Tag Archives: Salvation in Islam

Response: Why I Love Jesus But Reject Islam

Bismillahir Rahmanir Raheem
بِسۡمِ ٱللهِ ٱلرَّحۡمَـٰنِ ٱلرَّحِيمِ ,

The popular anti-Semite, James White whose infamous incoherent rants against Islam which are taught by undereducated and abusive friends has collaborated on a video to display his poor workmanship and lack of intellectualism when it comes to Islamic doctrine. While he spends most of his time attacking Arabo-Islamic thought, he also spends a lot of time thinking of new ways to embarrass himself when it comes to displaying his knowledge of Islam or for that matter, recently Calvinism as well. One brother did a really wonderful response to his petulant video, “Why I Love Jesus but Reject Islam”, which you can view below:


Hopefully, James White can someday become the academic he falsely promotes himself as, and with that in mind, then he may actually be able to discuss Islam with Muslims.

wa Allaahu Alam.
[and God knows best.]

Nigerian Pastor Running from Debate

Bismillahir Rahmanir Raheem
بِسۡمِ ٱللهِ ٱلرَّحۡمَـٰنِ ٱلرَّحِيمِ ,

Another ally of Sam Shamoun [pictured below], Isang Udo-Akagha, is well known for challenging Muslims to debates. His activities include writing insulting notes on Facebook, posting pictures of himself on all groups and mocking Muslims. He likes to parade himself as a “friend of Muslims”, yet his rhetoric is childish, he simply goes to AI’s website, copy pastes whatever he can find and gives it to his congregation. For sometime now, a brother had approached Mr. Isang Udo-Akagha with a debate proposal and the supposed leader of the “Love a Muslim Ministry”, has refused to come forward and accept, yet he persists on insulting Islam and Muslims. We can see him here below:

We can see his really spiteful behaviour, although he claims to be “friendly” in this recent Facebook posting by the “Evangelist for Muslims”:

Here he is, insulting the Prophet Muhammad {saw}, by claiming because Aisha {ra} narrated that he was sick, yet the very next hadith and the first hadith of that book fully clarifies the statement of our mother, Aisha {ra}:

Narrated ‘Aisha {ra}: (the wife of the Prophet) Allah’s Apostle {saw} said, “No calamity befalls a Muslim but that Allah expiates some of his sins because of it, even though it were the prick he receives from a thorn.” – Sahih al Bukhari : Book 70 (Patients) : 544.

Narrated ‘Abdullah {ra}: I visited the Prophet {saw} during his ailments and he was suffering from a high fever. I said, “You have a high fever. Is it because you will have a double reward for it?” He said, “Yes, for no Muslim is afflicted with any harm but that Allah will remove his sins as the leaves of a tree fall down.” – Sahih al Bukhari : Book 70 (Patients) : 550.

Therefore if the Pastor was so kind a to actually read the ahadith before condemning our Prophet {saw}, he would have retracted his insult. Clearly he is not a friend of Muslims, but a blind follower of hatred and ignorance. The hadith actually shows how merciful Allaah was to Muhammad {saw}, his illnesses were a means of bringing him closer to Allaah and rewarding the Messenger! If only the Pastor had read before he quoted!

What is worse is that for sometime, Br. Shoaib has been challenged the Pastor, which is a bit funny, as the Pastor keeps running:

again, he repeated the challenge:

The challenge still stands, if Pastor Isang Udo-Akagha can stop running away from challenges, while boasting he is a friend of Muslims by insulting their Prophet {saw}, then we’re set to go! Pastor, I hope you read this and I hope you can one day be an adult, apologize for your insults, your ignorance and your cowardice. Your hate mongering helps no one and only fuels the fire of discord among Adam’s {as} children.

wa Allaahu Alam.
[and God knows best.]

Two Faced Sam Shamoun

Bismillahir Rahmanir Raheem
بِسۡمِ ٱللهِ ٱلرَّحۡمَـٰنِ ٱلرَّحِيمِ ,

It’s very much wide known that Sam Shamoun of the AI team is a very abusive person. His demeanor is deplorable as his usual means of expressing himself is through hateful and spiteful comments. A video has been released that essentially in a few seconds really demonstrates his lack of public decorum  and his hypocritical behaviour. In this video we see him actually rushing to embrace Br. Shabir Ally, while when he has left the company of the brother and is recording, he makes some very abusive and insulting statements:

[Warning: Video has music during the introduction.]

wa Allaahu Alam.
[and God knows best.]

Refutation: God’s Grace or Self Righteous Suicide ?

Bismillahir Rahmanir Raheem
بِسۡمِ ٱللهِ ٱلرَّحۡمَـٰنِ ٱلرَّحِيمِ ,

It is beyond fanciful and absurd, self delusional rhetoric to assume that the fundamental difference between Islam and Christianity, is sin. Rather there are many facets of theological disagreement, beyond law, but dealing with the very nature of God. Therefore when Chessie L. Edwards makes a statement like this:

The difference between Christianity and Islam boils down to the issue of Sin

It only leaves much to be desired. Either Chessie Edwards has to overly simplify and generalize our faiths differences to negotiate his ignorance on these matters or he simply was being lazy. He then proceeds to summarize what he assumes Islam teaches about getting into paradise:

Islam says if you strive hard, be really religious and become a Muhsin(A good doer) upon Ihsan(The highest level of Islamic spirituality) you can purify your own heart and earn yourself a place in this Garden.

The premise of freewill which God has created us with, allows us humans to choose whether to do good or to commit sin. If it is, that God did not want us to have this choice, then we would either only sin or only do good, then we would not have been created with the ability of freewill. What Chessie is trying to imply is that we cannot by ourselves do good, or that we will never be able to do enough good to gain heaven on our own merit. To an extent this is true, we cannot rely on our own acts to get us into heaven because as humans we often err without reason. However that does not indicate that God did not give us a solution.

One of God’s attributes is to be Ar Rahman (The Most Merciful), with that in mind His mercy is as such that He is oft forgiving and most forgiving. One way we can seek to gain paradise is through God’s mercy and that relates to our sincerity in our repentance for our sins. We read this in both the Bible and the Qur’an:

Qur’aan 25:71
And whosoever repents and does righteous good deeds, then verily, he repents towards Allâh with true repentance.

Qur’aan 28:67
But any that (in this life) had repented, believed, and worked righteousness, will have hopes to be among those who achieve salvation.

Qur’aan 3:89
Except for those that repent (even) after that and make amends: for verily Allah is Oft-Forgiving, Most Merciful.

Qur’aan 7:153
But those who do wrong but repent thereafter and (truly) believe― verily Thy Lord is thereafter Oft-Forgiving, Most Merciful.

Qur’aan 20:82
Surely I am the Most-Forgiving for him who repents and believes and acts righteously, then follows the right path.

2 Chronicles 32:26
Then Hezekiah repented of the pride of his heart, as did the people of Jerusalem; therefore the LORD’s wrath did not come on them during the days of Hezekiah.

Job 34:33
Should God then reward you on your terms, when you refuse to repent? You must decide, not I; so tell me what you know.

Job 36:10
He makes them listen to correction and commands them to repent of their evil.

Isaiah 30:15
This is what the Sovereign LORD, the Holy One of Israel, says: “In repentance and rest is your salvation, in quietness and trust is your strength, but you would have none of it.

Matthew 3:8
Produce fruit in keeping with repentance.

Matthew 4:17
From that time on Jesus began to preach, “Repent, for the kingdom of heaven has come near.”

Mark 6:12
They went out and preached that people should repent.

Luke 5:32
I have not come to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance.”

Luke 15:10
In the same way, I tell you, there is rejoicing in the presence of the angels of God over one sinner who repents.”

and both the Bible and the Qur’aan have many more of these quotes. There is a common theme that we can derive from the above quotations. Believe (have faith), do good works and repent for whatever sins you have. Therefore, it is in this regard, that we can accept that Islam and Christianity agree on a plan for salvation. The problem however, has come with those people who have deviated from the true religion of the Christ. Instead of obeying his words of belief in God, doing good works and repenting, they rather believe in him as a God, and seek repentance through his alleged death, both things he himself never mentions in the New Testament.

What is most ironic however, is the hypocritical view of Chessie, this is what he has to say if someone rejects Islam:

As for the vast majority of everyone else they will have to take God’s wrath upon themselves by being burned in hell until they atone for their Sins. How long a person stays in the fire and how much wrath they take is all up to the will of God..it could be 50 years or it could be 50,000 years.

Yet, this is also true for Christianity. A person who rejects the Christ as a God is deemed a sinner and therefore will suffer eternal perdition( torture/ punishment in hell):

2 Peter 3:7
But the heavens and the earth, which are now, by the same word are kept in store, reserved unto fire against the day of judgment and perdition of ungodly men.

After having said this, is Chessie denying that God will punish disbelievers and therefore that’s why he mentions the punishment as endorsed by Islam, or is he trying to paint Islam as being barbaric because disbelievers are punished? I am asking because as displayed above, even his own faith endorses the position of eternal punishment for disbelievers. Even the acts of believers are rejected according to the Bible:

Matthew 7:21
Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven.

Whereas the Qur’aan says:

Surah 99:1-8
When the earth with be trembled with its quake, and the earth will bring forth its burdens, And man will say, “What has happened to it?” That day it will describe all its happenings, Because its Lord will have so commanded it. That day the people will come back (from the place of reckoning) in different groups, so that they may be shown (the fruits of) their deeds. So, whoever does any good act (even) to the weight of a particle will see it. And whoever does evil (even) to the weight of a particle will see it.

Whether it be a smile or a thought, essentially, in Islam, any moment not spent in sin, is a moment earned in good acts/ deeds. This is the mercy and glory of God’s love for mankind:

Narrated Anas (may God be pleased with him): The Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) said, “My Lord says, ‘If My slave comes nearer to me for a span, I go nearer to him for a cubit; and if he comes nearer to Me for a cubit, I go nearer to him for the span of outstretched arms; and if he comes to Me walking, I go to him running.’ “Sahih al Bukari : Book 93 : Hadith 627.

On the other hand however, as Chessie, has correctly stated, the standard that God holds man to is very low. While Islam acknowledges that mankind are sinners, it also accepts that mankind also does good, however, let’s see what Christianity says about mankind according to Chessie:

Christianity on the other hand says man is totally depraved and a natural born habitual Sinner. God’s standard’s of obedience is that you never disobey Him not even once.. which mankind no matter how hard it tries can ever accomplish.

Christianity according to Chessie Edwards, is a faith that holds men to be incapable bumbling idiots, that couldn’t do good if they wanted to, as in his terms, he’s said, “totally depraved”, i.e. completely morally corrupt and perverted. This is a contradiction however, if mankind was completely morally corrupt, then that would mean that we had no freewill. Following my aforementioned assertion on freewill, we can gather that Chessie believes we don’t necessarily have freewill because we can only sin and err, i.e. do evil. With that in mind, then he must accept that God created us without freewill, otherwise, he has to retract his absurd statement and accept that we do have a choice and that we are capable of doing good. Hence it is why we see God forgiving men in the Bible and accepting their repentance:

Isaiah 30:15
This is what the Sovereign LORD, the Holy One of Israel, says: “In repentance and rest is your salvation, in quietness and trust is your strength, but you would have none of it.

It isn’t unusual to find Mr. Edwards contradicting his own scripture, but the lengths he goes, in consort with his frequency is quite alarming to say the least. I also must ask of him to prove his second statement, that the Bible commands that you not disobey God once, or else you earn eternal damnation. He continues to disparage his being, by insulting his very position as human:

Every human being know matter how religious or spiritual they are will always fall and Sin sooner or later. Sinners rightfully deserve God’s wrath because God has decreed so, but again weak imperfect humans could never stand under His wrath, Hell is not temporarily it’s eternal you never get out.

I agree that we will all sin sooner or later, whether out of mistake or vice, disobedience is inevitable. However Chessie acts as if God is devoid of mercy and as if God’s only attribute is that of wrath and vengeance.  This is not the case, for when God revealed the Tawrah to the Children of Israel, not only did He reveal guidelines, He also revealed punishments and along those punishments, further means of expiation for those sins. Fasting, sacrifice, all means of removing sin. Therefore the very premise that Chessie is asserting, that God will take wrath upon a person for his very being, or because he has committed one sin, is contradicted by the teachings of the scripture. He then goes on to demonstrate what I will call stark ignorance:

As hopeless as that sounds and man’s ability to save himself is hopeless.. out of God’s Love and  Mercy He provided a substitute so that anyone who’s has complete Faith in it can be saved. God provided the promised Messiah; God the only perfect one come to the world to live the life of a perfect Muhsin that you are too weak to accomplish and to take the wrath you are to frail to stand under.

He instead preaches that God places His wrath only on one person and we should accept that God’s mercy was to place our sins and the consequential wrath, upon another person. Yet, this contradicts the understanding of God’s mercy. Why would God, who judges each person individually, punish someone else for our inequities. This is neither fair nor just. Quite unlike God’s justice.  What is further more alarming, is the belief that Chessie still has to repent according to the Bible for his sins.

My question is this, if belief that Jesus died for your sins, earns you salvation (i.e. freedom from sin and the punishment of sin), then which Christian can claim to be sinless and which Christian can claim that he needs not repent? Can Chessie Edwards measure up to those claims?

Definitely no, as he said himself, man is totally depraved, therefore his concept of “salvation” is merely a fanciful though, an appeal to wishful thinking, fallacious and non-sensical. May God guide those who believe in such fairy tales.

 وَلَا تَهِنُوا وَلَا تَحْزَنُوا وَأَنتُمُ الْأَعْلَوْنَ إِن كُنتُم مُّؤْمِنِينَ
So do not lose heart or be grieved, for you will surely prevail if you are believers. – Qur’aan : Al i Imran (3) : 139.

wa Allaah Alam.
[and God knows best.]

James White’s Ignorance of Calvinist Teachings Regarding the Crucifxion

Bismillahir Rahmanir Raheem
بِسۡمِ ٱللهِ ٱلرَّحۡمَـٰنِ ٱلرَّحِيمِ ,

It was sad to see a display of monumental incompetence from James White while discussing the Crucifixion of Jesus. His complete and total loss of composure and vile attitude was indeed shocking to say the least. However, when I quoted the Geneva Study Bible, a classic in Calvinist Exegesis on the Bible, his rejection of such a work really led me to question his purpose of trying to seriously engage me in discussion. The importance of John Calvin’s contribution to the Geneva Bible is extant:

“The Geneva Bible is the Bible with marginal notes authored by John Calvin, John Know and Miles Coverdale, and many other leaders of the Reformation. The Geneva Bible was the predominant English translation during the period in which the English and Scottish Reformations gained great impetus. Iain Murray, in his classic work on revival and the interpretation of prophecy, The Puritan Hope, notes, “…the two groups in England and Scotland developed along parallel lines, like two streams originating at one fountain. The foundation was no so much Geneva, as the Bible which the exiles newly translated and issued with many marginal notes… it was read in every Presbyterian and Puritan home in both realms”……. The greatest distinction of the Geneva Bible, however, is the extensive collection of marginal notes that it contains. Prominent Reformation leaders such as John Calvin, John Know and Miles Coverdale, William Whittingham, Theodore Beza, and Anthony Gilby wrote the majority of these notes in order to explain and interpret the scriptures. The notes comprise nearly 300,000 words, or nearly one-third the length of the Bible itself, and they are justifiably considered the most complete source of Protestant religious thought available.” – 1599 Geneva Bible Notes, Introduction, L. L. Brown Publishing.

In my questioning of the crucifixion of Jesus, I referred to Matthew 27:46 which reads:

About three in the afternoon Jesus cried out in a loud voice, “Eli, Eli, lema sabachthani?” (which means “My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?”).

My point being, has Jesus according to his alleged own words, disbelieved in the plan (predestination) of God, which in itself is a Calvinist tenet or has he uttered words of blasphemy? I stated this and then for an addendum, included the words of the Geneva Study Bible, which reads:

27:46 And about the ninth hour Jesus cried with a loud voice, saying, Eli, Eli, lama sabachthani? that is to say, My God, my God, why hast thou o forsaken me?

(o) That is, in this misery: And this crying out is a natural part of his humanity, which, even though it was void of sin, still felt the wrath of God, the wrath which is due to our sins.

In my message to James White, I indicated that Jesus was feeling the wrath of God, thus Jesus spoke words of abandonment/ disbelief:

James, after having read this, then sent a really interesting response. I was under the impression that he knew what the GSB (Geneva Study Bible) was, after all, he is a self claimant to being highly learned and a proponent of John Calvin’s theological teachings. However, whether out of pure ignorance or perhaps arrogance, he accused me of not properly understanding Jesus’ words. Yet the claim that Jesus spoke such words of disdain against God because of the pain of God’s wrath, did not originate from me, but from what is the most authentic Protestant Reformation source on Christian Bible Theology that has ever existed. This was his response:

It’s quite amusing to see Christian “scholarship” refuting their own scholar’s teachings. Here it is, James White, the illustrious Islamophobe, condemning his own source of Christian Theology. Sir, I greatly applaud you on your accusation against me, for it does not bother me in the least, but what it has done is significantly displayed your ignorance of your own teachings. It is in that light, you’ve demonstrated that you are not an authority on your religion, and for that matter on Islam as well, no matter how much you quote from an online Greek version of the Bible, that will never make you a scholar. Hopefully, after having written this, I pray that it does come to your attention and that I do hope that you one day, do actually commit to reading John Calvin’s words and the words/ works of other Protestant Reformists.

wa Allaahu Alam.
[and God knows best.]


Exposing James White’s Deceit and Ignorance of Islamic Scripture

Bismillahir Rahmanir Raheem
بِسۡمِ ٱللهِ ٱلرَّحۡمَـٰنِ ٱلرَّحِيمِ ,

In a recent twitter exchange with James White, I found him proposing such an absurd view of Islamic ‘aqidah that I simply had to write an article to correct his misinformation. In the field of academia, we try our best to uphold certain standards, however Alpha and Omega Ministries as missionary zealots don’t have to appeal to this high standard of intellectualism. So what exactly is James’ problem this time around? Let’s see:

In essence, James White is appealing to the fallacious argument of appeal to ad ignorantium. Summarily, he’s trying to expound the concept that Muslims believe in a self contradicting tenet. This being, that in Islam, while we believe God’s word cannot become corrupted, we also believe that “God’s word” did come corrupt. For example, we say the Qur’an is the word of Allaah and therefore it cannot be changed or corrupted, yet in the same voice, supposedly we claim that the Injil and Tawrah, which are also the words of Allaah, have been altered. The terms which James is trying to use are, Tahrif ul Lafzi (corruption of written words) and Tahrif ul M’anavi (corruption of meaning).

What James White and his missionary zealot friends try to assert is that Muslims have not only a contradicting belief, but because of this belief it is the Qur’an which is wrong and the Bible is the true word of God.

The Islamic belief is that God protects His revelations from becoming corrupt, altered and interfered with. In this regard, we do not hold the belief that God’s words can succumb to corruption, alteration and human interference. The Qur’an substantiates this claim:

إِنَّا نَحْنُ نَزَّلْنَا الذِّكْرَ‌ وَإِنَّا لَهُ لَحَافِظُونَ
Indeed, it is We who sent down the Qur’an and indeed, We will be its guardian. – Qur’aan : 15 : 9.

Therefore we must correct James’ assertion that we believe God’s words can be corrupted by man, the Qur’an is clear that God would not allow this. It is the belief of all Muslims and if one did not know this belief (you now kn0w) that it is impermissible for a Muslim to believe that God’s words can become corrupted. With that in mind what about the verses in the Qur’an which mention the corruption of the previous scriptures such as the Injil, Tawrah and Zabur?

Corruption of God’s Words:
There are many verses in the Qur’an which indicate to us that God’s wahy (revelation) has been skewered by the hands of man, both literal words changes and contextual alterations (interpretations):

يُحَرِّ‌فُونَ الْكَلِمَ عَنْ مَوَاضِعِهِ ۙ وَنَسُوا حَظًّا مِمَّا ذُكِّرُ‌وا بِهِ ۚ وَلَا تَزَالُ تَطَّلِعُ عَلَىٰ خَائِنَةٍ مِنْهُمْ إِلَّا قَلِيلًا مِنْهُمْ ۖ فَاعْفُ عَنْهُمْ وَاصْفَحْ ۚ إِنَّ اللَّـهَ يُحِبُّ الْمُحْسِنِي
They distort words from their [proper] usages and have forgotten a portion of that of which they were reminded. And you will still observe deceit among them, except a few of them. But pardon them and overlook [their misdeeds]. Indeed, Allah loves the doers of good. – Qur’an : 5 : 13.

وَإِنَّ مِنْهُمْ لَفَرِ‌يقًا يَلْوُونَ أَلْسِنَتَهُمْ بِالْكِتَابِ لِتَحْسَبُوهُ مِنَ الْكِتَابِ وَمَا هُوَ مِنَ الْكِتَابِ وَيَقُولُونَ هُوَ مِنْ عِنْدِ اللَّـهِ وَمَا هُوَ مِنْ عِنْدِ اللَّـهِ وَيَقُولُونَ عَلَى اللَّـهِ الْكَذِبَ وَهُمْ يَعْلَمُونَ
And indeed, there is among them a party who alter the Scripture with their tongues so you may think it is from the Scripture, but it is not from the Scripture. And they say, “This is from Allah,” but it is not from Allah. And they speak untruth about Allah while they know. – Qur’an : 3 : 78.

مِنَ الَّذِينَ هَادُوا يُحَرِّ‌فُونَ الْكَلِمَ عَنْ مَوَاضِعِهِ وَيَقُولُونَ سَمِعْنَا وَعَصَيْنَا وَاسْمَعْ غَيْرَ‌ مُسْمَعٍ وَرَ‌اعِنَا لَيًّا بِأَلْسِنَتِهِمْ وَطَعْنًا فِي الدِّينِ ۚ وَلَوْ أَنَّهُمْ قَالُوا سَمِعْنَا وَأَطَعْنَا وَاسْمَعْ وَانْظُرْ‌نَا لَكَانَ خَيْرً‌ا لَهُمْ وَأَقْوَمَ وَلَـٰكِنْ لَعَنَهُمُ اللَّـهُ بِكُفْرِ‌هِمْ فَلَا يُؤْمِنُونَ إِلَّا قَلِيلًا
Among the Jews are those who distort words from their [proper] usages and say, “We hear and disobey” and “Hear but be not heard” and “Ra’ina,” twisting their tongues and defaming the religion. And if they had said [instead], “We hear and obey” and “Wait for us [to understand],” it would have been better for them and more suitable. But Allah has cursed them for their disbelief, so they believe not, except for a few. – Qur’an : 4 : 46.

We seemingly have arrived at a theological impasse. On one end, we read above that God would protect His revelations and now we’re reading that God’s revelations were altered by men, corrupted, their meanings and letters distorted. Yet, before we jump to conclusions, we have to analyse what we have attained so far:

(1) God’s words cannot become corrupted.
(2) God’s words did become corrupted.

There seems to be a clear disconnect here. Something’s missing from this puzzle and we know what it is. Context. Did God’s word in itself become corrupted? And this is a question we must take seriously into consideration. What we see from the above verses is that there are two cases for God’s word apparently becoming corrupted:

(1) Interpretative alterations.
(2) Textual alterations.

With this in mind, let’s examine both cases.

Corruption of Scripture: Interpretative Alterations:
It is true as we read from the Qur’aan: 5:13, 4:46, 3:78 that God’s revelations were reinterpreted. These interpretations followed the folly desires of men, in some areas to abrogate God’s law to suit material wants and desires, for power, even for illicit pleasures:

Their gist is that the Jews were habitually used to issuing religious edicts as desired by the people, either for the benefit of relatives or to satisfy their greed for money, property, influence, and recognition. This had become a common custom particularly in matters involving punishments that they would, if the crime was committed by an influential person, change the severe punishment of the Torah into an ordinary one. It is this behaviour, part of theirs which has been described in the first verse (41) in the following words: يُحَرِّ‌فُونَ الْكَلِمَ مِنْ بَعْدِ مَوَاضِعِهِ (They displace the words after their having been placed properly).

Now the people who were used to making the severe punishments of the Torah easy for their clients by changing them saw an opportunity for themselves whereby they could take such shady matters to the Holy Prophet {saw} and make him their judge or arbitrator. The dual advantage they saw in it was that they would reap the benefits of all easy and light rules of Islamic law, while at the same time, they would not have to commit the crime of altering the Torah. But, here too, they had their crookedness at work as they would hold on to their decision of taking their case to him until such time that they succeeded in finding out beforehand through some source or ruse as to the actual verdict which would be delivered in their case when presented. Then, if they found this verdict matching their wishes, they would make him their arbitrator and have him decide their case. If it happened to be contrary to their wishses, they would leave it at that.- Tafsir Maar’iful Qur’aan : Mufti Rafi Uthmani, pages 164- 165.

However, God did guard the message (risalah) of the revelations (wahy). God sent messengers, prophets to correct the wrong interpretations by these pseudo religious scholars:

إِذْ أَرْ‌سَلْنَا إِلَيْهِمُ اثْنَيْنِ فَكَذَّبُوهُمَا فَعَزَّزْنَا بِثَالِثٍ فَقَالُوا إِنَّا إِلَيْكُمْ مُرْ‌سَلُونَ
When We sent to them two but they denied them, so We strengthened them with a third, and they said, “Indeed, we are messengers to you.” – Qur’an : Suratul Yasin (36) : 14.

In fact, the New Testament, confirms that Messengers were sent to the people who tried to alter His message through new interpretations:

“Jerusalem, Jerusalem, you who kill the prophets and stone those sent to you, how often I have longed to gather your children together, as a hen gathers her chicks under her wings, and you were not willing. – Bible : Matthew (23) : 37.

So as we can see, the Qur’an is correct, God did protect the meaning of His message, until newer revelation was sent. For example the Qur’an abrogates the Injil as the Injil abrogated the Tawrah, and if the case arose where persons were distorting the meaning of a scripture or Prophet’s message, we read that God sent apostles, messengers, Prophets in some instances to correct the people (see 36:14 above).

Corruption of Scripture: Textual Alterations:
However, now we’ve arrived at the crux of the matter, textual corruption. As Muslims we assert that God’s message is preserved by God (as seen above, contextually), but what about textually? We read earlier that God protects His message in totality, that is, textually and contextually (meanings, interpretations). However as Muslims, we also do say that we do not believe in the Old Testaments of the Jews and Christians nor do we believe in the New Testaments of the Christians as being valid, because we assert they are not the words of God. Since they are not the words of God, they can indeed become corrupted and God did not promise to guard the works of man, but only His words.

For example, in the case of the Old Testament, where missionary zealots such as Sam Shamoun and James White try to propose, that their Torah is the Torah from Allaah, we have to correct that appeal to ignorance. The Qur’an does not say that the Old Testament is the word of God, in fact, we read above (5:13) where the Qur’an calls the Torah/ Old Testament of the Jews and Christians as being interpolations from the tongues and minds of men. It is in this regard that the Islamic belief is not that God’s word was corrupted, but that people wrote words and then claimed them to be God’s:

فَوَيْلٌ لِلَّذِينَ يَكْتُبُونَ الْكِتَابَ بِأَيْدِيهِمْ ثُمَّ يَقُولُونَ هَـٰذَا مِنْ عِنْدِ اللَّـهِ لِيَشْتَرُ‌وا بِهِ ثَمَنًا قَلِيلًا ۖ فَوَيْلٌ لَهُمْ مِمَّا كَتَبَتْ أَيْدِيهِمْ وَوَيْلٌ لَهُمْ مِمَّا يَكْسِبُونَ
So woe to those who write the “scripture” with their own hands, then say, “This is from Allah,” in order to exchange it for a small price. Woe to them for what their hands have written and woe to them for what they earn.  – Qur’an : Suratul Baqarah (2) : 79.

With that being said, we must come to the understanding that when the Qur’an says that the message became corrupted, that is textually, it refers to those who put aside God’s revelation and in its stead, replaced the void with their own sayings, beliefs and propaganda. One example is of the Christian New Testament. The Qur’an says that a scripture (Injil) was given to Jesus (Issa, may God be pleased with him):

وَقَفَّيْنَا عَلَىٰ آثَارِ‌هِمْ بِعِيسَى ابْنِ مَرْ‌يَمَ مُصَدِّقًا لِمَا بَيْنَ يَدَيْهِ مِنَ التَّوْرَ‌اةِ ۖ وَآتَيْنَاهُ الْإِنْجِيلَ فِيهِ هُدًى وَنُورٌ‌ وَمُصَدِّقًا لِمَا بَيْنَ يَدَيْهِ مِنَ التَّوْرَ‌اةِ وَهُدًى وَمَوْعِظَةً لِلْمُتَّقِي
And We sent, following in their footsteps, Jesus, the son of Mary, confirming that which came before him in the Torah; and We gave him the Gospel, in which was guidance and light and confirming that which preceded it of the Torah as guidance and instruction for the righteous. – Qur’an : 5: 46.

However Christians by themselves prove the Islamic belief of textual corruption as displayed above:

(1) Muslims believe that Jesus (Issa, may God be pleased with him) was given a revelation by God called the Injil.
(2) Christians believe that inspired scripture about Jesus originated with the apostles of Christ.

Therefore the Christian argument in reality disproves itself. They have now failed on two fronts. Firstly, the premise that Muslims contradict themselves when they say the Bible is corrupted is proven false as we do not believe the Bible is the word of God. We don’t believe it is the word of God for namely two reasons:

(1) Christians assert it’s from the apostles and not from the Prophet Jesus (may God be pleased with him).
Christians assert the revelation (wahy) isn’t revelation verbatim from God, which is what Muslims believe, but that the Bible is an inspired word from God, through the words of men.

Secondly, since they have made significant distinctions with what the Muslim concept of revelation is and what their scripture is actually comprised of, then they have shown that the Bible (New Testament) is not the Injil and as it follows, the Injil is not the Bible.

Therefore, we must come to a logical conclusion. When missionary zealots such as Sam Shamoun and James White, along with their propganda team at AI, state that the Qur’an is wrong for saying the Bible is corrupted because Muslims believe the word of God can’t be corrupted, we must educate them. It is in this light, that our response should be, as such:

  • Muslims believe the word of God cannot be corrupted.
  • We believe the Bible is corrupted because it is not the word of God.

We do not believe it is the word of God because:

  • Christians do not believe the Bible is the verbatim word of God, but inspired ideas from God through the words of men.

In conclusion:

  • Therefore the Bible is corrupted because it is not the word of God and as such Muslims do not believe in it.

What was wrong with James White’s missionary belief, is that they think the Bible is the word of God and therefore we should accept this belief and as a consequence adhere to it, however as displayed above they don’t believe in the kind of scripture we do, they make a clear distinction between the Injil which we believe God revealed to Isa (Jesus, may God be pleased with him), while they believe in a scripture inspired by God, worded by the minds of men, which manifested after Jesus had walked the earth.

May God guide those who appeal to the fallacy of ad ignorantium.

See more:
Inspired Incoherencies: The Corruption of the Bible.

wa Allaahu Alam.
[and God knows best.]

The Dishonesty and Abhorrent Behaviour of James White

Bismillahir Rahmanir Raheem
بِسۡمِ ٱللهِ ٱلرَّحۡمَـٰنِ ٱلرَّحِيمِ ,

As of late, James White, known for intellectual dishonesty:


and his hate tirade against Islam by promoting the beliefs of his friends who abuse and insult Muslims:

Has been tweeting me, which anyone can view here. Unfortunately, this article does not edify the great talents of such a person revered in Christian circles, what you are about to see are messages from a man who berates, degrades and spams others, while refusing to engage in honest and academic discourse. Our journey begins with James White when after being tagged in a few of my tweets, decided to discuss this tweet, which he sent me:

What is most surprising is that James White displayed to me some of the most ridiculous and disrespectful public decorum from any academic that I have ever been privy to. The tweets below are to be read bottom – up for chronological order, what one can see is that I replied to his tweet about the video and within 3 minutes, I was forced to respond to his change of topic, where he began to speak of an earlier tweet aligning him with his ally in bigotry, Sam Shamoun.

In fact, I am publicly apologizing on behalf of James White because of the intellectual suicide that he had to portray towards his followers. His zealot provoked response besides changing the topic to Sam Shamoun, was to quote for me, the verse in Greek which I was referring to in Galations. I find it abhorrent, that his response to my rebuttal of his video is to simply quote my reference. To put it into a layman’s perspective, let’s assume for a moment I send a video to James about apples. He says he disagrees, he prefers oranges, in response, I send him a picture of an apple. Me, sending him a picture of an apple neither forwards or benefits the discussion, but what it does and quite well, is to divert the topic at hand and thus giving him an option to say, “Yes I responded”. When in fact he hasn’t responded to the claim but merely created an excuse to digress.

I wonder what his response would have been, had I decided to simply reply to his messages with ayats from the Qur’aan? This is what we refer to as missionary self defense, instead of pursuing a discussion, the missionary defaults into “self preach mode”. Essentially, don’t expect a logical, rational or sincere response, their only goal at this point is to throw scripture in the hopes that it inspires you to accept their point of view. Clearly this didn’t work, so he decided to attack a straw man, by completely dropping the discussion and reverting to attacking me for associating him with Sam Shamoun’s aides:

From this tweet onwards, he refuses to respond to my continuing discussion on the video he sent me, I attempted many times to divert him from his emotional tirade, to no avail. Apparently he has a problem being associated with Sam Shamoun’s friends, even more so, to the extent he’s willing to abandon a discussion he started on the justice of God, which I did remind him of numerous times:

As you can see, I made it abundantly clear I wanted to finish our initial discussion on the link which he sent, however, this led him to spamming me again, leading to him arguing about his friendships. I really am disappointed in Christian academia, if James White that is, does indeed represent the best of Christian intellectualism. Not only was his behaviour petulant and disrespectful, he neglected to discuss the topic which he offered to engage me in and what was most shocking was his decision to talk about friends rather than God. I suppose he appeals to his own level of intellectualism, which from the discourse seems to be of the kindergarten level, playground chat, arguing about friends. If I wanted to fight about my friends, I would have gone to a friend, rather I like an adult decided to accept James’ challenge for an academic discourse and well he decided friends mattered more.

The next tweet he sends after me reminding him above (“Silliness? You tweeted a video, did you not? Asked me to discuss and instead you changed the topic to an unsavory tweet”), was that decided he didn’t want to continue talking about Jesus or about his friends. Rather he abandoned discussion all together:

In conclusion, I expected better from a man who holds himself in such high esteem, I disagree with his poor ethics and his later insults (shown below).

As a Muslim, I was personally quite elated to have experienced, the self prophesied, leading “Christian Apologetic” fleeing after two tweets about his erratic and inconsistent emotional tirades about friendships. It indeed did please me to see that while James White wants to talk about “friends” as young children do, I was more happy to see the response which was projected unto this website by what I suppose are his twitter followers. We’ve had a spike in traffic due to the twitter discussion, with many comments being posted on some of this site’s articles. I’d like to thank James White for demonstrating pseudo intellectualism, poor academic skills and horrendous public decorum, his actions only served to better the Islamic community and sad to say disparage his own character.

wa Allaahu Alam.
[and God knows best.]

The God that was Killed

 Bismillahir Rahmanir Raheem
بِسۡمِ ٱللهِ ٱلرَّحۡمَـٰنِ ٱلرَّحِيمِ ,

One of the basic attributes that defines God,  is that He has no beginning and no end. In fact, every being that has a beginning and end is created—Consequently, God is not created as He is not characterized by these descriptions or any thing whatsoever that exists in the material world (or the non material). Furthermore, just by reading the title of this article–a question might cross a person’s mind: Can anyone literary kill and murder God? Obviously not—imagine everyday a person attempting to assassinate the Almighty—a weird thing to happen, no?

Hence in short, let me put this straightforward: Any entity that fails to cope with this criterion of having no beginning and no end, is definitely not divine.

So we have a test —let’s simply judge Jesus {as} by this.

(1) Was Jesus created?
Yes! He was formed and shaped in his mother’s womb.

(2) Did Jesus have a beginning and evidently an end?

(3) Can anyone kill God?

The results for testing Jesus’ divinity is clear, it’s a negative.

God loves us–He killed Himself for us!

Moreover, the Bible tells us that Jesus, on the way to the crucifixion scene, when he was taken to receive his sentence that Roman soldiers insulted him by (a) mocking him (b) spitting on him and (c) beating him:

 “And then twisted together a crown of thorns and set it on his head. They put a staff in his right hand and knelt in front of him and mocked him. “Hail, king of the Jews!” they said. They spit on him, and took the staff and struck him on the head again and again.” – Bible : Matthew (27) : 30-31.

Is this an Almighty God who was allegedly mocked, spit on and beaten on his head numerous times?! I beg to differ.

Now a Christian might say—why not? God out of love and humbleness did that—He became like one of us, he suffered and lived as a human being—this actually just shows the wide care He has toward us and who are we to judge God?

Indeed a lot of Christians use this desperate argument to defend their faith but yet I don’t perceive how love and care are understood when God was allegedly spit on? When he ran and hided to avoid being stoned? Is this love? Do we see affection by allegedly seeing God hiding and seeking refuge from his own creation? How is that displaying “love”?

In fact, Jesus according to the Bible, discarded faith in God while in distress, to the extent he uttered words of amounting to God’s abandonment of his own son:

And about the ninth hour Jesus cried out with a loud voice, saying, “Eli, Eli, lama sabachthani?” that is, “My God, My God, why hast Thou forsaken Me?” – Bible : Matthew (27) : 46.

Jesus is accusing God of forsaking Him, that is to abandon Him. Does God show mercy through abandoning his allegedly own son? In fact, CARM’s website on this very subject matters, says it was God’s obligated duty to abandon Jesus in his time of need:

It is possible that at some moment on the cross, when Jesus became sin on our behalf, that God the Father, in a sense, turned His back upon the Son.  It says in Hab. 1:13 that God is too pure to look upon evil.  Therefore, it is possible that when Jesus bore our sins in His body on the cross (1 Pet. 2:24), that the Father, spiritually, turned away.  At that time, the Son may have cried out.

With this in mind, the Christian belief that God the Father abandoned His Son because God considered His Son at this point in time to be evil and therefore turned away from Him, is not only a telling tale of theological absurdity, it’s abhorrent to think that God abandoned Himself and that God saw Himself as inherently the epitome of evil.

If it is that God can choose to be stoned, killed or humiliated then this argument presents the case of God doing other acts, antithesis to His nature—if He would choose that—He can choose to punish the righteous and reward the evils— He can choose to become Satan—or maybe He can choose not to become God anymore—all based on that simple analysis and  awkward, incomprehensible reasoning.

وَرَبُّنَا الرَّحْمَٰنُ الْمُسْتَعَانُ عَلَىٰ مَا تَصِفُونَ
“And our Lord is the Beneficent Allah, Whose help is sought against what you ascribe (to Him) –  Qur’aan : 21 : 112.

Article adapted from site author, Br. Alexus’ works.

and God knows best.
[wa Allaahu Alam].

Refutation: The Quran’s inaccurate description of the Trinity

Bismillahir Rahmanir Raheem
بِسۡمِ ٱللهِ ٱلرَّحۡمَـٰنِ ٱلرَّحِيمِ ,

Chessie Edwards love appealing to Sam Shamoun, he doesn’t have room to think for himself, his entire website is literally a text form for the long winded and ignorant speeches that Sam gives on ABN Sat. Almost every other argument he presents is verbatim from the mouth of Sam with the addition of, “I’m an Ex-Muslim”, as if that phrase adds any additional validity to his inane claims. Neither Sam nor Chessie are well educated in Christian theological history, at best they are internet scholars, if Google or Wikipedia ever goes offline we won’t be able to hear a single new argument. To be quite honest, none of Sam’s arguments are new either, just read a few of William Muir’s books or Abraham Geiger’s works or some of Raymond Lull’s writings against Islam and you’ve pretty much heard all the missionary rants. Most missionaries enjoy stating that the Qur’aan got the trinity wrong. Let’s refute this claim and in doing so, refute Sam as well.

The Qur’aan says:

And [beware the Day] when Allah will say, “O Jesus, Son of Mary, did you say to the people, ‘Take me and my mother as deities besides Allah?'” He will say, “Exalted are You! It was not for me to say that to which I have no right. If I had said it, You would have known it. You know what is within myself, and I do not know what is within Yourself. Indeed, it is You who is Knower of the unseen.

Christians assert that they don’t take Mary as a God, therefore the Qur’aans claim is wrong. However a simple but substantial and formidable refutation to this is to prove one of two cases:

(1) To show atleast one Christian aligned sect which engaged in Mary worship or took Mary as a God.
(2) To show where a majority of Christian sects worship Mary or took Mary as a God.

The premise the Qur’aan operates under, or the modus operandi, the operational term, deities, i.e. Gods [إِلَـٰهَيْنِ]. In Islamic theology, to take something or someone as a God, beside Allaah is termed Shirk. There are many ways to commit Shirk, it can be through worship, through seeking intercession, by praying to someone beside God, or even attributing God’s attributes to anything other than God. For example if God is All Knowing, but I say that Mary is all knowing, then in this case I would have committed shirk. With this in mind, can I demonstrate anywhere in Christian theology where Shirk [associating God’s attributes to Mary] occurs?

Proving: (1) To show atleast one Christian aligned sect which engaged in Mary worship or took Mary as a God.

The Catholic Encyclopedia states, “The existence of the obscure sect of the Collyridians, whom St. Epiphanius (d. 403) denounces for their sacrificial offering of cakes to Mary, may fairly be held to prove that even before the Council of Ephesus there was a popular veneration for the Virgin Mother which threatened to run extravagant lengths.” This by itself proves my first premise, that there was a group of Christians, the Collyridians of whom engaged in rampant worship of Mary. As famous Catholic speaker Patrick Madrid as defined them:

The heresy of the Collyridians was very simple: They worshiped Mary.

Whether or not Sam Shamoun or Chessie Edwards considers the Collyridians as Christian does not matter. They are seen as a heretical Christian sect and as such, their worship of Mary complies with the Qur’aanic claim.

Proving: (2) To show where a majority of Christian sects worship Mary or took Mary as a God.

What’s unknown to most missionary zealots is the clear cut Mary worship involved in today’s prominent Christian sects, i.e. Catholicism and Protestantism. It might seem odd, or unclear to most Christians, but the focal point of Christendom revolves around sin. In this light, we have to recall the Immaculate Conception, this refers to the conception of Mary. For Jesus to have been born sinless, he had to be rid of the original sin and to be born free of the original sin, you cannot be born through the womb of a woman. However this problem is solved in Christian theology by God granting Mary a special mercy or blessing, where she is pure and sinless and thus does not carry on the original sin to her child, Jesus.

However, the early Christian church in inventing the idea of the Immaculate Conception, attributed God like features to Mary:

The salutation of the angel Gabriel — chaire kecharitomene, Hail, full of grace (Luke 1:28) indicates a unique abundance of grace, a supernatural, godlike state of soul, which finds its explanation only in the Immaculate Conception of Mary. But the term kecharitomene (full of grace) serves only as an illustration, not as a proof of the dogma.

Her state is unique, supernatural and godlike. This, coming from the Catholic Encyclopedia, as evidence from the Bible of Mary’s Immaculate Conception. Yet, from the Bible, they are implying her soul is like the “soul of God”, they are in essence comparing her to God or attributing to her, God like features. This constitutes Shirk, thus proving point (2). Yet it does not end there, the polytheistic quotes continue:

she was created in a condition more sublime and glorious than all other natures. – Theodorus of Jerusalem in Mansi, XII, 1140.

To St. Ephraem she was as innocent as Eve before her fall, a virgin most estranged from every stain of sin, more holy than the Seraphim, the sealed fountain of the Holy Ghost, the pure seed of God, ever in body and in mind intact and immaculate. – Carmina Nisibena.


Seeing as both points are proven above, then the claim that the Qur’aan asserts, that of Mary being taken as a God in Christendom has been proven valid and to be truthful. Sam’s biggest claim to refute the Qur’aanic statement was that Mary had been attributed to the Trinity, yet this was not the Qur’aanic assertion, the Qur’aanic statement had to do with Mary being taken as a God. Since the claim has been proven true, it rests upon Sam Shamoun to either publicly correct himself for his doctrinal error or as I expect, for him to deny the evidences and ignore this refutation.

wa Allaahu Alam.
[and God knows best.]

Bible: Inspired Incoherencies.

Bismillahir Rahmanir Raheem
بِسۡمِ ٱللهِ ٱلرَّحۡمَـٰنِ ٱلرَّحِيمِ ,

One of the primary arguments that Missionaries use is that the Bible is an inspired word of God, meaning God didn’t dictate to the unknown authors what to write, but inspired these authors to write a synoptic (general, but cohesive) story about the worldly ministry of Jesus. The problem with this though is that most Christians don’t exactly read all of the Bible. For example, a story which occurs in Matthew would be read and the reference for that similar story is acknowledged (in the footnotes), whether it be in Mark or Luke, however after one has read the story in Matthew and acting under the impression that it would be redundant to read the same story in another Gospel, Christians may simply become content with having just read the story in Matthew, while foregoing the reading of the other Gospels. This is problematic because Christians are indoctrinated with the impression that synoptic means, “recalling the same story, albeit from an alternate viewpoint”. While linguistically this definition is accurate, it behoves me to remind our Missionary friends as well as Evangelical inerrantists that while Mark, Matthew and Luke (I’m excluding John because it gives an entirely variant viewpoint all together) in some way do narrate similar stories their narratives are often conflicting if not incohesive and inconclusive. What we must come to realise, if we truly are seeking the truth in religion is that the Synoptic Gospels aren’t fully Synoptic, rather they present a myopic view of events surrounding the person and life of Jesus, the Messiah of Israel.

One of the more popular examples is the conflicting end of the Gospel of “Mark”, Christians often assume that such a conflict does not affect their doctrine therefore it is useless to discuss it. However, it does indeed affect their doctrine, if we agree with the presumption that God did inspire these 4 writers to complete a synoptic narrative of Jesus’ ministry where we could expect missing elements of one of the narratives but have the answer in another narrative, how could we account for one narrative that’s conflicting in itself. That therefore, presents a doctrinal problem, which manuscript of a select Gospel, did God actually inspire? We could have over 30 versions of Mark, 15 with the short conclusion and 15 with the longer conclusion, which 15 did God inspire? If we take this problem and replicate it among the 4 Gospels we are introduced to an even greater question, which group out of all of these manuscripts actually consist of the inspired word of God? To understand this problem, let’s take a look at Prof. Bruce Metzger’s analysis of the Ethiopic Manuscripts of the Gospel of Mark:

Until the latter part of the twentieth century, the status of the last 12 verses of Mark in this version was in doubt, arising from conflicting statements made concerning the evidence of the same manuscripts. Now, however, on the basis of the personal examination of photographs of the ending of the second Gospel in 65 Ethiopic manuscripts, belonging to about 30 different collections, Metzger has ascertained that all of them have the text of Mark 16.9-20. In addition, what is known as the “shorter ending” of Mark, found in several Greek and Syriac manuscripts, occurs in many Ethiopic manuscripts between 16.8 and 9. Subsequently, William F. Macomber of the Hill Monastic Manuscript Microfilm Library at Collegeville, Minnesota, examined microfilms of 129 additional Ethiopic manuscripts of Mark. Of the total of 194 (65 + 129) manuscripts, all but two (which are lectionaries) have Mark 16.9-20, while 131 contain both the shorter ending and the longer ending. At the end of the Ethiopic version of Acts chapter 28, there is a directive to readers to consult Paul’s letters and the Acts of Paul, as well as information about Paul’s further activities in Rome. This addition originated as a gloss or colophon that was later integrated into the main text.”  – (The Text of the New Testament: Its Transmission, Corruption and Restoration, Bruce M. Metzger & Bart D. Ehrman, pp 120-121.)

Prof. Bruce has clearly outlined a major problem for inerrantists and missionary zealots, what started as a colophon (an inscription placed usually at the end of a book, giving facts about its publication), became inspired scripture after a change of hands, through numerous scribes, eventually making its way into the mass population of Christendom. His statements are profound, for when missionary zealots propose that it is absurd that the word of God could have changed while so many people were in possession of it, we really must educate them. Clearly, as stated above, we have extant evidence of this happening, with various codices and manuscripts numbering more than 100, while in mass circulation having two varying endings. While the proposition of such corruption may be laughable to many missionary zealots, the empirical evidence is quite clear, the delusion that this could not happen, is smashed by the manuscripts themselves. Prof. Metzger continues:

Scholars differ on the question of the date of origin of the Ethiopic version; some argue for a date as early as the fourth century, while others attribute it to the sixth or seventh century. Opinion also differs as to whether the translators made use of a Greek or Syriac original. In any case, it is a curious fact that in the Epistles of Paul the version frequently agrees with p46 with little or no other support. The version also shows evidence of later contamination from Coptic and Arabic texts. Thus, the Ethiopic text eventually became a conglomerate with quite disparate elements standing side by side. Analyses of the earlier form of the Ethiopic version disclose a mixed type of text, predominantly Byzantine in complexion but with occasional agreement with certain early Greek witnesses (p46 and B) against all other witnesses. The little that is known of this version as far as the New Testament is concerned (the Old Testament has been studied more thoroughly) suggests that it deserves far more attention than it has received. The earliest known manuscript, a codex of the four Gospels, dates from the thirteenth century; most other manuscripts are of the fifteenth and succeeding centuries. – (The Text of the New Testament: Its Transmission, Corruption and Restoration, Bruce M. Metzger & Bart D. Ehrman, pp 120-121.)

In summation, what we’ve read from the above excerpt is that further corruption took place due to Coptic Christian and Arabic Christian transmission of the manuscripts of the New Testament Gospels. Wherein he seals the problem of the manuscript corruption with these words:

“Thus, the Ethiopic text eventually became a conglomerate with quite disparate elements standing side by side. Analyses of the earlier form of the Ethiopic version disclose a mixed type of text, predominantly Byzantine in complexion but with occasional agreement with certain early Greek witnesses (p46 and B) against all other witnesses.”

I personally look forward to the refutation of this article by missionary zealots, where they’ll have only one of two conclusions to arrive at:

(1) Deny the above evidence by reinterpreting the corruption as invalid stories by liberal scholars who lack faith.
(2) Concur with the corruption but say it doesn’t affect doctrine therefore it does not matter.

To refute position (1), we can simply question their logic and reason. If a person examines two sheets of paper and notices one is unlike the other, does that make such a person, a liberal atheist who only pretends to be Christian? Simple observation and determining a conclusive understanding based on one’s observation equates someone to being a fraudulent Christian?

To refute position (2), the very fact that Christians presuppose that God inspired these men to write, not by dictation but by their own ideas, implies that God wanted the variations to occur and thus sought to confuse rather than guide the masses. If God wanted to guide humanity, then he would have guarded it, protected it. We read from the Old Testament how much emphasis God placed on preserving the Torah:

“Take this Book of the Law and place it beside the ark of the covenant of the LORD your God. There it will remain as a witness against you.” – Bible : Deuteronomy (31) : 26.

Protected with great extravagance and attention to detail:

When the camp is to move, Aaron and his sons are to go in and take down the shielding curtain and put it over the ark of the covenant law. Then they are to cover the curtain with a durable leather, spread a cloth of solid blue over that and put the poles in place.- Bible : Numbers (4) : 5-6.

Furthermore to state that God wanted variations to occur is also in direct contradiction to the Bible in itself:

For God is not a God of confusion but of peace. As in all the churches of the saints. – Bible : 1 Corinthians (14) : 33.

As I have demonstrated above, we can conclude that either possible argument against Biblical manuscript corruption is not easily disproved, but also irrational and illogical. Only a person of great arrogance and ignorance would continue to contest such a simply demonstrable fact. If we forego the manuscript corruption, can we actually find incoherencies within the Gospels themselves? Yes, however normally at this stage we’d encounter counting and genealogical problems from the Old Testament and not the Gospels, such as:

And those that died in the plague were twenty and four thousand. – Bible : Numbers (25) : 9.

Neither let us commit fornication, as some of them committed, and fell in one day three and twenty thousand. – Bible : 1 Corinthians (10) : 8.

Or perhaps genealogical errors:

And the sons of Eliphaz were Teman, Omar, Zepho, and Gatam, and Kenaz. – Bible : Genesis (36) : 11.

These were dukes of the sons of Esau: the sons of Eliphaz the firstborn son of Esau; duke Teman, duke Omar, duke Zepho, duke Kenaz, Duke Korah, duke Gatam, and duke Amalek: these are the dukes that came of Eliphaz in the land of Edom; these were the sons of Adah. – Bible : Genesis (36) : 15 – 16.

The sons of Eliphaz; Teman, and Omar, Zephi, and Gatam, Kenaz, and Timna, and Amalek. – Bible : 1 Chronicles (1) : 36.

However, these are found in the Old Testament and while some Christians may profess they believe in this Old Testament, they are quick to to deny it’s applicability in relation to the New Testament which is based on the life of their God, Jesus. With that said, can we find similar inconsistencies, based on the doctrine of Christians? Indeed we can, to begin with, the Bible’s epistles are generally discussions by Church leaders on heretics and developing beliefs among the masses, usually they contain directives supposedly based on the life of Jesus, however these directives, although meant for the people, directly contradict the Gospels in themselves, leaving one with an air of confusion. For example, this simple directive in Titus 3:9 :-

But avoid foolish controversies and genealogies and arguments and quarrels about the law, because these are unprofitable and useless.

Seems like a simple directive, not hard to achieve, relatively good advice, except that the Bible here is calling itself unprofitable and useless. To begin with, it directs Christians to avoid genealogies, yet when we read Matthew 1 and Luke 3, we have entire chapters devoted to them:

This is the genealogy of Jesus the Messiahthe son of David, the son of Abraham:

2 Abraham was the father of Isaac,
Isaac the father of Jacob,
Jacob the father of Judah and his brothers,
3 Judah the father of Perez and Zerah, whose mother was Tamar,
Perez the father of Hezron,
Hezron the father of Ram,
4 Ram the father of Amminadab,
Amminadab the father of Nahshon,
Nahshon the father of Salmon,
5 Salmon the father of Boaz, whose mother was Rahab,
Boaz the father of Obed, whose mother was Ruth,
Obed the father of Jesse,
6 and Jesse the father of King David.
David was the father of Solomon, whose mother had been Uriah’s wife,
7 Solomon the father of Rehoboam,
Rehoboam the father of Abijah,
Abijah the father of Asa,
8 Asa the father of Jehoshaphat,
Jehoshaphat the father of Jehoram,
Jehoram the father of Uzziah,
9 Uzziah the father of Jotham,
Jotham the father of Ahaz,
Ahaz the father of Hezekiah,
10 Hezekiah the father of Manasseh,
Manasseh the father of Amon,
Amon the father of Josiah,
11 and Josiah the father of Jeconiah[c] and his brothers at the time of the exile to Babylon.
12 After the exile to Babylon:
Jeconiah was the father of Shealtiel,
Shealtiel the father of Zerubbabel,
13 Zerubbabel the father of Abihud,
Abihud the father of Eliakim,
Eliakim the father of Azor,
14 Azor the father of Zadok,
Zadok the father of Akim,
Akim the father of Elihud,
15 Elihud the father of Eleazar,
Eleazar the father of Matthan,
Matthan the father of Jacob,
16 and Jacob the father of Joseph, the husband of Mary, and Mary was the mother of Jesus who is called the Messiah.
17 Thus there were fourteen generations in all from Abraham to David, fourteen from David to the exile to Babylon, and fourteen from the exile to the Messiah.

A bit ironic isn’t it? Feel free to read Luke 3 here. Although it is well known that Paul’s epistles were authored before the Gospels were written, many missionary zealots tend to argue that the Gospels were written by the disciples themselves. Given that Paul’s epistles were authored between 50 CE and 65 CE, you’d think that atleast one disciple, apostle, presbyter, anyone really (acting under the premise that the 4 Gospels did exist at this time) would have seen this major and blatant inconsistency in New Testament directives. How could the Bible in essence, condemn genealogies (which contradict within themselves) but then have two areas where genealogies are listed, far worse where the New Testament even begins with one? It really does leave a lot of questions unanswered, but what it does do is prove the historical claim that the epistles were written first and then the gospels, by persons who had yet to place them together as a scripture, thus leaving much room for errors.

Are there instances where Jesus argued about the law? Why yes, there are many, but for the sake of brevity, let’s look at one instance, Matthew 22: 41-42, 45 :-

While the Pharisees were gathered together, Jesus asked them,  “What do you think about the Messiah? Whose son is he?”….. If then David calls him ‘Lord,’ how can he be his son?”

Notice, Jesus in this instance approaches and asks the Pharisees about laws and genealogies, not only contradicting the directive in Titus 3:9, but whosoever wrote Matthew 22, really had not seen Matthew 1, as it argues Jesus is the son of David:

This is the genealogy of Jesus the Messiah, the son of David, the son of Abraham.

Whereas Matthew 22 argues that Jesus is not the son of David, but the Lord of David, Matthew 1 argues that Jesus is the son of David and has no mention of him having lordship over anyone. It’s one mistake to have an epistle contradict a gospel, but to have a gospel contradicting itself, let alone the very first verse of the New Testament? Highly appalling to say the least.

Thus far, I’ve demonstrated inconsistencies:

(1) From within the manuscripts.
(2) From within New Testament Laws and Directives.
(3) From within the same Gospel.

What is left to demonstrate now, is the incoherencies from within the the synoptic narrative, this being between one Gospel and another:

When Jesus had again crossed over by boat to the other side of the lake, a large crowd gathered around him while he was by the lake. Then one of the synagogue leaders, named Jairus, came, and when he saw Jesus, he fell at his feet. He pleaded earnestly with him, “My little daughter is dying. Please come and put your hands on her so that she will be healed and live.” So Jesus went with him. – Bible : Mark (5) : 21-24.

In this version, the girl is dying, she has yet to die, so Jesus is asked to come to heal her so that she will continue to live, Jesus accepts the proposition and proceeds to heal her. However in this version, the girl is already dead and the father asks Jesus to make her live:

While he was saying this, a synagogue leader came and knelt before him and said, “My daughter has just died. But come and put your hand on her, and she will live.” Jesus got up and went with him, and so did his disciples.  – Bible : Matthew (9) : 18-19.

So we are presented with two conflicting narratives. Is the girl dying and awaiting Jesus to cure her, or has she already died and waiting for Jesus to raise her from the dead? Which narrative is true? Which one did God inspire? If I am to believe that Jesus did a miracle, which miracle in this case did he do? What’s worse is that even the Bible’s narration of this story was prohibited by Jesus, after he has cured the girl according to Mark’s gospel, Jesus gives a clear directive:

He gave strict orders not to let anyone know about this, and told them to give her something to eat. – Bible : Mark (5) : 43.

If Jesus did in fact speak those words, and he himself according to Christian theology is God, how can we explain, that the God who inspired two (2) Gospel authors to write about this story which more than 1 billion people have read, also commanded for it to remain secret?

In conclusion, I’ve demonstrated inconsistencies:

(1) From within the manuscripts.
(2) From within New Testament Laws and Directives.
(3) From within the same Gospel.
(4) From within the same Gospel’s chapter.
(5) From within the Synoptic Narrative.

If you are a Christian and you’ve read this article, the onus is on you to take the challenge further. Your faith here isn’t being demeaned or manipulated, but what is being done to it, is a critical examination of Biblical Gospel Truth. If you are willing to concede that these are errors and are willing to confirm in your heart and mind that you cannot accept that your faith’s foundations are this inconsistent, I encourage you to take a sincere look at the religion of Islam, which some 1400 and more years ago, from within the true word of God (The Qur’aan), speaking on the Bible, has said:

لِلَّذِينَ يَكْتُبُونَ الْكِتَابَ بِأَيْدِيهِمْ ثُمَّ يَقُولُونَ هَـٰذَا مِنْ عِنْدِ اللَّـهِ لِيَشْتَرُ‌وا بِهِ ثَمَنًا قَلِيلًا ۖ فَوَيْلٌ لَهُمْ مِمَّا كَتَبَتْ أَيْدِيهِمْ وَوَيْلٌ لَهُمْ مِمَّا يَكْسِبُونَ
(So woe to those who write the “scripture” with their own hands, then say, “This is from Allah,” in order to exchange it for a small price. Woe to them for what their hands have written and woe to them for what they earn. ) – Qur’aan : Suratul Baqarah (2) : 79.

wa Allaahu Alam.
[and God knows best.]

« Older Entries Recent Entries »