Tag Archives: nabeel qureishi

Advice for Nabeel, the Muslim & Christian Communities

Br. Abu Ayoub, Br. Aqil and myself have a solemn discussion on the news regarding Nabeel Qureishi’s cancer. We offer advice, help and prayers for everyone involved. One of the most prominent teachings in Islam focuses on mercy, and for this I reference the hadith of Rahma (mercy):

“The merciful are shown mercy by Ar-Rahman. Be merciful on the earth, and you will be shown mercy from Who is above the heavens.” – Tirmidhi.

and Allah knows best.

Nabeel Qureishi has Cancer

Earlier today, Nabeel Qureishi posted on Facebook that he had advanced stomach cancer. This is quite unfortunate news. To the Muslim community, I simply ask that you pray for his healing and guidance, he has an opportunity to come closer to the truth and we need to support him during this time.

To Nabeel,

I know that being diagnosed with an illness with a grim prognosis, turns your life upside down. It might take a few days, a few weeks, or in my case, a few years to come to understand what you’ve been diagnosed with and what treatment options you have. Whatever plans you had for the future are most certainly inconceivable now, and I know that the urgency and immediacy of all these changes to your life can be overwhelming and most certainly physiologically draining.

I know that you must be suffering from a great deal of pain and sickness. On an array of medications that turns daily life into one big blur, where you find yourself having to seclude yourself from a public lifestyle. The weight of this on your new family must be excruciating and seeing them suffer because you’re suffering must be mentally tortuous.

He knows, Nabeel. Trust in the plan of God. At one point in your life you had a transition that led you to live a drastically different lifestyle and to take a path you had never imagined. Sadly, you are now facing a much more difficult transition with a very uncertain end. Pray to God during this trying time and seek His rahma (mercy), seek His rizq (provision/ sustenance), and most importantly seek His salam (peace). You’ve been through a difficult and life changing transition before, with God all things are possible, so hold on tight to the rope of God, rely on Him, trust in His plan and seek Him with ikhlas (sincerity) through sabr (patience).

And whoever fears Allah – He will make for him a way out. And will provide for him from where he does not expect. And whoever relies upon Allah – then He is sufficient for him. Indeed, Allah will accomplish His purpose. Allah has already set for everything a [decreed] extent. – Qur’an 65:2-3.

Your Brother from Adam (peace be upon him),
Br. Ijaz Ahmad.

Note to Muslims: Try to lift Nabeel up during this time, don’t mock him as some have done with respect to the passing of Shaykh Deedat. Rise above the negativity and pray for his healing and guidance.

and Allah knows best.

Missionary Mishap: Sam Shamoun’s Cursing Rage

Tonight I find myself disappointed in the Christian inter-faith community. In my possession is an image of a comment on YouTube by Sam Shamoun. When we speak of good, moral people, we expect them to behave in a certain manner. It is strange to me, that people like Nabeel Qureishi and Jonathan McLatchie endorse and continue to promote Sam as not only a Christian teacher, but as a friend and someone to support. It says a lot about their characters that they consider a man who behaves in such a manner to be someone they endorse and support. That they hold this man on a pedestal, when he behaves and speaks like a thug. Curses more than a drunken sailor. I really need to ask if this is Christian behaviour, if this is the work of the Holy Spirit guiding Sam. It is absolutely a shame that people like Nabeel and Jonathan endorse Sam as someone to learn from and that they endorse his behaviour. We need to ask, where have Jonathan and Nabeel ever condemned Sam’s behaviour, rebuked him for unChristian-like speech, corrected him for his thuggish behaviour? The answer is nowhere, because to them, this is the example of a good Christian, that Sam is a good representation of what Christianity can do to a person. This, is sad.

Note: The image has been censored because of the extreme obscenities and vulgar language used. Curses to the Prophet (salallaahu ‘alayhi wa salam) have been censored, but the language has been left to bear witness of Sam’s character.


If clicking the image does not open it, click this link to see the Facebook post about it.

Yes, he was arguing with someone and they traded insults. However, as an adult, as a faith leader, he should know to behave in a manner befitting his Christian faith. Is Christ not the one who said to turn the other cheek? Or was he the one who said to behave in an uncouth and obscene manner? I do not hold Sam to be a representative of the Christian faith and I am concerned that people, especially the two mentioned above continue to hold him as such.

and God knows best.

Nabeel Qureishi Deemed Heretic by Christian Scholar

The former Qadiani, Nabeel Qureishi attempted to unceremoniously drag noted Christian scholar and theologian, Miroslav Volf into his response to the Wheaton College suspension of a Professor for promoting solidarity between Islam and Christianity.


Unfortunately for Nabeel, he earned the ire of Miroslav Volf, who deemed him a heretic for arguing that Jews worship a different God than that of Jesus’s. His argument is that according to the Bible, Jesus acknowledged that Jews worshiped ‘His Father’, despite denying his (Jesus’s) alleged divinity. As such, not only does this demonstrate Nabeel’s lack of education when it comes to his own theology, it indicates to the wider public that Nabeel is not serious about his faith and is clearly more interested in pandering to the lay-Christian audience that follows RZIM.

This is quite disappointing, but in some respect it is a sign that not only does Nabeel not understand Islam, despite trying to study Christianity, he still is unable to grasp its theological nuances to the extent according to one well noted Christian scholar, he holds heretical notions and beliefs.

and God knows best.

Fraud at Ravi Zachiarias International Ministries: Fake Qualifications Exposed

Ravi Zacharias of Ravi Zacharias International Ministries is being called upon by the public to respond to allegations of manufacturing his theological and academic qualifications. Touted as a “Dr” who is alleged to be a visiting scholar at Cambridge University, UK, Ravi Zacharias is facing claims of being a fraudster. Popular YouTuber FriendlyBanjo attempted to verify the academic qualifications of Mr. Zacharias and found them to be absolutely false. In a damning video, showing clear manipulation of academic credentials and falsifying biographical details, the inter-faith community is calling on Mr. Zacharias to tender his resignation, and return monies stolen under false pretenses. Mr. Zacharias is the founder of an international evangelical ministry which attempts to spread the “Gospel” worldwide, specifically targeting Atheists and Muslims. An acclaimed author and international speaker, Mr. Zacharias is now being labeled as an Ergun Caner 2.0, a complete and total fraudster who attempted to pass of honorary degrees as having been academically qualified.


Questions are now also being asked about monies collected under these false pretenses, which are said to have been used in the publication and promotion of the Qadiani Nabeel Qureishi’s latest publication, “Seeking Allah, Finding Jesus”. Written in a similar style to Ravi Zacharias’s biography, as well as funded and promoted by Ravi’s Ministry, many are now asking if Nabeel’s biography also contains similar embellishments as have now been indicated in his mentor’s manufactured biography. As pictured above, Nabeel closely works with Ravi and is featured heavily in RZIM’s Toronto tour on September 12th of this year. Many faithful believers assumed that Mr. Ravi’s theological and academic qualifications were accurate given his popularity in evangelical circles, today that assumption is causing many to regret donating thousands of dollars to a fraudster on par with internationally condemned Ergun Caner who also falsified academic and theological qualifications, as well as having been accused of manufacturing his biography in exchange for monies, academic positions and paid speaking engagements.

It remains to be seen whether or not these allegations will be clarified by Mr. Ravi Zacharias, or by those profiting from monies donated under false pretenses, such as Nabeel Qureishi. See the shocking video below:

and God knows best.

The Sun Sets on Nabeel Qureishi

Most people understand that language has depth. That language has devices that are used to convey ideas, thoughts and beliefs beyond a one dimensional literalistic paradigm. Most people are familiar with the sciences of exegesis and hermeneutics, which are often employed in helping us to understand scripture. Now, that is most people and not all people. One of those people who doesn’t understand these things is Nabeel Qureishi. For example, he recently posted this:



Now, see if he had read his Bible, even given it a cursory glance he’d come to realise that the phraseology of the Semitic people who wanted to describe a limit or boundary as given by the sea would often use the language of, “where the sun sets”. So for example, we read in the Qur’an 18:85-86:

He set out (westwards) on an expedition, Until, when he reached the setting of the sun, he found it [as if] setting in a spring of dark mud, and he found near it a people.

So, as these passages state, he set out on a journey through the land until he reached a limit where he found a people. What was used to describe this limit? The sea and the sun setting. This was a phrase used to describe the limit of one’s journey being bounded by some body of water be it a sea or an ocean, a lake etc. In Nabeel’s very Bible, such phraseology is used:

“From the wilderness and this Lebanon, even as far as the great river, the river Euphrates, all the land of the Hittites, and as far as the Great Sea toward the setting of the sun will be your territory.” – Joshua 1:4

“See, I have apportioned to you these nations which remain as an inheritance for your tribes, with all the nations which I have cut off, from the Jordan even to the Great Sea toward the setting of the sun.” – Joshua 23:4

Some translations don’t use a literal rendering of the words, they try to contextualize them. So in the NASB, NIV and other similar translations they try to translate a text according to its usage and not according to its literal meaning. The Qur’an in most cases uses a literal rendition of the Arabic. The literal rendition of the above Bible passages, uses the exact same terminology that the Qur’an does. We read from the ISV:

Your territorial border will extend from the wilderness to the Lebanon Mountains, to the river—that great River Euphrates—all the land of the Hittites—as far as the Mediterranean Sea where the sun sets.

In one instance, there had to be a citation note explaining why a portion of this passage was excluded from the main translation:

Now look, I have allocated these nations that remain as an inheritance for your tribes, including all of the nations that I have eliminated, from the Jordan River to the Mediterranean Sea to the west.[b]

b. Joshua 23:4 Lit. Sea that faces the setting sun

The reason that most Christians are unfamiliar with this phrase is because most English Bible translations, translate “the setting of the sun into the sea” or “the setting of the sun by the sea”, to “the west” or to “the Mediterranean Sea”. So when they see such a phrase in the Qur’an, they don’t make the connection between a descriptive term and its use in scripture by the language of the people at that time. This is what happened in the case of Nabeel. He is not familiar with the language of the Bible, nor with the language of the Qur’an.

To aid Nabeel, I’ve used a popular language device in the title of this post. “The Sun Sets on Nabeel Qureishi,” is an oft used language device. Given that Nabeel seems to read things literally, I wanted to point out to him that not everything can or should be read literally. Here’s some examples of language devices being used in sentences and they aren’t meant to be understood literally:

  • I want to address the elephant in the room.
  • The rolling hills of the countryside.
  • It’s raining cats and dogs.
  • The sun set on Jim’s career.

So, Nabeel, I’m addressing you, the guy in this picture:


“The Sun Sets on Nabeel Qureishi,” does not mean that I think the sun is literally falling on top of you. It does not mean that I want the sun to harm you. It does not mean that I think the sun goes up or down. It quite simply, does not mean anything literally. In modern English, the sun setting for someone can have varying meanings. It can mean they’re shining less brightly as a person, and just so I don’t confuse you, by shining brightly I mean they are not performing according to expected standards of normalcy. In some cases it also means the person is dim (again not literally, but in terms of wit, see: dimwitted), or in decline (again not literally in decline, like as if they’re sitting or stooping, I mean performance or career wise) in some way.

I hope you’ve learned something very valuable today. You can swap a t-shirt for a suit, but it doesn’t make you any smarter. As for his claim on Qur’an 86:7, I didn’t want to confuse him any further than he already is, but for everyone else here’s an excellent article explaining the basic Arabic usage of the terms in the passage.

and God knows best.

Nabeel Qureishi on Tawhid

Nabeel of RZIM and I had a discussion on Twitter about one of his claims during his debate with Dr. Shabir that the word “tawheed/ tawhid” was not found in the hadith corpus. I pointed him to this (source – Saheeh hadith):

دَّثَنَا هَنَّادٌ، حَدَّثَنَا أَبُو مُعَاوِيَةَ، عَنِ الأَعْمَشِ، عَنْ أَبِي سُفْيَانَ، عَنْ جَابِرٍ، قَالَ قَالَ رَسُولُ اللَّهِ صلى الله عليه وسلم ‏ “‏ يُعَذَّبُ نَاسٌ مِنْ أَهْلِ التَّوْحِيدِ فِي النَّارِ حَتَّى يَكُونُوا فِيهَا حُمَمًا ثُمَّ تُدْرِكُهُمُ الرَّحْمَةُ فَيُخْرَجُونَ وَيُطْرَحُونَ عَلَى أَبْوَابِ الْجَنَّةِ ‏.‏ قَالَ فَيَرُشُّ عَلَيْهِمْ أَهْلُ الْجَنَّةِ الْمَاءَ فَيَنْبُتُونَ كَمَا يَنْبُتُ الْغُثَاءُ فِي حِمَالَةِ السَّيْلِ ثُمَّ يَدْخُلُونَ الْجَنَّةَ ‏”‏ ‏.‏ قَالَ هَذَا حَدِيثٌ حَسَنٌ صَحِيحٌ وَقَدْ رُوِيَ مِنْ غَيْرِ وَجْهٍ عَنْ جَابِرٍ ‏.‏

Jabir narrated that the Messenger of Allah (s.a.w) said:

“Some of the people of Tawhid will be punished in the Fire until they are coals. Then the Mercy (of Allah) will reach them, they will be taken out and tossed at the doors of Paradise.” He said: ” The people of Paradise will pour water over them, and they will sprout as the debris carried by the flood sprouts, then they will enter Paradise.
What was interesting, is that Nabeel gave this reply (source):
I learned something from this experience. Nabeel does not know what the word Tawheed/ Tawhid in Arabic looks like, so here it is:
As a former Qadiani/ Ahmadi, it does not surprise me that the one word fundamental to Muslim ‘aqeedah (doctrine/ creed), is a word he doesn’t know. At least this incident explains to us the extent to which his “Islamic” education reached.
He just had a debate on the Trinity and Tawheed, and he didn’t even know what Tawheed looked like in the Arabic language, a word that is practically in every Muslim book on creed. I’m not sure what’s worse, that he didn’t know or that because he didn’t know, he made erratic claims that now can no longer be substantiated. I’m sorry Nabeel, there is no excuse for this level of ignorance, especially when you’re debating these topics in an academic setting. Thank you for demonstrating to the Muslim world, the extent of your Islamic knowledge. You’ve done an amazing job. And God knows best.

Nabeel Qureishi’s Mistakes in Debate with Dr. Shabir

Live debate here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FWpqqqZn7Kg

Nabeel said:

The term tawheed is not found anywhere in the hadith (source):

دَّثَنَا هَنَّادٌ، حَدَّثَنَا أَبُو مُعَاوِيَةَ، عَنِ الأَعْمَشِ، عَنْ أَبِي سُفْيَانَ، عَنْ جَابِرٍ، قَالَ قَالَ رَسُولُ اللَّهِ صلى الله عليه وسلم ‏ “‏ يُعَذَّبُ نَاسٌ مِنْ أَهْلِ التَّوْحِيدِ فِي النَّارِ حَتَّى يَكُونُوا فِيهَا حُمَمًا ثُمَّ تُدْرِكُهُمُ الرَّحْمَةُ فَيُخْرَجُونَ وَيُطْرَحُونَ عَلَى أَبْوَابِ الْجَنَّةِ ‏.‏ قَالَ فَيَرُشُّ عَلَيْهِمْ أَهْلُ الْجَنَّةِ الْمَاءَ فَيَنْبُتُونَ كَمَا يَنْبُتُ الْغُثَاءُ فِي حِمَالَةِ السَّيْلِ ثُمَّ يَدْخُلُونَ الْجَنَّةَ ‏”‏ ‏.‏ قَالَ هَذَا حَدِيثٌ حَسَنٌ صَحِيحٌ وَقَدْ رُوِيَ مِنْ غَيْرِ وَجْهٍ عَنْ جَابِرٍ ‏.‏



Jabir narrated that the Messenger of Allah (s.a.w) said:
“Some of the people of Tawhid will be punished in the Fire until they are coals. Then the Mercy (of Allah) will reach them, they will be taken out and tossed at the doors of Paradise.” He said: ” The people of Paradise will pour water over them, and they will sprout as the debris carried by the flood sprouts, then they will enter Paradise.”
On the Qur’an being eternal, being settled in the 9th century, here’s Imam Abu Hanifah who lived during the 1st century of Islam:
Abu Ĥaniifah, said in his book Al-Fiqh Al-Akbar:

والقرآن كلام الله تعالى في المصاحف مكتوب, وفي القلوب محفوظ وعلى الألسن مقروء, وعلى النبي عليه الصلاة والسلام منزّل, ولفظنا بالقرآن مخلوق وكتابتنا له مخلوقة وقرائتنا له مخلوقة والقرآن غير مخلوق.

The Qur’aan is the Speech of Aļļaah Taˆaalaa, written on pages (muşĥafs), preserved in hearts, recited on tongues, and revealed to the Prophet (sall-Aļļaahu ˆalayhi wa sallam). Our utterance of the Qur’aan is created, and our recitation of the Qur’aan is created, but the Qur’aan is not created.He means by “the Qur’aan is the Speech of Aļļaah” that the word “Qur’aan” refers to Aļļaah’s eternal speech that is not letters (thus not language or sounds – as letters are symbols that represent sounds.) I.e. there is no difference between saying “Aļļaah’s attribute of Speech” and “the Qur’aan;” they are synonyms. He makes this clear when he says a few paragraphs later:

ويتكلم لا ككلامنا ونحن نتكلم بالآلات والحروف والله تعالى يتكلم بلا آلة ولاحروف.

Aļļaah speaks, but not like our speech; we speak by means of instruments (vocal cords, limbs, etc.) and letters, but Aļļaah speaks without instruments or letters.

والحروف مخلوقة وكلام الله تعالى غير مخلوق.

Letters are a creation, and Aļļaah’s Speech is not created.So Abuu Ĥaniifah says that “the Qur’aan is the Speech of Aļļaah,” and then that “Aļļaah speaks without instruments or letters.” Then he emphasizes this further by saying “Letters are a creation, and Aļļaah’s Speech is not created.

Qur’an gets the Trinity wrong, see this response.

The Trinity is not 3 different Gods, see this response.

Islam has laws to punish people for heresy, see this response, some Christian sects are calling for the return of the Mosaic law to govern their nations, referred to as Theonomy.

YHWH coming or being on earth, see the Law of Agency, a theological construct in the Hebraic Testament in which someone acts on behalf of God but is referred to in the 1st person, known as “Sha’liah.”

In Islam, God could not have the attribute of love (al Wadud), before creation because there was nothing to love, see response.


It’s blasphemy to burn the Qur’an, no it isn’t, where is he making this up from (source):

If there are no such cases where it is necessary to preserve old copies, then there is nothing wrong with disposing of them in respectful ways which achieve the desired purpose. The scholars have mentioned three ways of doing that:


Burning, i.e., burning old copies of the Mus-haf in a careful and respectable manner, in a clean and safe place, whilst ensuring that the words are consumed by the fire and the pages are changed.

Nabeel says that the Jews had, “at least Binitarian view of God”. There goes Hebraic monotheism out the window.

Nabeel says the Schema Yisrael does not say God cannot be like a man, to correct him, it says God is not of any likeness on earth, does he think earth does not contain men?

Already trying to compensate for his disastrous performance, Nabeel has informed the crowd that he will pen a post debate write up as well as a 2 hour video.

Nabeel says that the Bible states that there are, “three persons in the Godhead”, unfortunately this simply does not exist.

Nabeel says that the Nicaean creeds and Chalcedonian creeds are not found in the Bible, and says this is the same problem in the Qur’an, that the statement of Tawheed is not found in the Qur’an, however this is wrong, it is found (Qur’an 47:19):

لَا إِلَـٰهَ إِلَّا اللَّـهُ

Why Do Muslims Insist on Referring to the Arabic Literary Sources?


When Christians post information about Islam and we ask that they refer to the Arabic, they say to us that Muslims always evade discussing a quote by wasting time on going to the Arabic language and want to debate the translation, etc. What is your response to this?


Indeed, this is a very common claim about the Muslim and God willing, it shall be dealt with in detail using extensive examples in this article. In responsible discourse, the parties who exchange information implicitly accept the position of accountability for the quotes they present, with the understanding that it should be properly referenced/ cited. This is common in academic discourse and a responsible individual will not object to the validating of references or of quotations. The question must be asked to the non-Muslim, whether they be a Christian, Atheist, Hindu or Jew, on why they are evading their academic responsibility of ensuring that their quote is accurate or that their citation is reliable? Surely, if everything is accurate with the information presented, they would have no reason to object to their information being double checked and verified.

The question therefore begs itself. Do Muslims have a reason or a need to verify and validate information about Islam as presented by non-Muslims? The Qur’aan answers this for us by stating:

“O you who have believed, if there comes to you a disobedient one with information, investigate, lest you harm a people out of ignorance and become, over what you have done, regretful.” – Qur’aan 49:6.

From this verse, a Muslim must understand that verifying information about Islam from non-Muslims is not a matter of evading discussing the quote or reference, rather it is a religious duty as commanded by God that this verification process is done. If one wishes, this verse should be presented to the one who claims that Muslims are evading the discussion, atleast with this being presented they will be able to understand that you do intend to discuss the quotes/ references, but that you must at the very least be able to validate that what you are discussing is accurate information.

Examples of Manipulation of Islamic Texts by Orientalists and Christian Apologists

Case 1:

We read from Christian Apologist Nabeel Qureishi the following quote , sourced from an unverified and critically poor translation. Despite Nabeel’s University education, he failed to validate the translation he was using:

Ibn Masud does not think highly of today’s Quran, the one collected by Zaid. In comparing himself to Zaid, he says:

The people have been guilty of deceit in the reading of the Qur’an. I like it better to read according to the recitation of him (Prophet) whom I love more than that of Zayd Ibn Thabit. By Him besides Whom there is no god! I learnt more than seventy surahs from the lips of the Apostle of Allah, may Allah bless him, while Zayd Ibn Thabit was a youth, having two locks and playing with the youth.” (Ibn Sa’d, Kitab al-Tabaqat al-Kabir, Vol. 2, p.444) –

This is a wrong translation. The translation should actually be:

So conceal the manuscripts! I like it better to read according to the recitation of him (Prophet) whom I love more than that of Zayd Ibn Thabit. By Him besides Whom there is no god! I learnt more than seventy surahs from the lips of the Apostle of Allah, may Allah bless him, while Zayd Ibn Thabit was a youth, having two locks and playing with the youth.”

Not only is the translation wrong, the actual Arabic text does not include the phrase, “in the reading of the Quran“.

فَغَلَّوُا الْمَصَاحِفَ. فَلأَنْ أَقْرَأَ عَلَى قِرَاءَةِ مَنْ أُحِبُّ أَحَبَّ إِلَيَّ مِنْ أَنْ أَقْرَأَ عَلَى قِرَاءَةِ زَيْدِ بْنِ ثابت. فو الذي لا إِلَهَ غَيْرُهُ لَقَدْ أَخَذْتُ مِنْ فِيِّ رَسُولِ اللَّهِ – صَلَّى اللَّهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ – بِضْعًا وَسَبْعِينَ سُورَةً. وَزَيْدُ بْنُ ثَابِتٍ غُلامٌ لَهُ ذُؤَابَتَانِ يَلْعَبُ مَعَ الْغِلْمَانِ

The issue with the translation pertains to the meaning of the word “فَغَلَّوُا ” (the first word in the sentence), transliterated as “ghalla”. The Christian missionary asserts that it means “deceit”, which is contrary to the basic meaning of the word, which is “to hide/ conceal”. In a similar report in Jami’ Tirmidhi, the wording is given as:

قَالَ عَبْدُ اللَّهِ بْنُ مَسْعُودٍ: ” يَا أَهْلَ العِرَاقِ اكْتُمُوا المَصَاحِفَ الَّتِي عِنْدَكُمْ وَغُلُّوهَا فَإِنَّ اللَّهَ يَقُولُ: {وَمَنْ يَغْلُلْ يَأْتِ بِمَا غَلَّ يَوْمَ القِيَامَةِ} فَالقُوا اللَّهَ بِالمَصَاحِفِ

Abdullah bin Mas’ud said: ‘O people of Al-Iraq! Keep the Musahif that are with you, and conceal them. For indeed Allah said: And whoever conceals something, he shall come with what he concealed on the Day of Judgement. So meet Allah with the Musahif.'” (Jami’ Tirmidhi, Hadith 3104)

What is odd here, is that we can see from the Christian’s translation, they maintain the word to mean “conceal”, why didn’t they translate it to be “deceit” as they did before? We should also note that at the end of the narration it says, “Meet Allah with the masahif”. If “ghalla” was to be translated as “deceit” then the entire narration would be incomprehensible! In Kitab al-Masahif of Ibn Abi Dawud Khumayr bin Malik says:

سَمِعْتُ ابْنَ مَسْعُودٍ يَقُولُ: ” إِنِّي غَالٌّ مُصْحَفِي، فَمَنِ اسْتَطَاعَ أَنْ يَغُلَّ مُصْحَفًا فَلْيَغْلُلْ، فَإِنَّ اللَّهَ يَقُولُ: {وَمَنْ يَغْلُلْ يَأْتِ بِمَا غَلَّ يَوْمَ الْقِيَامَةِ}

“I heard Ibn Masud saying: I have concealed my Mushaf. Whoever can conceal his mushaf he should conceal it. For Allah says, “And whoever conceals something, he shall come with what he concealed on the Day of Judgement.”” (Kitab al-Masahif, Narration 52)

In this narration, if we were to translate “إِنِّي غَالٌّ مُصْحَفِي“, it would mean, “I have deceived my mushaf”, in English it would be akin to saying, “I lied to the book”, as opposed to saying “I concealed my book”. This therefore, should illustrate the absurdity of Christian missionaries tampering with translations.

Case 2:

In the book, “The Collection of the Qur’an, (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2010)“, by Christian missionary John Burton, on page 242,  254 we read his translation of the following narration:

وكان الرجل يجيء بالورقة والأديم فيه القرآن، حتى جمع من ذلك كثرة، ثم دخل عثمان فدعاهم رجلا رجلا فناشدهم لسمعت رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم وهو أملاه عليك؟ فيقول: نعم

He translates this as:

“One would come with a parchment or a scrap of leather with a Qur’an verse on it until there was gathered great store of such.’Uthman adjured them one by one, ‘You heard the Prophet recite this?’ They would answer that that was so.”

However, the portion of the narration, ” وهو أملاه عليك” (emphasized in bold above), is purposefully excluded from the translation. The complete translation would read:

“One would come with a parchment or a scrap of leather with a Qur’an verse on it until there was gathered great store of such.’Uthman adjured them one by one, ‘You heard the Prophet recite this while he dictated it to you?’ They would answer that that was so.”

The exclusion of this portion of the narration is a serious attempt at negating the Prophet’s (salallaahu ‘alayhi wa salam) personal role in dictating the Qur’aan to scribes in their presence. It is intentional he excluded this portion of the narration as the reference he gives for the narration includes it entirely, this being Arthur Jeffery’s (the editor of the book), “Kitab al-Masahif”, page 24. Thus far, we have seen purposeful mistranslations and in this case, exclusion of a portion of the narration.

Case 3:

A narration from ‘Abdullah bin ‘Umar quoted by Hafidh as-Suyuti (d. 911 A.H.) in his, “al-Itiqan fee ‘Uloom al-Qur’an”, has become a source of joy for some missionaries. However, their contextual rendition of many of its quotes is so deceptive, it is astounding that they would publicly risk such dishonesty! In this case, Sam Shamoun presents us with this translation:

‘Abdullah bin ‘Umar reportedly said: “Let none of you say, ‘I have got the whole of the Qur’an.’ How does he know what all of it is? MUCH OF THE QUR’AN IS GONE. Let him say instead, ‘I have got what has survived.’”

This narration is contained under the title of the chapter which reads as follows, “Section forty-seven: About the Abrogating and the Abrogated“. In Abu ‘Ubayd’s (d. 228 A.H.) work, from which as-Suyuti quotes this, it is the first narration in the chapter titled, “[About] what all was abrogated from the Qur’an after revelation and is not put in the Masahif.” Essentially, what was abrogated was forgotten, as the Qur’aan itself states:

“We do not abrogate a verse or cause it to be forgotten except that We bring forth [one] better than it or similar to it. Do you not know that Allah is over all things competent?” – Qur’aan 2:106.

Shahab ud-Deen al-Alusi’s (d. 1270 A.H.) comment helps explain the issue:

أجمعوا على عدم وقوع النقص فيما تواتر قرآنا كما هو موجود بين الدفتين اليوم، نعم أسقط زمن الصديق ما لم يتواتر وما نسخت تلاوته … وعليه يحمل ما رواه أبو عبيد عن ابن عمر قال: لا يقولن أحدكم قد أخذت القرآن كله وما يدريه ما كله قد ذهب منه قرآن كثير ولكن ليقل قد أخذت منه ما ظهر

“Verily they (i.e. people of Sunnah) have agreed on there being no loss in the Qur’an as is continuously reported like we today find between the two bindings. Yes during the time of (Abu Bakr) as-Sidiq the part which was not reported continuously and was (rather) abrogated was dropped (out of the official mushaf)…and to this relates that which is reported by Abu ‘Ubayd from Ibn ‘Umar, who said: ‘None of you should say that he has taken the whole of the Qur’an; how could he know what all of it was! A lot of the Qur’an has passed him by! Let him say instead: I have taken of the Qur’an that which became apparent.’”

As can be seen, Sam Shamoun intentionally removed the narration from its context to make it appear to state that a companion of the Prophet (salallaahu ‘alayhi wa salam) had stated most/ much of the Qur’aan has been lost, when in fact he had confirmed what Allaah has said in the Qur’aan, that the abrogated verses would be made to be forgotten. Therefore, verifying sources is not merely about checking the text for mistranslations or excluded content, it can also be about removing the information from its authorial context. In regards to the translation, the word “MUCH”, it must be understood that this word can be used to mean “less than (what it is being compared to)”. The evidence for this is seen the below narration:

قُلْتُ: يَا رَسُولَ اللَّهِ، أُوصِي بِمَالِي كُلِّهِ؟ قَالَ: «لاَ» ، قُلْتُ: فَالشَّطْرُ، قَالَ: «لاَ» ، قُلْتُ: الثُّلُثُ، قَالَ: فَالثُّلُثُ، وَالثُّلُثُ كَثِيرٌ

“I said, ‘Should I give two-thirds of my property in charity?’ He said, ‘No.’ I asked, ‘Half?’ He said, ‘No.’ Then he added, ‘One-third, and even one-third is much (wal-thuluthu kathir).’”

Clearly, one third of an amount is not the most of something or “much” of something. This missionary not only removed the narration from its context, he also misrepresented what the narration was saying by being ignorant of its meaning.

Case 4:

This is a much more famous lie, Sam Shamoun in this case, presents a narration and claims that it states that the Prophet Muhammad (salallaahu ‘alayhi wa salam) is a cross dresser:

Narrated by Ismail, narrated by his brother, narrated by Sulaiman, narrated by Hisham Ibn Urwah, narrated by his father, narrated by Aisha who related that the wives of the prophet were divided into two groups. One group consisted of Aisha, Hafsa, Safiya and Sawdah while the other group consisted of Um Salamah and the rest of the women that belonged to the prophet. The Muslims had learned of the great love that the prophet had for Aisha so that if one of them had a gift he desired to give to the prophet, he would delay giving it until the prophet came to Aisha’s house. Then the group who sided with Um Salamah came to Um Salamah and asked her to tell the prophet that he should command the people that if any of them had a gift to give to the prophet, they should give it him in whatever house of his wives the prophet was in at the time. So Um Salamah went and talked with the prophet but he did not respond to her. When the group asked her what the prophet said she told them that he did not respond. So they asked her to go talk to him again until he responds… then the prophet said to her, “Do not hurt me with Aisha, for the inspiration did not come upon when I was (wearing) A WOMAN’S CLOTHES (Thowb) EXCEPT THAT OF AISHA.” (Source- http://hadith.al-islam.com/Display/Display.asp?hnum=2393&doc=0)

He provides the source in Arabic and then translates it himself. However, Sam Shamoun does not speak the Arabic language, nor is he capable of reading it, so one does need to ask how he was able to translate something from a language he is ignorant of. The portion of the hadeeth we are focusing on is where he translates “thawb”, as “woman’s clothes”:

لَا تُؤْذِينِي فِي عَائِشَةَ فَإِنَّ الْوَحْيَ لَمْ يَأْتِنِي وَأَنَا فِي ثَوْبِ امْرَأَةٍ إِلَّا عَائِشَةَ

The correct rendition of this portion of the narration should read:

“Do not hurt me regarding Aisha, as the Divine Inspirations do not come to me when I am in the [thawb]cloth (i.e. blanket) of any of wives except [in that of] Aisha.” – Sahih Bukhari, Hadith 2393.

This translation of  “thawb“, can be clarified by a similar narration which reads:

لَا تُؤْذِينِي فِي عَائِشَةَ فَإِنَّهُ وَاللَّهِ مَا نَزَلَ عَلَيَّ الْوَحْيُ وَأَنَا فِي لِحَافِ امْرَأَةٍ مِنْكُنَّ غَيْرِهَا

“Don’t trouble me regarding ‘Aisha, for by Allah, the Divine Inspiration never came to me while I was under the blanket of any woman amongst you except her.” – Sahih Bukhari, Hadith 3491.

The word “blanket”, being “lihaaf” is quite clear in its meaning. One needs to ask Sam Shamoun how he arrived at such an incorrect and outlandish translation, and if it was mistaken, why does he insist it is accurate despite the evidences to the contrary?

Case 5:

Commenting on the phrase:

(قال: قد زعم ذلك زيد) in Sahih Bukhari Hadith 3787.

Muhammad Asad writes in “Sahih al-Bukhari- The Early Years of Islam“, (Gibraltar: Dar al-Andalus, 1981), page 109:

In the French version of the Sahih by Houdas and Marcais (vol.III, 5 in two places) we find the ridiculous translation: “C’est Zeid qui pretend cela” (“It is Zayd who pretends this”) – thus twisting Ibn Abi Laylah’s answer into a discrediting criticism of the authenticity of this narration. The French translators were evidently not aware of the fact that the primary meaning of za’ma is equivalent to qala (“he said”); cf. Lisan al-‘Arab XV, 156.


I have demonstrated several forms of misrepresentation of Islamic quotes and references by contemporary and previous missionaries and Orientalists. Some of the forms we have noted are listed as the following:

  1. Mistranslating a term/ word.
  2. Excluding a portion of the original text.
  3. Misrepresenting a quote by removing it from its context.
  4. Providing an Arabic source but self translating and incorrectly claiming that the translation is authentic.

These are very serious attempts at distorting Islamic academic sources by Christian missionaries and Orientalists. Therefore, the command of Allaah ta ‘aala in Surah 49, verse 6 should be taken seriously, very seriously. The apprehension of Muslims towards the quotes and references by polemicists is not unwarranted as the previous examples have illustrated that this manipulation of the quotes and references is a common pattern of behaviour. With this being noted, if the party entering into a discussion with you on Islamic information does not wish to verify the source or the content, then unless they do so – the Muslim should not continue the discussion. We must be careful and use our discretion in giving audience to those who are unable to maintain basic academic standards.

In my own experience with a zealot missionary, Darren Amos of the UK, he quoted a book for me entitled “al-Kitab”. I asked him, who was the author of al-Kitab or if he even knew that the book title meant. He refused to comment on the quote and its fictitious citation and instead claimed I was evading discussing the topic. I did not relent, I pressed for the validation of the reference and eventually he discontinued the discourse. I encourage my Muslim brothers and sisters to be firm in their criticism of sources, if we do not, the missionaries will gladly invent quotes as they wish without any guilt whatsoever, for as Paul states, “But what does it matter? The important thing is that in every way, whether from false motives or true, Christ is preached. And because of this I rejoice. Yes, and I will continue to rejoice.” – Philippians 1:18.

I would like to thank Br. Waqar for providing me with the references and examples of distortion by missionaries and Orientalists. I have listed his corpus of writings below, as they relate to the claims made above. I highly recommend reading his extensive and scholastic refutations to missionary polemics. May Allaah ta ‘aala reward him for his efforts, Ameen.


and Allaah knows best.

Nabeel Qureshi Questioned…

Now, this man who goes by the name ‘Radical Moderate’ gives cash to the Christian hate preacher, David Wood, who nudged Nabeel Qureshi towards Christianity. Here’s his anti-Muslim comment that he sent to me via email in which he rejoices in the death of Muslims and hopes for more:

“But Muslim terrorists blowing up other Muslim terrorists using homicide bombers is Manna from heaven. Lets hope that trend continues.” – Radical Moderate (minion of David Wood).


I understand Dr Nabeel Qureshi didn’t make this comment and nor does he have any control over those who have followed/supported him in the past but it’s really worrying that Nabeel has never gone on public record to disassociate himself with his former associates who are effectively radicalised hate-preachers against Muslims.

The comment above is coming from somebody who has informed me that he has committed serious amounts of money to Nabeel Qureshi’s hate preacher friend, David Wood. As David and Nabeel worked together in the past, it’s not unreasonable to imagine some of that money went to Nabeel Qureshi. How does Nabeel feel about the possibility of having received cash from such hate-filled supporters? How does Nabeel feel about having teamed up with radicalised Christian hate preachers in the form of David Wood and Sam Shamoun. How does Nabeel Qureshi feel knowing that his former colleague Negeen Mayel denounced his best friend as self radicalised?

This is something Nabeel Qureshi needs to look into. Is it odd that he has never made a statement on his radicalised Christian hate-preacher associates? Never denounced the hate-filled lies and mockery that his associates have spewed in the direction of Muslims? Never added to his former colleague’s rejection of his radicalised Christian hate preacher friends?

« Older Entries