Tag Archives: samuel green

Missionary Mishap: Origin Stories of the Disciples

The origin stories of the disciples is perhaps some of the most contentious passages of the New Testament Gospels. Earlier today I had a conversation with Samuel Green on this very topic, which led to the conversation below:


One Gospel – Matthew indicates that Jesus initially meets Peter and Andrew beside the Sea of Galilee casting their nets. John 1 disagrees and has Andrew go fetch Peter, bring him to Jesus and there they meet with Jesus near the River Jordan. One version has Jesus going to them (Sea of Galilee), the other has them coming to Jesus (River Jordan). Quite the contradiction!

and God knows best.

Christian to Samuel Green: “You clearly don’t know anything about Islam”

Well this is embarrassing. Pastor Samuel Green who specializes in “ministering to Muslims” ran into quite an awkward argument recently with a fellow but prominent London based Christian missionary. The argument revolves around Green’s lack of education when it comes to Islam, which has upset and embarrassed fellow Christians as Green prides himself on his “engaging with Islam”. Someone had to burst his bubble and it was not pretty:



We’d like to thank the Christian community for finally bringing to light what we all know about Samuel – he doesn’t know anything about Islam.

and God knows best.

Samuel Green Changes Views on the Bible

Muslims have always been clear on the status of the Qur’an and Qur’anic translations. The Qur’an is scripture only in the Arabic language, translations of the Qur’an into other languages are only representations of the Qur’an, they are representations of scripture but not scripture in and of themselves. As such, a Muslim’s salaah or prayer is only valid if one recites the Qur’an in Arabic, the original language in which it was revealed. A Muslim fully understands that the English translation of the Qur’an can be wrong, as a translation depends on the understanding of the translator. Therefore, a translation is representative of someone’s understanding of the Qur’an from its original language to a different language. Whereas the Qur’an itself in Arabic is as God has revealed it. This is why, when missionaries criticise the Qur’an, they immediately go to the English translation which best suits their understanding as opposed to the primary text of the Qur’an in Arabic. Christians have boasted that the Bible is a scripture regardless of what language it is in. The New Testament originally written in Greek, is equally scripture alongside an English or Chinese translation. Whereas, for a Muslim, the Qur’an in Arabic is scripture and the Qur’an in English is a representation or interpretation of the scripture, they are not equal.

This however, may no longer be the case with Pastor Samuel Green. Posed with a question concerning a Syriac version of the New Testament, instead of defending it as scripture, he discarded the Syriac version as merely a translation which is not the same as the original. Pastor Samuel, has indeed now accepted the Muslim belief that only the original is scripture and the translation is not! I was very surprised to see him using this view, knowing that I have never heard him say this before.





For once, we Muslims can agree with the Pastor. Translations should be treated as translations and scripture treated as scripture!

and Allah knows best!


Samuel Green’s Angry

Seems like Samuel Green’s angry at me for the article published yesterday. When he saw it, he posted this comment:


I mean, that excuse would work, but yesterday he was involved in another conversation with me (names blurred out for privacy):


So his excuse is that he was too busy to respond, but ends up in a lengthy discussion with me and others the very same day that he alleges he was busy on? I chose to confront him on that, how could you be too busy  yesterday to respond if you were also arguing with me yesterday?



After being caught out, he decided to call me a slanderer. Although I’m not sure if he knows what that word means. I said he was unable to respond, he says he was also unable to respond. So I’m not sure where the slander is. This is like the time he got angry at me for asking him to qualify one of his claims, he promised to respond to me, and almost a year later he hasn’t. Will he remember to respond this time, or is he going to repeat his lack of finishing discussions when he’s caught out? You’re better than that Samuel, cheer up mate!

and God knows best.


Refutation: Comparing the Bible and the Qur’an

This article is in response to another writing of the same title by Pastor Samuel Green, “Comparing the Bible and the Qur’an“.

Reason 1. The Context of the Bible and Qur’an

Scripture is supposed to be God’s message to mankind, it does not have to be a history book or a biography. It needs to mention what is needed to be known so that the message could be understood. The Qur’aan does not revolve around the life of Muhammad ﷺ, but it does relate many relevant verses about occurrences throughout the Prophet’s ﷺ life. The Qur’aan is not of human production and thus unlike the Bible it is not ordered through human concepts of organization: chronologically, topically, by (chapter) length, by name (title) or alphabetically. It would be crass to expect the Qur’aan to be ordered like the Bible or to provide the same information as the Bible. Whereas the Bible consists of biographies, letters, revelation, doxologies, epistles, pastorials, poems; the Qur’aan specifically consists only of revelation and nothing else. Pastor Samuel goes on to state:

“Thus, to understand the Bible you only need the Bible. In fact, many of the stories which are only briefly retold in the Qur’an are told in full in the Bible. The Bible is self-sufficient, as the word of God should be.”

This would be patently false and one of the ways we can demonstrate this is by the dependence of Christians to rely upon commentaries, exegeses and lectionaries. In fact, to not rely upon any of the three previous categories of writings and to rely upon one’s own understanding of the Bible is considered to be eisegesis. Oxford Biblical Studies defines this to mean, “A comparatively modern term to describe, disapprovingly, a piece of scholarship which appears to find in a given text a significance alien to its context. This might be to provide biblical support for a doctrinal position already held. The term was coined (from the Greek eis, in, and egeisthai, to guide) as the opposite of exegesis (Greek ek), which means an elucidation of.

In regard to the claim that the Qur’aan cannot be understood without the Seerah (Biography of the Prophet ﷺ) or without the narrations of the Prophet ﷺ, we believe that the Qur’aan can be understood without them to some extent, but for a more accurate understanding and a more comprehensive understanding we must often refer to these other forms of literature. It should be noted that it is the Qur’aan which commands the believers to obey the Prophet ﷺ:

“Say, “Obey Allah and the Messenger.” But if they turn away – then indeed, Allah does not like the disbelievers.” – Qur’aan 3:32.

The only way to do this is to follow his Prophetic Sunnah, and so it can be understood that by utilizing the Prophetic Sunnah to understand the Qur’aan, we do this because it is a command in the Qur’aan to do so.This is more of a safeguard as to avoid the sin of eisegesis, as opposed to the Qur’aan being incomplete in any way, shape and or form. I would agree with the Pastor’s statement, “Therefore to compare the Bible to the Qur’an alone is misleading and inaccurate.” I agree with this because the Qur’aan is unlike the Bible in purpose and historical development. Whereas the some parts of the Bible began as authoritative writings and then became scripture (Councils of Carthage, 393 &397 CE), the Qur’aan from its very inception has been and was always scripture in its entirety.

Reason 2. Practices and Beliefs

The Qur’aan contains all of the beliefs that Muslims must know, the Pastor has not provided an instance where we believe something that is not manifested in the Qur’aan. Whereas the Qur’aan commands us to do certain actions such as to fast and pray, to understand how the Prophet ﷺ enacted these commands we refer to the Prophetic Sunnah. While in Islam we separate scripture or the Word of God (risalah) from the biography and actions of the Prophet ﷺ or the Messenger of the Word of God (rasool), the New Testament mixes both and thus the Word of God is lost among the words of men, history and biographies. The Pastor continues by stating:

“The Bible has everything a Christian needs. The Bible fully declares what God has done to save us and bring glory to himself and how we are to live. It is the basis for our wisdom and defines our liberty. “

This is largely untrue, for example the beliefs about the Trinity cannot be found in the New Testament. Nor can the beliefs about the hypostatic union, the second coming of Christ, the immaculate nature of Mary, their doctrine of salvation solely by grace (their soteriological perspective), the foregoing of the laws of God and the original sin.

Why is the Bible so complete?

The Bible is not complete for the reasons outlined above. The Pastor makes the claim that the Bible contains the teachings of the Prophets. However, as is well known, Christians forego the alleged teachings of the Prophets and follow the teachings of Paul. Therefore including the alleged writings of the Prophets in the Bible is largely useless to the Christian faith. Perhaps what is most troubling is that while Moses lived between 1600 and 1300 BCE, the oldest record of the Old Testament is from 250 BCE, the Dead Sea Scrolls. With a space of over 1300 years between the Prophets and the Old Testament, it would be very difficult to ascertain whether or not these writings were actually written by the Prophets themselves or written homonymously (by authors writing in the name of the Prophets).

A More Accurate Comparison

Whereas none of the major doctrines of the Christian faith can be found in the New Testament or the Old Testament, the major beliefs of Islam can be found with complete certainty in the Qur’aan. Our doctrine of Tawheed? Surah al Ikhlas 112 covers the entirety of that doctrine in 4 verses. The same cannot be said of the Trinity, Salvation by Grace, the Immaculate  Conception, a Divine Messiah, a Second Coming of Christ or of the hypostatic union. As stated previously, whereas the Qur’aan solely contains the words of God, the Bible contains the words of men in the form of letters, epistles, pastorials, biographies, poems mixed with the words of God to the point that it is very difficult for any Christian to ascertain which is from God and which is from man. This therefore, cannot be seen as a deficiency of the Qur’aan, but should be seen as a corruption and blatant travesty against the sanctity of scripture in the form of the Bible. Whereas Islam keeps the distinction between the commands of God and the Prophetic enactment of those commands, the same cannot be said of the New Testament.

Some Application

1. The Bible and the Qur’aan are not the same in their typology (style of presenation) and in terms of their contents. Whereas the Bible is absent of the major beliefs of Christianity (as highlighted previously), the Qur’aan contains all major beliefs of the Muslims. While the Bible contains biographical works, letters, epistles, poems and other works of men, the Qur’aan solely contains the word of God. Thus, the Muslim is able to distinguish between the Word of God and the Prophetic enactment of the Word of God. While the Bible does claim to contain the works of the Prophets, the time span between that of the Prophets and that of the oldest Old Testament is too wide for anyone to claim with certainty that they were written by the Prophets themselves and until such evidence is presented, anyone who holds to that claim has fallen prey to the fallacy of wishful thinking.

2. If Muslims and Christians were to take the Qur’aan and the Bible in order to demonstrate their most sacred beliefs, the Christian would not be able to discuss the Trinity, the Hypostatic union and other major beliefs without relying on the debates of the Patristics (Church Fathers) who articulated most of their beliefs over a 400 year period. An example would be the doctrine of Tawheed versus that of the doctrine of the Trinity. Whereas the Muslim can refer the Christian to Qur’aan Surah 112 (al-Ikhlas), the Christian cannot refer us to any passage that entirely expresses their belief in the Trinity.

3. It is true that the Prophetic Sunnah compliments the Qur’aan and that beliefs can be derived from both. However, while the Prophetic Sunnah can undergo scrutiny, literary criticism and inspection, the Qur’aan does not undergo these things. Therefore beliefs extracted from the Prophetic Sunnah can be studied to verify their authenticity as the Prophet ﷺ may have been commanded to practise an act in one particular way earlier during his life and another way at a later period during his life. In the case of female circumcision, this is a common practise that should not be confused with female genital mutilation. A cliterodectomy is legal in most Western nations and is considered a cosmetic medical practise.

4. All religions with scripture do not condone the practise of extracting one’s own understanding of the scripture by self interpretation. This practise, known as eisegesis (defined above), is actively discouraged in both the Christian and Muslim faiths respectively. To tackle the Pastor’s claim, we invite him to defend the view that the Unitarians who read the Bible and reject the Trinity based on the Bible, that they are reading it correctly. It is quite obvious that when it comes to contentious verses with which the various Christian sects dispute about, the Pastor would turn to his commentaries to explain the proper understanding of those verses. While the Qur’aan can be understood by reading it, a Muslim knows he would be understanding its passages clearly by seeing the enactment of the Qur’aan and its explanation through the Prophetic Sunnah of Muhammad ﷺ. Thus, I find the Pastor’s claim to be wholly inaccurate and a poor representation of both the beliefs of Muslims and Christians in regard to their handling of scripture.

and Allaah knows best.

Pastor Samuel Green Proves Biblical Errancy

This must be embarrassing for the Pastor, because this outrageous outcome is contrary to what he was trying to do – defend the inerrancy of the Bible. His problem begins with Mark 2:26, which reads:

In the days of Abiathar the high priest, he entered the house of God and ate the consecrated bread, which is lawful only for priests to eat. And he also gave some to his companions.”

This statement is contrary to the Tanakh (Old Testament), which in 1 Samuel 21:1, which reads:

David went to Nob, to Ahimelek the priest. Ahimelek trembled when he met him, and asked, “Why are you alone? Why is no one with you?”

The dilemma in this case is, either Abiathar or Ahimelek could be the High Priest of the Temple when David entered to eat the consecrated bread. Following what Christians usually do when a conflict occurs, the Pastor immediately harmonized the two incidents and stated they both were the High Priests of the Temple at the same time:


This method of harmonization is often employed generously by evangelical inerrantists. How this method works is explained in the following manner: There are two books, X and Y. From this, X says 2 people were present at an event, Y says that 3 people were present at the same event. In using harmonization, evangelicals like the Pastor can claim:

  • There were both 2 persons and 3 persons, the recording of the number of persons differed according to the time. At one point there were 2 persons and later a third joined them.
  • There were 5 people present, but X saw only 2 and Y saw only 3.

If we were to look at the Pastor’s comment, he utilizes this method by claiming the two were High Priests at the same time. However, this is impossible, as there can only be one High Priest of the Temple at a time. The Pastor demonstrates that he is ignorant of Jewish religious tradition, by applying a Christian understanding to the Jewish faith. What makes this hilarious, yet perilous to his inerrantist stance, is that the author of Mark either lied in his gospel, made a historical error or confused Ahimelek with his son, Abiathar. The only conclusion we can draw from this is that their is a historical error and thus this presents a problem for Samuel Green’s faith.

One exegesis on the error of Mark 2:26 says:

In the days or Abiathar the high priest: and yet from the history it is clear, that it was in the days of Ahimelech the high priest, the father of Abiathar; wherefore the Jew charges (k) Mark with an error, and Matthew and Luke too: whereas the two last make no mention of the name of any high priest; and it might be observed, that in the Persic version of Mark it is rendered, “under Abimelech the high priest”; and in an ancient copy of Beza’s, the whole clause is omitted; though it must be owned, that so it is read in other Greek copies, and in the ancient versions, the Vulgate Latin, Syriac, Arabic, and others: wherefore let it be further observed, that the fact referred to was done in the days of Abiathar, though it was before he was an high priest; and the particle may be so rendered, about, or “before Abiathar was high priest”, as it is in Matthew 1:11. – Gill’s Exposition of the Bible.

We can see that this error in Mark has embarrassed Christians for centuries as the manuscript record shows. Matthew and Luke, both of which were written after Mark, and which were based on Mark, exclude the name of the High Priest. The scribe of codex Bezae excludes the verse completely. Gill, in trying to gloss over this error, happens to make it worse:

that the names of the father and the son are sometimes changed; Ahimelech is called Abiathar, and this Abiathar is called Ahimelech, the son of Abiathar, 2 Samuel 8:17, and Abimelech the son of Abiathar, 1 Chronicles 18:16. And it seems as if both father and son had two names, and were sometimes called by the one, and sometimes by the other: for as the father is sometimes called Abiathar, the son is called Ahimelech, or Abimelech – Ibid.

Apparently, the Jews in writing the Tanakh, confused the father with the son at some point, and so the various other narratives that mention their names continued the error as they could not decipher which one of them was the father or the son. So not only has this error demonstrated that the Gospels are incapable of being from God, as they contain factual errors which embarrassed Christians, it also demonstrates the incompetency of the Jewish scribes to preserve their scripture. I’m not sure whose attempt at harmonization is worse between Pastor Samuel Green and John Gill, as Gill actually tries to use the error in the Tanakh to prove that Jews considered the names of a father and son to be interchangeable, as opposed to the scribes confusing the father and the son.

and God knows best.

Shaykh Muhammad Mustafa al ‘Azami Speaks on the Orientalist Agenda

Prominent and erudite scholar, Shaykh Muhammad Mustafa al ‘Azami (damat barakatahum) has spoken recently on the misappropriation of Islamic knowledge and beliefs by Oriental and Christian “scholarship”. Case in point, see my last post on Samuel Green using an Oriental-Colonial era ethnic slur to describe Muslims or James White’s Dividing Line program where he referred to Tafsir ibn Katheer as “one of the earliest commentaries on the Qur’aan“, this coming from two individuals who have written and “studied” extensively about Islam. Shaykh al ‘Azami says:

A leading Islamic scholar, and a winner of the King Faisal International Prize for Islamic Studies, has slammed orientalists in the West for spreading false information about the religion. Muhammad Mustafa Azmi, who specializes in Hadith studies, said: “Their false and misleading works are now called research but have no valid arguments.”

“Nowadays their voices are louder than others; they are read and heard all over the world. All their misleading work is called research and even some groups of educated Muslims are influenced by them,” he said. He urged Islamic teachers to preach righteousness and truth. Azmi is best known for his critical investigation of the theories of orientalists Ignác Goldziher, David Margoliouth and Joseph Schacht and is currently a professor emeritus at King Saud University. “If we had followed the Qur’an and Hadith in our education, the misleading gossip of the enemies of Islam would not have influenced many of us.”

Azmi is the first person to computerize the Hadith in the Arabic language, was an associate professor at Umm Al-Qura university, visiting scholar at the University of Michigan, and visiting fellow at St. Cross College, Oxford. Much of his work has focused on correcting the inadequacies of Western scholarship on Hadith literature, especially highlighting the fact that there was already intense literary activity involving Hadiths during the lifetime of Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him).

You can read the full article here.

Pastor Samuel Green Insults and Abuses Muslims

I am quite ashamed that a Christian Pastor such as Samuel Green would publicly refer to persons by slurs given to them by Orientalists and Colonialists. It is quite well known that the term “Mohammedan”, is a slur to refer to a Muslim. The first Christian to refer to Muslims as such was John of Damascus who believed Islam to be a heretical sect of Christianity. Other Christian sects were named after their founders, Basilideans, Marcionites, Arians, etc.




This term was very prominently used as a Colonial era slur by Orientalists against Muslims. Now that academia has moved beyond denigrating people by names and titles which do not befit them, it seems that the Christian Church is some 14 centuries behind the times. I informed him several times that Muslims refer to themselves as Muslims and their religion is Islam, however he saw it fit to address us, as “Mohammedans” who follow, “Mohammedanism“. He has defended himself by saying it’s in all the works he’s read and they all refer to Muslims by this derogatory term. Unfortunately, this would indicate that he is learning about Islam from books authored by Oriental Christian scholars and not from any modern day text that don’t refer to Africans, Hispanics, Jews, or any other ethnic group with titles by which the Christian faith may agree with.

We encourage the Pastor to kick our of his faith, this ethnic and racist mindset, instilled in him by his faith in Christ.

and God knows best.

« Older Entries