Also a reffutal is needed for thisOne is impressed by the reported inability of the Muslims to make replies to the Christian charges, whereas they certainly could have done so, if they had known certain passages in the Qur'an. For example, in sura 6 alone we find that the preaching of Muhammad was not accepted without protest (verse 37), that there were demands for proof (109), that there were charges of falsehood (66) that proofs were cited (104), that there were Jews who accepted Muhammad (20). As it is, the Muslims are simply nonplussed and brow-beaten by the intelligence and astuteness of the Christians. On the other hand, the Christian replies are on the tu quoque order. The Christians speak as though putting to rout ignorant people, on a lower level of culture. There is no serious religious discussion, no attempt to present Christian faith, no thoughtful consideration of Islam. Let it not pass unnoticed, also, that the Christians are as unaware as the Muslims of the Quranic passages which the Muslims might have brought forward.
John of Damascus goes on to inform us about the Book of the Muslims. It contains chapters, each with a title. He makes reference to four.
The chapter "Concerning the Women" (sura 4) legalizes polygamy: four wives, and female slaves in addition (4:3). Divorce is authorized at will, and then further marriages (2:229). The story is recited of Zaid, who had a beautiful wife, of how the prophet made him divorce her and then married her himself, asserting a command of God as the reason. If a man after divorcing his wife wants to take her back, she must first be married first to another man: it may be to the man's own brother, if he is willing. In the Book he tells, "Till the ground which God has given to you, and beautify it" (cf. 2:223), "not to say as he does things altogether shameful."
The chapter "Concerning the Camel of God" tells of a camel from God that drank up a whole river, and then could not pass between two mountains for lack of room. The camel and the people of the place were to have drunk the water of the river on alternate days. However, after the camel had drunk up the water, the camel fed the people with milk instead. Some evil men killed the camel. Now the camel had a foal, and when the mother was killed, the little camel cried to God, and God took her up to Himself. About this story the Christians say to the Muslims, "Where did that foal come from?" "From God," they reply. "Was there not a sire?" They say, "No," "Then how was it born?" "We see your foal without sire, mother, or pedigree; also after the foal was born the mother camel was killed, but nothing appears about someone who had mated her; and the foal was taken up! You say God spoke to your prophet. Why did not your prophet find out about the foal - who fed it, milked it, took the milk? Was it, too, killed by evil men, or did it enter Paradise as your forerunner? Is the river of milk that you foolishly talk about from this foal? For you tell of three rivers in Paradise - of water, of wine, and of milk. If the foal is outside Paradise, it must have died, or else someone now has its milk. And if the foal is in Paradise, it will drink up the water there, and you will have none. Then, if you would drink wine instead, there will be no water to mix with the wine, and drinking unmixed wine you will become drunken and go to sleep, and so you will miss the pleasures of Paradise! How is it that your prophet did not think of these matters, or that you did not ask him to tell you about the three rivers? John of Damascus ends with further ridicule of the story, and bitter reviling of those who believe such Stories, "brutish as you are."
The chapter "Concerning the Table" (sura 5) says that Christ asked a "Table" from God, and it was granted to him, God saying, "I have given you and yours an incorruptible table" (cf. 5:112-155). As for the quotation, it is quite incomplete, and the reference should be consulted. The passage concerns the Eucharist. It is not at once clear whether the intention here is a simple statement of fact, or whether attention is being drawn to another example of absurd notions in the Book, as though a meal of imperishable foods were sent down from heaven!
In the chapter "Concerning a Heifer" (sura 2) "he says many other things, foolish and ridiculous, but are so many, they may be omitted, they are so many," says the author.
The Tractate closes with mention of some Muslim regulations. Men and women are to be circumcised; Muslims are not to keep the Sabbath; they are not to be baptized: some things forbidden by the Mosaic Law are to be eaten by them, and others not (2:178/167, 173/168); no wine is to be drunk (5:90/92). With or without Quranic documentation, these would be customs well known to the Christians from Muslim practice. Circumcision and prohibition of baptism cannot be documented from the Qur'an. Prohibition of observance of the Sabbath is inferential only (cf. 16:124/125; 62:9). One cannot but note the tendency in this description of the Qur'an to discredit everything Muslim. It is as though the author had formed an unfavorable opinion in advance, and now brought exhibits in proof.
As to this material many things must be said. Matters that can be documented from the Qur'an have been indicated already.
