Sam Shamoun

In our paper, "Six Points Establishing that the Quran Does Confirm the Holy Bible", we responded to a certain Muslim writer who tried to present six reasons why he believed that the Quran does not confirm the Holy Bible as a whole.

Not satisfied with the evidence which we presented to establish our position, the author, publishing anonymously on his website but posting under the name or pseudonym of Yahya Sulaiman on other forums, decided to respond to us.

The author begins his response by trying to appeal to the emotions of his readers:

The other day I received the most hateful, disrespectful and dripping with vitriol e-mail that anyone has ever sent me. It was from Sam Shamoun of the Answering Islam site behaving in his typically Christ-like manner, and it mentioned that he had shattered (this seems to be his favorite word, based on my experience in reading his articles) my article Six Reasons Why the Law and the Gospel Are Not The Old and New Testaments. The link is http://answering-islam.org/Quran/Bible/sixpoints.html . As you can see for yourself, the article is extremely long, as is customary for Shamoun. I think that somehow, something is drastically wrong about someone writing what could be a lengthy booklet in response to an article that consisted of three, short paragraphs. A large reason for Shamoun's article being so unnecessarily long-winded is the number of long and extremely irrelevant tangents which he goes on almost constantly--this apparently being his idea of shattering an article. But enough with the criticism of his attitude and the quality of his scholarship; on with the show.

RESPONSE:

Since emotionalizing the discussion is completely beside the point, we relegate our response to his first paragraph to an addendum. We focus our attention, instead, to the author's ‘rebuttal’.

The author complains about my writing a "booklet" to refute his errors concerning what the Quran and early Muslim traditions actually taught about the authenticity of the Holy Bible. The author may not realize this, but writing a paper filled with errors and distortions may not require much time or necessitate producing a booklet, but correcting those gross mistakes may require one to do so. After all, it requires less time, space and effort to produce errors than it does to correct them.

Besides, if the author is truly interested in God's truth and learning facts, then he shouldn't care about the length of our response. His concern should be whether what we said is true, and if it was based on sound logic and exegesis of the respective texts in question (i.e., the Bible, Quran, Islamic traditions etc.). This paper will be an examination to see if whether the author was able to refute our "booklet" size rebuttal to his Six Points, and if he in fact learned anything new in the process of trying to refute our points. And we truly hope that he won't mind the fact that we ended up producing another booklet response to his rebuttal. :-)

The article starts off with the heading Responding to some More Muslim Polemics Against God's Word, a very unfair way or referring to my article. The polemics on my website are not meant to attack the Bible as a whole, but only to show that Islam is true and that it contains the best of the previous scriptures connected to it (and perhaps in a certain sense, the Bible as a whole, if you choose to look at it that way) while leaving out everything bad. These bad parts, we Muslims believe, are due to textual corruption, but Shamoun claims at the beginning of his article (the first of a great many points which have nothing whatsoever to do with whether the Law and the Gospel means the Old and New Testaments), that this belief appears to be a modern invention, not believed in by the earliest Muslims. The only way that this could be true is if the earliest Muslims did not believe in the Koran, which does indeed speak of the corruption of the Bible very unequivocally. I've already proven this is my FAQ, but I will be glad to repeat myself here and save people the trouble of having to locate it:

Are you so eager that they should believe you, seeing there is a party of them that heard God’s word, and then tampered with it, wittingly?.And some there are of them that are common folk not knowing the Book, but only fancies and mere conjectures. So wo to those who write the Book with their hands, then say, This is from God, that they may sell it for a little price. (The Koran Interpreted 2:75-79, from a context talking about the Jewish religion and thus about the Jewish scriptures)

He says a little later:

Next Shamoun quotes words of mine about the Bible being corrupted, but it does not logically follow that the Koran confirms the whole Bible just because the whole Bible has been corrupted. The four scriptures it identifies are evidently what it confirms and corrects, as I have shown--not that such an apparent fact needs to be shown.

And:

Shamoun then goes on to say that, Since the Quran confirms the Holy Bible, while at the same time contradicting its core essential teachings, the Muslim must therefore reject the Quran. Once again, he does not understand that the Koran itself never says that it confirms the entire Bible, and doesn't seem to mention the Bible as a whole except to refer to Christians and Jews collectively as People of the Bible. Once again, all Shamoun would have to do is read this site's homepage to see this claim of his disproven as the Koran specifically claims to correct as well as confirm the previous scriptures:

This Koran could not have been forged apart from God; but it is a confirmation of what is before it, and a distinguishing of the Book, wherein is no doubt, from the Lord of all Being. (The Koran Interpreted 10:37)

People of the Book, now there has come to you Our Messenger, making clear to you many things you have been concealing of the Book, and effacing many things. There has come to you from God a light, and a Book Manifest whereby God guides whosoever follows His good pleasure in the ways of peace, and brings them forth from the shadows into a light by His leave; and He guides them to a straight path. (The Koran Interpreted 5:15)

RESPONSE:

To begin with, the Quran in no way contains the best of the previous Scriptures, but since this is not the focus of our rebuttal we will have to leave it at that for the moment. In fact, the Quran contains gross immoral statements and practices that are condemned in the Holy Bible. Again, since this is not the topic we will simply have to leave it at that.

Furthermore, the author again repeats his claim that the Quran does not confirm the entire Bible. He even thinks that surahs 2:75-79 and 5:15 prove his contention that the Quran confirms only parts of the Bible. We are sorry to have to burst his bubble, but neither of these passages prove that the Bible was tampered with. Instead of repeating our response to the Muslim misuse of these surahs, we recommend that our readers consult our discussion of these passages:

http://answering-islam.org/Shamoun/bible_authentic1.htm

http://answering-islam.org/Shamoun/bible_authentic2.htm

http://answering-islam.org/Shamoun/aboutbible.htm

http://answering-islam.org/Responses/Meherally/bible2.htm

http://answering-islam.org/Responses/Osama/jesus_yahweh1.htm

Let us see now what happens when we try to interpret the following Quranic verses in the same way that the author has done with the previous citations:

So We sent it down to the partitioners, who have broken the Koran into fragments. S. 15:90-91

Compare Arberry's rendition with the following translations, keeping in mind that the parenthetical comments are not part of the original text:

Such as We send down for those who make division, Those who break the Qur'an into parts. Pickthall

(Of just such wrath) as We sent down on those who divided (Scripture into arbitrary parts), - (So also on such) as have made Qur'an into shreds (as they please). Y. Ali

Like as We sent down on the dividers Those who made the Quran into shreds. Shakir

As We have sent down on the dividers, (Quraish pagans or Jews and Christians). Who have made the Qur'an into parts. (i.e. believed in a part and disbelieved in the other). Hilali-Khan

(such as We have sent down for the quibblers. who have torn the Qur'an apart. T.B. Irving

This is the same kind of warning as WE had sent down towards the creators of heated discussion, Who have segregated their Qur'鈔 into parts? (Source)

As We have sent down to those who have divided, those who have broken the Qur'an into segments. Muhammad Ayub Khan (Source)

Like as We sent down on them who took oaths, Those who divided the Qur’an into parts. M. Muhammad Ali

We will punish those who foster divisions, Who break up the Koran into parts: Rodwell

As we sent down (punishment) on the separatists who dismember the Qur'an. Palmer

As We have sent down on the dividers. The ones who have made the Quran obsolete. The Message (Source)

The preceding reference explicitly says that individuals were shredding/dividing/tearing the Quran apart. Some scholars have viewed this text as an indication that the Quran underwent textual corruption and revision, especially at the hands of Uthman ibn Affan, Islam's third Caliph.

"Finally, if we understand correctly the following verse of Suratul-Hijr (xv. 90-91): ‘As we sent down upon (punished) the dividers (of the Scripture?) who broke up the Koran into parts,’ we are tempted to state that even when the Prophet was alive, some changes were noticed in the recital of certain verses of his sacred book. There is nothing very surprising in this fact, since Muhammad could not read or write, and was at the mercy of friends for the writing of his revelations, or, more frequently, of some mercenary amanuenses." (Alphonse Mingana, "Three Ancient Korans", The Origins of the Koran - Classic Essays on Islam’s Holy Book, ed. by Ibn Warraq [Prometheus Books, Amherst NY, 1998], p. 84; bold emphasis ours)

Mingana refers to Uthman's burning and wholesale destruction of primary Quranic codices made by eye and ear witnesses of Muhammad, and the Muslim reactions to it:

"The book, drawn up by this method, continued to be authoritative and the standard text till 29-30 A.H. under the caliphate of 'Uthman. At this time the wonderful faithfulness of Arab memory was defective, and according to a general weakness of human nature, the Believers have been heard reciting the verses of the Koran in a different way. This fact was due specially, it is said, to the hundreds of dialects used in Arabia. Zaid was again asked to put an end to these variations which had begun to scandalize the votaries of the Prophet. That indefatigable compiler, assisted by three men from the tribe of Quraish, started to do what he had already done more than fifteen years before. The previous copies made from the first one written under Abu Bakr were all destroyed by special order of the caliph: the revelation sent down from heaven was one, and the book containing this revelation must be one. The critic remarks that the only guarantee of the authenticity of the Koran is the testimony of Zaid; and for this reason, a scholar who doubts whether a given word has been really used by Muhammad, or whether it has been only employed by Zaid on his own authority, or on the meagre testimony of some Arab reciters, does not transgress the strict laws of high criticism. If the memory of the followers of the Prophet has been found defective from the year 15 to 30 A.H. when Islam was proclaimed over all Arabia, why may it not have been defective from 612 to 632 C.E. when the Prophet was often obliged to defend his own life against terrible aggressors? And if the first recension of Zaid contained always the actual words of Muhammad, why was this compiler not content with re-establishing it in its entirety, and why was the want of a new recension felt by 'Uthman? How can it be that in the short space of fifteen years such wonderful variants could have crept into the few copies preceding the reign of the third caliph that he found himself bound to destroy all those he could find? If 'Uthman was certainly inspired only by religious purposes, why did his enemies call him ‘THE TEARER OF THE BOOKS’ and why did they fasten on him the following stigma: ‘He found the Korans many and left one; HE TORE UP THE BOOK’? ..." (Ibn Warraq, p. 84-85; bold and capital emphasis ours)

In another of his articles, The Transmission of the Koran, Mingana cites Muslim historian al-Tabari:

"... ‘Ali b. Abi Talib, and ‘Uthman b. Affan wrote the Revelation to the Prophet; but in their absence it was Ubai b. Ka’b and Zaid b. Thabit who wrote it.’ He informs us, too, that the people said to ‘Uthman: ‘The Koran was in many books, and thou discreditedst them all but one’; and after the Prophet's death, ‘People gave him as successor Abu Bakr, who in turn was succeeded by ‘Umar; and both of them acted according to the Book and the Sunnah of the Apostle of God- and praise be to God the Lord of the worlds; then people elected ‘Uthman b. ‘Affan WHO ... TORE UP THE BOOK.’" (Ibn Warraq, p. 102; bold and capital emphasis ours)

Had this been said of the previous Scriptures, the Muslim author would no doubt have used this to prove that the Quran doesn't confirm the entire Bible. Since this is said of the Muslim scripture, we wonder if the author will be consistent and argue that the Quran has been corrupted as well. We won't be holding our breath to find out.

Thirdly, the author amazingly quotes surah 10:37 to support his view that the Quran doesn't affirm the entire Bible when this actually establishes our position!

And this Quran is not such as could be forged by those besides Allah, but it is a verification of that which IS before it and a clear explanation of the book, there is no doubt in it, from the Lord of the worlds. Shakir

There are other verses which essentially say the same thing:

Children of Israel, remember My blessing wherewith I blessed you, and fulfil My covenant and I shall fulfil your covenant; and have awe of Me. And believe in that I have sent down, confirming that which IS with you, and be not the first to disbelieve in it. And sell not My signs for a little price; and fear you Me. And do not confound the truth with vanity, and do not conceal the truth wittingly. And perform the prayer, and pay the alms, and bow with those that bow. Will you bid others to piety, and forget yourselves while you recite the Book? Do you not understand? S. 2:40-44

Not only does this citation say that the Quran confirms the Bible but that the Israelites were also reciting the Book, which presumes that they had a genuine Bible in their possession during that time.

You who have been given the Book, believe in what We have sent down, confirming what IS with you, before We obliterate faces, and turn them upon their backs, or curse them as We cursed the Sabbath-men, and God's command is done. S. 4:47

They measured not God with His true measure when they said, 'God has not sent down aught on any mortal.' Say: 'Who sent down the Book that Moses brought as a light and a guidance to men? You put it into parchments, revealing them, and hiding much; and you were taught that you knew not, you and your fathers.' Say: 'God.' Then leave them alone, playing their game of plunging. This is a Book We have sent down, blessed and confirming that which was before it, and for thee to warn the Mother of Cities and those about her; and those who believe in the world to come believe in it, and watch over their prayers. S. 6:91-92

In their stories is surely a lesson to men possessed of minds; it is not a tale forged, but a confirmation of what IS before it, and a distinguishing of every thing, and a guidance, and a mercy to a people who believe. S. 12:111

The Quran, therefore, is intended to be a confirmation of the previous Scripture which was available to Muhammad (note the present tense verb). The Quran does not claim to be a corrector of the previous texts. The problem is that the Quran does anything but confirm the Holy Scripture which preceded it, and this is precisely the dilemma that the author and other Muslims try to avoid or resolve (albeit unsuccessfully). They are aware that if the Quran is confirming the Bible as it has been transmitted throughout the centuries, and as we know it today, then the former must be false since it fails to confirm the very writings it testifies are the very words of God.

In other places, the Muslims are made to say that they believe in the Books of Allah, in that which was revealed to the Jews and Christians:

who believe in what has been sent down to thee and what has been sent down before thee, and have faith in the Hereafter; S. 2:4

The following Muslim commentary says of this passage:

(In this verse three more stipulations are set out for us for the consummation of our faith : (i) Believing in the Qur’aan (ii) believing in the Torah, the Psalms and the Gospel revealed before it, including other Revelations inspired in His messengers by Allah, whether or not they were referred to; and (iii) being firmly convinced of the Hereafter, which implies an unconditional acceptance of the Day of Resurrection when the whole of mankind would be gathered before Allah for the Rendition of their accounts, leading us either into the Garden or into the Fire, both everlasting and both depending upon what we had sent ahead of us and what we have brought along with us). (Source; bold emphasis ours)

Say you: 'We believe in God, and in that which has been sent down on us and sent down on Abraham, Ishmael, Isaac and Jacob, and the Tribes, and that which was given to Moses and Jesus and the Prophets, of their Lord; we make no division between any of them, and to Him we surrender.' S. 2:136

Say: 'People of the Book, do you blame us for any other cause than that we believe in God, and what has been sent down to us, and what was sent down before, and that most of you are ungodly?' S. 5:59

Dispute not with the People of the Book save in the fairer manner, except for those of them that do wrong; and say, 'We believe in what has been sent down to us, and what has been sent down to you; our God and your God is One, and to Him we have surrendered.' S. 29:46

Therefore call thou, and go straight as thou hast been commanded; do not follow their caprices. And say: 'I believe in whatever Book God has sent down; I have been commanded to be just between you. God is our Lord and your Lord. We have our deeds, and you have your deeds; there is no argument between us and you; God shall bring us together, and unto Him is the homecoming.' S. 42:15

The revelation that was sent down to the People of the Book is that found in the Old and New Testaments. Thus, when the Quran makes Muhammad and his followers say to their contemporaries that they believe in what was revealed to the Scripture folk, this would have been understood by the Jews and Christians that the Muslims were affirming faith in the Holy Bible which was in their hands. There is no way around this.

After going off on tangents (containing a huge pile of links) about St. Paul and what some Christians regard as evidence of the Resurrection (neither one of these tangents being the subject at hand), he finally addresses the issue of the Torah meaning the Old Testament as a whole, referring us to a link which contains nothing but appeals to authority, support for the claim that Christians, not Muslims, referred to the Old Testament as the Law, and only once citation from Islamic scripture in which the notion of the earliest Muslims using the term Torah or Law to mean the Old Testament, a hadith which merely refers to the people of the two scriptures, easily be the Torah and the unknown true Gospel, both of which the Koran endorses. The article quotes a hadith in which Muhammad (on whom be peace) speaks of a verse from the Torah which is nowhere to be found in the Torah, which should not even raise an eyebrow with us Muslims, because as I just established, the Koran does speak of the corruption of the previous scriptures.

RESPONSE:

The purpose of those "huge pile of links" was to present our readers with the historical data supporting both the bodily resurrection of the Lord Jesus and the legitimacy of Paul, issues which the author had called into question. Secondly, the link (http://answering-islam.org/Responses/Meherally/taurat.htm) I posted does more than simply appeal to authority, they provide both the biblical and historical evidence, as well as the views of Muhammad's followers and Muslim scholars, that the word Torah or Law can refer to the entire Old Testament canon. It is quite evident that the author didn't bother even reading it, since if he did then he has no excuse for claiming that we only presented one Islamic citation to support our case. Besides, even if we did appeal to a single Muslim citation, how would that make the point any less valid?

The author claims that Muhammad quoted a verse not found in the Torah. We wonder what verse is the author talking about? He must mean the following citation:

Narrated Ata bin Yasar:

I met Abdullah bin 'Amr bin Al-'As and asked him, "Tell me about the description of Allah's Apostle which is mentioned IN THE TORAH (i.e. OLD TESTAMENT)." He replied, "Yes. By Allah, he is described IN TORAH with some of the qualities attributed to him in the Quran as follows:

‘O Prophet! We have sent you as a witness (for Allah's True religion) And a giver of glad tidings (to the faithful believers), And a warner (to the unbelievers) And guardian of the illiterates. You are My slave and My messenger (i.e. Apostle). I have named you "Al-Mutawakkil" (who depends upon Allah). You are neither discourteous, harsh nor a noise-maker in the markets. And you do not do evil to those who do evil to you, but you deal with them with forgiveness and kindness. Allah will not let him (the Prophet) die till he makes straight the crooked people by making them say: "None has the right to be worshipped but Allah," with which will be opened blind eyes and deaf ears and enveloped hearts.’" (Sahih Al-Bukhari, Volume 3, Book 34, Number 335)

If so, then this again shows that the author didn't bother reading the links which we had provided since Muslims, not Christians, identify this as a quote from Isaiah 42:1-7:

Anyone familiar with the Old Testament should recognize this immediately. A chapter of uncanny resemblance to this exists in the Book of Isaiah. However, the mystery rests in the fact that there is no evidence that the Book of Isaiah was accessible to the Arabs in the late 7th century A.D. How then was this kind of detail known?

... This prophecy recorded by al-Bukhari is in 42:1-7 and scattered elsewhere in Isaiah. I will break down 1-7 verse by verse in order to lucidate who this is quite clearly speaking about. (Source)

Besides, even if this passage from Bukhari wasn't found in the Torah this wouldn't necessarily mean that the Torah had been corrupted. All this would mean is that either the Muslims made up a prophecy about Muhammad, or they weren't quoting the Torah per se but from some Jewish rabbinic source. This isn't the only time that Muslims, specifically Muhammad, confused the Torah with rabbinical writings. One of the author's favorite websites, Understanding Islam, quotes a reader who says:

I noticed on one of your pages, responding to some claims about the Bible from the hadiths, a hadith in which the Prophet (sAas) quoted the Torah to say that daughters should be married off soon after age twelve. Obviously, this statement does not appear in the Torah of today or even the Old Testament. However, it is interesting to note the following:

From 'Everyman's Talmud' by Abraham Cohen, page 162: "With regard to a girl, it was urged that the father's duty was to secure a husband for her at an early age. The verse 'Profane not thy daughter to make her a harlot' (Leviticus 19:29) was applied to a man 'who delays in arranging a marriage while she is of suitable age' (Sanhedrin 76a). She was considered to have arrived at this stage when she passed her twelfth birthday"

The statement of the Prophet (sAas) seems clearly to be based on the above. Therefore, it appears that the Prophet (sAas) was not quoting the Torah directly, but was quoting an interpretation of a verse that DOES appear in the Torah, as given by Jewish scholars. It is also possible that it was presented to the Prophet (sAas) as a statement in the Torah rather than as the interpretation of the Torah^[2]. Allah SWT knows best...

^[1] It is also possible that:

• This part of the Talmud had somehow become incorporated in the Torah, which was read and followed by the Jews in Arabian Peninsula during the times of the Prophet;
• The word Torah, in the narrative ascribed to the Prophet (pbuh) was used rather liberally, also applying to the laws generally followed by the Jews. (Moiz Amjad)

(Source; bold emphasis ours)

(Interestingly, Mr. Amjad agrees that the word Torah can be used in a broader sense to refer to the laws believed in by the Jews.)

Thus, citing a text that doesn't exactly correspond to what we find in the Scriptures would only mean that the Muslims misquoted, concocted or confused their sources.

The author somehow thinks that he can avoid my statement that the Salafis applied the word Torah for both Scriptures by arguing that they could have been referring to the Torah and the Gospel. The author failed to note that the reason why I mentioned this was to establish the fact that the word Torah can refer to more than the Law given to Moses, which means that even if the Salafis were referring to the Torah and the Gospel this still proves my point! It is rather unfortunate that the author didn't see how his response only proved the point I was seeking to make.

Furthermore, the Salaf's statements could not be limited to just these two Books since the Jews and Christians had more than the Torah and the Gospels in their possession. The Quran itself says that Allah sent down more than these two Books to them, such as the Psalms, and even quotes Psalm 37:29 to boot:

For We have written in the Psalms, after the Remembrance, 'The earth shall be the inheritance of My righteous servants.' S. 21:105

Therefore, the expression "the Books of the People of the Two Scriptures" must include ALL the Books which were in the possession of the Jews and Christians.

Finally, we are glad that the author again has to admit that the Quran endorses the Torah and the Gospel, since the data which we presented conclusively shows that Muhammad's Jewish and Christian contemporaries used these terms to refer to the Hebrew Scriptures and the four Gospels, not to some unidentified Gospel.

He continues:

Next, Shamoun unwittingly admits that the term the Gospel does not mean the New Testament in the New Testament itself (which never even refers to itself as a whole anyway, since like the Old Testament it was a volume by different authors), but only the Good News that Christianity preaches.

And:

The final point Shamoun makes (the last part of this particular irrelevant tangent) is that the source I cited while tossing out this idea translates al-Injeel into Gospels rather than the Gospel, a translation of the term which almost no other translator of the Koran (a very small minority indeed) makes. Even if the translation is correct, all that is being referred to is multiple, unidentified Gospels. Even if this means the Four Gospels (which can only be inferred, as there is no proof), that means that the term al-Injeel does not mean the New Testament and as such Shamoun is still wrong.

RESPONSE:

The author's inconsistency at this point is truly glaring. I appealed to his own sources to prove that the word Injil (Gospel) must have had a specific application during the time of Muhammad. Muhammad's contemporaries would have taken the word Gospel as a reference to the four Gospels contained within the pages of the New Testament. I cited the author's own sources to prove this point. Now what does the author do? Call into question his very own sources! In other words, no matter what source is cited, no matter what facts are presented, the author will simply brush them aside in order to stubbornly cling to his mistaken views and unwarranted assumptions about the Bible.

Furthermore, the author is again misrepresenting me since I didn't say that the word Gospel NECESSARILY refers to the entire New Testament. Why would I therefore need to unwittingly admit that the Gospel doesn't mean New Testament when I never said otherwise? What I said in my rebuttal is that the Gospel referred to something specific to Muhammad's contemporaries, namely, the fourfold Gospel collection found in the New Testament. I then went on to say that the Quran also confirms the Books which were in the possession of the Jews and Christians, which even the author admitted is the Holy Bible. What this basically means is that the Quran confirms the 27 Books of the NT, contrary to what the author has been asserting.

In saying that, this doesn't mean that the word Gospel cannot be used as a synonym for the entire New Testament. As I had written in my initial rebuttal:

Finally, Gospel refers to the Good News of God’s Son, that God sent forth his Son to save the world through his life, death and resurrection. What we find in the New Testament is the inscripturation of that Good News which was first made known in the OT scriptures, manifested in the advent of the Lord Jesus, and initially preached orally by Christ and his followers. More on this below.

And:

As we stated above, if the New Testament is the inscripturation of the revelation of the Lord Jesus Christ given to his Church, the inspired record of the Gospel God gave to the true believers, then the New Testament can be rightly called the Gospel.

The New Testament is the written record of the manifestation of God's Son, along with the entire revelation that the advent of the Son brought to light:

"In the past God spoke to our forefathers through the prophets at many times and in various ways, but in these last days he has spoken to us by his Son, whom he appointed heir of all things, and through whom he made the universe." Hebrews 1:1-2

The coming of the Son inaugurated a new way which God spoke to the people. Christ is the Father's agent through whom all revelation comes. The Good News which Christ brought wasn't limited solely to his life and teachings, but included all the revelation which he gave to his servants to pass on. Note, for instance, how the Apocalypse of John begins:

"The revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave him to show his servants what must soon take place. He made it known by sending his angel to his servant John, who testifies to everything he saw–that is, the word of God and the testimony of Jesus Christ. Blessed is the one who reads the words of this prophecy, and blessed are those who hear it and take to heart what is written in it, because the time is near." Revelation 1:1-3

"I, John, your brother and companion in the suffering and kingdom and patient endurance that are ours in Jesus, was on the island of Patmos because of the word of God and the testimony of Jesus. On the Lord's Day I was in the Spirit, and I heard behind me a loud voice like a trumpet, which said: 'Write on a scroll what you see and send it to the seven churches: to Ephesus, Smyrna, Pergamum, Thyatira, Sardis, Philadelphia and Laodicea.' ... 'Write, therefore, what you have seen, what is now and what will take place later.'" Revelation 1:9-11, 19

"I, Jesus, have sent my angel to give you this testimony for the churches. I am the Root and the Offspring of David, and the bright Morning Star." Revelation 22:16

And:

"how shall we escape if we ignore such a great salvation? This salvation, which was first announced by the Lord, was confirmed to us by those who heard him. God also testified to it by signs, wonders and various miracles, and gifts of the Holy Spirit distributed according to his will." Hebrews 2:3-4

"Dear friends, this is now my second letter to you. I have written both of them as reminders to stimulate you to wholesome thinking. I want you to recall the words spoken in the past by the holy prophets and the command given by our Lord and Savior through your apostles." 2 Peter 3:1-2

I am not alone in making these assumptions. There are Muslim translators who agree with me, since some of them render Injil as Gospels or New Testament:

The followers of the Gospels (the New Testament) must judge according to what God has revealed in it. Those who do not judge by the laws of God are evil doers. S. 5:47 Sarwar

Had they followed the Laws of the Old and New Testaments and what was revealed to them from their Lord, they would have received Our bounties from above and below in abundance. Some of them are modest people, but many of them commit the worst sins. S. 5:66 Sarwar

(Muhammad), tell the People of the Book, "You have nothing unless you follow the Old and New Testaments and that which (the Quran) God has revealed to you." Whatever has been revealed to you (Muhammad) from your Lord will only increase their disbelief and rebellion (against you). Do not grieve for the unbelieving people. S. 5:68 Sarwar (Source)

Rashad Khalifa, while commenting on surah 2:101, wrote:

*2:101 God's Messenger of the Covenant is prophesied in the Old Testament (Malachi 3:1-3), the New Testament (Luke 17:22-37), and this Final Testament (3:81). (Source)

It is obvious why these Muslims rendered Injil in the way that they did, since they realized that it had a specific meaning to Muhammad's contemporaries.

The author basically ignored our quote from Ibn Ishaq who identified the Gospel of John as the very Gospel that God had given to Jesus. Christian writer and apologist, John Gilchrist, mentions a few additional Muslim writers and scholars who did not hesitate to identify the Torah and Gospel as the Old and New Testaments:

It is very significant that, in the early centuries of Islam, the authenticity of the Old and New Testaments was freely acknowledged and their identity as the Tawraat and Injil of the Qur’an was never disputed. Even though the Bible did not take the form of the Qur’an Muslim scholars accepted it, partly because they knew the Jews and Christians had known no other scripture and partly because the book is an awesome record of God’s dealings with his people from Adam to Jesus Christ. After all, if the Bible does not contain the original books, where did it come from? Why would the Jews and the Christians over so many centuries forge a book of such holy teachings in defiance of the very books of God if they had them in their hands?

The attitudes of some of the great Muslim scholars of the earlier centuries of Islam can be contrasted with the prejudicial arguments set forth in modern Muslim publications.

1. Ali Tabari

He was a well-known physician at the court of the Abbasid Caliph Mutawakkil about two hundred and fifty years after Muhammad’s death and wrote a defence of the Prophet of Islam including a study of numerous Biblical prophecies which he believed all referred to him. He freely taught that the first book which came into existence was the Tawraat of the Jews and that it was in their possession. He taught the same about the Injil which he likewise conceded was in the hands of the Christians. When speaking of their contents, however, he outlined the contents of the Old and New Testaments respectively.

2. Abu Hamid al-Ghazzali

He is one of the most original thinkers the Muslim world has ever known and is generally regarded as its greatest theologian. He wrote a long exposition on the Trinity and, although he lived some five centuries after Muhammad when other radical scholars such as Ibn Hazm were attacking the integrity of the Bible text, he also freely accepted its authenticity. He argued only that the Christians had misinterpreted their scriptures. He died in the year 1111 AD.

3. Fakhruddin Razi

Another great and famous theologian, he lived a hundred years after al-Ghazzali and died in 1209 AD. He was quite emphatic about the Biblical text - that it had not been changed and that the teaching and narratives of the Qur’an were perfectly consistent with those of the Bible.

These great scholars only perpetuated the position the Qur’an itself takes on the former scriptures - that they are the authentic Word of God and have not been changed. It is important for Christians to know these facts in response to the relentless challenge one experiences these days from Muslim writers who do all they can to undermine the genuineness of the Bible. (Gilchrist, "", Facing the Muslim Challenge, chapter 1, section 15 [1.15], online edition; underline emphasis ours)

In agreement, notice what the next Muslim source says:

Remarks about the GOSPEL of the Christians, the Names of Their Books, Their Scholars, and Their Authors

I asked Yunus the priest, who was an excellent man, about the books translated into the Arabic language which they expound and according to which they act. He replied, "Among them is the book Al-Surah (The Form) which is divided into two parts, the ‘Old Form’ and the ‘New Form.’" He also said that the "Old [Form]" was the ancient basis for the Jewish sect and the "New [Form]" for the sect of the Christians. He also said that the "Old [Form]" depends upon a number of books, the first of which is the Torah, WHICH IS FIVE SACRED WRITINGS. [Then follows] a compilation comprising a number of books, among which are:

Joshua, the Son of Nun; The Tribes, which is the book of Judges; Samuel and the Judgment of David; Traditions of the Children of Israel; Ecclesiastes [Qoheleth]; The Song of Songs; The Wisdom of Jesus, the Son of Sirach [Ecclesiasticus]. The Prophets, composed of four books; Isaiah the prophet, for whom be peace; Jeremiah the prophet, for whom be peace; The Twelve Prophets, for whom be peace; Ezekiel. The New Form which is comprised of four Gospels: The Gospel of Matthew; The Gospel of Mark; The Gospel of Luke; The Gospel of John, The Disciples, known as Fraksis [Acts]; PAUL THE APOSTLE, twenty four epistles. (Abu'l-Faraj Muhammad ibn Ishaq al-Nadim, The Fihrist - A 10th Century AD Survey of Islamic Culture, edited and translated by Bayard Dodge [Great Books of the Islamic World, Inc., Columbia University Press, 1970], p. 45; bold and capital emphasis ours)

Notice how this source speaks of the GOSPEL (singular) of the Christians and then proceeds to list the 27 Books of the NT canon! The above source supports the point we have been making, that the term Gospel had a specific meaning to the Christians and this is why the Quran nowhere defines the word. The author of the Quran presupposed that this word was already well known to his audience.

Sadly, the author wants to deny what is obvious even to his own Muslim scholars and claim that the Quranic Gospel is some unidentified Gospel(s), as opposed to simply accepting the facts.

The author mentions that the Gospel doesn't mean New Testament within the New Testament itself. This again exposes the author's shallow reading of the New Testament. The expression, New Testament, refers to the New Covenant that God promised to make:

"'The time is coming,' declares the LORD, 'when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah. It will not be like the covenant I made with their forefathers when I took them by the hand to lead them out of Egypt, because they broke my covenant, though I was a husband to them,' declares the LORD. 'This is the covenant I will make with the house of Israel after that time,' declares the LORD. 'I will put my law in their minds and write it on their hearts. I will be their God, and they will be my people. No longer will a man teach his neighbor, or a man his brother, saying, "Know the LORD," because they will all know me, from the least of them to the greatest,' declares the LORD. 'For I will forgive their wickedness and will remember their sins no more.'" Jeremiah 31:31-34

Part of the reason why Christ came to the earth and die was to inaugurate this New Covenant:

"In the same way, after the supper he took the cup, saying, 'This cup is the new covenant in my blood, which is poured out for you.'" Luke 22:20

"But the ministry Jesus has received is as superior to theirs as the covenant of which he is mediator is superior to the old one, and it is founded on better promises. For if there had been nothing wrong with that first covenant, no place would have been sought for another. But God found fault with the people and said: 'The time is coming, declares the Lord, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah. It will not be like the covenant I made with their forefathers when I took them by the hand to lead them out of Egypt, because they did not remain faithful to my covenant, and I turned away from them, declares the Lord. This is the covenant I will make with the house of Israel after that time, declares the Lord. I will put my laws in their minds and write them on their hearts. I will be their God, and they will be my people. No longer will a man teach his neighbor, or a man his brother, saying, "Know the Lord," because they will all know me, from the least of them to the greatest. For I will forgive their wickedness and will remember their sins no more.' By calling this covenant 'new,' he has made the first one obsolete; and what is obsolete and aging will soon disappear." Hebrews 8:6-13

"When Christ came as high priest of the good things that are already here, he went through the greater and more perfect tabernacle that is not manmade, that is to say, not a part of this creation. He did not enter by means of the blood of goats and calves; but he entered the Most Holy Place once for all by his own blood, having obtained eternal redemption. The blood of goats and bulls and the ashes of a heifer sprinkled on those who are ceremonially unclean sanctify them so that they are outwardly clean. How much more, then, will the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered himself unblemished to God, cleanse our consciences from acts that lead to death, so that we may serve the living God! For this reason Christ is the mediator of a new covenant, that those who are called may receive the promised eternal inheritance–now that he has died as a ransom to set them free from the sins committed under the first covenant. In the case of a will, it is necessary to prove the death of the one who made it, because a will is in force only when somebody has died; it never takes effect while the one who made it is living. This is why even the first covenant was not put into effect without blood. When Moses had proclaimed every commandment of the law to all the people, he took the blood of calves, together with water, scarlet wool and branches of hyssop, and sprinkled the scroll and all the people. He said, 'This is the blood of the covenant, which God has commanded you to keep.' In the same way, he sprinkled with the blood both the tabernacle and everything used in its ceremonies. In fact, the law requires that nearly everything be cleansed with blood, and without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness. It was necessary, then, for the copies of the heavenly things to be purified with these sacrifices, but the heavenly things themselves with better sacrifices than these. For Christ did not enter a manmade sanctuary that was only a copy of the true one; he entered heaven itself, now to appear for us in God's presence. Nor did he enter heaven to offer himself again and again, the way the high priest enters the Most Holy Place every year with blood that is not his own. Then Christ would have had to suffer many times since the creation of the world. But now he has appeared once for all at the end of the ages to do away with sin by the sacrifice of himself. Just as man is destined to die once, and after that to face judgment, so Christ was sacrificed once to take away the sins of many people; and he will appear a second time, not to bear sin, but to bring salvation to those who are waiting for him." Hebrews 9:11-28

And since Christ's coming, death and resurrection is the Gospel, the Good News, this means that the New Covenant/Testament is included within (or is a part of) the very Gospel itself.

The author says that the New Testament doesn't refer to itself as a whole, as if this somehow proves anything. The problem with the author's argument is that this can be used against him with even greater force since the Quran doesn't refer to itself as a whole either. The author will not find a single statement telling him what the exact length of the Quran is, or that the Quran consists of only 114 surahs. The author is dependent on Islamic history, such as the hadiths, to know the exact contents of the Quran.

Similarly, the Hebrew Scripture doesn't refer to its entire contents as the Old Testament, or tell us the exact number of Books making up its canon. Yet this didn't stop the Lord Jesus or his followers from knowing or referring to the canon of the OT. They even presupposed that their audience knew the extent of the OT canon as well (cf. Matthew 5:17-18; 22:29; Luke 16:29, 31; 24:25-27, 44-45).

The NT doesn't have to mention all the Books which God gave to the Church, since the people of God would be guided to know and discover what Books make up the canon. For more on these issues, please read the following articles:

http://answering-islam.org/Responses/Saifullah/bravo6.htm
http://answering-islam.org/Responses/Saifullah/bravo7.htm
http://answering-islam.org/Responses/Saifullah/bravo_app.htm
http://answering-islam.org/Responses/Saifullah/bravo8.htm
http://answering-islam.org/Responses/Saifullah/bravo9.htm

But this is all irrelevant to the point at hand, which has to do with the Quran classifying as the Word of God those Books in the possession of the Jews and Christians during Muhammad's time. And as we have been constantly saying, these Books are the writings of the Holy Bible, both Old and New Testaments. What the author needs to do is spend less time criticizing the Holy Bible, and more time learning what the Quran really says about the Bible.

Lastly, his assertion that some of our points are irrelevant is not the case at all. Everything we wrote had relevance to the point, or points, raised by the author. It seems obvious (at least to us) that the author is just trying to avoid having to deal with the great bulk of our paper, since he seems to have realized that he can't refute the facts.

After that, Shamoun quotes a much larger section of my encyclopedic reference which speaks of errors being in the Koran. Encyclopedias are supposed to contain facts, and the quotation I offered was a fact, but unfortunately many encyclopedias also present opinions or interpretations as if they were facts, this being what the encyclopedic reference did at several points in the entry in question. I am interested only in facts, and not the author exegesis, which proves how poor it is anyway when it refers to only one or two passages from the Psalms being paralleled in the Koran, when as I established in my article on the Psalms on this site's Bible and Koran page, there are many, many more, adding up to a perfect distillation of the Psalms.

RESPONSE:

The author doesn't realize that his critique of the very encyclopedia he himself used proves our point again. We cited the entire context of that encyclopedia precisely because we knew that the author would call it into question. Yet by admitting that the encyclopedia is wrong on several points, he has basically affirmed our argument that the encyclopedia's statement that there were no Arabic versions of the Gospels or NT Books can be wrong as well.

Furthermore, unlike the claim that there were no Arabic versions of the NT Books, the encyclopedia's statements that Muhammad borrowed from apocryphal fables and talmudic stories, or that there are errors in the Quran, are based on facts, not on mere opinion, just as the following links prove:

http://answering-islam.org/Quran/Sources/index.html
http://answering-islam.org/Quran/Contra/index.html

The author continues:

Shamoun goes on to say that just because there is no evidence for the Bible having been translated into Arabic at the time doesn't mean that it wasn't, and speaks of it being a possibility--which I never denied or contradicted, but the rational and universal practice is to disbelieve in something for which there's no substantial evidence until substantial evidence emerges. Shamoun adds that there was no need for the Bible to have been translated into Arabic for Muhammad (on whom be peace) to have been learned in it, which is true, but all traditions of him speak of him being illiterate and none speak of him being bilingual. This leaves only the possibility of someone translating it to him--which was unlikely due to the extremely low literacy rate and which there is no substantial evidence for anyway. So as you can see, even though my point is not absolute proof and never said it was, it remains intact, regardless of Shamoun's confidence that he had shattered it.

RESPONSE:

The author has completely ignored the very hadith citations which mention Zaid ibn Thabit learning Syriac in order to know what were in the Books of the Jews. He also ignores the scores of passages that mention Muslims who were reading the previous Scriptures, i.e. Umar reading the Torah, and fails to mention the fact that there were converts to Islam, such as Salman the Persian, who knew the biblical Books and could have conveyed their knowledge to Muhammad. Basically, the author is showing that he hasn't even carefully read the rebuttal which he claims to be responding to, and decided to simply piece together a short paper in order to give his readers the impression that he is actually addressing the issues.

After some allegations about the Koran which Shamoun admits is off topic (and would have to be responded to in an article of its own), Shamoun refers to a hadith speaking of Waraqa translating the Gospel in Arabic before the advent of Islam. Ahadith are fallible, and as I have shown and will establish even further in this paper, the Gospel is a single, separate book and not any part of the Bible. As such, there is no mess for me to sort out, regardless of what Shamoun erroneously thinks.

RESPONSE:

Notice the inconsistency here. In the previous paragraph, the author appealed to these same fallible hadiths to show that Muhammad was illiterate, and yet he now calls into question the reliability of these same narrations when they don't serve his purpose or when they throw a monkey wrench in his agenda. First off, how does he know that the narrations which speak of Waraqa are any less reliable, when they are well-attested throughout the hadith and sira literature, than those traditions which speak of Muhammad's illiteracy? What criteria is he using to determine what is or is not authentic material? The Quran? Not possible, since there are no explicit references to Muhammad's illiteracy within the Quran, whereas the Quran does uphold the authenticity and availability of the previous Scriptures. (For a response to the passages of the Quran which Muslims often use to prove Muhammad was illiterate, we recommend the following papers: www.quran.org/ap28.htm; www.quran.org/gatut.html; www.mostmerciful.com/ummi.htm.)

More importantly, the hadith's (in)fallibility is irrelevant to the issue, since these traditions may in fact be forgeries (which would then call into question the entire corpus, thereby robbing the Quran of any historical background information). This still doesn't undermine the point that the Muslims who wrote them believed that they had access to the genuine Gospel(s), and even knew of Arabic versions of the Gospel. Their familiarity with the Gospel material may have led them to forge hadiths stating that Muhammad and his contemporaries also had access to these Christian sources. And yet the only Gospel sources these Muslims would have access to are those found in the possession of the Christians, specifically the NT Gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John.

Finally, Shamoun's long-winded article gets to the second of my six points, and after making a few unsupported claims which are circular from a Christian viewpoint, he points out the slander of Jesus (on whom be peace) in the apocryphal Gospel I mentioned and how late it was written--as if pointing out one parallel in that book is tantamount to endorsing the whole thing! Fact and legend were dispersed throughout the apocryphal Gospels (some statements or stories in them paralleling the four Gospels, for example, and some not, in the same Gospel). Since the apocryphal Gospel in question (The Infancy of Thomas) was written 100-200 years after the time of Jesus (on whom be peace), it would only stand to reason that the book would be soaked with legend and only a couple of actual facts would remain in it. And what do you know! The Koran, written in a time of oral tradition when people had a very historically ignorant standpoint, has only a couple of parallels with the book! Would that not be expected in a book that tells the truth about everything? And how would Muhammad (on whom be peace) from this historically ignorant standpoint have known if he were not a true prophet? It is only a minor piece of evidence for the Koran's authenticity and there are much more substantial reasons for believing in the Koran, but evidence it is all the same. Shamoun asks me if I am implying that The Infancy of Thomas was the Gospel that the Koran speaks of. The answer is, Obviously not. And it is very irrational (especially in light of the things I pointed out above) to think that a book which confirms one Gospel cannot have two parallels in another Gospel.

RESPONSE:

Talk about circular argumentation! The author assumes that those portions of the Apocrypha which the Quran quotes are historically authentic. And how does he know this? Well, because the Quran quotes them, that's how! The truth is that this is just one more reason why the Quran cannot be divinely inspired truth. The Quran, by quoting these ahistorical anecdotes, disqualifies itself from being God's word. The author of the Quran reported fables and myths as facts, not realizing how this would serve to discredit the Muslim scripture.

The reason why Christians reject these miracle stories is not solely because they were written so late. These stories contradict the earliest Gospel narrations, accounts written in the first century even by liberal dating. For instance, John's Gospel, which even liberal-critical scholarship places within the last decade of the first century (90-100 AD.), mentions when Jesus performed his first miracle:

"On the third day a wedding took place at Cana in Galilee. Jesus' mother was there, and Jesus and his disciples had also been invited to the wedding. When the wine was gone, Jesus' mother said to him, 'They have no more wine.' 'Dear woman, why do you involve me?' Jesus replied, 'My time has not yet come.' His mother said to the servants, 'Do whatever he tells you.' Nearby stood six stone water jars, the kind used by the Jews for ceremonial washing, each holding from twenty to thirty gallons. Jesus said to the servants, 'Fill the jars with water'; so they filled them to the brim. Then he told them, 'Now draw some out and take it to the master of the banquet.' They did so, and the master of the banquet tasted the water that had been turned into wine. He did not realize where it had come from, though the servants who had drawn the water knew. Then he called the bridegroom aside and said, 'Everyone brings out the choice wine first and then the cheaper wine after the guests have had too much to drink; but you have saved the best till now.' This, THE FIRST OF HIS MIRACULOUS SIGNS, Jesus performed in Cana of Galilee. He thus revealed his glory, and his disciples put their faith in him." John 2:1-11

Since a first-century document containing eyewitness information emphatically says that Jesus' first miracle occurred during the time he began his public ministry, then those apocryphal stories suggesting that he did miracles when he was a child are wrong. They are nothing more than legendary embellishments written by some overzealous Christians trying to fill Jesus' childhood and adolescent years with the miraculous.

As for my next points, Shamoun tries to prove that the Law and the Gospel spoken of in one passage in Romans (the only place in the entire Bible where the two are mentioned together) does indeed refer to a tangible scripture in the case of the law. First, he cites a passage from Romans which is not of that part where the Law and the Gospel are mentioned together, the bottom line of the passage being, Then those who are physically uncircumcised but keep the law will condemn you WHO HAVE THE WRITTEN CODE and circumcision but break the law." (Romans 2:13-27) Does that look to you, dear reader, like it's automatically using the terms law and written code synonymously because they're in the same sentence? Could it not be that the written code (which the passage does not actually call the Law is separate from the abstract Law that is written on people's hearts, and this is why two, different terms are used? Even if this is not the case, the passage says the written code, not the Old Testament, and the translation the Law is, of course, the Torah. Next, Shamoun quotes another Pauline passage outside of that critical passage in Romans which speaks of the Old Testament and doesn't call it the Law or even contain the word Law.

Then Shamoun contradicts himself about the Gospel meaning the Good News by claiming that it is indeed a tangible scripture. Very strangely, he follows this with more quotes from the Bible in which the term blatantly means Good News. (Just read them and replace Gospel with Good News and see for yourself.) After making some appeals to Islamic authority (as if I had to agree with anything any of my brothers or sisters say), Shamoun tries to establish by appealing to the Bible that the Gospel was a part of the Old Testament as well as the New Testament. I plan to start a new page on this site about that, especially if I can relocate the site (there are still a couple of things to work through before/if I can do it), and in any case the word Gospel nowhere is more clearly meant to mean Good News than in this case.

RESPONSE:

Anyone reading the context of Romans will see that the Law and written code are used synonymously to refer to the Hebrew Scriptures, or more specifically to God's moral code revealed in the OT text, i.e. the Law of Moses. We even presented the very next chapter, which continues the same theme of chapter 2, to show that Paul was using Law to refer to the Hebrews Scriptures in general, and to the Law of Moses specifically.

Out of sheer desperation, the author claims that I contradicted myself since I said that Good News refers to tangible Scriptures. We are going to make it very easy for the author to prove that I contradicted myself by posting the two contradictory statements side by side. The only way I could have contradicted myself is if I denied that Good News could refer to the written transmission of the Gospel, something I never said. What I said was that the Gospel/Good News refers to BOTH the oral and written transmission of the revelation of the Lord Jesus.

We will now do as the author suggests and replace the word Gospel with Good News to see if this somehow supports the author's claims:

"After John was put in prison, Jesus went into Galilee, proclaiming the GOOD NEWS of God. 'The time has come,' he said. 'The kingdom of God is near. Repent and believe the good news!'" Mark 1:14-15

"I am not ashamed of the GOOD NEWS, because it is the power of God for the salvation of everyone who believes: first for the Jew, then for the Gentile. For in the GOOD NEWS a righteousness from God is revealed, a righteousness that is by faith from first to last, just as it is written: 'The righteous will live by faith.'" Romans 1:16-17

"But we ought always to thank God for you, brothers loved by the Lord, because from the beginning God chose you to be saved through the sanctifying work of the Spirit and through belief in the truth. He called you to this through our GOOD NEWS, that you might share in the glory of our Lord Jesus Christ. So then, brothers, stand firm and hold to the teachings we passed on to you, whether by word of mouth or by letter." 2 Thessalonians 2:13-15

In what way does translating Gospel as Good News (its literal meaning) support the author's position is simply beyond us!

We’ll be awaiting the author’s newest article. We are always ready to learn something new, and acknowledge where we find truth, but if he is going to merely repeat the old Muslim propaganda rearranged in a new way, a rebuttal will follow suit.

Regarding the fifth of my sixth points, Shamoun makes an irrational logical connection based on dogma alone, proving nothing whatsoever: 'As we stated above, if the New Testament is the inscripturation of the revelation of the Lord Jesus Christ given to his Church, the inspired record of the Gospel God gave to the true believers, then the New Testament can be rightly called the Gospel.' Then after some more appeals to authority outside the Muslim scriptures, Shamoun speaks of the Koran's endorsement of the Torah, the Gospel, and all of the inspired scriptures aside, but there is no reason why the other two scriptures that the Koran mentioned (the scroll of the blessed Abraham and the Davidic Psalms) should not be, along with the Torah and the true Gospel, the entirety of the inspired scriptures, especially since the Koran does not identify any other previous scriptures as being inspired. The same goes for Shamoun's following comments about the Books and the scriptures. Finally, Shamoun refers to a hadith which says, Do these Jews and Christians not RECITE THE TORAH AND THE BIBLE but not act according to WHAT IS CONTAINED IN THEM? What is the point here? How does this prove or even indicate that the Law is the Old Testament and the Gospel the New Testament? It is referring to what Christians believe, not what Muslims are told to believe.

RESPONSE:

The author totally ignored the fact that a) the Quran specifically says that there were many messengers which it does not mention, and b) that Islamic sources claim that messengers are given Books to pass on to their communities. We, therefore, have every good reason to believe that the Quran acknowledges the existence of many other inspired Books which are not explicitly mentioned within it.

The author, for some strange reason, assumes that the Quran confirms only the Davidic Psalms, whereas the Quran nowhere says that only those Psalms given to David are genuine. The Quran agrees that God revealed many Psalms to different messengers besides David. Keep in mind that in Arabic Psalm is Zabur and Psalms is Zubur:

But if they cry lies to thee, lies were cried to Messengers before thee, who came bearing clear signs, and the Psalms (wa al-Zuburi), and the Book Illuminating. S. 3:184

We sent not any before thee, except men to whom We revealed: 'Question the people of the Remembrance, if it should be that you do not know -- with the clear signs, and the Psalms (wa al-Zuburi); and We have sent down to thee the Remembrance that thou mayest make clear to mankind what was sent down to them; and so haply they will reflect. S. 16:43-44

Without doubt it is (announced) IN the revealed Psalms of former peoples (Zubu-ril-'awwaliin). S. 26:196 [our rendering]

If they cry thee lies, those before them also cried lies; their Messengers came to them with the clear signs, the Psalms (al-Zuburi), the Illuminating Book; S. 35:25

Are your Unbelievers, (O Quraish), better than they? Or have ye an immunity IN the Sacred Psalms (al-Zuburi)? S. 54:43 [our rendering]

These passages refer to Messengers coming with Psalms, presupposing that David wasn't the only person whom God gave Psalms. Again, these verses add further evidence to our position that the Quran confirms many more Books than those which it mentions specifically by name.

To answer the author's question, the hadith which mentions the recitation of the Torah and the Bible demonstrates that Muhammad had no qualms affirming those Books which his contemporaries had within their possession as true. The citation, therefore, provides additional evidence that the Torah and the Bible which the Jews and Christians were reciting at that time must be the writings of the Old and New Testaments respectively, demonstrating once again that author is grossly in error.

The author next mentions:

After more on the alleged Old Testament prophecies of the Resurrection and Atonement (both off topic and soon enough to be written about by me in separate articles), Shamoun quotes the Koran in saying that Jesus (on whom be peace) was spoken of in the Law, and this fits very well with what we Muslims tend to believe about Deuteronomy 18, as such Jesus (on whom be peace) being spoken of in The Torah, the Hebrew word for Law. After another hadith reference about the two Books, a subject I've already addressed, Shamoun quotes another hadith and makes an argument from silence about it (I am with those who think that the Argument from Silence should be considered and official logical fallacy), which is irrelevant even if it's true since the Koran, the scripture that we do believe is infallible whereas the ahadith are not, specifically speaks of the textual corruption of the Jewish scriptures, as I have proven above. In light of this, the next hadith Shamoun quotes is also futile. He asks if there is documentary evidence of the corruption of the Bible. While there is not, the Bible itself proves that about itself, as I showed in my FAQ, which apparently Shamoun has not read. Besides, even if this were not the case, is there anything wrong with our believing something just because the Koran says i'ts true, since we believe that it's infallible? Aren't there many things in the Bible which Shamoun believes even though there is no documentary evidence for them?

And:

Finally, when discussing the sixth and final point of my article that he's responding to, Shamoun makes a plausible point. It does indeed look like I contradicted myself about the Law being a somewhat ambiguous phrase, because I carelessly did not mention (my fault!) that I was referring to the Bible's usage of the term and not the Koran's. The Bible speaks of God's law being written on our hearts, and then there are specific laws which are set down in the Law of Moses (on whom be peace). But you can drop this sixth point if you wish, since it offers only a possibility and not a likelihood or certainty the way that the others do. Shamoun goes on to say that a Christian can prove that Muhammad (on whom be peace) was not a genuine prophet, since according to Shamoun, he failed the Bible's tests for prophethood. This statement essentially boils down to, The Bible says it's true, and that is proof that it's true. Well, I'm sorry, Mr. Shamoun, but it doesn't work that way. The reasoning is circular and we Muslims could, after all, say similar things about the Koran, but we wouldn't be proving anything either.

RESPONSE:

We realize why the author needs to constantly misrepresent the points made in our response, and is reduced to simply attacking straw men. His rebuttal has shown that he can't refute the facts marshaled against him. Here, he badly distorts my argument by accusing me of circular reasoning. I do not simply reject Muhammad on the basis that I assume the Bible is true, and since Muhammad contradicts the Bible he is therefore a false prophet. Rather, I take Muhammad's own words at face value and judge him according to the very revelation which he himself pointed to:

We have revealed to thee as We revealed to Noah, and the Prophets after him, and We revealed to Abraham, Ishmael, Isaac, Jacob, and the Tribes, Jesus and Job, Jonah and Aaron and Solomon, and We gave to David Psalms, S. 4:163

Those are they to whom We gave the Book, the Judgment, the Prophethood; so if these disbelieve in it, We have already entrusted it to a people who do not disbelieve in it. Those are they whom God has guided; so follow their guidance. Say: 'I ask of you no wage for it; it is but a reminder unto all beings.' S. 6:89-90

Narrated Mujahid:
That he asked Ibn 'Abbas, "Is there a prostration in Surat-al-Sad?" (38.24) Ibn 'Abbas said, "Yes," and then recited: "We gave ... So follow their guidance." (6.85, 90) Then he said, "He (David) is one them (i.e. those prophets)." Mujahid narrated: I asked Ibn 'Abbas (regarding the above Verse). He said, "Your Prophet (Muhammad) was one of those who were ordered to follow them." (Sahih Al-Bukhari, Volume 6, Book 60, Number 156)

And if thou (Muhammad) art in doubt concerning that which We reveal unto thee, then question those who read the Scripture (that was) before thee. Verily the Truth from thy Lord hath come unto thee. So be not thou of the waverers. And be not thou of those who deny the revelations of Allah, for then wert thou of the losers. S. 10:94-95 Pickthall

Muhammad claimed to be inspired like the true prophets of the Bible, and clearly said to consult the Bible if a person were in doubt about his message. Muhammad further claimed that he was predicted in the previous Scriptures (cf. surah 7:157).

This again presumes that the Bible is the standard to judge whether Muhammad is true or not.

Therefore, since Muhammad himself told others to use the Bible as the criterion and since he contradicts the Bible, Muhammad is a false prophet. And to answer the author's question, yes, it is a problem for Muslims to believe that the Quran is infallible since it contradicts those Scriptures which it testifies are infallible!

Furthermore, we need to remind the author the reason why we mentioned the OT prophecies of the Lord Jesus since he seemingly didn't understand our purpose. We were trying to prove that the Gospel wasn't simply transmitted orally, but was already inscripturated in the OT Scriptures even before the coming of the Lord Jesus.

And we do appreciate the author acknowledging his error regarding the meaning of the word Law, but even here he is not completely forthcoming. It isn't just the Bible which uses the word Law in a broader sense, Islamic sources also use it in a similar way. See our paper for the details.

At long last, the article ends, and on another irrelevant tangent, this time a rebuttal to the mere possibility I mentioned that the Gospel which the Koran refers to is the long lost Gospel of the Nazarenes. The Nazarenes, as he said, believed that Jesus (on whom be peace) was the one and only son of God. So what? As I establish in article after article on this site's Trinity page, Christians nowadays believe in this doctrine despite a true lack of basis for it in their Gospels. Why could the Nazarenes not have done the same? But more importantly, so what if the Gospel of the Nazarenes isn't the Koran's Gospel? It was just a possibility I mentioned, an idea I threw out, food for thought.

RESPONSE:

Here are some relevant quotes from the Gospel of the Nazerenes, as found in the writings of the Church Fathers:

To these (citations in which Matthew follows not the Septuagint but the Hebrew original text) belong the two: "Out of Egypt have I called my son" and "For he shall be called a Nazaraean." (Jerome, De viris inlustribus 3)

Behold, the mother of the Lord and his brethren said to him: John the Baptist baptizes unto the remission of sins, let us go and be baptized by him. But he said to them: Wherein have I sinned that I should go and be baptized by him? Unless what I have said is ignorance (a sin of ignorance). (Jerome, Adversus Pelagianos 3.2)

The Jewish Gospel has not "into the holy city" but "to Jerusalem." (Variant to Matthew 4:5 in the "Zion Gospel" Edition)

The phrase "without a cause" is lacking in some witnesses and in the Jewish Gospel. (Variant to Matthew 5:22, ibid.)

In the so-called Gospel according to the Hebrews instead of "essential to existence" I found "mahar," which means "of tomorrow, so that the sense is: "Our bread of tomorrow" - that is, of the future - "give us this day." (Jerome, Commentary on Matthew 1 [on Matthew 6:11])

The Jewish Gospel reads here as follows: "If ye be in my bosom and do not the will of my Father in heaven, I will cast you out of my bosom." (Variant to Matthew 7:5 - or better to Matthew 7:21-23 - in the "Zion Gospel" Edition)

The Jewish Gospel: (wise) more than serpents. (Variant to Matthew 10:16, ibid.)

The Jewish Gospel has: (the kingdom of heaven) is plundered. (Variant to Matthew 11:12, ibid.)

The Jewish Gospel has: I thank thee. (Variant to Matthew 11:25, ibid.)

In the Gospel which the Nazarenes and the Ebionites use, which we have recently translated out of Hebrew into Greek, and which is called by most people the authentic (Gospel) of Matthew, the man who had the withered hand is described as a mason who pleaded for help in the following words: "I was a mason and earned (my) livelihood with (my) hands; I beseech thee, Jesus, to restore me to my health that I may not with ignominy have to beg for my bread." (Jerome, Commentary on Matthew 2 [on Matthew 12:13])

The Jewish Gospel does not have: three d(ays and nights). (Variant to Matthew 12:40 in the "Zion Gospel" Edition)

The Jewish Gospel: corban is what you should obtain from us. (Variant to Matthew 15:5, ibid.)

What is marked with an asterisk (i.e., Matthew 16:2-3) is not found in other manuscripts, also it is not found in the Jewish Gospel. (Variant to Matthew 16:2-3, ibid.)

The Jewish Gospel: son of John. (Variant to Matthew 16:17, ibid.)

He (Jesus) said: If thy brother has sinned with a word and has made three reparations, receive him seven times in a day. Simon his disciple said to him: Seven times in a day? The Lord answered and said to him: Yea, I say unto thee, until seventy times seven times. For in the prophets also after they were anointed with the Holy Spirit, the word of sin (sinful discourse?) was found. (Jerome, Adversus Pelagianos 3.2)

The Jewish Gospel has after "seventy times seven times": For in the prophets also, after they were anointed with the Holy Spirit, the word of sin (sinful discourse?) was found. (Variant to Matthew 18:22 in the "Zion Gospel" Edition)

The other of the two rich men said to him: Master, what good thing must I do that I may live? He said to him: Man, fulfil the law and the prophets. He answered him: That have I done. He said to him: Go and sell all that thou possessest and distribute it among the poor, and then come and follow me. But the rich man then began to scratch his head and it (the saying) pleased him not. And the Lord said to him: How canst though say, I have fulfilled the law and the prophets? For it stands written in the law: Love thy neighbor as thyself; and behold, many of the brethren, sons of Abraham, are begrimed with dirt and die of hunger - and thy house is full of many good things and nothing at all comes forth from it to them! And he turned and said to Simon, his disciple, who was sitting by him: Simon, son of Jona, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of heaven. (Origen, Commentary on Matthew 15.14 [on Matthew 19:16-30])

In the Gospel which the Nazarenes use, instead of "son of Barachias" we have found written "son of Joiada." (Jerome, Commentary on Matthew 4 [on Matthew 23:35])

But since the Gospel (written) in Hebrew characters which has come into our hands enters the threat not against the man who had hid (the talent), but against him who had lived dissolutely - for he (the master) had three servants: one who squandered his master's substance with harlots and flute-girls, one who multiplied the gain, and one who hid the talent; and accordingly one was accepted (with joy), another merely rebuked, and another cast into prison - I wonder whether in Matthew the threat which is uttered after the word against the man who did nothing may not refer to him, but by epanalepsis to the first who had feasted and drunk with the drunken. (Eusebius, Theophania 22 [on Matthew 25:14-15])

The Jewish Gospel: And he denied and swore and damned himself. (Variant to Matthew 26:74 in the "Zion Gospel" Edition)

Barabbas. . . is interpreted in the so-called Gospel according to the Hebrews as "son of their teacher." (Jerome, Commentary on Matthew 4 [on Matthew 27:16])

But in the Gospel which is written in Hebrew characters we read not that the veil of the temple was rent, but that the lintel of the temple of wondrous size collapsed. (Jerome, Epistula ad Hedybiam 120.8)

The Jewish Gospel: And he delivered to them armed men that they might sit over against the cave and guard it day and night. (Variant to Matthew 27:65 in the "Zion Gospel" Edition)

He (Christ) himself taught the reason for the separations of souls that take place in houses, as we have found somewhere in the Gospel that is spread abroad among the Jews in the Hebrew tongue, in which it is said: "I choose for myself the most worthy: the most worthy are those whom my Father in heaven has given me." (Eusebius, Theophania 4.12 [on Matthew 10:34-36])

(Source)

And:

To Matt. 3:16-17 cf. Gospel according to the Hebrews, (in Jerome, Commentary on Isaiah 11:2)--When the Lord ascended from the water, the whole fount of the Holy Spirit descended and rested upon him, and said to him, "My son, in all the prophets I was waiting for you, that you might come, and that I might rest in you. For you are my rest; and you are my firstborn son, who reigns forever." ...

(Origen, Commentary on John 2.12.87 [on John 1:3]):

And if any accept the Gospel of the Hebrews -- here the Savior says: Even so did my mother, the Holy Spirit, take me by one of my hairs and carry me away on to the great mountain Tabor...

Luke 24:50-53 cf. Gospel according to the Hebrews (in Jerome, On Illustrious Men, 2)--Also the gospel called according to the Hebrews, recently translated by me into Greek and Latin, which Origen often uses, says, after the resurrection of the Savior: "Now the Lord, when he had given the linen cloth to the servant of the priest, went to James and appeared to him (for James had sworn that he would not eat bread from that hour in which he had drunk the Lord's cup until he should see him risen from among them that sleep)." And a little further on the Lord says, "Bring a table and bread." And immediately it is added, "He took bread and blessed and broke and gave it to James the Just and said to him, "My brother, eat your bread, for the Son of man is risen from among them that sleep.'" ...

(Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History, Book III, Chapter XXV) in compiling the "canon":

But there are also some who number among these [genuine books], the gospel according to the Hebrews, with which those of the Hebrews that have received Christ are particularly delighted. These may be said to be all concerning which there is any dispute...

(Cyril of Jerusalem, Discourse on Mary Theotokos 12a):

It is written in the Gospel of the Hebrews: When Christ wished to come upon the earth to men, the good Father summoned a mighty power in Heaven, which was called Michael, and entrusted Christ to the care thereof. And the power came into the world and it was called Mary, and Christ was in her womb seven months. (Source)

These quotations present a very strong case for the Gospel of the Nazarenes being a Hebrew version of Matthew. Thus, if this is what the Quran confirms as the Gospel, then this again establishes our point that the Quran does confirm the canonical Gospels, or at least Matthew's Gospel. But this leaves the author in the very predicament which we had mentioned in our first response, and which he has tried so desperately to avoid. The Gospel of the Nazerenes is anything but Islamic, and their Gospel's portrait of Jesus is contrary to the Muslim one, which means that the Quran is wrong.

For more on this subject, please consult the following excellent articles:

http://christian-thinktank.com/qnazonly.html

And, as we have established in paper after paper, and rebuttal after rebuttal, the Holy Bible, especially the Gospels, establish the basis for the doctrine of the Trinity beyond any reasonable doubt:

http://answering-islam.org/Who/index.html
http://answering-islam.org/Trinity/index.html
http://answering-islam.org/Shamoun/biblicaljesus.htm
http://answering-islam.org/Shamoun/worship.htm
http://answering-islam.org/Shamoun/jesus_is_yahweh.htm
http://answering-islam.org/Shamoun/john10_34-36.htm
http://answering-islam.org/Shamoun/12anti-trinitarian.htm
http://answering-islam.org/Responses/Shabir-Ally/omnipotent.htm
http://answering-islam.org/Responses/Shabir-Ally/paul_on_jesus.htm
http://answering-islam.org/Responses/Shabir-Ally/acts.htm
http://answering-islam.org/Responses/Shabir-Ally/inseparable1.htm
http://answering-islam.org/Responses/Shabir-Ally/fourthgospel.htm
http://answering-islam.org/Responses/Shabir-Ally/gladlyrespond.htm
http://answering-islam.org/Responses/Shabir-Ally/jesusonjesus.htm
http://answering-islam.org/Responses/Shabir-Ally/misunderstood.htm
http://answering-islam.org/Responses/Menj/tam1.htm
http://answering-islam.org/Responses/Menj/divinity1.htm
http://answering-islam.org/Responses/Osama/forgivenness.htm
http://answering-islam.org/Responses/Osama/mantras.htm
http://answering-islam.org/Responses/Osama/jeremiah23.htm
http://answering-islam.org/Responses/Osama/jesus_yahweh1.htm

Here are some more of our responses found on other sites:

http://www.abrahamic-faith.com/Jehovah-Witness.html
http://abrahamic-faith.com/shamoun/Refuting%20Stafford%20and%20the%20JWs.html
http://abrahamic-faith.com/shamoun/Jesus-Mighty-God.html
http://abrahamic-faith.com/shamoun/Jesus%20as%20God%20refuting%20JWs.html
http://abrahamic-faith.com/Jesus_superior_to_angels.html
http://abrahamic-faith.com/shamoun/Refuting%20Stafford%20Jesus%20as%20creator.html
http://abrahamic-faith.com/shamoun/Refuting%20Heinz%20Job%209%20Part%201.html
http://abrahamic-faith.com/shamoun/Refuting%20Heinz%20Job%209%20-%20part%202.html
http://abrahamic-faith.com/shamoun/heinz-rebuttal.html

We have also proven that the dry, monadic deity created by Muslim theologians not only doesn't exist, but is not even found within the pages of the Quran itself:

http://answering-islam.org/Shamoun/gabriel.htm
http://answering-islam.org/Responses/Saifullah/t5_73.htm

The author concludes:

Finally, I am going to conclude with some more facts which I neglected to mention in my original article (my fault again). While Shamoun, as we have seen, does not have a molecule of actual evidence to offer for the Law and the Gospel being the Old and New Tesaments, I can prove that this is not the case. First, there is the point in my original article which Shamoun just skipped around, that there are miracles of Jesus (on whom be peace) being spoken of in the Koran which were not in the New Testament but instead in a book outside of it which was never part of the Bible, so if the Koran considers the New Testament infallible, the miracles it mentions should stand on their own and it would be downright bizarre to have other miracles from an apocryphal Gospel. But that is merely evidence; the proof comes when you add it to the points I'm about to make (which, in fact, can stand on their own as well). First, the Koran quotes al-Injeel (the Gospel) at one point, and this quote is nowhere to be found in the New Testament, so obviously neither the New Testament as a whole nor any of its Gospels, together or apart, are the Gospel which the Koran claims to confirm. Second, the Koran repeatedly speaks of al-Taurat (the Law, the Torah) as being revealed to the blessed Moses and never to anyone else, indicating that it could only be the Pentateuch. This is further confirmed by the enormous amount of parallels between the Koran and the Pentateuch.

I'll leave it to you, dear reader, to decide just who has shattered whose arguments, and I have total confidence that anyone reading with an open mind and even a modicum of intelligence will see that it is me.

RESPONSE:

The readers can see for themselves that we did address all of the author's points, and it is he who has chosen to skip around the great bulk of our arguments. We explained why the apocryphal stories of Jesus' miracles being reported in the Quran actually backfire against the author and against Muhammad's prophetic claims. The Muslim author is operating under the assumption that the Quran is authored by God, and because of this erroneous assumption, further presumes that these miracle stories are genuine historical events. What these stories actually demonstrate is that the author of the Quran didn't realize that he was quoting myths and fables, and simply lumped all these events together thinking that they were actual events in the life of Jesus. And yet by including such fairytales, the compiler ended up providing strong evidence that God could not have authored such a book.

The Muslim author again shows that he is confused and is clearly contradicting himself since he seems to again be saying that the Gospel is not something which Jesus simply preached, but also includes his biography, i.e. includes material regarding his childhood, adolescence, adult life etc. As we showed in our first response, the author said that the Gospel is something which Jesus preached and said in another place that it is a Book which Christ received. So which is it? Is the Gospel the Book and message that Jesus passed on, or does it refer to the life, deeds and teachings of the Lord Jesus which was compiled by authors after Christ's ascension? If the latter, then this again supports that the canonical Gospels are THE Gospel of Jesus Christ since they were written by eyewitnesses, unlike the apocryphal Gospels. Or is the author assuming that Jesus, from his birth, was given a Gospel which detailed in advance his entire life story and mission? For instance, the Quran states:

'Lord,' said Mary, 'how shall I have a son seeing no mortal has touched me?' 'Even so,' God said, God creates what He will. When He decrees a thing He does but say to it "Be," and it is. And He will teach him the Book, the Wisdom, the Torah, the Gospel, to be a Messenger to the Children of Israel saying, "I have come to you with a sign from your Lord. I will create for you out of clay as the likeness of a bird; then I will breathe into it, and it will be a bird, by the leave of God. I will also heal the blind and the leper, and bring to life the dead, by the leave of God. S. 3:47-48

and when I taught thee the Book, the Wisdom, the Torah, the Gospel; and when thou createst out of clay, by My leave, as the likeness of a bird, and thou breathest into it, and it is a bird, by My leave; and thou healest the blind and the leper by My leave, and thou bringest the dead forth by My leave; and when restrained from thee the Children of Israel when thou camest unto them with the clear signs, and the unbelievers among them said, "This is nothing but sorcery manifest." S. 5:110

Allah is announcing to Mary even before Jesus is born, and also to Jesus himself, that he will teach Christ the Gospel, which presupposes that the Gospel is a set of teachings that Jesus will pass on. Now if the Gospel also includes anecdotal material on Jesus' life then this means that Allah already taught Christ everything that would happen to him in advance which Jesus then passed on to his followers! If the author does not believe that the Gospel of Jesus includes such anecdotes, then how does an apocryphal story found within the Quran refute the assertion that the Muslim scripture confirms the Canonical Gospels?

If anything, this serves as another example that the Quran is mistaken. The Quranic compiler assumed that the Gospel, much like the Torah and Quran, was a set of teachings given to Jesus when in reality the Gospel centers on the entire Christ event, i.e. that the Good News is the entire life, teachings, deeds, death and resurrection of the Lord Jesus, as well as the revelation he gave to his followers after his ascension into heaven. And yet by referring to the Gospel that was in the possession of the Christians during Muhammad's day, the Quran's author ends up affirming the validity and authenticity of the Canonical Gospels! The author of the Quran was clearly confused.

Furthermore, the author again assumes that since the Quran quotes a passage not found in the New Testament, this therefore proves that it cannot be confirming the NT Books. On the contrary, all this proves is that the author of the Quran was confused since he confirmed the authority and inspiration of the NT Books but then quoted a passage not found in the New Testament.

Thirdly, the author claims that the Quran says that the Torah was given to Moses. The fact is that there is not a single verse which says that the Torah was given to Moses. The author, whether he realizes it or not, gets this information from the Holy Bible. In fact, there are quite a few Muslims who actually believe that the Torah mentioned in the Quran refers to the entire OT revelation:

*5:44 The Torah is a collection of all the scriptures revealed through all the prophets of Israel prior to Jesus Christ, i.e., today's Old Testament. Nowhere in the Quran do we find that the Torah was given to Moses. (Source)

The only way the author would have even known that Torah refers to the revelation given to Moses is by consulting the Holy Bible, which again shows that the Quran is presupposing the audience's familiarity with the Holy Bible. As we said, the word Torah in a strict sense refers to the Pentateuch (as the author himself noted), but is also used in a much broader sense for the entire Hebrew Scriptures.

Fourthly, it may be the case that the Quran contains an enormous amount of material from the Torah, yet much of that material is garbled up and contradictory to what is found in the Hebrew Scriptures. In fact, the Quran contains major contradictions with the laws given through Moses, i.e. dietary laws, sacrificial system of atonement, marital relations etc. (cf. [1], [2]). This, too, is an argument against the Quran.

To conclude, we too will leave it to the readers to see how the author failed to refute anything we had written. After this rebuttal, we are pretty certain that "anyone reading with an open mind and even a modicum of intelligence" can see for themselves that the author's confidence is totally misplaced, since he did anything BUT refute the facts marshalled against him. When the dust settles and it is all over, this truth remains; the Quran does confirm the entire Holy Bible as God's Word, and in so doing proves that it is not an inspired book and that Muhammad was a false prophet.

Addendum

In the first paragraph, the author mentioned my alleged hateful attitude. What the author calls a "hateful, disrespectful email dripping with vitriolic" was anything but. My emails were a response to his nasty, arrogance-filled attitude towards Christians in general, and to our website specifically. Notice the following peaceful, Islamic attitude of the author towards Christians and our site:

- - - ANTI-ISLAMIC LINKS - - -

http://answering-islam.org/

The most famous Christian site for making (pathetic, in my opinion) attempts at debunking Islam. (Source)

My brothers and sisters need to stop taking Answering Islam so seriously, in my opinion. They're a joke. Their arguments are hackneyed and pathetic. Their deceptions are appalling--worst of all being their cowardice to admit defeat with the issue of their laughable "100+ errors in the Koran". Rather than be brave and honest and admit that their list is thoroughly wanting and disproven six ways from Sunday, they suddenly pretend (only after having their blatant mistakes pointed out irrefutably by knowledgeable Muslims) that they weren't trying to show that the Koran necessarily has errors but that Christians and Muslims are in the same boat with the Koran and the Bible, and having the new articles be labeled "Qur'an Difficulty" while the old ones were labled "Qur'an Contradiction" and made it crystal clear what their motives were. Their conversion stories are ridiculous, even more uninteresting than they are uninspiring. I have exposed their nonsense over a number of issues on my website, chief among them being my articles refuting their articles on the Trinity and whether Islam promotes peace.

They're nothing. They're not a threat and they're not liable to convince any Muslim to become a Christian (although I suppose there may always be a couple who flock, no matter how bad the reasoning behind it). I shouldn't waste any more time on them on my website (and wouldn't have wasted any in the past had those articles of theirs not been so perfectly representative of the usual, similar articles made against Islam for the same reasons). And my brothers and sisters would do well not to waste even their thoughts on the site. There's really no point in complaining about something so harmless. After all, Christian evangelists and apologists are already known for their unethical and dishonest methods.

The really sad thing, however, is that Answering Islam, for all its faults, is one of the least bad pro-Christian and anti-Muslim sites I've seen (which just goes to show how good a case Christians can ever possibly make against our religion), and so I had to include it in the Anti-Islamic part of the "Links" section on my site's homepage. Sigh.

That's just my two cents; you go ahead and complain all you want. But I would advise you to remember what the Prophet (P) thought of indignation. (Source)

Answering-Islam is just a place on the net where all the laughable arguments against Islam and in favor of Christianity are gathered together--all of which I have disproven on my website, including their entire article on the Trinity, which is without question the least convincing and most easily refuted defense of the doctrine I have ever seen.

If you have any doubt whatsoever that their site is a joke, all you have to do is consider that their list of "over a hundred errors in the Qur'an" started off clearly and openly trying to establish that there genuinely and provably were errors in the book, and then after Understanding Islam, Answering Christianity, Randy Desmond and others deeply humiliated them time and again with debunking after debunking of these "errors" which any child can see are false claims, the Answering Islam team of course did not do the brave thing and admit that they were wrong and cannot find errors in the Book. Instead they added the intro called "The Purpose of This Page" which claimed that they were only pointing out possible errors so as to get Muslims to realize the triviliaty of their lists of biblical errors--all this ignoring that the original articles were unmistakably meant to establish irrefutable errors.

And as if out of a desire to prove their two-faced backpedaling, they stopped calling the articles "Qur'an Contradictions" (which often ended with the Koran's challenge to find a contradiction in it, obviously meant for ironic purposes and as an indication that they were seriously trying to show real errors) and started calling the new ones "Qur'an Difficulties". I cannot respect anyone who shifts their ground like that in the face of defeat. (Source)

I am shaking my head right now in sadness at what Christian dogma can do to a mind that is regularly capable of such rationality (as I'm sure yours is). If someone prays to God (especially the way he did--Gethsemane, for instance), that means that they are inferior to God and only mortals. God praying to God? Come on, man! This is just common sense. But then again, I guess I shouldn't blame you. Your dogma blinds you to what would otherwise obviously be so easy to understand and inarguable in your own mind. I've been trying for a year to get Christians to listen to common sense and it just never works.

I am shaking my head right now in sadness at what Christian dogma can do to a mind that is regularly capable of such rationality (as I'm sure yours is). If someone prays to God (especially the way he did--Gethsemane, for instance), that means that they are inferior to God and only mortals. God praying to God? Come on, man! This is just common sense. But then again, I guess I shouldn't blame you. Your dogma blinds you to what would otherwise obviously be so easy to understand and inarguable in your own mind. I've been trying for a year to get Christians to listen to common sense and it just never works... (Source)

If I were you, Ansar, I would just give up. Generally, getting a Christian to listen to reason about the Trinity is about as easy as defying gravity, and Joe has already made it clear how stubborn he is about maintaining this doctrine which would not even destroy his Christianity were to to stop believing in it. The way he kept singling out irrelevant details in my arguments, like my usage of a certain word, at the behest of paying any attention whatsoever to the actual points I was making, is a good example of this. I've seen Christians do it before in this settings: it's one of the more common defense mechanisms they'll use to avoid letting themselves understand the many lines of very elementary logic which destroy the Trinity doctrine. I may not even write any more articles on the Trinity, it's so obviously no use trying. In fact, if my experience in the matter has taught me the truth, it might actually be easier to get the average Trinitarian to give up their entire religion than the Trinity doctrine specifically. (Source)

I'll say this as often as I have to, if only out of a forlorn hope that if I point out common sense to someone enough times, eventually it might--juuuuuust might--sink in. The only foolish belief in these matters is the belief in the Trinity, because the doctrine is of one being in three persons, and "being" and "person", as I have proven in this thread, mean the same thing, so what the doctrine really means is the nonsensical statement "one being in three beings" or the equally nonsensical statement "one person in three persons". The distinction made with semantics here, as such, is just a false one, an illusion or deception. Christians usually defend the Trinity with analogies, but it's all in vain, because while there are any number of things in the world which are one unit which comes in three parts, there are not and by the definition of the words in question cannot be a being which comes in three beings or a person which comes in three persons (see above if you need your memory refreshed as to why this is irrefutably what the Trinity doctrine secretly claims).

To be who you are means not to be multiple people, and different entities are never one entity at the same time, because otherwise it would just be a matter of semantic confusion, or to be more specific, self-contradictory descriptive terms. Of course, God's omnipotence could allow Him to break the Law of Identity and make the impossible possible and as such become three entities in one, but the Trinity doctrine is supposed to be describing what God always was from the beginning, not something He's used his endless power to transform Himself into when He was originally something else. So no matter how you figure it, you're stuck. The Trinity doctrine just doesn't work and that's that. But of course, try to explain it to Christians and they will fail to understand the basic logic which refutes their doctrine (and not allow themselves to understand, for obvious reasons), or else do what JoeChristian did and zero in on irrelevant details like my use of a particular word while totally ignoring the actual point being made, or they'll throw textbook examples of logical fallacies at you, or on and on it goes...why do I even try? Why bother? What could I ever accomplish trying to reason with Christians about this doctrine that pretty much no one outside of Trinitarian Christianity has any trouble understanding the fatal flaws of? I guess I should just give up, here and now. I've tried, oh how I've tried, and go through the thread and just look at the results!

Sorry for the angry, personal tone, but every now and then you just have to rant. My frustrated rant is over now...

"Back when there was no time" is a nonsensical phrase. Do you see now how ludicrous is what you're saying? (Source)

Athanasian Creed, I am always willing to be open-minded about the contradictions I see in the Bible--for instance, I used to find it inarguable that the bloodlines of Matthew 1 and Luke 3 are contradictory, and laughed outright at the ridiculous rationalization that one bloodline was Mary's when both of them explicitly identify themselves as Joseph's, but then I saw a Christian evangelist point out how, if you compare the bloodlines to those of the Old Testament (I think maybe of 2 Chronicles), you find that (if the Bible is correct in the first place) Heli was Joseph's father-in-law whereas Jacob was Joseph's father by birth. (Even so, I find it a little strange that a bloodline should be traced through a father-in-law, but that something is strange does not make it contradictory.) (Source)

That's funny--you didn't seem to find it pointless a couple of your posts ago. In fact, it looks suspiciously to me like the conversation became pointless to you only after we destroyed your arguments. Does your own signature not say that every moment has the opportunity to be a perfect moment? Does not not apply to the future of this discussion?

EDIT: Forgive me if this is too provocative. I just like to express myself when I'm vexed, and I sometimes get too direct when doing so, but I think my points in this post must be made, so I'm not editing anything in the preceding paragraph. (Source)

In light of the foregoing, the author is in no moral position to be complaining about my very direct attitude towards his degrading, boastful insults against Christianity and Christians.

The Qur'an About the Bible
Articles by Sam Shamoun
Answering Islam Home Page