Why the Quran Supposedly Cannot Be from God!

The first and most famous reason a person becomes a Christian and then says “Muhammad can never be a prophet” is the subject of “why was Muhammad married to so many women.” And, to the extent of their manners, they now climb right into Muhammad’s bedroom, practically crawling into the man’s underwear! What business is it of yours what the man did with his wife in his bedroom! And who saw what he did? No—as if these people had cameras and filmed Muhammad’s movies. These people do not even know how to be ashamed. They also adore getting into such subjects.

The most famous of all, though, is that Muhammad married a girl who was 13 years old! Leaving aside the fact that in Asia, Africa, even America, and nearly all over the world, 13-year-old girls have long since had children, whether married or not, in some European countries they hand out birth-control pills for “educational purposes” in schools to these 13-year-old girls whom they portray as innocent as babies. A girl who has reached the age of 14 and has not slept with a man is either very ugly, or has a problem, or is a religious person who does this thing some other way. Surely there are chaste ones too, but that is like looking for a needle in a haystack. Muhammad, however, married—look at the crime! I, on the other hand, was reading such criticisms, but they did not interest me at all. When I got married, my wife was 16 years old. So does this make me a pervert! Getting children between three and eight years old to shoot porn films, and the fact that this is in great demand in Europe and America—are these not some of the accomplishments of countries that pass themselves off as Christian? I am not comparing these people with Muhammad, but if, according to that country’s culture, one marries a 13-year-old girl, I want to stress that this is not perversion. Besides, people have different constitutions. There is a girl who, though she is twenty, looks like she is 13. And again there is a girl who, though she is 13, is developed like women of 20 to 25.

As I said, I was never satisfied with such criticisms. I only used to say that in the Holy Scriptures many prophets had more than one wife—indeed that Solomon had a thousand wives. If Muhammad is not a prophet for these reasons, then must we not say that the likes of Abraham, Jacob, David, and Solomon were also not prophets? According to them, when Jesus came he forbade these marriages to many women! It was only 19 years later that I would realize that no such prohibition appears anywhere in the Gospel. I dealt with this subject in the earlier part of my book, under the heading “Did Jesus forbid marriage to many women?” At that time I did not possess this knowledge. I was opposing their criticisms by saying, “If God permitted it beforehand, and if living under the Law serves as a tutor to understand Jesus, then why should the same education not be given to the Arabs?”

“For by means of the Law is the knowledge of sin” it says in Romans 3:20.

“So that the Law (the sharia) became our tutor leading to Christ, that we might be declared righteous through faith” says Galatians 3:24.

For now, let us set this subject aside and instead develop our topic by looking at the religions and the education they give. The proof of these matters sometimes seems very difficult, but when investigated a great many pieces of evidence are found that can easily be understood.

For instance, concerning false prophets, or religious organizations, Jesus said simply: “You will know them by their fruits.” (Matthew 7:15-20) This is truly the most correct and simplest way. The first time I applied these words, thinking deeply, to Muslims or to Christians, I would have had to throw out both the Quran and the Holy Scriptures as false. Only I was overlooking one difference. If I called these books false by looking at the religions, I would be doing an injustice. However much those religions say they represent these books, this makes them neither believable nor trustworthy. And moreover, let alone representing these books, they say they even represent God! If I had to decide by looking at their fruits, then I would have to move away from God as well. Is it not, after all, precisely these religions that are one of the greatest reasons for driving people away from God?

First of all, every one of these religions has a terrible method of oppression. Whatever their own teachings may be, they command that everyone accept these without question. And those who do not accept these teachings they will drag, if need be, all the way to the gallows. I am speaking continually of matters everyone knows, even if only superficially. From the crusading Christians of the Middle Ages, to the Ottoman religionists who cut off Çelebi’s head because he “flew,” to the Catholics who burned those who read the Holy Scriptures, and those who excommunicated from among themselves and declared “sons of death” those who translated that book, to Galileo, who barely escaped those religionists with his head because he said “the earth is round,” to the Jehovah’s Witnesses who immediately severed their relationship with a man from that religion, saying “you have obeyed Satan,” because he had a blood transfusion given to his child who was about to die from blood loss, to those who cast a person out from among themselves, saying “you are not worthy of salvation,” because he said “God sees everything, both the past and the future.” While dealing with some of these matters, which are so numerous they would not fit into tens of thousands of books, I continually try to emphasize this oppression of theirs as well. Can such behavior come from God’s true servants? Can we say they make such errors unknowingly, because they hold something to be wrong? What matters is not the false information; the things I am talking about are the ways they behave toward the people whom, by their own reckoning, they declare “you are wrong,” and the manner in which they go after those things. Without separating who is right and who is wrong, I am talking about the reactions they display toward subjects they dislike. A person who sincerely believes something wrong is neither killed nor burned nor declared a son of hell. And whether sincere or not, who could want to dominate people’s beliefs and thoughts by oppression? Where is the use of force and oppression, and where are love, joy, and free will—which of these does God want from us? Does He want to be come to by force, or with joy and a willing soul? If God does not value its being with joy and willingness, and is in favor of its being by force, who is mightier than He? Who do we think we are, that we tell people with oppression and force, “come to God, keep His commandments”! And on top of that, if it is not God but they themselves who invented those commandments. Frankly, these fruits are not from God but fruits that come from Satan, from demons, from the world, from people’s carnal desires, from their egos. God, on the other hand, is disgusted and says:

…He who said to them: “This is the rest; give rest to the weary; and this is the repose,” yet they were not willing to hear. Therefore the word of the LORD to them shall be command upon command, command upon command; rule upon rule, rule upon rule; a little here, a little there—that they may go and fall backward, and be broken, and be snared, and be taken. Isaiah 28:12-13

Truly, according to the words in this verse, they made God known to us not as God but only as one who lays down command upon command, rule upon rule. This means their aim was to make us fall and be broken. Who do you think these religions come from? According to the verse above, it is certain that this is not from God!

But did Moses, who was God’s servant, never rule over anyone? Were there not people whose death he decreed? Of course there were. But in those matters recorded in the Holy Scriptures, Moses did not use oppression; on the contrary, Moses ruled over the people who were striving to use oppression. The difference is enormous. They made a calf and worshiped it as God! Not content with breaking the promise they had made to God in the covenant, they strove to draw others in as well. Did such events happen once, five times, ten times? No—we read that throughout the history of the Holy Scriptures such events happened continually and incessantly.

It may be that a person or a community looks upon the calf as God. Moses did not kill them for that. Moses had in any case lived in Egypt and grown up with these customs. He also knew about the hundreds of gods there. He neither declared war on them nor hated them because they worshiped a wrong thing. Did he not have the power? Was the power in the plagues Moses brought upon the Egypt of that time not from God? Could this power not have destroyed Egypt? It is God who first of all grants freedom of thought and belief. And if those people had to be destroyed for this, then would God not also have to destroy everyone living upon the whole earth? When the time comes, that too will happen; but if God warred with the Egyptians, the reason was to save those people whom they held under oppression and forced into slavery. It was the Egyptians who were the oppressors, not God. God only taught a lesson to the Egyptian and to Pharaoh who used force. And even so, seeking their benefit. He wanted to explain something to the Egyptians of that time. And not only to the Egyptians—through this He wanted to explain something to all the nations of the world.

God did not compel Israel and the many mixed peoples who came out of Egypt to accept His commandments either. All those people did not come out of Egypt behind Moses like people going into exile, in shackles, like slaves put in chains. On the contrary, they came out laughing, dancing, hopping, and leaping, and with jubilation they were saved from the Egyptians. (Exodus, New Translation 15:19-20) They were not obliged to follow Moses either. If the Egyptians no longer wanted them, was there no other country, no other land, for them to go to? For, in return for the terms God stated by speaking to them all at once, and upon the word they gave, “We will do everything God says”—it was on the basis of all this that Moses killed those who worshiped the calf, and also those who oppressed those people to make them worship it. Yet those people were not obliged to accept God’s terms. They were free to gather together, separate from that people, and go anywhere else they wished. No—but if they decided to live there, then in that community they lived in, they were also obliged to keep the word they had given. But they used the freedom given to them not on their own behalf, but in the form of oppressing others’ freedom as well. Did those who made the calf not know what and whom Israel had promised? If they themselves were not going to keep that promise, why were they dragging others behind them? All the religions of our time also resemble those who made the calf back then. The God they present, saying “this is your God,” the idols they have invented from their own hearts, is not the true God. They walk in a manner of behavior in keeping with the works of their forefathers of that time. Otherwise, the path they take is neither God’s command nor are their deeds the works of Moses, of Jesus, or of Muhammad.

“Look, we too cast out from among us, for these very reasons, those who do not fully accept our teachings—why is this looked upon with a bad eye?” It is as though the voice of the Witnesses comes to my ear.

Because their authority extends only this far, that’s why. Their forefathers in the Middle Ages had greater authority; we have seen what they did. This does not show that the present-day Witnesses are merciful or anything. Now, however, I look upon the matter of being cast out from among them with a good eye—quite the contrary—for the benefit of the person cast out. Unfortunately, those cast out, because of the faulty conscience-training they have received, push themselves into a great depression and go to ruin. Yet, while moving away from that crippled and dangerous region should mean life to them, they perceive it as death. And this happens thanks to those teachings they have been, and want to be, under the influence of for years. And why or for what reason a person is cast out is not even very important. For those people whom they cast out from among themselves because of vulgar and base crimes, perhaps the whole world will side with the Witnesses. But that is a superficial judgment. When one looks at the inner face of the matter, the greatest party responsible for the influences that pushed those people to those things is sometimes the Witnesses’ own perverse and warped training and practices. This side effect can emerge in a different way in everyone. One rapes children, one becomes homosexual, one may do even more perverse things. When the cause of all these is investigated, generally what pushes those people to such behavior is the oppressive environment they are in. And let me say it openly: just as a bad friend leads a good one astray too, if he incites and pressures that person to do things he never expected, this is exactly the same. Only, the one who befriends this person we call bad is not innocent either. Throughout life everyone is deceived. Having been deceived, being taken in, though it is not an excuse, is not an absolute crime either. But to knowingly, deliberately continue on that path after one is aware of having been deceived—this brings guilt upon a person. What does God say concerning these matters? Let us read:

-Whoever does not testify to what he has seen or knows, though he knows he will be cursed, has sinned and will bear the punishment for his guilt.**

-If anyone unknowingly touches anything deemed unclean—whether the carcass of a wild animal, a domestic animal, or a small creature—he is defiled and is deemed guilty.

-If anyone unknowingly touches a person deemed unclean, or anything proceeding from a person that would defile him, the moment he understands what he did he will be deemed guilty.

-If anyone, on any matter whatsoever, in order to do evil or good, swears an oath rashly and without knowing what he is doing, the moment he understands this he will be deemed guilty.

-When a person commits one of these sins, he must confess his sin. Leviticus 5:1-5

These are some excerpts from the Law given to Moses. Rather than the laws, the side that concerns us is how God looks upon what a person has done in ignorance. There are some cases where, when a sin is committed unknowingly, at one point the person is not yet guilty in God’s sight, but when he realizes and understands, he becomes guilty. And there are some cases where, even if he does not know, he is deemed guilty. That is, sometimes not knowing is not an excuse, while at other times, even if not knowing is accepted as an excuse, the price must still be paid. That is, there is never any escaping without cost by saying “I am innocent.” Nor is there anyone on our earth who does not commit sin. However righteous that person may be, even if he is a prophet, still there is no person who does not commit sin. (Ecclesiastes 7:20; Romans 5:12; Surah Ghafir, 40:55; Surah Al-Fath, 48:2; Surah Fussilat, 41:6)

The laws also work by this logic. Saying “I did not know” is not an excuse. Even if he truly does not know, this does not save him. If it is a deed done knowingly, deliberately, the penalty is naturally more severe. For instance, someone whose death you caused by hitting them with a car is called an “accident,” but even so the person is subject to a penalty that varies according to that country’s laws. But if you deliberately run that person over with your car, it is not called an accident at all but murder. Its penalty too will certainly be very different.

A Christian, however, clearly knows—and must know—that he is conscious that all humanity is sinful and continually commits sin, both willingly and unwillingly. Otherwise it means he does not know, has not understood, the meaning of why Jesus Christ died. If the facts are like this, how can a person, an organization, a religion, an institution say: “Only what we say is right, there is no truth apart from us, only we will enter heaven, and salvation can be found nowhere but with us”? How can they make such a claim, and how can those people also believe this and follow behind them?

No religion accepts, saying “there are also religions better than us,” and confesses its faults, nor can it. For it this means defeat. But what does God say?

“When a person commits one of these sins, he must confess his sin.”

According to these words, all this business of apologizing and confessing one’s guilt is always expected only from the members of that religion. In my roughly 20-year relationship with the Witnesses, I never once read, nor ever heard that it had at any time been written, that their governing body itself declared: “With what we did on such-and-such a date we made a mess of everything,” or “with the senseless rules we laid down we ruined your lives too.” This means they are flawless! Their only flaws are in words—and even that is only their being incomplete! Instead of applying God’s word that says “he must confess his sin,” these religions not only resort to secrecy or stubbornness; they also defend that filth of theirs. (Romans 1:28-32)

The Catholic Church apologized for what they did to Galileo on a date that is considered fairly recent. How long has it been since it was proven that the earth is round, and when does the church apologize! As if this were the only subject they had to apologize for! In reality they are so much cleaner and more spotless than angels, and we are not even aware of it! As if this were their only crime! And as I said, as if the earth were flat and not round, and Galileo’s thesis were wrong—so what would happen? Why do you set out to kill the man and hate everything called research and knowledge? One will write, another will read. The other will learn from what he wrote and learn even more and find something even more correct. How does progress happen? Do the religionists try to achieve this by imposing prohibitions? Or are they successful at obstructing progress? When one reads history, we immediately say, “they were successful at obstructing.” States and governments are no different in this regard, but the religionists are unrivaled in this.

In short, the reason of marriage to many women, and that Muhammad supposedly cannot be a prophet and the Quran cannot be revealed by God—this again never sat right with me. This was so even with the knowledge I had at that time. For me to be able to say “the Quran is not the word of God,” in my view there had to be far more valid reasons. And furthermore, those religions that make marriage to many women look like a wicked cause, that set people apart from one another because someone is married to many women—by forbidding marriage to their clergy, with the homosexuality among priests, the marrying of two men or two women in church, the forcing of children under their protection into their perverse desires, and so on—were themselves inside very great and hideous sins in this very matter. And they still are, and even worse. Yet they, as if this were their only crime, apologize to Galileo, of whom, hundreds of years later, not even his bones remain!

For such reasons, in my view those people were maligning not the Quran but themselves. Therefore, if the Quran is not the word of God, I had to find valid reasons other than Muhammad’s marriages.

About four months or so had passed since we first met Bernd and Schmid. Meanwhile, once a week, on Sundays, we would certainly attend the meetings. During the week too, Bernd’s or Schmid’s visits made me happy. The most important subject for me was to know the true God and to know what He wants from us. Even when we talked about other, indirect subjects while together, the subject would again be connected to God. Since they went preaching from door to door, they had certain experiences with people. Their general experience was about people’s indifference, and consequently their ignorance. Even the most fervent ones, who seemed interested and left no stone unturned, in time showed by their behavior and words that they were not sincere. This was the case among these Turks too. It is also certain that every nation has its own characteristics. I lived the same experiences later on. I also noticed that Bernd and Schmid suspected that this was the case with me too, that I too might be an insincere, phony person just like these people. They wanted to study a booklet, or again a brochure of their own publication, with me (reading in depth, in question-and-answer form). I, on the other hand, in order to change their opinions of me, would say, “here, ask me questions from whatever book you want, I have read all of the publications the Witnesses put out here.” By chance Bernd, surprised at the questions he asked from a few places and at the answers I gave, would laugh. Truly I had read a large portion of the Turkish ones of these books they published. Even though I told them “I have read these,” this did not satisfy them. Either they did not believe it, or, rather than reading quickly and moving on, they found it more beneficial to have these subjects digested by thinking deeply in question-and-answer form. They too had been taught this way. As for the Holy Scriptures, they used it only for the purpose of showing the verses that appeared in their own publications. They did not say “look at what our governing body said,” but they wanted to say, “look, the things written here fit this book of God perfectly and are proven.” They themselves could not have any commentary, belief, or thought of their own about the Holy Scriptures at all. This I would realize only much later. How their faith ought to be was decided by their governing body in New York, America. What is to be believed and how, what is what, what its meaning is or is not, how it is to be applied and how it is not. As I say, from the subject of young people’s self-gratification to the sexual relations of married couples; from the blood of a sick person to his kidney to his heart, in every matter, in everything that would never even come to your mind, whether it is right or wrong, what you must and must not do—these governing bodies of theirs decide and pronounce. They have so conditioned this people that if one of them even needs to urinate, they will practically ask, “may I, and in which direction would it be more correct to do it?” Which foods may be eaten, in which there may be or is blood and therefore may not be eaten—indeed they have outright prohibitions. In short, if he sees that food on that person’s table or in his refrigerator, this can be reason enough to cast that person out from among them as far from God, disobedient, a sinner, and a son of death. It depends on the reaction the person will show. Beside this, Muslims not eating pork is nothing at all. You must obey to the letter the instructions of these men they call the governing body in America—whose number occasionally changes, generally consisting of 12 to sometimes 18 people, the youngest of whom in my time was 80 years old. If they said go to your death, they will formulate this however they formulate it, but those members too are expected to go to their death without any question, without objection! Where these men find the audacity to make people, in God’s name, apply oppression so terrible and disgusting, I still cannot understand. Actually the answer is simple: everyone comes meekly of their own accord—I want to say “the guilty ones are those who come,” but still my tongue will not do it. Because I too fell into this pit. Setting aside just the subject of religion, is there any person on earth who could say “I was never deceived”? On whatever matter, we have surely been deceived, have believed, have been fooled. It is written in the Gospel too that people both deceiving and being deceived is one of the signs of the last days. (2 Timothy 3:13) To say we were deceived, we are fools, some people are clever and are never deceived, would be wrong. Everyone is the same regarding this matter of being deceived. Even the person who thinks he holds the whole world spinning on his finger is himself being spun on the finger of another.

Now one day I was arguing about the Quran with those young men who receive their training. Again we were at our home; this time they were three, I was alone. In defending such subjects I was always alone, and so it remained! With excitement and curiosity I tried to have answers ready for them. When I say excitement and curiosity, this curiosity of mine was about the Quran, since at that time I had not even decided what this book was. That is why I listened with curiosity to see what would come out of these people. And the reason I felt excitement was that I was in the position of defending the Quran against them! Actually I had no intention of playing the Quran’s lawyer or anything, but because of the proofs they put forward, it could not be said either that “this book cannot be from God.” The reasons they put forward were absurd things. The reasons they gave might fit the logic of people who do not know the Holy Scriptures, but for someone who knows the Holy Scriptures they were very illogical. Still, from the entire Christian world—whatever religion and denomination it may be—the Quran is always maligned with the same tactics. The absurdities they give for why the Quran supposedly cannot be from God, I sometimes see and read even on their Internet pages. Yet with these criticisms they deny not only the Quran but also the Holy Scriptures they claim to believe in. At most, what would prove them right is the Muslims’ own invented teachings and practices. Taking up the practices of Muslims, they try to reduce the Quran to zero, but this is not the Quran itself. Again, if the Christian world is taken up on the basis of invented teachings and practices, the Holy Scriptures too could be reduced to nothing, but this is not the Holy Scriptures.

In that argument of ours that lasted until morning, we jumped from branch to branch. For instance, again starting with the most famous—why so many women are married—moving on to why the hand of a thief is cut off, in the end we stopped at this verse written in the Quran:

…And We created you. Then We gave you form (shape) and then We said to the angels: “Prostrate yourselves before Adam!” They prostrated. Only Satan was not among those who prostrated. Al-A‘raf 7:11

After creating Adam, God says to the angels: “Prostrate yourselves before Adam.” No—God supposedly could never say such a thing. God supposedly does not want anyone but Himself to be worshiped. I was saying: “With this, God does not want the angels to worship Adam, but to show respect to Adam, the work of His own hands, that is, to man.” No, this was definitely not so and supposedly could not be. As an example they showed proofs from the words of the Apostle John in the Book of Revelation at the end of the Holy Scriptures. There, when the Apostle John wanted to bow before the angel, the angel says to him:

“Do not do it! I am a fellow servant of you and of your brothers the prophets and of those who keep the words of this book; worship God.” it appears in Revelation 22:9.

Here John, remaining under the influence of the things he saw, may have—knowingly or unknowingly—been seized by a spirit as if he were prostrating before the angel as before God. So that this would not be so, the angel gave a message through this event not only to John but to all humanity. Again, as I said, in spite of all this, not every bowing can mean worship. It appears that Abraham bowed down to the ground before the guests he had invited. (Genesis 18:2) Even prophets, before kings, indeed “fell on their faces to the ground,” it is written. For instance:

And behold, while he was still speaking with the king, the prophet Nathan came in. And they told the king: Behold, the prophet Nathan. And when he came before the king, he fell on his face to the ground before the king. it clearly writes in 1 Kings 1:22-23. The prophet Moses bows before his father-in-law, who, according to many Christians, is a priest not of God but of idols! Because Moses knew his father-in-law and knew of what and of whom he was a priest, he also fully applies the advice that man gave. (Exodus 18:5 and 24; Moses’ meeting with this priest appears in Exodus 2:15-22) Yet if someone who is not one of them gave the Witnesses advice like “go to the right,” they would, out of spite, go to the left even if it were wrong! Because according to them, everyone who is not one of them comes from Satan! Again, according to their logic, after Abraham no prophet ever emerged from anywhere outside Israel. God supposedly never spoke with anyone outside the Israelites and appointed him a prophet! With such claims they think they have closed all the doors to the possibility of Muhammad supposedly being a prophet. Again, to come to Moses’ father-in-law—since when has God ever accepted a sacrifice from the hand of priests of idols? Again, which of such idol-priests has God specially received into His presence and given food and drink? (Exodus 18:9-12) In both events, God approves of Moses’ father-in-law, who was a priest of Midian.

It did not occur to me, with the knowledge I had at that time, to point to these verses on the spot. I could not keep their locations in my mind by heart, so that it should occur to me. But whatever I said within the framework of this logic, I could not convince them either. Moreover they again kept saying: “Even if those people did prostrate and bow like that, they did it on their own; what they did was not right, God had not commanded it,” they insisted. And this is precisely why the Quran supposedly could not be from God!

Through these arguments I would come to realize something. The Witnesses, toward the very people from whom they expect sincerity, do not themselves show sincerity—that is, a righteousness that comes from the heart—they could not show it. To people who say “I am a Muslim” or “I am a Christian” or “I am a Jew” or “I am a Buddhist,” whatever you do, whatever proofs you use—and the situation is the same with their denominations too—you simply cannot convince them. Especially if they also get the feeling that you are coming against them. Actually, even if you explain to them a belief that their own religion also accepts but of which they are unaware, which they do not know, they still will not believe. Because I knew these things, I too now and then pulled such acrobatics with those who pass themselves off as religious. And I did this to show how insincere and blindly partisan those people are, to help them. Actually it is not a nice thing. With examples you will understand better what I mean.

For instance, to a Witness who came out against the Quran, holding it in my hand as if I were reading from the Quran, but from memory, I read a passage written in Luke in the Gospel. I had also noticed that he, like many Witnesses, carried the Gospel in his hand but did not know what was written in it. For this passage he thought I was reading from the Quran, he said, “I know, Muslims tell such tales a lot,” and, laughing, stressed that it was absurd. Then I put the Quran in his hand and asked him to take a look for himself. He kept saying, “No need, I believe you” and so on, but I insisted on giving it. He took it and looked and looked and could not find that passage I had read. Without dragging it out any longer, I said, “Actually this passage I read from memory is written in the Book of Luke in the Gospel, not in the Quran.” Although in time I used other tactics, even though their behavior and mulishness angered me, I did not do such things again and tried not to do them. Afterward my conscience reproached me. In fact I had even done this at a time when I was so relaxed and had put that friend at ease, when he was a guest in our home. There was no formality between us. We were joking and laughing together. Even so, this gave me the fear that it might make me lose that person rather than win him. Perhaps I had not been able to win people by other ways either, but my conscience was clear. This felt to me like misusing the knowledge I possessed in a conceited way. Rather than striving merely to be proven right at all costs, I ought to speak with the thought of how I could help the person before me. With these examples I wanted to tell you how blindly people believe. Whether a Witness, whether a Catholic, whatever denomination of Muslim it may be—unfortunately, it is like this.

Yet I did love that young man too. But after this event he started keeping his distance from me for good. In my view the greatest reason for his keeping his distance was his own ignorance and insensitivity. He was afraid of being refuted. Otherwise he did not have a bad feeling toward me. Otherwise, when he got married, out of the very few people he invited, he would not have specifically invited me too to his wedding. I am the only one there who was not a Jehovah’s Witness. I will never forget: during the lunch break of a district convention, that friend, his father, I, and my brother had gone to eat at an Italian restaurant. After the meal, everyone had taken out their wallets to pay their bill, when the father said something that surprised us greatly: “This time I, not you young men, will pay the bill,” he said. My brother and I were so surprised that we stood there gaping, frozen, staring at his face, wondering whether he was mocking us, whether he was joking. It would be the first time we saw such generosity from a Witness. We had by now firmly believed that they all had scorpions in their pockets. Some time later, at a Sunday meeting as usual, I saw him again. He was in perfect health; a day later they told me he had suddenly died! I had been saddened; years have passed, and still I have not forgotten. Yet I did not know him at all. Only once through this meal, and then every Sunday in the congregations, like many Witnesses, I would see him from a distance.

Together with those three young Witnesses with whom I argued about the Quran, we had sat up the whole night, until daybreak. Because of the heated arguments, each of us had become as if drunkards. As he was leaving, Bernd said to me: “I am going to go and sleep. You will always squabble like this, whereas I feel sorry for them,” and, looking at me angrily too, he left. Bernd has always, however right I might be, always felt sorry for others. For Bernd, rather than the matter of what is right and what is wrong, what mattered was the matter of “why do you not accept it and come against it and tire us out too.” That word of his had a meaning like, “either accept it and come, or do not accept it and go, but do not tire us out.” Because when I spoke with them, I was not speaking about my own private thoughts, but about the subjects written in these books. What I was defending was neither my own thought nor the sect, religion, or denomination behind me of which I was a member. With all my heart and sincerity I wanted to know the truth and was defending it. That this was so, even my enemies would later confess to me.

The whole of the Holy Scriptures, which I had read in one year and then gone off to military service, I had read a second time within 6 weeks. Right afterward I began reading it a third time. Meanwhile I had also read the Quran twice, and had begun reading it a third time as well. Our argument that lasted until morning, and this subject with which neither they nor I could in any way be satisfied, simply froze there and stayed. As I said, while reading the Holy Scriptures a third time, I was reading with a different eye, more carefully, in the light of such arguments.

Probably two or three months or so had passed; again while reading the Holy Scriptures I was so astonished—but what an astonishment. I was reading the verses in the Book of Hebrews in the Gospel that write these very lines:

…And when (God) brings the firstborn into the world, again He says: “And let all the angels of God prostrate themselves before him.” Hebrews 1:6

Yet we had argued about this very subject the most until morning. According to them this thing, which is written only in the Quran but which God would never demand for anyone but Himself, was written in the Gospel about Jesus. When one sees these facts, of course one is very happy too. I now began to eagerly await that Sunday. We went to the meeting, and at the end of the meeting there was to be a picnic; they asked us too, “will you come?” Would I ever not go? At one point a terrible rain came pouring down—Germany, you know. Schmid, I, and my brother, in a hurry, all fled into the cars. Now is exactly the time, I thought, and I said to Schmid: “Schmid, do you remember, how we squabbled until morning and you people said, ‘what is written in the Quran, that God asks the angels to prostrate before Adam, would be an impossible demand’?” Not a peep from Schmid, but he is listening. He is sitting in the front of the car and we in the back. And I am right behind him. Saying, “Look, I will read you a passage,” I opened the Holy Scriptures and, stating the location, read aloud that passage I wrote above. I closed the book and fell silent. Let’s see what will come out of this idealistic, believing young man—so my brother and I just wait. My brother’s interest was not in the subject. As I said at the beginning, he was interested in other things. But he too was waiting curiously to see what Schmid would do in this situation. After a certain silence, as if nothing had happened, Schmid turned to my brother and, in that broken Turkish of his, asked a completely different question, as if he had not heard me at all: “Will you come to such-and-such a place on such-and-such a day?” I understood he was doing it deliberately, and I threw myself down laughing in that cramped little car. I openly mocked this hypocrisy he had displayed so ill-manneredly. At the same time I was also angry. Seeing how I laughed in mockery, my brother too could not hold himself and burst into laughter as well. For me this was a hundred percent, unquestionable hypocrisy. Seeing this took time and effort. This young man, who seemed to have believed, to be an idealist, who for the sake of the Witnesses had abandoned his mother and father, indeed his home, had resorted to hypocrisy on the simplest matter. Yet what was I expecting, and what a reaction he gave. With this verse I showed from the Holy Scriptures I had been filled with even more anger. Moreover these people were striving to defend the Holy Scriptures to me and to show that the Quran is false! With such behavior, whom would they win? I do not know whom they would win, but they were losing themselves. In the Book of Revelation, the very last book of the Gospel, they were selling themselves like a harlot in the false religions—likened to Babylon. I knew and saw these things even at my age at that time and despite being a person from a country said to be ignorant and backward. They were at most two or three years younger than me—that is, we were the same age—and, as persons who possessed and had received the education of the culture of one of Europe’s so-called richest countries, could I say they did not know, did not see? I did not say so then, and again I cannot say so. But I say, may God forgive these brainless things they did.

Again, this event I wrote above is only one of hundreds, of thousands, and you will read experiences of mine similar to this later on. It is not possible for me to put into writing all the experiences and events of the roughly twenty years. But in this book I will deal with some of the most easily understood ones.

Yet would a sincere person behave like this against my approach of this kind? For my own part, I thought about what I would do if I were in his place. Actually Schmid had not been surprised at all by that verse I read. Whether he knew this verse in our argument that night, I do not know. Or whether he knew it but could not make a connection, again I do not know. But these were three people in that argument. None of them, without dropping the subject, had insisted on dwelling on it that day. It was not the subject, but their sincerity that was convincing. Yet it was false, but I did not know. But Schmid’s subsequent reaction did not show his astonishment at all. A person who does not know, upon hearing these verses, says, “give it here, let me have a look.” He takes the Holy Scriptures in his hand and reads with his own eyes. He is astonished and understands that he was mistaken, and apologizes. And if he learned it afterward, after learning it he makes a phone call, explains, and apologizes. That they got stuck on a wrong subject does not require them to accept the Quran either. But if there is an error, does it not need to be repaired? None of those three people that night did this. Would this mean defeat for them? Or were they too reflecting the manner of governance of their governing bodies? Actually, by behaving this way, they were defeated. Could I now trust that those people were sincere? My trust had in any case slowly begun to disappear.

Again on one occasion, against my fervently searching for the truths about the Quran, Schmid put forward that there might be a demon in our house! These investigations I was doing, according to him, could only stem from demons! In response to my laughing, he had said, “this is not necessarily in you, it could also be in some object or something, it’s a spell or something.” And I even helped him search every part of the house. From my wife’s underwear to my socks, from the spoon in the kitchen to the toilet brush, no place was left that we did not search. In the end he found a prayer-bead string (tesbih), and this did not please him. “If it disturbed you, throw it in the trash,” I said, and we threw it away. As long as his mind was set at ease! This is how I approached them, while they hated me. They looked at me and at what I said with anger. The hypocrisies and frauds they committed were as if a good deed for them. Because whatever he does, supposedly, he does for God! Even if he lies, it is permissible; even if he commits fraud, it is permissible; whatever he does, as long as we too become one of them. Let us always say “yes” to what they say!

Again on one occasion a family invited us to their home. The woman is one who wants to walk a few steps ahead of her husband. Generally like all Witness women. They had started coming to the meetings after us. That is, newcomers. Newcomers, but because the program is so intensive, much could change within three or four months. Her husband was Turkish; she herself was an immigrant too, but I have forgotten where from. She was either Yugoslav or Bulgarian. They were good, pure people. This woman, while we were guests in their home, was telling me why she had abandoned her belief in the Quran. The Witnesses had shown her a verse from the Quran, or she had seen it by chance. The subject there was about to whom women may show their adornments, or in other translations their ornaments. (An-Nur, Surah 24:31) That is, women were not obliged to cover their hair, their arms, and so on in the presence of certain people. Uncles, fathers, brothers, and so on are counted in this verse. She read these to me and said that because of this she had lost her belief in the Quran and had sided with the Witnesses. Lifting my head up from the Quran, I looked at her face bewildered. “Why, sister?” I said. “Well, it’s written in the Quran, isn’t it,” she said. I lowered my head to the Quran again and looked, reviewed the preceding and following verses and so on—no, I understood nothing. Lifting my head again I asked: “Sister, I am reading what is written, but truly I could not understand why these things written here make you see the Quran as an unbelievable book. Please, if there is a place I have not understood, that I have not seen, show me,” I said. “Well, how can you not see,” she said, and, turning to my wife, said, “you tell him.” Ours too said: “Believe me, I did not understand either.” When this woman, smirking a bit, said, “well, look, here it says women may show their adornments to these people, even to her father, what a shameful thing,” only then did I understand her problem. She had understood the “adornments” mentioned there as the genitals. To leave no room for doubt I asked, and she said “yes.” I tried to explain, but she said, “no, the word that appears here as ‘adornment’ means, in my understanding, this.” This time I also showed her the verse in the Holy Scriptures that says “let your adornment not be the outward braiding of the hair.” (1 Peter 3:3) This time she said: “Yes indeed, really!” She was sincere—indeed far more sincere than the seasoned Witnesses. But in time they must have corrupted her too. I, for my part, was amazed that she understood this verse this way. If I were to say that perhaps that woman was not so fluent in Turkish—no, that cannot be. And about this verse she had talked with a Witness who continually came to her, and a Turkish woman Witness at that, who had supported this wrong understanding of hers with a “yes.” And that woman was not an ignorant person either. In fact she was the same one who explained to me the literal meaning of “Islam” and called her husband over. Later that Witness couple divorced. For whatever reason, I do not know, they also cut the man’s relationship with the meetings. But that man went with effort, and even if years later he took another woman and again entered among these people. Actually they were not bad people either, but what they did could not be called good either. They had fled from the absurdities of Islam and become Witnesses. This, in my view, is like falling into the sea and clutching a snake; if he stays in the sea he will drown, so he holds on to the snake, but the snake will bite and kill him. If the sea is Islam, the snake is Christianity or the Witnesses.

As I said, their aim is come, come however you come. And throw out this Quran too, throw it out for whatever reason. At that time I saw this behavior of theirs as individual ignorance. And I believed then, from my heart, that among them there would be some who knew the correct version of this and would openly say it. My hope that they surely knew this had not yet disappeared. Actually, is it not astonishing? As the Witnesses said, how thick-headed I was!