qura:nic Truth.
But one thing they are certainly not going to do and that they are not going to
accept the Possibility of being revealed or aspired from Supreme Being. In extreme
case they are not accepting the Absolute Possibility, in some moderate cases they
are not accepting the Relative Possibility since they do not deny the Absolute
Possibility. An other extreme level is not to specify the type of Impossibility.
OMNISCIENT WITNESS.
As the Supreme Being is Omniscient and Witness of every act and event , it is
Absolutely Possible that Supreme Being Hath Narrated the actual events of the Past
in Quran to the Holy Prophet [PBUH].
In this case there is no borrowing at all.
AN EXAMPLE.
Suppose that Event E did occur in time t 0 .
15

16
Suppose that Observers O1,O2,.On reported this event .
Suppose that this report was distorted by secondary reports and even by some
observers.

Suppose that there is a silent yet authentic

reporter who reports it in the last accurately.
But a number of supporters of the other reporters
criticize this reporter as borrowing material from
others , yet distorting them and contradicting
historical facts /truths.
This is certainly incorrect.
In general and in the case of story of calf the same
case is repeated.
A] It is assumed that if the Omniscient Supreme
Being contradicteth the received Matterial then it is
not these mattrerial which are false or incorrect,
rather it is the Supreme Being Who Revealeth falsly
and incorrectly.
B] As SUPREME BEING cannot reveal falsely,
Quran cannot be revealed from supreme being.
Since Quran Contradicteth them.
A simple refutation of this is that it is Absolutely
Possible that some contents of received historical
materials are false and the Omniscient Supreme
Being is narrating nothing16but pure truth.

17

Omniscient Supreme Perfect Being is narrating and

revealing it By His Omniscience and not by
borrowing the information from
Other sources.
If it is argued that how one can believe that Quran
is a revelation of Supreme Being is just like the
question how one can believe that the books of
Bible and New Testament are revielations of
Supreme Being.
To discuss how and why Bible and New Testament
are believed to be Divine Revelations and how and
why Qura:n is not by these objection makers is
beyond the scope of the discussion. The point
which must be focused at this part of the article is
that as these possibilities rather Absolute
Possibilities cannot be replaced by Absolute
Impossibilities the arguments in favour of
borrowing
Are falsified.

DOETH QURAN CONTRADICT HISTORICAL TRUTH.

17

18
This claim is based on some more axioms. Let it be studied in detail.
1] Some events did Occur in Past.
2] They are conveyed to latter generations orally or in written form or both to latter
generations with Historical Certainty. [ Mathematical Certainty is out of the
question].
3] Some contents of the Text of Al Qura:n do contradict these oral or written
materials stated above.
As Truth of these Materials whether oral or written or both is historically certain,
any thing which contradicts them is historically false.
As Qura:n Contradicteth them, falsehood of Holy Quran is Historically Certain.
This is the general case of objection upon Quran, how ever it is used for the story of
calf in this case.
At different times and in different objections , this formula time objection is used for
different Quranic Reports.
One of the most fallacious tools invented to combat Qura;nic Truth.
A DETAIL DISCUSSION ON THE ARGUMENT.
As a general case this depend upon the claim that the truth of the received
historical materials is historically certain. But even on secular level they are at most
probable not certain. That the truth is probable not certain.One may use fuzzy logic
in CASE of Historical truth or falsehood instead of Non Fuzzy Logic.
History is a subject of probable truth and probable falsehood in general. Historical
certainly is just a special case of it.
So unless and other wise the truth of the received historical materials is historically
certain, the historicity of these materials is probable , whether the probability x
varies as follow:=
0<x<1 .
In this case the greatest possible objection on Quranic Truth is not that it
contradicteth the truth received historical materials of historical certainity but that
of historical probability.
We have proved that if a person believes in Supreme Being , believes that the
Supreme Being Hath the Power to Reveal, believes that the Revelation is Absolutely
Possible ,then He or She cannot deny the Possibility that Al Qura:n is a Divine
18

19
Revelation. Other wise He or She must have to deny that there is no Possibility of
Divine Revelation and this implies that the Books in Bible and New Testament are
not Revealed .

ANSWERING THE OBJECTION OF ALLEGED

BORROWING.
There are two types of problems in addition to
the stated above problems that are faced by
some objection makers [like ]
1] Suppose that Qura:n Hath borrowed from any book say book X1,
which is authored prior to the emergence of Qura:n on earth
then the questions is that whether the book X1 hath invented it or it hath
borrowed it from another book X2 which is authored prior to the emergence
of X2 on earth
. If it hath borrowed From the book X2 then the question is whether the book
X2 hath borrowed it from a book X3 which is authored prior to the
emergence of X3on earth, and so on.
AS infinite series of Books one borrowing from an other book authored prior
to it is Absolutely Impossible then then there is at least one book which hath
invented it. If a book Hath invented it then the same canbe said for Qura:n,
that Qura:n hath invented it independent of this book and the finite series of
books borrowing the material from it. Since parallel inventions are also
possible.
This is a better objection than the one presented by the opponents of Qura:n
in their supposition of borrowing.

But this objection is incorrect once again that it is based upon the
Absolute Impossibility of Revelation from Supreme Being or
denying the Omnipotence of the Supreme Being, if not on the Non
Existence of the Supreme Being.
19

20
2] There are some similar types of objections on the stories in Bible and New
Testament.
The claim that Qura:n Hath borrowed from the from some other Books , is just like
the claim that Biblical Monotheism is borrowed from Egyptian Monotheistic
tendencies whether in Atenism or outside it.Or it is like the claim that the New
Testamental Dogmas of Crucifixion and Resurrection are borrowed from some
religions which existed prior to Christianity.
For example the dogma of resurrection is said to be borrowed from a number of Sun
Gods.
But in these cases the Christian response is that they point at the dissimilarities to
shew that this is not a case of borrowing.
But in the case of Qura:n the attitude of some of the objection makers is not like
that.
This does prove that some of those who have a defensive approach in the case of
books of Bibles and New Testament have an offensive approach against Quran,
even if all the conditions ,states and situations are approximately the same.
There are many stories in Bible that have similarities with the stories of other
ancient religion.
One of Secularists and atheists favorite objection against the Bible and New
Testament is their claim that they are based on the old pagan stories and that Bible
is the collection and adaptation of these pagan stories if not in details then in
essence and substance.
This is the very same claim that is used by some of the skeptics against the Qura:n
A general trend of defending Bible and New Testament is to focus on the
dissimilarities to refute the claim of borrowing
While in the case of Qura:n some of the defenders of New Testament and Bible [Not
All] borrow the very same technique from these skeptics and skeptics.
Both claims are uncertain and incorrect. The objection makers on Qura:n become
more skeptic and illogical since the methods which they borrow to distort the
Quranic Truth is the same which is used by Anti Biblical elements against Bible and
New Testament.
So a method which they generally opine incorrect for Bible and New Testament is
believed to be Correct and Valid against Qura:n. A very illogical way of arguing
against the Quranic Text. An Argument if supposed to be valid on Qura:n if it is also
20

21
valid against Bible or New Testament or both then either the argument is valid for all
of them or none of them.
Christian argument against the borrowing theories:
In general Christian Apologists use the argument that a religion with some similarity
with Christianity is the Influence of Christianity on the religion and not the influence
of the religion on Christianity.
For example in the case of Adonis it is claimed that :=

Late texts, influenced by Christians, claim a subsequent day of

celebration for Adonis having been raised from the dead. The
earliest of these is alleged to be the 2nd century AD ambiguous
report of Lucian (Syrian Goddess 6-7) that, on the "third day" of the
ritual, a statue of Adonis is "brought out into the light" and
"addressed as if alive."
But this is not the only proof , there are several other types
of proofs which shew that some similarity does not imply act
of borrowing. Even if the Ante Christian texts have shewn
this, it would not have been a valid proof.
For example the ancient Pagan God Baal son of El was killed
and was resurrected. There are some similarities, which are
undeniable. But Christian Scholars often try to use the
differences between Baal And the New Testamental Christ
to refute the claim of borrowing.
An example is provided from the Cristian sitein the
footnotes.
Similarly it is argued that the El ,father of Baal and
Yahavah/Yahuvah are the same since the word El is used for
Yahuvah/Yahavah/Yehveh as well. Eg see the noun Immanuel. The word El is used for YHVH. But such partial similarities
cannot prove the claim of borrowing in the least meaning.

21

22

imply the Borrowing whether in parts or in totality. Yet these similarities

does not prove the case that Christianity borrowed , according to Christian
apologists. They are correct as according to all logic some similarity DOES NOT

The same is true in the case of Touch me not Wanderer and

As Samiri.
Even if the book telling the story of the Wanderer Predates
the Emergence of Qura:n on Earth, even then there is not
borrowing which is claimed to be occurred.
Now we come to Krishna. He is believed to be a Savior by
Hindus. Some Christian scholars opine that Chrisna /Krishna
os not a savior. There misconception may be corrected if the
ask Hindus believers and Hindu Scholars of Krishna Sects.
Krishna was killed though not crucified. To be killed is an undeniable Similarity
thogh a weak one yet it is. Case of death may be different yet killing [Unnatural
death is Common]. Resurrection of Krishna is also found in Maha Bharta.
Yet these similarities does not prove the case that Christianity borrowed ,
according to Christian apologists. They are correct as according to all logic
some similarity DOES NOT

imply the Borrowing whether in parts

or in totality.

Balarama, vexed with the battles of life, sat down in

meditation and very soon the thousand headed serpent,
AdiSesha, came out from his mouth and offering its
salutations to Krishna, glided towards the sea (Balarama
is said to be an incarnation of Adisesha). Seeing the death
of his dear brother, Krishna became overwhelmed with
grief and sat down besides Balarama, by some bushes.
22

23
By the amazing wills of fate, the hunter saw the foot of Krishna sticking out from the
bushes and assuming it to be a deer shot it down with an arrow. The very arrow
made from the lone surviving triangular piece from the mace that was delivered by
Sambha. Krishna was killed by the poisoned arrow, and his soul soared back to
Vaikunda, his mission on earth accomplished.
Thus died Shri Krishna, the poorna avatar of Vishnu, succumbing to the arrow of a
mere hunter, to honor the curse of a steadfast devotee who had always prayed to
him with a very pure heart. Gandharis curse had acted and achieved its purpose,
just like the Lord himself had promised her.

Chapter 18: Conclusion-The Perfection of Renunciation

TEXT 66 [ Krishna as a Savior /Deliverer.
Bhagvat Gita.

Abandon all varieties of religion and just surrender unto Me. I shall deliver you
from all sinful reaction. Do not fear.

CONCLUSION
Difference in details does not contradict the similarity in principle acts of dying
and raising from death.

But all these similarities cannot prove the claim of borrowing IN

REGARD TO New Testament. Similarly It cannot be argued that
Gita borrowed from New Testament as come have also alleged.

COMPARISION. FROM JEWISH ENCYCLOPAEDIA

23

24
FEEDBACKFEEDBACK
The unedited full-text of the 1906 Jewish Encyclopedia

search

ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVWXYZMorris Jastrow, Jr.George A. BartonMarcus

JastrowIsaac Husik , Max Schloessinger

Table of Contents
Biblical Data:
In Rabbinical Literature:
In the Koran.
In Mohammedan Literature:
Samiri's Identity with Samael.
Critical View:

Biblical Data:
A portable image overlaid with gold, made by Aaron at Mount Sinai (Ex. xxxii.). As the text stands, it
narrates how Moses had gone up into the mountain to receive the Ten Words, and remained forty days.
When the people found his return delayed they asked Aaron to make for them gods which shouldgo
before them. At Aaron's request they took off the gold rings worn by the women and children in the camp.
These he took and "fashioned it with a graving tool and made it a molten calf." An altar was built before it
and a feast to Yhwh celebrated.
Meantime Moses in the mountain had been warned by Yhwh of the defection of the people, and he now
came down. Much surprised and angered when he found what was actually going on, he cast the tables
of the Ten Words to the ground and broke them. He took the calfwhich seems to have really been of
wood overlaid with goldand burned it till the wood was charred, and then pulverized the gold and
strewed it on the water of the brook they drank from. Moses then demanded of Aaron an explanation of
his conduct, and received one truly Oriental in character (see Ex. xxxii. 22 to 24). Then, seeing that the
people were "broken loose," Moses called for all on the side of Yhwh to come and stand by him,
whereupon all the sons of Levi gathered themselves together, and at the command of Moses went
throughout the camp and slew 3,000 menapparently all those that had been leaders in the imageworship. At Moses' command these avengers then gathered to receive the blessing of Yhwh.
On the morrow Moses assembled the people, and told them that they had grievously sinned, but that
possibly he could atone for them. He then prayed that he might himself be punished and the sin of the
people forgiven, and was told by Yhwh to go on and lead the people forward; that those who had sinned
should bear their own sin, and that one day He would punish them.

In Rabbinical Literature:
Next to the fall of man, the worship of the golden calf is, in rabbinical theology, regarded as the sin fraught
with the direst consequences to the people of Israel. "There is not a misfortune that Israel has suffered
which is not partly a retribution for the sinof the calf" (Sanh. 102a).
The very seriousness of the offense leads the Rabbis to find circumstances extenuating the guilt of the
people, and to apologize for Aaron's part in the disgraceful affair. The initiative was taken not by the
Israelites, but by the Egyptians who had joined them at the time of the Exodus (Ex. xii. 38), and who were
the source of a great deal of trouble to Moses and the Israelites (Num. xi. 4); for the Egyptians, when the
time fixed for Moses' descent from the mountain had expired, came in a bodyforty thousand of them,
accompanied by two Egyptian magicians, Yanos and Yambros, the same who imitated Moses in
producing the signs and the plagues in Egyptto Aaron, and told him that it was the sixth hour of the

24

25
fortieth day since Moses left, the hour he named for his return (a play upon the word
, Ex. xxxii.
1=
, "the six [hours] have come"), and that Moses had not yet returned: he would never come
Satan took advantage of the opportunity, and brought gloom and confusion into the world to alarm the
people. Then he told them Moses was dead, as the sixth hour had come and he had not arrived. Seeing
he was not believed, he showed them a bed in the mountain with Moses in it.
This convinced them that Moses was really dead; and they demanded that Aaron make them a god
(Shab. 89a; Tan., Ki Tissa, 19). Hereupon Hur stepped in and rebuked them for their ingratitude to the
God who had performed so many miracles for them. He was at once put to death, and Aaron was
threatened with the same fate. The latter saw that he must accede to their request, but he sought a
device whereby the execution of their demand would either be made impossible or at least be delayed
until Moses came; for he was not ensnared by the wiles of Satan. So he ordered them to bring the golden
ornaments of their wives; knowing that the women would be more grateful to God, and would refuse to
part with their jewels for idolatrous purposes. His expectation was realized. Their jewels could not be
obtained; and the men had to give their own. Aaron had no choice but to put the gold into the fire. A calf
came out alive and skipping!
One explanation is that this was due to the magical manipulation of the Egyptian sorcerers. Another is
more ingenious: On the night of the Exodus, Moses searched all Egypt for Joseph's remains, but could
not find them. At last Serah, the daughter of Asher, pointed out to him the place in the Nile where the
Egyptians had sunk an iron chest containing Joseph's bones (Tan., l.c.; Ex. R. xli. 7). Moses took a
splinter, wrote on it the words
("Come up, ox"; Joseph being compared to an ox; see Deut. xxxiii.
17), and threw it into the water, whereupon the chest rose to the surface (Tan., Beshallah , ii.; Tosef.,
Sot ah, iv. 7; Sot ah 13a). This splinter was secured by Micah, and when Aaron cast the gold into the fire,
he threw the splinter after the gold, and as a result a calf came out (compare Micah).
Another reason given for this aberration of the people is that when God came down on Mount Sinai to
give the Law, he appeared in the chariot with the four beasts of Ezekiel. These the people saw; and it was
one of them, the ox (Ezek. i. 10), that they made an image of and worshiped. This was one of the pleas
Moses made to palliate the offense of the people (Ex. R. xliii. 8).
The tribe of Levi did not join in the worship of the calf (Yoma 66b). If all the people had abstained from
worshiping it, the tables of stone would not have been broken, and as a result the Law would never have
been forgotten in Israel, and no nation could have had any power over the Hebrews ('Er. 54a).
The mysterious way in which Aaron described the origin of the golden calf gave rise to superstitious
beliefs; and it was ordained by the Rabbis that this part of the account of the golden calf (Ex. xxxii. 21-25,
35) should be read at public worship in the original, but should not be translated by the "meturgeman"
(Meg. iv. 10; Tosef. Meg. iv. [iii.] 36; Yer. ib. iv. 75c; Bab. ib. 25b).

In the Koran.In Mohammedan Literature:

The story of the golden calf is mentioned in the Koran (suras xx. 88 et seq., vii. 149 et seq.) as follows:
"Thereupon [after he had received the Law on the mountain] Moses returned to his people, angry and
afflicted, and said: '. . . Did the time [of my absence] seem too long to you, or did you desire that wrath
from your Lord should fall upon you because you have broken the promise given to me?' They answered:
'We have not broken our promise given to you of our own authority, but we were made to bring loads of
the ornaments of the people, and we cast them [into the fire], and Al-Samiri did likewise.' And he brought
forth unto them a living, bellowing calf. And they said: 'This is your God and the God of Moses, but he
hath forgotten him.' . . . Moses said: 'O Aaron, what hindered you, when you saw them do wrong, from
following me [to the mountain]; have you been disobedient to my order?' Aaron answered: 'Oh, son of my
mother, do not lay hold of my beard or my headbehold the people made me weak and almost murdered
me.' And Moses said: 'How about you, O Samiri?' He answered: 'I saw what they did not see, and I took a
handful [of dust] from the footsteps of the messenger and cast it. Thus did my mind guide me.' Moses
said: 'Go away, and this shall be your punishment in25
life that you say [to every one you meet]: "Touch me

26
not"; and a threat is awaiting you which you shall not escape. And see, your idol which you have
worshiped, we shall burn and throw the ashes into the sea'" (compare also suras ii. 48-51, 86, 87; iv.
152).
When Moses departed for Sinai he made Aaron his deputy. During the absence of Moses, Aaron
reminded the people that the ornaments which they had were stolen booty, and told them that they must
bury them in a common hole until Moses should decide what was to be done with them. This they did.
Samiri threw a clod of the earth, which the horse of the messenger Gabriel had thrown up, on the spot
where they had hidden their ornaments; and thereupon God brought forth the calf (Tabari).

Samiri's Identity with Samael.

This Arabic legend, in describing the fate of Samiri as that of a man compelled to wander, barred from all
intercourse with his fellow-men, whom he himself is bound to warn by his pitiful cry, "Touch me not," to
come not near him, seems to be one of the earliest forms into which was cast the later story of the
Wandering Jew current among Christians. Yet on the whole this assumption is inadmissible. Samiri
according to Geiger, is identical with Samael.
According to the Arabic commentators, however, and, lately, according to Frnkel ("Z. D. M. G." lvi. 73,
with especial reference to Hosea viii. 5), Samiri is indebted for his name to the fact that he belonged to
the Samaritan sect.
Mohammed knew, perhaps, how much this sect was hated, and (according to the report of an old but
evidently lost Midrash) made the seducer a Samaritan in spite of all chronology. So Baidawi (also
Palmer's translation of this sura) holds him to have been "the Samaritan."
This accounts at once both for the rle here ascribed to him and the fate meted out to him. Mohammed
carried in his mind many rabbinical conceits, but in a much confused form. He had an indistinct
impression of the rabbinical prejudices against the Samaritans, among which the fact that they worshiped
an animal idol and poured out libations to it on their holy mountain was not the least (Yer. 'Ab. Zarah v.
44d, at foot; H ul. 6a). But the fact that the idol imputed to the Samaritans was a dove and not a calf
became confused in his recollection of hearsay rabbinical stories. It was enough for him to know that the
Samaritans were looked upon by the Jews as idolaters or even worse (Yer. Ta'anit iv. 66b; Yer. M. K. iii.
83b, middle), to make the Samaritan the arch-seducer, and artificer, by "magic," of the idol. That the Jews
would hold no intercourse with the Samaritans may also have been among the disjointed fragments of
Mohammed's Biblical and rabbinical lore. Hence under the decree his "Samaritan" was condemned to
wander and never to permit another to defile himself by close contact.
That not Aaron, but another, was the real culprit in the making of the calf is also reported in
a rabbinical account (Sanh. 102, 2), according to which Micah (Judges xvii. et seq.) was its
maker. The threatening of Aaron and the bleating of the calf are likewise founded on
rabbinical sources (Sanh. 5; Pirk e R. El. 45).
Before the expulsion of Samiri, Moses (in accordance with Ex. xxxii. 20 et seq.) ordered the calf to be
reduced to dust and the powder mixed with their drinking-water (sura ii. 87). When they drank the water it
caused them great pain, and they called upon Moses for help. Then Moses told them to slay one another
(sura ii. 51). Thus 70,000 were killed. The Lord sent an intense darkness to prevent their seeing one
another, so that recognition of the corpses should not induce them to forbear ("jalal al-din"). Finally, the
crying of the women and children moved the heart of Moses, who prayed to God to stop the murdering;
and his prayer was answered immediately.

Bibliography:
Geiger, Was Hat Mohammed aus dem Judenthume Aufgenommen? pp. 165-168;
Weil, Biblische Legenden der Muselmnner, pp. 169, 172;
M. Grnbaum, Neue Beitrge zur Semitischen Sagenkunde, p. 169.

26

27

Critical View:
As the Exodus narrative stands, it is clearly composite. For example, in verse 7 Moses is warned that the
people have sinned; and in verses 9 to 12 he seems to understand clearly what their sin is, and yet in
verses 16 to 19 he is greatly surprised at what has occurred. Again, verses 7 to 12 represent Moses as
praying for the sinners before he came down from the mount, while verses 30 to 34 represent him as
praying practically the same prayer the day after the destruction of the image was over. Palpably the two
are of different authorship. Again, verses 25 to 29 describe the vengeance that was executed on the
sinners, while verse 34 regards it as still future. Critics therefore regard the narrative as made up of strata
from two documents (Jahvist and Elohist), though they do not altogether agree as to the points of division.
The main stratum of the story is, however, thought to come from the Ephraimitish writer (Elohist), though
there are a sufficient number of points in the story taken from the Jahvist to show that his work also
contain the narrative.
The purpose of the original story seems to have been, as Budde thinks, to account for the selection of the
tribe of Levi for the priesthood. A great crisis in the worship had arisen in which the Levites had stood
for Yhwh, and punished all that opposed themselves, so that they were consecrated to the service of the
priesthood (see Levi and the literature cited below). Many critics see in it a polemic against the calfworship of Beth-el and Dan, and no doubt an Ephraimitish writer of the prophetic circles of the time of
Hosea would shape the tale with a view to the religious reforms in which he was interested. It is probable
that at this time there was introduced into the story the view that the offense punished by the Levites was
the making of a calf; but it also seems likely that there underlies the present narrative a much earlier form
of the tale, a form that pictured some other crisis in which the Levites distinguished themselves and thus
were elected as the priestly tribe.

Bibliography:
Kuenen, Hexateuch, p. 251, London, 1886;
Kittel, History of the Hebrews, i. 199 et seq., London, 1895;
Bacon, Triple Tradition of the Exodus, pp. 127-138, Hartford, 1894;
Budde, Religion of Israel to the Exile, pp. 85 et seq., New York, 1899;
Carpenter and Harford-Battersby, Hexateuch, ii. 130-132, London, 1900;
and the commentaries on Exodus, especially those of Dillmann and Holzinger.

2002-2011, JewishEncyclopedia.com. A

-The story of the statue of the calf is also found in Bible.

Bible held Aaron responsible for making an Idol for Israelites. Qura:n amd Isla:m
do believe that Aaron is a Divine Prophet and is infallible from such type of faithless
transgression. So Qura:n corrects the misconception that it was Aaron, Qura:n
takes the Noun of AS Sa:miri: as the main culprit.
It was As Samiriy and not the Holy Prophet Aaron [Ha:ru:n] who crafted the calf out
of the materials of ornaments, and declared it as the God Of Moses.
As a Prophet is Aaron cannot make the statue of the Calf then it was the
responsibility of Quran to reveal the person who did make it.
27

28
So Al Qura:n doeth state the actual person who was incorrectly replaced by Aaron.
Who did not make it.
So the Qura:n only differ on the Identification of the person.
That is the first difference between Quran and its predecessors.
Consider the following.
Satan some how convinced Israelites that Moses was really dead; and they demanded that Aaron make
them a god (Shab. 89a; Tan., Ki Tissa, 19). Hereupon Hur stepped in and rebuked them for their
ingratitude to the God who had performed so many miracles for them. He was at once put to death, and
Aaron was threatened with the same fate.

This is the point which is unacceptable for Islam that a Prophet is doing
the greatest of all Sins and the strongest of all transgressions. So this is
not Possible for an Infallible Prophet to make a calf. Aaron would have
preferred to die rather then to make a false God for them.
Aaron did see that he must accede to their request, but he sought a device whereby the execution of
their demand would either be made impossible or at least be delayed until Moses came; for he was not
ensnared by the wiles of Satan

This is what Qura:n rejecteth since the Omniscient Narrator narrates the
event differently that Aaron did not crafted the Calf.
. So he ordered them to bring the golden ornaments of their wives; knowing that the women would be
more grateful to God, and would refuse to part with their jewels for idolatrous purposes.

This is once again cannot be applied to an Infallable Prophet even if he

assumed that the women would not provide him their ornaments.
His expectation was realized. Their jewels could not be obtained

Whether his expectations were supposed to be realized or not ,his

infallibility would have prevented him.
; and the men had to give their own. Aaron had no choice but to put the gold into the fire. A calf came out
alive and skipping!
t

This is what a number of people believed and the Omniscience Narrator correcteth
the distorted news or report AND REPORTED That Aaron was not guilty .
So He Informeth the Noun of the original sinner who had done the actual sin and transgressed against the
Divine Unity. .
As we found in Bible details are missing from one book of Torah to an other book of Torah.

The story of the golden calf and its maker is told twice in the Torah: Exodus 32, and
Deuteronomy 9-10. The former book told through
the voice of the Omniscient narrator,and
28

29

is the version that is read in synagogue in the aforementioned days; In Deuteronomy , in

the voice of Holy Moses, who is making Israelites to recall their previous sin.
The goal of this piece is to highlight some of the more striking differences to stimulate
further study and engagement with the story. To fully appreciate the difference between the
accounts and the challenges this poses, we encourage you to read Exodus 32-34 and
Deuteronomy 9-10 yourselves before continuing.

D
Details Abscent from Deuteronomy
1]

Moses Tarrying on the Mountain

2]

Aarons Role

3]

Statmemt This is your god

4]

Joshua [Ioshua]

5]

Gold

6]

The Levite Executions

7]

Plague

8]

H. Drinking the Calf

Details Absent from Exodus

1]

Fasting

2]

Special Prayer for Aaron

3]

C. The Wooden Chest

4]
29

30

The differences are not haphazard, they reflect two different independent stories, each tells
a different story. Two different stories from two different perspectives . This proves with
almost certainty that what actually occurred in tha stated above period of time is not
recorded with historical accuracy and it requireth to be corrected by the Omniscient
Supreme Being to re -narrate what had happened in that period of time.
There are some academic solutions that explain in detail the specific differences and the
relationship of the two versions of the golden calf story to each other.
Studying the events from the version of story as presented by Deuteronomy we find
that:=
1) The Israelites as the sole offenders and offers them no mitigating circumstances.2]
2) Moses did not tarry overly long.

3)

Aaron did not lead the people astray.

4) The Levites didnt act any differently.

Supreme Being confirms the third point stated above.
In Deuteronomy,
1] Moses presents his own behavior as above and beyond.
2] He fasts and intercedes for the people forty days and forty nights.
3] God is angry at Aaron and Moses even intercedes on his behalf as well.
And the God/god [Supreme Being ] was angry enough with Aaron to
destroy him but at that time I prayed for Aaron. 9:6-29.
But this verse does not indicate in the least meaning that the
Supreme Being Yahavah [ Yahuvah/Yehveh] was angry at Aaron for
his Sin of making the statue of the calf.
30

31

On the contrary it appears that Aaron what so ever his Sin was , it was
not the making of the animal statue.
Since in Exodus the following sentence is found:=
And the Lord replied to Moses , who so ever sinned against Me , I shall
blot out of my book. 32:37.
This proves with certainty that Supreme Being did not accepted Moses
alleged request for bloting His Noun from the Divine Book in the case
the sinners are not forgioven.
The sinners were given the punishment that their nouns were blotted ,
erased and deleted from the Divine book.
Divine Supreme Being neither forgave the Sinners nor accepted the
Request of Moses that in the case the transgressors are not forgiven
then the Noun of Moses may be blotted.
The word Sin is a common noun and not a proper noun, and can be
applied to any sin , So Supreme Being was angry so that any sin with in
the period of time from going of Moses to his coming, was not forgiven,
Even the request stated above was not accepted.
But the noun of Aaron is found in the Divine Book and is not blotted.
This proves that Aaron was not guilty of making or worshipping the
calf.
This does shew that as the Noun of the real sinner was blotted , the
name of Aaron was incorrectly substituted in its absence.

Now we come to the problem that if Exodus and Deuteronomy differ at least in the meaning
that each one is silent about some event which the other one reports then many astonishing
details may be missing from both of them simultaneously.
It general speech and silence do
31

32

not contradict each other yet if both forms of the stories in regard to same events are studied
it becomes clear that there are two different authors and each one is unaware of the events
narrated by the other. Or at least each one is as if ignorant of the events of the other one.
This shews that what had happened in the past was incorrectly recorded and in their
confusion they substituted the Noun of Aaron in place of the original Transgressor.
It is the basic Semitic Constitution the Omnipotent and Omniscient Narrator the Supreme
Being Can Narrate the events correctly and accurately , that have occurred at the period of
time by His Divine Omniscience and Divine Spectatorness [Witnessess].
The Omnipotent and Omniscient Narrator the Supreme Being did Narrate the Events
Correctly and Accurately. As Deuteronomy does not accuse Aaron guilty of the greatest of
Sins, the Sin of making the idol of calf.
Divine Narration is that ------------ is incorrect in accusing Aaron. So it was Necessary if not
Absolutely Necessary then certainly Relatively Necessary that Aaron was Not Guilty of
crafting the idol of the calf as the Supreme Being the God of Israel. How ever the Noun of
the original Criminal was out of the memories Divine Omniscient Supreme Being informed
the Noun As Samiriy.
He also informed about the punishment given to him.
There are many academic approaches that explain in detail the specific differences and the
relationship of the two versions of the golden calf story to each other.

So to accuse Al Quran for distorting the actual events is purely based on the believe that one
of the books of Pentateuch is telling the truth. Other wise there is no possible reason to
claim that Quran is informing incorrectly.
This Arabic legend, in describing the fate of Samiri as that of a man compelled to wander, barred from all
intercourse with his fellow-men, whom he himself is bound to warn by his pitiful cry, "Touch me not," to
come not near him, seems to be one of the earliest forms into which was cast the later story of the
Wandering Jew current among Christians.

32

33

This is based on the assumption that existence of some Similarities is a proof of the claim of
borrowing.
This is a wrong claim that if two stories have some similarities then existence of similarities
is a proof that the former is a donor and the latter is the borrower.
This is the worst type of fallacies ever coined by the skeptics and septic.
For example it has been tried to prove that the dying and rising of Iesous is borrowed from
the .stories of SunGods. Those who have tried to shew that the New Testamental Idea of
Dying and Rising of Iesous Kristos is borrowed from ancient Solar Gods have presented a
number of events where a God in Ancient Religion Has Died or He Had risen after his
death. Modes and Cases of death and rising may be different yet the common thing is that
they either die one way or the other or rise as well in one way or the other. But these are
responded by shewing the dissimilarities between the Christological death and the modes of
deaths and differences in the cases of rising from death.
This is a perfect refutation and this does prove the claim that mere some similarities cannot
proof a claim of borrowing from former to latter.
Although we do not believe in death and resurrection of Iesous but this is most probable
that these two believes are not borrowed from ancient religions. One may not believe in an
article of faith even if it is not borrowed from any previous religion.
Coming back to the point as some similarities may exist between to different narrations but
they cannot prove the claim of borrowing or even the claim of influencing . Such claims
were once supposed to be astonishing but on critical study it is found that parallel traditions
may emerge independent of each other and independent of the places of their respective
emergence.
Logically it is possible that two or more different persons are awarded one an same
punishment not on the earthly level but also on Divine level. That is Supreme Being Hath
Power to award one and the same punishment to two different persons in two different
places at two different times.
Additionally it is Absolutely Possible that a True Story may have some similarities with a
False Story with out being borrowed or influenced or both.
33

34

So these Possibilities falsify the claim of borrowing and break the alleged arguments for the
claim of borrowing.
It may be the case that the fate of Samiri: was known to some generations and some how
latter generations confused the it by the Wanderer.
Any how the actual problem was that As Samiri [ meaning The Keeper] was punished and
he probably developed hyper sensitivity, so that he would have felt pain when he ever come
in contact by some one who so ever he might be.

THE PROBLEM OF ANCIENT COMMENTATORS:=

Two commentators are quoted in their commentary of Qura:n. Tabri and Baidavi.
It must be noted that there are several types of commentaries on each Verse of Holy
Qura:n. Commentaries based on weak traditions or Pre- Islamic Traditions are doubtful and
are unauthentic even if the book of commentary is authentic in general [] Min H:ais Al
Majmu:[].
So if Tabri hath claimed that As Samiri: means Samaritan his error hath nothing to do with
the Qura:nic Truth. He is just accepting some unauthentic Traditions.
Any Book of Commentary on Qura:n how so ever authentic as a whole is inauthentic in
those particular cases of commentary of verses where it baseth its commentary on Un
Authentic Traditions. What is true for Tabri is true for any other Book of Commentary.For
example Baid:avi etc.
So one cannot compel any one to agree with Baid:avi or T:abri on these issues.
The Two Problematic Points:=
Instead of accepting the correction of Omniscient reporter a number of Objections Makers
and Skeptics were confused by the two things.
1] The Noun or Epithet or Appellation As Samiri.
34

35

2] The statement Touch Me Not.

A] As for the first one , as Al Qura:n declareth Aaron the Brother of Moses not Guilty of the
act stated above he is immune from the event. The word As Sa:miriy [Sa:miri] cannot be
translated as The Samaritan , but either as Samarian or [ Shamerin ] which means The
Keeper
Or The Observer.
He may be a keeper appointed by Moses or else against the post of keeping or observing
[ some thing]..
The other statement is a punishment and not borrowed from the alleged Wanderer.
If the story of the wanderer is false and fabrication, a concoction then this implies that some
one did have some information but they concocted a new tale for it.
If the story of Wanderer is not a fabrication then at most it can be said that After As Samiri
he was an other person who was punished with the same punishment.
The Basis Of Problem:=
The Problem as generated by the incorrect identification of the Subject of the word
Sa:mitiy.
It was incorrectly assumed that the Sa:miri is the Arabitized form of Hebraic word
Shomronim .[whose Latinized form is Samaritan in English].
But it is the Arabitized form of Hebraic word Shamerin [whose Latinized form is Samarian in

English].
But instead of looking deep into the matter it was claimed that Sa:miri is the Arabitized form of
Samuel . This is one of the mistakes that is the root cause of the problem. On this error an other
error was made that the entire story of Wanderer was applied to the Sa:miri.
As Samiri is used as the noun of the person in the past and not as a Personal Proper Noun but a
Noun that was used form him. He was called as As Samiri.
35

36

ANTI ISLAMIC OBJECTION MAKERS AND THEIR TECHNIQUES.

Anti Islamic Elements adopt the following techniques:=
In reqard to Qura:n the make objections as if they follow the rules of Atheists, and in reqard
to their own books what so every they may be, the used a different approach.
For example if Qura:n informeth a thing of past they consider it as either borrowed from
some former work or document or tradition or a product of imagination, and if Genesis
informs a thing of past they believe it as a historical fact.
In the case of Calf Qura:n Informeth that a person called as As Samiri:y made the calf and
not the Holy Prophet Ha:ru:n /Aaron [Peace Be Upon Him].
Objection Maker thinks that is an error, whether it is a correction by the Absolute Corrector.
Objection Maker thinks that Qura:n Confuses The Wanderer story with the calf story.
But he did not consider the slightest possibility that As Samiri might be the first person to
be punished like that and any other person on earth if punished by the same punishment
other then him be not the first person. Speaking mathematically in the series of persons
from 1st to th he may be th person ,where , are natural numbers.
But when Pentateuch informs that there was a person named Aaron, the learned and
respected Objection Maker did not try to find the evidence of Aaron from Egyptology and
other secular sources. The reason is that he believes then as self authentic which do not
require any other evidence.
The same he do not accept for Qura:n.
ISLAMIC AWARENESS VS ANSWERING ISLAM
In the response of the answer of Islamic Awareness the Answering Islam tried to prove that
the work cited by Islamic Awareness is not a Post Islamic Work but a Pre Islamic work.
36

37

If Islamic Awareness tried to shew that it is not a Pre Islamic work and is unable to prove it,
and Answering Islam is able to Prove that it is a Pre Islamic work, then cannot prove the
claim of borrowing.
In logical form:
If it is a Post Islamic Work then the claim of Borrowing is falsified.
If it is a Pre Islamic Work then the claim if Borrowing is Not Proved .
In either case the claim is either false or not proved.
The problem of Miracle.
It is tried to argued that as Qura:n informeth that the calf produced a sound, which
misguided a number of people thy Objection Maker calls it Miracle.
But this is a Mistake .
Muslim Theologians divide Super Natural Events in different types.
1] Muazzah. An Act that appeareth on the Hand of a Prophet.
2] Kara:mah. An Act that appeareth on the Hand of a Saint or Righteous Person.
3] istadra:j. An Act that occurs by a disbeliever or a faithless person or a heretic.
Muazza:t [pl] and Karamat [pl] are the Acts of Supreme Being and not of any Created
Suppositum what so ever.
If the appeareth as if done by a Rational Created Suppositum, it is just an appearent act ,
not done by the stated above suppositum but by Divine Supreme Being with His Supreme
Authority and Omnipotence.
What Samiri: did was either an act done by some invention or technique or it was an
Istadra:j or it was a Magic.
But it was not the Muazzah[pl Muazza:t]. It was just a Istadraj.
37

38

A number of commentators , who have accepted the statement of As Sa:miriy as true ,have
opined that he did lifted some mud from the footstep of an Angel [Jibri:l] AS and this caused
the Statue to produce a sound.
But some of the Commentators do not accept the statement of As Samiti as true but as
false. According to him he had not spoken the truth but he had spoken the falsehood.
The production of sound was either a scientific technique or an experiment which worked or
it was an Istadra:j.
If the learned Objection maker thinks that some commentaries of Quran are incorrect then
it is RESTRICTED ONLY TO THE COMMENTARY, and it is not valid to the content of Text
of Holy Qura:n.
It may be seen that there are differences Commentaries of Biblical Verses and New
Testamental Verses. It is not necessary that New New Testamental Commentator AGREE
with the old ones , yet the same method is not accepted for Al Quran.
But if it is assumed that As Samiri is telling the truth even then this at most proveth that As
Samiri did took something from the foot step of the Apostle [Angel] But the sound was not
produced by the thing, it might be produced by some technique or invention. The Calf was
some how designed that a sound was produced when the air passed through it.
As Samiri must be inspired by the Satan to make an ancient proto-type sound producing
system.
If the argument of those Anti-Islam Objection Maker that it implies that Supreme Being
Himself Decieveth People is correct then this atmost imply that this commentary of some
Commentators is wrong. It does not imply that the verse is wrong.

Impartial Laws of Criticism:=

1] If an objection is in valid on Qura:n on certain arguments and argumentations, and the
same objection or similar objection is invalid on Bible or New Testament or any other book
38

39

of any religion on similar arguments and argumentations , the objection is invalid in all
cases.

21] If an objection is in valid on on Bible or New Testament or any other book of any
religion on certain arguments and argumentations, and the same objection or similar
objection is invalid on Qura:n on similar arguments and argumentations , the objection is
invalid in all cases.
Was As Samiri telling truth or he was telling falsehood.
If it is assumed that Samiri was an engineer of his days who either had learned to produce
sound in statues or he had invented a method to do so , the objection ceases.
Only this shews that he did posses the technology to produce a sound in a calf some how.
Yet he put some thing probably mud or clay etc. But it is not due to the mud or clay which
made the calfs statue to produce sound. The sound was produced either by some
technique or by some ancient technology or trick what so ever. But what so ever he put in
the statue was just for shew.
WHAT IF IT IS ASSUMED THAT THE THING USED CAUSE THE STATUE TO PRODUCE
SOUND.
It it is supposed that the thing which was put in the statue made the calf to emit sound
, and as the thing was lifted from the foot print of the Apostle who so ever he may be. It
miraculously made the statue TO PRODUCE SOUND, the answer to the objection is that it
was the misuse of a thing which had some super natural properties. The alleged miracle
was not in the production of sound but in the strange super natural properties of the thing.
It is just like the misuse of some medicine made to cure some diseases, yet a Doctor or a
Physician uses it to kill a person.
So the misuse of a thing is one thing and producing the properties to be used in super
natural acts is another thing.
39

40

It may require some more details so that our friend in Answering Islam may understand the
problem.
THE PROBLEM OF MIRACLES:=
If The Supreme Being Hath Created directly the sound in the statue it
would have been a Miracle in support of the statue, which is Relatively
Impossible , and some sonsider it as Absolutely Impossible [Absolutely
Absurd].
But the situation , terms and comditions are difeerent in this case.
The Supreme Being [Arabic teteragrammation [ Whose Proper nouns in
Hebrew and Arabic are YHVH

-LL-H, the Hebraic Tereragrammation -

LL-H the Arabic Tereragrammation ] Did Create some extra ordinary

Qualities and Properties in the clay or mud or mud in the foot print.
Any event which occurred in Association of these qualities of the thing
is not the Miracle.
At best in this case the Miracle is to produce such a thing but the use
or misuse of the thing is not a Miracle.
One may see some approximate examples from daily life.
One may see that KCN is a deadly Poison.
Its property to make like forms to cease is a creation of the Supreme
Being.
It is Absolutely Possible for the Only Omnipotent Supreme Being to
Make the poisonhood of KCN to cease with out changing its chemical
composition just by Divine Omnipotence and Omnivolence.
But any use or misuse of KCN is not a Divine act. The Divine act is to
Bestow the poisonous properties in the Compound KCN. Although the
Divine act of Supreme Being the Only Deity is the Act of Creation of the
Properties and Abilities of KCN the Chemical Properties , and the act
40

41

and doing of these abilities of KCN is certainly not independent of

Divine Omnopetence and Divine Omnivolens , the act like making life of
one who tast a Small portion of it. TO CEASE is not termed as a the
Divine Act but ascribed to the Portion of KCN. Although the Absolute
Necessary Conditions for the ability to make make Life to cease bu the
properties of KCN is still the Divine Omnipotence and
Omnivolens/Omnivolence , yet the act of killing is not ascribed to
Supreme Being.
That is inother words:=
It may be noted that the Absolute Necessary Condition for the
Properties and Abilities of KCN of the Potential Properties of KCN are
the Divine Omnipotence and Divine Omnivolence. But these acts are
not termed as Divine Acts or Divine Doing.
The Case is approximately similar in this case.
The Properties in the thing like to produce sound in a thing if it comes
in contact with it was Created By Divine Supreme Being. But the
Misuse of the act or use of the act is not the miracle.
The only difference is that in the case of KCN the properties of KCN are
Created on regular basis by Supreme Being, and in the case of Miracle
the properties are crated on rarely and irregular basis.
The difference between Nature and Miracle is that the former is
created on regular basis.
Another example:= According to laws of Motion of Newtonian Physics,
each and every Action implies a Reaction. It is possible that Supreme
Almighty Being maket this law to cease and actions may occur with out
reactions.
But if an action of a physical thing occureth its reaction is a creation
,yet it is not directly ascribed to Deity.
41

42

Two acts each one created by Supreme Being:=

1] One Created Directly By Deity the Supreme Being and other one is
not but inconnection to the Abilities,Qualities and Properties of a thing
with Divine Omni-Qualities like Omnipotence, Omnivolens et cetera as
the Absolutely Necessary Conditions , the former is the Divine Act and
the Latter is the Act of the thing whose Abilities et cetera do pertain
with the act.
2]One Directly Created On regular,General and Normal Bases , and the
other Created on rare ,irregular or special or exceptional bases the
former is Not a Miracle and the latter is a Miracle.

If Supreme Being made some Super Natural Properties in a thing it is the miracle. If some
one misuses the thing for some evil purpose instead of some good purpose it is an other
thing.
There are some examples.
One of the greatest example is that Supreme Being Send Scriptures say Torah for good
purpose yet some heretics misused its verses to deceive people even according to
Christian Standard.
So if Supreme Being made some extra ordinary properties in a thing this is a miracle of
Supreme Being. If dome one misuses a thing it is not the miracle. The ability or quality of
ability to do a thing is the miracle, but the act/doing is not.
Therefore those who distinguish between a quality and a doing , can clearly accept this
commentary and those who do not , do not accept this commentary. All the Sunnism [ Not
Heretic Barailvism] accept that Miracles are not in the Power of Prophets and are directly
the Divine Acts. If the sound was produced by the thing placed in the calf then it is the
property of the thing and not the Direct act of Supreme Being. But The Direct Divine Act
was to Make Super Natural Properties and Hyper Natural Qualities in it.

42

43

It may be the case that the Respectable Objection Maker may not accept these
explanations , then in this case the explanation shall Not be ACCEPTABLE the learned
Objection Maker.
So this means that the Commentary of the verse of Some ancient
Commentators be accepted with these definitions and explanations as
the Necessary conditions of the acceptance of the Commentary of some
ancient Commentators. How ever if some one discardeth them the
discarder Hath no right to compel any one who do not accept this them
, to accept the commentary under discussion.

THE PROBLEM OF BEGUILETH

The question of whether, or not, God would deceive people into sinning highlights the
differences between the God of Christianity and the god of Islam. The Quran testifies
that Allah is a deceiver:
Lo! the hypocrites seek to beguile Allah, but it is He Who
beguileth them. When they stand up to worship they perform it
languidly and to be seen of men, and are mindful of Allah but
little; (Sura 4:142)
It appears that the learned Objection Maker is too literalist and
does not believe in interpretation. In this case his literalism
makes problem even in New Testament.
According to 2nd Corinthians 4:4:=

In whom the god of this world hath blinded the minds of

them which believe not, lest the light of the glorious gospel
of Christ, who is the image of God, should shine unto them.
If the learned Objection Maker believes that the GOD OF THIS
WORLD is the First Hypostasis of Trinity or Second Hypostasis of
Trinity or Third Hypostasis Of Trinity or The Very Trinity It Self or the
43

44

GODHEAD then all his objections are on the Verse Of New Testament
stated above.
If the learned Objection Maker assumes that the THE WORD GOD in
the verse of 2nd Corinthians stated above is for Satan then there are
just to options left.
Either he believes in two GODS. In this case he is like a Jehova
Witness who are often accused for believing in two GODS by
Trinitarians of Christianity.
Or he is going to interpret the word GOD, in some other meanings,
like metaphor or figure etc. In this case the same answer can be
used in the case of Quranic Verse cited above.
To make an objection on a book what so ever it may be but not to
make the objection on an other book under similar reasoning and
argumentations doeth shew that the Objection Maker is one sided
and baised.
If Supreme Being Doeth Blind some one whether mentally or
physically , it becomes impossible if not Absolutely
Impossible then Relatively Impossible for such blind persons
to see their respective paths and respective truths. Can a
Person blinded mentally by the Supreme Being see the truth
with out his/her sight or vision restored by the Supreme
Being???
If it is the Satan who is called as God then , why Jehova
Witness are to be accused of Henotheism as often they are
by Trinitarians.
See an other example:

44

45

"For there shall arise false Christs, and false

prophets, and shall shew great signs and
wonders; insomuch that, if it were possible,
they shall deceive the very elect." Matthew
24:24
May one ask Respectable Objection Maker that Who is the Creator of
these signs.
If Supreme Being is the Creator then his own objection is reversed
upon him.
If some one else that this is to believe an other CREATOR beside
GOD.
If the signs have no Creator then this means that They are Creatorless things.
I have not heard that the three Majority Christian sects Roman
Catholics , Greek Orthodox and Protestants believe in Creator less
Things.
In this case the Objection Maker must have face a difficult choice.
45

46

WE SHALL BE OBLIDGED IF OUR ANSWERS ARE USED TO

REFUTE ATHEISTS AND SECULARISTS BY THE FOWWERS OF ANY
RELIGION IN CASE OF OBJECTIONS MADE BY SECULARISTS AND
ATHEISTS.
SINCE WE DO NOT BELIEVE TO ARGUE LIKE ATHEISTS ETC. AGAINST
SOME RELIGIONS AND TO ARGUE LIKE A BELIEVER FOR SOME
RELIGIONS.
NOTE: THERE MAY BE SOME SPELLING EROORS. THEY MAY BE
REMOVED LATTER.
Some objections are still there which are left to be
answered by the readers as mental exercise. They may be answered
if some one studies our Reply carefully.
With the hope that Objection Maker may also reconsider the
objections , the Reply comeeth to an end.

46

47

]
.

47