1 readers online now  |  69 million page views

A good review of this book

Reader comment on item: The Islamic Invasion: Confronting the World's Fastest Growing Religion

Submitted by True Friend (United States), Feb 20, 2006 at 20:50

I pray as Moses prayed:

My Lord, Open for me my breast,
Ease for me my task,
and loosen my tongue,
That they may understand my speech.

Ladies and Gentlemen,

Dr. Morey thinks he can prove that Islam was not revealed by God if he can show that Islam says the same things which were already said before Islam. He does not realise that if he applies the same method to the Bible he would join the rank of those who no longer believe the Bible.

One such man is Magnus Magnusson, author of the book Archaeology of the Bible. On page 21 he writes:

The Sumerians recorded the oldest myths known to us-stories about the Creation that would be echoed many centuries later in the Creation myths of Genesis. But the most astonishing parallel between the Sumerian myths and the Biblical myths is the story of the Flood...(Archaeology of the Bible, p.21).

Then about the Flood itself, he writes:

The story he told is so close in its details that the Biblical Flood Story was obviously borrowed directly from the much earlier Sumerian original (Archaeology of the Bible, p.21).

Then, about the Ten Commandments he writes that for a long time it was believed that the Ten Commandments was the first of its kind. But recent archaeological discoveries have shown that many law codes from centuries earlier contained many of the ideas now in the Bible (Archaeology of the Bible, p.68).

Similarly, the book The Bible as History, says:

It was certainly possible to be quite convinced that the God-given moral law of Israel was without precedent in the Ancient East until parallels became known....(Bible as History, p.134).

After discussing those parallels, the book says:

The consequence of this renders it difficult for us today to maintain the earlier claim that the Biblical code of laws was unique. This fact may well shake the confidence of many people. We cannot remove this feeling of uncertanity (Bible as History, p.137).

Muslims and Christians will no doubt reject the conclusions of these men. We believe that the Creation and the Flood are not ancient myths, but God-given truth. We believe that God's Commandments were not copied from men. If the Bible or the Qur'an is similar to what preceded them it is not because either book was copying or borrowing from somewhere else. It is because God makes his truth known to every people, not only the readers of the Bible and the Qur'an. And that truth, where it is still intact, agrees with what God later reveals in the Qur'an and the Bible. So Muslims and Christians do not have to join the rank of the unbelievers when scholars establish that ancient teaching resembles God's present teachings.

Now my question is to Dr.Morey because he often forgets hat he is a Christian and takes the position of a western scholar to attack the Qur'an: Dr.Morey, would you as a western scholar join these men in condemning the Bible using the same method as you did for the Qur'an?

Let me remind Dr. Morey of the following scripture:

How can you say to your brother, Let me remove that splinter from your eye, while the wooden beam is in your eye? You hypocrite, remove the wooden beam from your eye first..(Matthew 7:4-5).

And, in case Dr.Morey thinks I should not discuss the Bible here, let me remind him of his scripture:

For as you judge, so will you be judged...(Matthew 7:2).

Consider below how Morey judges Islam when he writes:

Muhammad did not preach anything new. Everything he taught had been believed and practised in Arabia long before he was even born. Even the idea of "only one God" was borrowed from the Jews and the Christians (Morey, Invasion, p.157).

The first problem with this approach is that it can be applied against Jesus with greater force. Everything he taught can be traced back to the Old Testament. Hugh Schonfield, in his book The Passover Plot, has even postulated that Jesus read the Old Testament about a Messiah who was to suffer, and convinced himself that he was to be that suffering Messiah. So he went up to Jerusalem deliberately provoking the Jews to put him to death; he also had a secret plot with his disciples to drug him so he would appear dead, and then to help him revive later. You see the problem with this type of approach? It cuts both ways. If Atheists want to discount Muhammad (pbuh) they can use this approach to their own satisfaction. But when Christians use this approach, it must be seen as a misguided attempt to discount Muhammad.

A second problem is with Morey's presumption that a prophet is disproved if we find him repeating ancient teaching. He says:

Even the idea of "only one God" was borrowed from the Jews and the Christians (Morey, Invasion, p.157).

Does Morey imagine that in order for Muhammad (pbuh) to be true he should preach two gods? We know from the Bible that God does not always give new teachings to new prophets. Some prophets, for example Elisha, are sent simply to corroborate the old teaching. Some others, for example Jesus, are sent to both corroborate and abrogate. We cannot reject them just because they repeated the same teachings which their contemporaries already knew. It is strange that Morey would see Muhammad's preaching of "only one God" as a sign of his falsehood.

Morey sometimes condemns the Qur'an for what he incorrectly supposed that the Qur'an says. Certainly he made a mistake in his book The Islamic Invasion, p.150, where he writes:

The seven heavens and hells described in the Qur'an came from the Zohar and the Hagigah (The Islamic Invasion, p.150).

Yet there is no verse in the Qur'an which says "seven heavens and hells."

Similarly, Morey had imagined a historical confusion in the Qur'an when he noticed that Surah 7:64 mentioned the flood of Noah, and then 7:136 mentioned the drowning of the Pharaoh. Morey then accused the Qur'an of claiming that Noah's flood occurred in Moses' day. He was delighted to say about this imagined error in the Quran:

This error cannot be easily swept aside (Morey, Invasion, p.141).

On the contrary, the imagined error washes away when we read the Surah. Had Morey read the Surah he would have noticed that the Qur'an concludes a description of the flood of Noah in verse 64, and does not begin mention of Moses until verse 103. And the thirty-eight verses between these episodes deal with a number of other times and places. Thus the confusion is not in the Qur'an but in the mind of Morey.

Question to Dr.Morey: Did you read this Surah? If not, why not? And if yes, How did you manage to make such an obvious mistake? Yet Dr. Morey needs not only to read, but to read carefully. Morey quoted a hadith from the book Sahih al-Bukhari, vol.1, no.367, to say that Anas saw the whiteness of the penis of Allaah's prophet (Morey Invasion, p.182).

Yet the hadith says not "penis" but "thigh". That hadith mentions thigh three times, and penis not even once. The caption of that hadith is also:

"What is said about the thigh."

How did Morey manage to make such a blatant mistake? And with what intention? I have found in Morey's writing several examples of this sort where his zeal for attacking Islam impairs his vision.

Or, does he see more than the rest of us? Morey claims on page 151 of his Invasion book that the Qur'an records things which were known before Muhammad. Among these things are the following:

1. Azazil and other spirits coming up from hades.
2. The peacock story.

Dr.Morey, will you please tell us where in the Qur'an you read any such thing? Let me help you with the first. Azazil comes not from the Qur'an but from the Bible. The Bible says that on the Day of Atonement Aaron should take two goats, and He shall cast lots to determine which one is for the Lord and which for Azazel. (Leviticus 16:8). Aaron should sacrifice the goat which is for the Lord. The other goat is for Azazel. Aaron should set that goat alive before the Lord, so that with it he may make atonement by sending it off to Azazel in the desert. (Leviticus 16:8). So who is this Azazel to whom the Lord will send the goat? The New American Bible answers in a footnote: Azazel: perhaps a name of Satan... (New American Bible, p.117).

So Dr.Morey, will you tell us what problem you have with the mention of Azazel? And, since the problem you had hoped would be in the Qur'an is not in the Qur'an but in the Bible, what are you going to do about it? The Scientist Isaac Asimov links the mention of Azazel above with the story of Genesis 6:1-4, But about this passage in Genesis, Asimov writes:

This remnant of primitive mythology, lingering on in the Bible, was interpreted literally by later Jews. They thought the angels, deliberately rebelling against God, chose to corrupt themselves with mankind out of the lust for women and that this act helped bring on the flood. Some versions of this legend made Azazel the chief of these angels (Asmov's Guide to the Bible, vol.1, p.159).

Question: Dr.Morey what led you to believe that this story had anything to do with the Qur'an? So eager was Dr.Morey to prove that everything in Islam existed before Islam that he simply imagined that interest was already condemned in Arabia before Islam and stated so without any evidence in his book (Morey, Invasion, p.156). And, because the Bible allows you to charge interest to a stranger but not to a brother, Morey imagined that it was so in Islam also (Morey, Invasion, p.156). Dr.Morey, what is your evidence for this claim?

Did Muhammad Use Sources to Compose the Qur'an? Here are some of the facts which show that my answer to this question must be negative:

1. Muhammad could not have been the author of the Qur'an. Among the evidence for this is (a) the Qur'an speaks of the future with absolute prophetic accuracy, (b) the Qur'an reveals knowledge which would not be uncovered by scientists until the 20th Century.

2. Others who lived in Muhammad's day and had presumably the same access to Muhammad's supposed sources were challenged to produce a book like the Qur'an. They couldn't. How did Muhammad do it, except with divine help?

3. The claimed sources had to be gathered after many centuries of hard work by many generations of scholars building upon the work of each other. It is well nigh impossible that the prophet (pbuh) would have accumulated such a vast body of knowledge in one lifetime, unless he had divine help.

4. The claimed sources show some similarity but also some vast areas of difference with the Qur'an. The similarity of two books do not prove necessarily that one is the source of the other, but possibly that both have a single source. The claimed sources have so departed from monotheism that what is more likely is that they contain some surviving revealed truth mixed with falsehood. The Qur'an can then be seen as a restatement of pure monotheism which incidentally coincides with whatever truth remained intact in previous writings.

5. The Qur'an carefully avoids the mistakes and deviations found in the previous books. Some examples will demonstrate this point.

Qur'an Copies Not, But Corrects Previous Information

If we come with a neutral position to examine the Qur'an, we will have to conclude not that the Qur'an copied its supposed sources, but rather that it checks, compares, corrects, approves, and rejects what was available.
To make this comparison easy for everyone, I will use the Bible as a claimed source, since this is widely available, and any interested person can then verify my conclusions.

1. Reverend Tisdall, a Christian missionary from whom Morey copied several mistakes, said,
throughout the Coran only one verse is quoted from the Gospel. (Tisdall, Source of Islam, p.72).

Then he mentions Surah 7:38 (40) which says that certain persons will not enter Paradise until the camel goes through the eye of the needle, something similar to what is stated in the Gospels (Mt. 19:24, Mk. 10:25, Lk. 18:25). But, contrary to Tisdall's assertion, the Qur'an does not quote the Gospel. And, aside from the camel-and-needle phrase meaning "impossible," the main teaching here is quite different. If we ask here, "Who are the people who cannot possibly enter Paradise?" the answer we get from the two books is as follows:

Bible: Any Rich man.
Qur'an: Those who deny and scorn God's message.

The benefit of this difference is clear when we realise what is the implication of the Bible's pronouncement. A Christian must sell everything he has and give to the poor (Mt, Mk, Lk.) or to the church (Acts 4:32; 5:105).

2. Tisdall, from what he said above, was unaware that other things in the Qur'an are similar to the Bible. But he did on page 51 quote the story of the angel's annunciation to Mary. Was he unaware? Or did he dare not compare? Let's see. When Mary asked how she can have a child, what reply did she get?

So (it will be) for Allaah creates what He wills. When he has decreed something, He says to it only: "Be!" and it is (3:47).


The Holy spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you. So the holy one to be born will be called the Son of God (Luke 1:35)

The benefit of the Qur'anic expression is clear when we realise that many among the laity understand the Lukan passage as meaning that God replaced the male element in Mary's conception. Then they become confused as to which person of the Holy Trinity is the father of Jesus: the Father, the Holy Spirit, or both?

3. Morey claimed that the Qur'an is wrong in saying that Aziz was the name of the man who bought Joseph son of Jacob. How does he know this? Because the Bible says his name is Potiphar, and the Bible is always right (Morey, Invasion, p.140). Apart from Morey's confusion here between a name and a title, if Morey had compared the story of Joseph in the Bible and the Qur'an, he would have found that Bible contradictions are completely absent from the Qur'an. Consider this:

(a) To whom did the Midianites sell Joseph? Two different answers from the Bible:
(i) To the Israelites (Genesis 37: 28).
(ii) To Potiphar, an officer of Pharaoh (Genesis 37:36).

(b) Who brought Joseph to Egypt? Three different answers from the Bible:
(i) The Ishmaelites (Genesis 37:28).
(ii) The Midianites (Genesis 37:36)
(iii) Joseph's brothers (Genesis 45:4).

These contradictions are absent from the Qur'anic text. How can you compare the two? What is clear again and again is not that the Qur'an copied the Bible, but the Qur'an corrects what had deviated from the truth before it.

Ladies and Gentlemen,

Dr.Morey cannot win this segment of the debate, but loses badly, unless he can answer to your satisfaction all the questions I have raised in this lecture. You be the judge.

Works Cited

Asimov, Isaac. Asimov's Guide to the Bible (US, Avon, 1968).
Keller, Werner. The Bible As History (US, Hodder and Stoughton, 1980).
Mangnusson, Magnus. Archaeology Of The Bible (US, Simon and Schuster, 1977).
Morey, Robert. The Islamic Invasion (US, Harvest House, 1992).
Schonfield, Hugh J.The Passover Plot (US, Bantam, 1965).
St. Clair-Tisdall, W.The Sources of Islam (Scotland, T & T. Clark, no date).
The New American Bible (US, Catholic Book Publishing Co., 1986).

Note: Opinions expressed in comments are those of the authors alone and not necessarily those of Daniel Pipes. Original writing only, please. Comments are screened and in some cases edited before posting. Reasoned disagreement is welcome but not comments that are scurrilous, off-topic, commercial, disparaging religions, or otherwise inappropriate. For complete regulations, see the "Guidelines for Reader Comments".

Submit a comment on this item

<< Previous Comment      Next Comment >>

Reader comments (56) on this item

Title Commenter Date Thread
Islam grows with government assistance. [66 words]PrashantJan 10, 2020 14:12257104
Historical Errors of Islam [107 words]Yochanan Ezra ben AvrahamJan 10, 2020 09:14257100
4Secular democracy in Islamic countries [77 words]PrashantNov 12, 2016 21:50234014
Morey who? [45 words]mike dirntJan 13, 2014 05:01212637
4Fastest growing religion [163 words]PrashantMay 17, 2012 01:50195653
Lacking the ability to think critically [71 words]AllahuakbarFeb 26, 2013 09:28195653
2little knowledge about Islam [239 words]eimsMay 22, 2008 03:58129503
Islam the fastest growing religion..... [135 words]DanielMar 15, 2007 23:2086422
1ISLAM AND TERRORISM [1944 words]DanielMar 28, 2007 03:1786422
Read "Islam and Terrorism" by Daniel [7 words]mMay 25, 2007 08:4086422
Islam and Terrorism [318 words]JoshDec 17, 2007 19:0786422
1Islamic invason [222 words]MaherFeb 1, 2008 12:5586422
1Please educate yourself [265 words]SorayaOct 7, 2009 11:3886422
Related to point no. 6 [125 words]RajAug 25, 2010 11:0486422
What O'Leary Really Said [226 words]WillNov 10, 2010 19:2386422
1The Religious Misunderstanding [404 words]NathanOct 16, 2006 04:2360522
i read it twice.. [9 words]martenAug 31, 2006 02:5654447
Call to war [227 words]R. PheonixJan 22, 2007 12:4054447
2my opinion about the Islam religion [96 words]frederickMar 4, 2010 19:4254447
I have only one question... [59 words]GeekoidNov 4, 2010 01:0154447
Robert Morey's book is biased and negative at best [227 words]Rev. Robert WoodsFeb 21, 2006 11:3736761
Biological Invasion islamique [32 words]Karikaturen - SatireJul 25, 2006 04:4736761
9Robert Morey's Islamic Invasion is accurate [121 words]danSep 16, 2007 19:2936761
Mr. Dan you are unaware of Islam [157 words]fahadNov 6, 2007 10:1236761
THE FACTS. [683 words]JOHNSON EL-SHALOMFeb 21, 2013 03:5136761
2ISLAMIC INVASION THROUGH SHARIA, A CHEAP WAY OF AVOIDING SHAME [416 words]yancin kristaSep 18, 2013 11:2136761
DEFININITION OF ISLAM [32 words]JOHNSON EL-SHALOMJun 20, 2015 09:3036761
SHARIA LAW IS A BIG MISTAKE [733 words]JOHNSON ELSHALOMJun 19, 2017 04:4536761
DIVINE LIMITATION [63 words]JOHNSON EL-SHALOMAug 5, 2019 11:5536761
1A good review of this book [2577 words]True FriendFeb 20, 2006 20:5036630
Bible [165 words]HelgeJan 3, 2007 15:4236630
the truth [149 words]TimotiezFeb 7, 2006 22:2834264
The Truth [238 words]yusufApr 15, 2008 23:1034264
The real truth will revealed itself. [560 words]timotiezSep 10, 2008 07:2034264
Allah [68 words]HamzaOct 8, 2005 01:1726703
1Islam, a threat to Christ? [220 words]LarsNov 8, 2004 12:3518134
HEY [169 words]JohnFeb 22, 2006 07:5618134
Respect [176 words]yusufApr 15, 2008 23:4918134
Try this... [71 words]GeekoidNov 5, 2010 23:2418134
1Great review [12 words]Nisa PermatasariSep 13, 2004 08:4416921
Robert Morey has little knowledge about Islam [30 words]SomeoneApr 23, 2004 03:5614845
Good [3 words]Mahaindra Adi PramanaFeb 15, 2004 03:5913882
3my new found knowledge! [159 words]nina wergasow brearleyOct 1, 2003 13:2211618
Why? [52 words]John SmithJul 15, 2003 15:5910022
1Islamic origins and conflict with The West [662 words]Alaistair CampbellFeb 13, 2003 08:456608
I'm not sure about this [482 words]NigelNov 29, 2006 08:296608
the book is a lie. [214 words]a muslimNov 3, 2008 18:436608

Comment on this item

Mark my comment as a response to A good review of this book by True Friend

Email me if someone replies to my comment

Note: Opinions expressed in comments are those of the authors alone and not necessarily those of Daniel Pipes. Original writing only, please. Comments are screened and in some cases edited before posting. Reasoned disagreement is welcome but not comments that are scurrilous, off-topic, commercial, disparaging religions, or otherwise inappropriate. For complete regulations, see the "Guidelines for Reader Comments".

See recent outstanding comments.

Follow Daniel Pipes

Facebook   Twitter   RSS   Join Mailing List
eXTReMe Tracker

All materials by Daniel Pipes on this site: © 1968-2020 Daniel Pipes. daniel.pipes@gmail.com and @DanielPipes

Support Daniel Pipes' work with a tax-deductible donation to the Middle East Forum.Daniel J. Pipes

(The MEF is a publicly supported, nonprofit organization under section 501(c)3 of the Internal Revenue Code.

Contributions are tax deductible to the full extent allowed by law. Tax-ID 23-774-9796, approved Apr. 27, 1998.

For more information, view our IRS letter of determination.)