Search and find articles and topics quickly and accurately!  See different advanced ways to search for articles on this site.

Rebuttal to Craig Winn "Prophet of Doom: Chapter 6" article:

This article is a rebuttal to Craig Winn's article that is located at:   http://www.prophetofdoom.net/chapter6.html.

Important Note to the Reader:

Craig Winn purposely twisted and modified the English translations that he used!  He changes words in translations and uses non-Muslim ones.  I've noticed this a lot through his translations of the Noble Verses that he used from the Noble Quran.

Please visit:

List of Craig Winn's fabricated lies and deliberate alteration of quotes, WITH CLEAR-CUT PROOFS!

Before we get into the detailed rebuttal of this article, let's look at the following from his Bible:

Having said all of that, let us now proceed:

He wrote:

CHAPTER 6

HEART OF DARKNESS

“I fear that a demon has possessed him.”

     It’s time I share something disturbing about the five holy books we are using to expose Muhammad, Allah, and Islam. They were not contemporaneous writings. Muslims say that Islam, unlike Judeo-Christianity, was played out in the light of recorded history but the opposite is true. The prophets and patriarchs of the Bible were lettered, and their contemporaries were literate. Their written scrolls encountered an educated audience of voracious readers within a generation of the events they described.

My response:

The authors of the books and gospels of your pornful bible; the book of women's vaginas and breasts taste like "wine", were not even known!  Let alone them being anointed by GOD Almighty.  Let's see the crystal clear proof from your own resources:

From www.answering-christianity.com/sake.htm:

Who were the authors of the Bible?  Were they really the original Prophets and Disciples?

So, who then are the authors of the books of the Bible? Obviously the Church must know them very well since they are popularly believed to have received divine inspiration from God Himself. Right? Actually, they don't. For example, we will note that every Gospel begins with the introduction "According to....." such as "The Gospel according to Saint Matthew," "The Gospel according to Saint Luke," "The Gospel according to Saint Mark," "The Gospel according to Saint John." The obvious conclusion for the average man on the street is that these people are known to be the authors of the books attributed to them. This, however is not the case. Why? Because not one of the vaunted four thousand copies existent carries its author's signature. It has just been assumed that certain people were the authors. Recent discoveries, however, refute this belief. Even the internal evidence suggests that, for instance, Matthew did not write the Gospel attributed to him:

"...And as Jesus passed forth thence, HE (Jesus) saw a man, named Matthew, sitting at the receipt of custom: and HE (Jesus) saith unto HIM (Matthew), follow ME (Jesus) and HE (Matthew) arose, and followed HIM (Jesus). (Matthew 9:9)"

Did "Matthew" write this about himself? Why then didn't Matthew write for example: "he (Jesus) saw ME, and my name is Matthew. I was sitting at the receipt of custom…" etc.

Such evidence can be found in many places throughout the New Testament. Granted, it may be possible that an author sometimes may write in the third person, still, in light of the rest of the evidence that we shall see throughout this book, there is simply too much evidence against this hypothesis.

This observation is by no means limited to the New Testament. There is even similar evidence that at least parts of Deuteronomy were not written by their claimed author, prophet Moses  . This can be seen in Deuteronomy 34:5-10 where we read

"So Moses....DIED... and he (God Almighty) BURIED HIM (Moses)... He was 120 years old WHEN HE DIED... and there arose not a prophet SINCE in Israel like unto Moses....(Deuteronomy 34:5-10)"

Did Moses write his own obituary? Similarly, Joshua too speaks in detail about his own death in Joshua 24:29-33.

"And it came to pass after these things, that Joshua the son of Nun, the servant of the Lord, DIED, … And they BURIED HIM … And Israel served the Lord all the days of Joshua, and all the days of the elders that overlived Joshua, and which had known all the works of the Lord, that he had done for Israel ….(Joshua 24:29-33)"

Such evidence is part of the large cache which has driven the Biblical scholars to come to the current recognition that most of the books of the Bible were not written by their supposed authors. For example, the authors of the Revised Standard Version of the Bible by Collins honestly say that the author of "Kings" is "Unknown." But if the author is unknown then why attribute it to God? How can it then be claimed to have been "inspired"? Continuing, we read that the book of Isaiah is "Mainly credited to Isaiah. Parts may have been written by others." Ecclesiastics: "Author. Doubtful, but commonly assigned to Solomon." Ruth: "Author. Not definitely known, perhaps Samuel." and on and on.

Let us have a slightly more detailed look at only one book of the New Testament, that of 'Hebrews':

"The author of the Book of Hebrews is unknown. Martin Luther suggested that Apollos was the author...Tertullian said that Hebrews was a letter of Barnabas...Adolf Harnack and J. Rendel Harris speculated that it was written by Priscilla (or Prisca). William Ramsey suggested that it was done by Philip. However, the traditional position is that the Apostle Paul wrote Hebrews...Eusebius believed that Paul wrote it, but Origen was not positive of Pauline authorship."

From the introduction to the King James Bible, New revised and updated sixth edition, the Hebrew/Greek Key Study, Red Letter Edition

and one book of the Old Testament:

"In tradition, [David] is credited with writing 73 of the Psalms; most scholars, however, consider this claim questionable."

Encarta Encyclopedia, under "David"

Is this how we define "inspired by God"?

I asked a reverand of the local church in my neighboorhod, on what gospel most often quoted and used, he quickly answered, the Gospel of St. John!

Let us examine the Contextual Problems of the Gospel of John - Highly Recommended!

End of article.

Also, consider the following few examples that consist of historical contradictions in the Bible:

It is quite obvious that Christians today believe in third party authors' words as the words of GOD.  This is a very serious corruption in the Bible that must be taken into deep consideration by the Bible's followers.  Please visit "Is the Bible the true word of GOD?" to see a full and complete paper about the logical corruptions in the Bible, along with many Christian famous priests and ministers opinions that agree with the Bible's corruption.  I have their personal quotes in that site.

Also, as to the parts of the Bible that Muslims believe are closest to the Truth, please visit: www.answering-christianity.com/warning.htm

After that, please visit:  Prophet Muhammad was foretold in many places in the Bible in both the Old and New Testaments.

He wrote:

The Islamic scripture, however, was all based upon long lines of oral tradition. No copy of the Qur’an dated to within a hundred years of the prophet’s death survives.

My response:

Where did you get your utter nonsense and lies from?!  Where is the evidence for all of these baseless and worthless claims?!  The Noble Quran was documented on paper on the spot!  It was also memorized by Prophet Muhammad's close companions.  Not only that, but many parts of the Noble Quran get recited during the Muslims' five-daily prayers.  And last but not least, the Muslims, especially during Prophet Muhammad's times, recite the entire Noble Quran during the Holy Month of Ramadan.  The Noble Quran did not get documented 100 years after our Prophet peace be upon him.   Allah Almighty said:

"Say: "What thing is most weighty in evidence?" Say: "God is witness between me and you; This Quran hath been revealed to me by inspiration, that I may warn you and all whom it reaches. Can ye possibly bear witness that besides God there is another God?" Say: "Nay! I cannot bear witness!" Say: "But in truth He is the one God, and I truly am innocent of (your blasphemy of) joining others with Him."  (The Noble Quran, 6:19)"

"When the Quran is read, listen to it with attention, and hold your peace: that ye may receive Mercy.  (The Noble Quran, 7:204)"

"This Quran is not such as can be produced by other than God; on the contrary it is a confirmation of (revelations) that went before it, and a fuller explanation of the Book - wherein there is no doubt - from the Lord of the worlds.  (The Noble Quran, 10:37)"

"Verily this Quran doth guide to that which is most right (or stable), and giveth the Glad Tidings to the Believers who work deeds of righteousness, that they shall have a magnificent reward;  (The Noble Quran, 17:9)"

"When thou dost recite the Quran, We put, between thee and those who believe not in the Hereafter, a veil invisible:  (The Noble Quran, 17:45)"

"Verily in this (Quran) is a Message for people who would (truly) worship God.  (The Noble Quran, 21:106)"

"Therefore listen not to the Unbelievers, but strive against them with the utmost strenuousness, with the (Quran).  (The Noble Quran, 25:52)"

The Noble Quran was sent in stages to the Prophet, and the Prophet was inspired the chronological order of the Noble Verses and Chapters:

"We send down (stage by stage) in the Quran that which is a healing and a mercy to those who believe: to the unjust it causes nothing but loss after loss.  (The Noble Quran, 17:82)"

"(It is) a Quran which We have divided (into parts from time to time), in order that thou mightest recite it to men at intervals: We have revealed it by stages.  (The Noble Quran, 17:106)"

"And thus have We, by Our Command, sent inspiration to thee: thou knewest not (before) what was Revelation, and what was Faith; but We have made the (Quran) a Light, wherewith We guide such of Our servants as We will; and verily thou dost guide (men) to the Straight Way,-  (The Noble Quran, 42:52)"

"High above all is God, the King, the Truth! Be not in haste with the Quran before its revelation to thee is completed, but say, "O my Lord! advance me in knowledge."  (The Noble Quran, 20:114)"

"Those who reject Faith say: "Why is not the Quran revealed to him all at once? Thus (is it revealed), that We may strengthen thy heart thereby, and We have rehearsed it to thee in slow, well-arranged stages, gradually.  (The Noble Quran, 25:32)"

To the reader, please visit:  History of the Noble Quran's Preservation and Compilation.

He wrote:

The oldest Hadith manuscript is two hundred years removed from the events it chronicles. Islam’s dark past is addressed at length in the “Source Material” appendix.

My response:

To the reader, notice this liar's tricks and deceptions.  He tried in a slick move to mix the hadiths (Sayings of Prophet Muhammad) with the Noble Quran.  While it is true that the hadiths were documented literally 100s of years after the death of our Prophet as I will prove shortly, but the Noble Quran as I proved above, especially in the link of the Noble Quran's History of Preservation and Compilation, was documented and memorized on the spot.

As to the hadiths, throughout my previous rebuttals, I've said all along that the hadiths were corrupt.   You have mentioned nothing new.  On the contrary, this debunks your points and purpose about quoting from the Al-Tabari and Ishaq throughout your entire book as if the quotes were as reliable as the Noble Quran itself. 

The hadiths were literally documented 100s of years after the Prophet's, peace be upon him, death.   Not everything you read is accurate and was necessarily told by the Prophet word for word, or even if at all!  It is important, if you wish to be objective and honest, to put the Noble Quran as the center for any Islamic argument.  If the Noble Quran makes a claim, then it is definitely agreed upon by all Muslims, and it is perfectly authentic.  Otherwise, GOD Almighty only Knows about what is true and what is false regarding the narrations that you use in Hadiths and Sunnah books.

The "Sahih Bukhari" or "Authentic Bukhari" in English was the first volume to be compiled.  Bukhari is not an Arabic name!  Bukhari is derived from the word "Bukhara", which is a city in Afghanistan:

"We now come to the Iron Gate which corresponds exactly to the Quranic description, and has the best claim to be connected with Alexander's story.  It is near another Derbend in Central Asia, Hissar District, about 150 miles southeast of Bukhara......."  (www.answering-christianity.com/iron_gates.htm)  

For anyone who knows the Islamic history, this means that the Muslims spread Islam to the pagan Arabs, established the Islamic State in Arabia, then fought the Persians (Iranians) and the Romans; invaded the Persians and crushed the Romans, then fought the Hindus in Hindustan, invaded much of their lands such as "Pakistan", "Afghanistan", and much of the Indian territories, convert people there to Islam, and then Brother Bukhari appeared from his home town, Bukhara and decided to compile the Hadiths of "Sahih Bukhari".

Are these narrations all 100% perfect and reliable?  Any person with the least atom of a brain would say no.  I am not saying that all of the Hadiths must be rejected.  But for us to day to have close to 2,000,000 of them is quite ridiculous, because they can't all have been written down during our Prophet's times in Arabia.  Most of the Hadiths' chains of narrations today have 10s of narrators in them.  In the Hadith books, you would see something like the following:

"About such and such, that he heard his father say that such and such said, that he heard such and such say, that he heard such and such say, etc...."  Most of the narrations' links have tons of narrators in them, many times more than 10, and these people would be generations after each others!  In other words, they're not people at the same age or the same group.  And the worst dilemma of all, is that many of these chain of narrations have broken links in them, meaning, that two or three generations are missing in the chain!

Most of the hadiths are corrupt and are not recognized as authentic.  Most certainly the books of Al-Tabari and Ishaq are among the weakest and most doubtful sources, because they are more like history books that were written 300 years after the Prophet's death.  Their narrations were orally transmitted by others.   Many people took hadiths out of context, and many others added or took from them, and many others even fabricated lies, as Allah Almighty Warned us in the Noble Quran:

"A section of the People of the Book (Jews and Christians) say:  Believe in the morning what is revealed to the believers (Muslims), but reject it at the end of the day; perchance they may (themselves) turn back (from Islam).  (The Noble Quran, 3:72)"

Also, it is almost impossible to narrate a narration/saying accurately after 300 years in Arabic, because the language is very complex, poetical and artistic:

From www.answering-christianity.com/warning.htm:

Problems with the proper Arabic language and the large quantity of narrations:

In Arabic, only original Arabs and those who speak proper (not slang) Arabic fluently, understand and appreciate the fact that the words are very minimum and their meanings are very maximum.  It is true and not a deception or innovation by translators to English that a single Arabic word can and would be translated to 3-5 English words!  The reason for this is because in Arabic (and this is part of the complexity in grammar, art and poetry of the Arabic language) meanings and not necessarily actual words can be all put together in one word.  In Arabic, a word is not original.  There are of course "root" words, but in most proper Arabic words, the actual word is not original; meaning that depending on the grammar, letters (of meaning) can be added to or taken from it to add or take from its meaning and intention.  This can change the entire meaning of the whole word  and sentence.

That is why Arabic poetry is historically known to be a very complex and advanced one.

Having said all of this, in the case of the hadiths, given the fact that there exists "weak/doubtful ones", and what is considered as "strong and reliable ones", it is difficult to know for sure if a single hadith was told as is 100% unchanged (intentionally or not intentionally) by the Prophet peace be upon him. One word taken off from the hadith and the whole meaning can and would be changed to something else.

For those "reliable or strong" hadiths, their sources are doubtful.  I have no doubt that the companions of the Prophet may Allah Almighty bless their souls did not intentionally commit forgery or lies.  But for one such as Abu Huraira to narrate thousands upon thousands of hadiths is preposterous!  Given the complexity and sensitivity of the Arabic language, it is extremely vital that every word be included in the narration.  I find it impossible to believe that Abu Huraira and many others like him were able to narrate everything perfectly in its original text.

That is why I accept the hadiths that are linked to the Noble Quran as the Truth and reject the others.

Also, there is no proof what so ever that all of the accepted hadiths of today were all written during the Prophet's time.  Some or even many of them were probably written down from individuals for personal use, but the thousands of hadiths (I was told close to 2 million hadiths!!) that exist today were not possibly all written during the Prophet's time. 

I only accept the hadiths that have a direct relationship to the Noble Quran, such as explaining how to Pray, fast, etc....

Example about my own name to simplify things:

Take "Osama" for example.  First of all, Osama in Arabic is written as "Osamat" with the "t" silent.  The "t" however is not always silent, and it can be used to give meanings and intentions to the name "Osama".  Osama can be written as "Osamatun", "Osamatan", "Osamatin", "Osamata", "Osamati", "Osamato".  The punctuations added to the "t" cause for any of these names to be pronounced.

When writing positively about "Osama", such as "Osama bin Zaid", the leader who defeated the Romans in one of the battles, these punctuations are added to his name for praising.  Unfortunately, I am not an expert in Arabic, nor can I explain in deep details about proper Arabic, but I know that use of punctuations IMPROPERLY can result in insulting the individual.  I can write negatively about a name using punctuations in their proper places.

THE REASON WHY THE NOBLE QURAN IS SO PERFECT IS BECAUSE its grammar was constructed in a very complex way, and the Arabic words were not only original words, but were put together uniquely in an excellent artistic fashion that no Arabic poet could match up to back then when Allah Almighty challenged the Arabs to come up with a "SURAH LIKE IT".

To the reader, please visit:  What parts of the Bible and Hadiths do Muslims believe are closest to the Truth, and Why?

He wrote:

    Muslim Traditions allege that the Qur’an first became a book at the direction of Abu Bakr, Muhammad’s father-in-law, during the War of Compulsion.

My response:

There was no war EVER in Islam's history called the "war of Compulsion".  I don't know where you get your garbage from?!  In fact Mr. liar, Allah Almighty in the Noble Quran clearly and directly exposes your lie to your reader:

"Let there be no compulsion (forcing others) in religion:  Truth stands out clear from error...(The Noble Quran, 2:256)"

The "War of Compulsion"!  Ridiculous indeed!  Of course, Craig Winn thinks very low of his non-Muslim Western readers' knowledge and intellect, who only know little about Islam.  He thinks his lies will survive with them.

He wrote:

We are told that the first Caliph feared that Muhammad’s divine revelations would be lost because most of the best “reciters” had become warriors. According to a lone Hadith, Umar, the second Caliph, convinced Bakr that something had to be done. The fleeting memories of Jihad fighters were the sole repositories of the Qur’an, and they were being killed at an alarming rate. The loss of most or all of Muhammad’s “revelation” was imminent. Legend has it that Zaid, a native of Medina and one of the prophet’s helpers, was assigned the task. He “gathered together the fragments of the Qur’an from every quarter, from date leaves, bones, stone, and from the breasts of men.”

My response:

Where is your proof to the quote above, and to all of out-of-context things you mentioned?  While it is true that the Noble Quran was COMPILED and not written (because it was already written) after the Prophet, peace be upon him, but Muslims never had any disputes regarding the quantity of the Noble Verses and their validities, because the Noble Quran was carefully documented and memorized during Prophet Muhammad's times.

He wrote:

According to J. M. Rodwell, one of the early Qur’an translators, “Zaid and his coadjutors did not arrange the materials which came to them with any system more definite than that of placing the longest and best known surahs first. Anything approaching a chronological arrangement was entirely ignored. Late Medina surahs were often placed before early Meccan ones; the short surahs at the end of the Qur’an were its earliest portions; while verses of Meccan origin were embedded in Medina surahs, and verses promulgated at Medina were scattered up and down in the Meccan surahs.”

My response:

J.M. Rodwell is a non-Muslim.  How can his quote be fair?  Plus, like you, where did he get his nonsense from?  You can always quote another clown like you who wrote a book and claim that it is the Truth, because it exists in some book.  This deception doesn't work.  Your Western readers are not as stupid as you think they are.

And to the Western reader, please visit:  History of the Noble Quran's Preservation and Compilation, to learn the Truth about the Noble Quran's validity and authenticity from true Islamic resources and history, and not from clowns and liars like Craig Winn and his likes.

He wrote:

    Muslim scholars don’t dispute Rodwell’s claim. And that’s alarming, because it means that no one was able to discern when a surah was revealed. No one even knew what comprised a surah. They were jumbled together gobbledygook, completely out of order. And if Muhammad’s contemporaries were this confused, there is no chance they actually remembered the detail of what he claimed was disseminated by the almighty.

My response:

Oh really?  And who are those "Muslim scholars"?  Are they non-Muslim clowns like you and Rodwell?  If not, then who are they?  Is this too much to ask a clown and a liar like you to produce?

He wrote:

    Rodwell continues his analysis with these words: “It would seem as if Zaid put his materials together just as they came to him, and often with entire disregard to continuity of subject and uniformity of style. The text, therefore, assumes the form of a most unreadable and incongruous patchwork, and conveys no idea whatever of the development and growth of any plan in the mind of the founder of Islam, or of the circumstances by which he was surrounded and influenced.” Then after praising Zaid for his lack of “tampering” Rodwell adds that it is “deeply regrettable that no contemporary provided any historical reference, suppressed contradictory verses, or excluded inaccurate statements.”
    Therefore, even in the best possible light, the Qur’an as first assembled was a mess. It was out of order, jumbled together, contradictory, and inaccurate. Yet there is no proof that even this best-case scenario is reliable. There is no corroborating evidence that the “revelations” actually became a book under Bakr, Umar, or Zaid. There are no fragments or tablets.

My response:

This is utter nonsense, because the Noble Quran order was determined by Prophet Muhammad peace be upon him, and the Noble Chapters and Verses were all memorized as the Noble Quran was Revealed.  Again, the Noble Quran was documented on paper on the spot!  It was also memorized by Prophet Muhammad's close companions.  Not only that, but many parts of the Noble Quran get recited during the Muslims' five-daily prayers.  And last but not least, the Muslims, especially during Prophet Muhammad's times, recite the entire Noble Quran during the Holy Month of Ramadan.  Allah Almighty said:

"Say: "What thing is most weighty in evidence?" Say: "God is witness between me and you; This Quran hath been revealed to me by inspiration, that I may warn you and all whom it reaches. Can ye possibly bear witness that besides God there is another God?" Say: "Nay! I cannot bear witness!" Say: "But in truth He is the one God, and I truly am innocent of (your blasphemy of) joining others with Him."  (The Noble Quran, 6:19)"

"When the Quran is read, listen to it with attention, and hold your peace: that ye may receive Mercy.  (The Noble Quran, 7:204)"

"This Quran is not such as can be produced by other than God; on the contrary it is a confirmation of (revelations) that went before it, and a fuller explanation of the Book - wherein there is no doubt - from the Lord of the worlds.  (The Noble Quran, 10:37)"

"Verily this Quran doth guide to that which is most right (or stable), and giveth the Glad Tidings to the Believers who work deeds of righteousness, that they shall have a magnificent reward;  (The Noble Quran, 17:9)"

"When thou dost recite the Quran, We put, between thee and those who believe not in the Hereafter, a veil invisible:  (The Noble Quran, 17:45)"

"Verily in this (Quran) is a Message for people who would (truly) worship God.  (The Noble Quran, 21:106)"

"Therefore listen not to the Unbelievers, but strive against them with the utmost strenuousness, with the (Quran).  (The Noble Quran, 25:52)"

The Noble Quran was sent in stages to the Prophet, and the Prophet was inspired the chronological order of the Noble Verses and Chapters:

"We send down (stage by stage) in the Quran that which is a healing and a mercy to those who believe: to the unjust it causes nothing but loss after loss.  (The Noble Quran, 17:82)"

"(It is) a Quran which We have divided (into parts from time to time), in order that thou mightest recite it to men at intervals: We have revealed it by stages.  (The Noble Quran, 17:106)"

"And thus have We, by Our Command, sent inspiration to thee: thou knewest not (before) what was Revelation, and what was Faith; but We have made the (Quran) a Light, wherewith We guide such of Our servants as We will; and verily thou dost guide (men) to the Straight Way,-  (The Noble Quran, 42:52)"

"High above all is God, the King, the Truth! Be not in haste with the Quran before its revelation to thee is completed, but say, "O my Lord! advance me in knowledge."  (The Noble Quran, 20:114)"

"Those who reject Faith say: "Why is not the Quran revealed to him all at once? Thus (is it revealed), that We may strengthen thy heart thereby, and We have rehearsed it to thee in slow, well-arranged stages, gradually.  (The Noble Quran, 25:32)"

To the reader, please visit:  History of the Noble Quran's Preservation and Compilation.

He wrote:

All we have is a flimsy oral tradition suggesting that this best-case scenario occurred. There isn’t even a letter or a historical reference from any of the literate nations conquered by the first Muslim warriors to suggest that the Qur’an existed.

My response:

You are a total joke!  Again, giving ridiculous statements without backing them up with any reliable historical account.  To the reader, again, please visit:  History of the Noble Quran's Preservation and Compilation.

He wrote:

    By contrast, there are 25,000 ancient Bible parchments, scrolls, fragments, and letters testifying to the immediacy and accuracy of today’s Judeo-Christian scriptures.

My response:

Let us see how accurate your pornful bible; the book of women's vaginas and breasts taste like "wine", really is:

From www.answering-christianity.com/sake.htm:

Who were the authors of the Bible?  Were they really the original Prophets and Disciples?

So, who then are the authors of the books of the Bible? Obviously the Church must know them very well since they are popularly believed to have received divine inspiration from God Himself. Right? Actually, they don't. For example, we will note that every Gospel begins with the introduction "According to....." such as "The Gospel according to Saint Matthew," "The Gospel according to Saint Luke," "The Gospel according to Saint Mark," "The Gospel according to Saint John." The obvious conclusion for the average man on the street is that these people are known to be the authors of the books attributed to them. This, however is not the case. Why? Because not one of the vaunted four thousand copies existent carries its author's signature. It has just been assumed that certain people were the authors. Recent discoveries, however, refute this belief. Even the internal evidence suggests that, for instance, Matthew did not write the Gospel attributed to him:

"...And as Jesus passed forth thence, HE (Jesus) saw a man, named Matthew, sitting at the receipt of custom: and HE (Jesus) saith unto HIM (Matthew), follow ME (Jesus) and HE (Matthew) arose, and followed HIM (Jesus). (Matthew 9:9)"

Did "Matthew" write this about himself? Why then didn't Matthew write for example: "he (Jesus) saw ME, and my name is Matthew. I was sitting at the receipt of custom…" etc.

Such evidence can be found in many places throughout the New Testament. Granted, it may be possible that an author sometimes may write in the third person, still, in light of the rest of the evidence that we shall see throughout this book, there is simply too much evidence against this hypothesis.

This observation is by no means limited to the New Testament. There is even similar evidence that at least parts of Deuteronomy were not written by their claimed author, prophet Moses  . This can be seen in Deuteronomy 34:5-10 where we read

"So Moses....DIED... and he (God Almighty) BURIED HIM (Moses)... He was 120 years old WHEN HE DIED... and there arose not a prophet SINCE in Israel like unto Moses....(Deuteronomy 34:5-10)"

Did Moses write his own obituary? Similarly, Joshua too speaks in detail about his own death in Joshua 24:29-33.

"And it came to pass after these things, that Joshua the son of Nun, the servant of the Lord, DIED, … And they BURIED HIM … And Israel served the Lord all the days of Joshua, and all the days of the elders that overlived Joshua, and which had known all the works of the Lord, that he had done for Israel ….(Joshua 24:29-33)"

Such evidence is part of the large cache which has driven the Biblical scholars to come to the current recognition that most of the books of the Bible were not written by their supposed authors. For example, the authors of the Revised Standard Version of the Bible by Collins honestly say that the author of "Kings" is "Unknown." But if the author is unknown then why attribute it to God? How can it then be claimed to have been "inspired"? Continuing, we read that the book of Isaiah is "Mainly credited to Isaiah. Parts may have been written by others." Ecclesiastics: "Author. Doubtful, but commonly assigned to Solomon." Ruth: "Author. Not definitely known, perhaps Samuel." and on and on.

Let us have a slightly more detailed look at only one book of the New Testament, that of 'Hebrews':

"The author of the Book of Hebrews is unknown. Martin Luther suggested that Apollos was the author...Tertullian said that Hebrews was a letter of Barnabas...Adolf Harnack and J. Rendel Harris speculated that it was written by Priscilla (or Prisca). William Ramsey suggested that it was done by Philip. However, the traditional position is that the Apostle Paul wrote Hebrews...Eusebius believed that Paul wrote it, but Origen was not positive of Pauline authorship."

From the introduction to the King James Bible, New revised and updated sixth edition, the Hebrew/Greek Key Study, Red Letter Edition

and one book of the Old Testament:

"In tradition, [David] is credited with writing 73 of the Psalms; most scholars, however, consider this claim questionable."

Encarta Encyclopedia, under "David"

Is this how we define "inspired by God"?

I asked a reverand of the local church in my neighboorhod, on what gospel most often quoted and used, he quickly answered, the Gospel of St. John!

Let us examine the Contextual Problems of the Gospel of John - Highly Recommended!

End of article.

Also, consider the following few examples that consist of historical contradictions in the Bible:

It is quite obvious that Christians today believe in third party authors' words as the words of GOD.  This is a very serious corruption in the Bible that must be taken into deep consideration by the Bible's followers.  Please visit "Is the Bible the true word of GOD?" to see a full and complete paper about the logical corruptions in the Bible, along with many Christian famous priests and ministers opinions that agree with the Bible's corruption.  I have their personal quotes in that site.

Also, as to the parts of the Bible that Muslims believe are closest to the Truth, please visit: www.answering-christianity.com/warning.htm

After that, please visit:  Prophet Muhammad was foretold in many places in the Bible in both the Old and New Testaments.

He wrote:

Yet the only archeological evidence that has survived from the Qur’an’s first century is a coin and an inscription inside the Dome of the Rock on the Jewish Temple Mount. These fragments differ from each other and from today’s book.
    The Qur’an’s chasm of historical credibility is the good news. The other four books of Islam that comprise the Sunnah: the Sira, Ta’rikh (History), and Hadith, didn’t find parchment or scroll for one to three hundred years after the events were played out. Turning to Rodwell we learn: “The first biographer of Muhammad of whom we have any information was Zohri, who died A.H. 124; but his works, although quoted by later writers, are no longer extant.” Said another way, Zohri’s biography may have been written one hundred years after the events occurred, but it doesn’t matter because no one has ever found a copy. “Ibn Ishaq, who died in A.H. 151 (763 A.D.), composed a biography of Muhammad for the Caliph’s use. Although there are no surviving copies of his work either, much of it was salvaged by Hisham, an admittedly biased editor. He died in A.H. 213.” Ibn Hisham’s Life of Muhammad begins with a stunning confession. He says that he removed material that discredited Muhammad from Ishaq’s original manuscript.

My response:

What?!  What does the Dome of Rock in Palestine have anything to do with the Noble Quran in Mecca, which is approximately 1500 miles away?!  The clown, Rodwell, that you're quoting and learning all of your lies and BS from is no better than quoting from your own dubious book, the "Prophet of Doom" nonsensical book.  Both of you are clowns, and quoting from either of you is useless and worthless.

Also, Islam has no five books.  Islam only has One Holy Book and that is the Noble Quran.  And as to the Hadiths' volumes, there are 6 Sahih books and other Volumes such as Sunan Abu Dawud, Misbah Al-Masabeeh and others.  So the number of the Hadiths collections ALONE is far greater than 5 books.  So you're quote: "The other four books of Islam that comprise the Sunnah: the Sira, Ta’rikh (History), and Hadith, didn’t find parchment or scroll for one to three hundred years after the events were played out" not only reveals your stupidity and ignorance in Islam, but it also shows that you are a clear LIAR AND FULL OF SH***.

Another proof for the reader that you are a liar, and that the false information above was not an innocent mistake is your quote itself.  You said: "The other four books of Islam that comprise the Sunnah: the Sira, Ta’rikh (History), and Hadith, didn’t find...."   Your quote only mentions three books!  This proves that:

(1) You don't know what you're talking about because you couldn't even come up with the fourth book.

(2) You don't even know the Islamic books that make up the hadiths.  Otherwise, you would not fall short in listing only three of them, which is a very small number when compared to the many volumes that make up the literally 2 million hadiths out there.

Most of the hadiths are corrupt and are not recognized as authentic.  Most certainly the books of Al-Tabari and Ishaq are among the weakest and most doubtful sources, because they are more like history books that were written 300 years after the Prophet's death.  Their narrations were orally transmitted by others.   Many people took hadiths out of context, and many others added or took from them, and many others even fabricated lies, as Allah Almighty Warned us in the Noble Quran:

"A section of the People of the Book (Jews and Christians) say:  Believe in the morning what is revealed to the believers (Muslims), but reject it at the end of the day; perchance they may (themselves) turn back (from Islam).  (The Noble Quran, 3:72)"

Also, it is almost impossible to narrate a narration/saying accurately after 300 years in Arabic, because the language is very complex, poetical and artistic:

From www.answering-christianity.com/warning.htm:

Problems with the proper Arabic language and the large quantity of narrations:

In Arabic, only original Arabs and those who speak proper (not slang) Arabic fluently, understand and appreciate the fact that the words are very minimum and their meanings are very maximum.  It is true and not a deception or innovation by translators to English that a single Arabic word can and would be translated to 3-5 English words!  The reason for this is because in Arabic (and this is part of the complexity in grammar, art and poetry of the Arabic language) meanings and not necessarily actual words can be all put together in one word.  In Arabic, a word is not original.  There are of course "root" words, but in most proper Arabic words, the actual word is not original; meaning that depending on the grammar, letters (of meaning) can be added to or taken from it to add or take from its meaning and intention.  This can change the entire meaning of the whole word  and sentence.

That is why Arabic poetry is historically known to be a very complex and advanced one.

Having said all of this, in the case of the hadiths, given the fact that there exists "weak/doubtful ones", and what is considered as "strong and reliable ones", it is difficult to know for sure if a single hadith was told as is 100% unchanged (intentionally or not intentionally) by the Prophet peace be upon him. One word taken off from the hadith and the whole meaning can and would be changed to something else.

For those "reliable or strong" hadiths, their sources are doubtful.  I have no doubt that the companions of the Prophet may Allah Almighty bless their souls did not intentionally commit forgery or lies.  But for one such as Abu Huraira to narrate thousands upon thousands of hadiths is preposterous!  Given the complexity and sensitivity of the Arabic language, it is extremely vital that every word be included in the narration.  I find it impossible to believe that Abu Huraira and many others like him were able to narrate everything perfectly in its original text.

That is why I accept the hadiths that are linked to the Noble Quran as the Truth and reject the others.

Also, there is no proof what so ever that all of the accepted hadiths of today were all written during the Prophet's time.  Some or even many of them were probably written down from individuals for personal use, but the thousands of hadiths (I was told close to 2 million hadiths!!) that exist today were not possibly all written during the Prophet's time. 

I only accept the hadiths that have a direct relationship to the Noble Quran, such as explaining how to Pray, fast, etc....

Example about my own name to simplify things:

Take "Osama" for example.  First of all, Osama in Arabic is written as "Osamat" with the "t" silent.  The "t" however is not always silent, and it can be used to give meanings and intentions to the name "Osama".  Osama can be written as "Osamatun", "Osamatan", "Osamatin", "Osamata", "Osamati", "Osamato".  The punctuations added to the "t" cause for any of these names to be pronounced.

When writing positively about "Osama", such as "Osama bin Zaid", the leader who defeated the Romans in one of the battles, these punctuations are added to his name for praising.  Unfortunately, I am not an expert in Arabic, nor can I explain in deep details about proper Arabic, but I know that use of punctuations IMPROPERLY can result in insulting the individual.  I can write negatively about a name using punctuations in their proper places.

THE REASON WHY THE NOBLE QURAN IS SO PERFECT IS BECAUSE its grammar was constructed in a very complex way, and the Arabic words were not only original words, but were put together uniquely in an excellent artistic fashion that no Arabic poet could match up to back then when Allah Almighty challenged the Arabs to come up with a "SURAH LIKE IT".

To the reader, please visit:  What parts of the Bible and Hadiths do Muslims believe are closest to the Truth, and Why?

He wrote:

    Tabari didn’t edit Ishaq to make Muhammad look better, but he only referred to the earlier work when it conflicted with his own collection of oral testimony or Hadith. Tabari completed his History of Prophets and Kings in A.H. 310—three hundred years after the prophet’s death. The Concise Encyclopedia of Islam says: “His work became the definitive resource.” This makes his annals of Muhammad’s creation of Islam the earliest surviving unedited account of the prophet’s words and deeds, and therefore of the context in which his Qur’an was revealed. It also means that there was a three hundred year gap filled principally by oral transmission for the lone unedited collection of Islamic Hadith containing any chronology or context.
    Rodwell, in the preface of his early Qur’an translation, tells us: “It may be considered quite certain that Traditions concerning Muhammad were not reduced to writing for at least the greater part of a century. They rested entirely in the memory of those who have handed them down, and must necessarily have been colored by their prejudices and convictions, to say nothing of the tendency to formulate myths and fabrications to serve the purposes of the contending factions…. It soon becomes obvious to the reader of Muslim Traditions that both miracles and historical events have been invented for the sake of expounding a dark and perplexing text [the Qur’an]; and that the earlier Traditions are largely tinged with a mythical element.”
    He goes on to say: “These ancient writers [Ishaq and Tabari] are the principal sources whence anything approaching authentic information as to the life of Muhammad has been derived. And it may be safely concluded that after the diligent investigations carried on by the professed collectors of Traditions in the second century after the Hijrah, that little or nothing remains to be added to our stores of information relative to the details of Muhammad’s life, or to facts which may further illustrate the text of the Qur’an. There are no records posterior in date to these authorities that should be considered.”
    While every Islamic scholar I have studied agrees with Rodwell’s assessment, that’s not the end of the bad news. The people of Central Arabia in the sixth through eighth centuries were illiterate. Thus Hadith were passed along by word of mouth through the generations, father to son through chains of transmitters called isnads.
    Let’s view this problem from a more contemporary perspective. Imagine reconstructing the history of the American Revolution today based entirely upon oral traditions handed down over nine generations. Without books, letters, paintings, or pictures, it would be impossible to recreate the words of Cornwallis and Washington or to resurrect the drama as it was actually played out. Now, imagine writing this history in London, thousands of miles from where the events unfolded—in the home of those who were defeated. Such is the story of Islam. The first and best Hadith, Sunnah, and Sira were compiled in Baghdad, not Mecca or Medina, two to three centuries removed. And like detailing the American Revolution in Britain, each of the Persian scholars wrote in a highly politicized climate for men with a personal agenda. A compelling argument can be made for Islam being Persian rather than Arabian; the birthplace being Baghdad, not Mecca.
    Yet while none of this attests to the reliability or unbiased nature of the Islamic scripture, it doesn’t actually matter. If Muhammad were really a prophet, if Allah were really a god, and if the Hadith and Qur’an were really divinely inspired and dictated, the accuracy of these books would be of paramount importance. Our eternity would rest upon their every word. But since Muhammad was as feeble-minded as his deity and as emotionally disturbed as his scripture depicts him, an accurate witness and a faithfully maintained account is irrelevant.
    So if much of this isn’t true, why bother? Because through force, fate, and faith, over a billion people believe it’s true. They believe Muhammad was a prophet, Allah was his God, and that the Qur’an was comprised of divine revelations. They even think the sayings of the prophet, upon which the Hadith, Sira, and Sunnah are based, were divinely inspired scripture. Because most Muslims aren’t free, literally trapped by fate and force in this delusion and in the hellish conditions the doctrine inspires, compassion compels us to expose the fraud and release them from the shackles of Islam.
    Oh, and then there is the another problem—Islamic terrorism. This stuff is corrosive, causing people to act in accordance with its teachings, prophet, and god. Islam commands and conditions men to murder. It motivates them to commit acts of terror. If we want to thwart this foe we must first understand what its adherents believe and what drives them to such ungodly behavior. If we want to rid the world of terror, we must first expose the doctrine that makes men terrorists. Remember, prior to Muhammad, Arabs conquered no one. After Islam they subjected much of the known world to their sword. What changed them, pray tell, if not these words?
    While the Islamic “holy books” aren’t historically reliable, they are Islam —not a version, interpretation, or corruption of Islam, but the essence of the religion. Muhammad can be no different than these books depict him. If they don’t accurately present the prophet and his dark spirit, they are unknowable and thus irrelevant. Frankly speaking, Islam loses either way.

My response:

As to the hadiths, throughout my previous rebuttals, I've said all along that the hadiths were corrupt.   You have mentioned nothing new.  On the contrary, this debunks your points and purpose about quoting from the Al-Tabari and Ishaq throughout your entire book as if the quotes were as reliable as the Noble Quran itself. 

Like I mentioned above,  the hadiths were literally documented 100s of years after the Prophet's, peace be upon him, death.   Not everything you read is accurate and was necessarily told by the Prophet word for word, or even if at all!  It is important, if you wish to be objective and honest, to put the Noble Quran as the center for any Islamic argument.  If the Noble Quran makes a claim, then it is definitely agreed upon by all Muslims, and it is perfectly authentic.  Otherwise, GOD Almighty only Knows about what is true and what is false regarding the narrations that you use in Hadiths and Sunnah books.

The "Sahih Bukhari" or "Authentic Bukhari" in English was the first volume to be compiled.  Bukhari is not an Arabic name!  Bukhari is derived from the word "Bukhara", which is a city in Afghanistan:

"We now come to the Iron Gate which corresponds exactly to the Quranic description, and has the best claim to be connected with Alexander's story.  It is near another Derbend in Central Asia, Hissar District, about 150 miles southeast of Bukhara......."  (www.answering-christianity.com/iron_gates.htm)  

For anyone who knows the Islamic history, this means that the Muslims spread Islam to the pagan Arabs, established the Islamic State in Arabia, then fought the Persians (Iranians) and the Romans; invaded the Persians and crushed the Romans, then fought the Hindus in Hindustan, invaded much of their lands such as "Pakistan", "Afghanistan", and much of the Indian territories, convert people there to Islam, and then Brother Bukhari appeared from his home town, Bukhara and decided to compile the Hadiths of "Sahih Bukhari".

Are these narrations all 100% perfect and reliable?  Any person with the least atom of a brain would say no.  I am not saying that all of the Hadiths must be rejected.  But for us to day to have close to 2,000,000 of them is quite ridiculous, because they can't all have been written down during our Prophet's times in Arabia.  Most of the Hadiths' chains of narrations today have 10s of narrators in them.  In the Hadith books, you would see something like the following:

"About such and such, that he heard his father say that such and such said, that he heard such and such say, that he heard such and such say, etc...."  Most of the narrations' links have tons of narrators in them, many times more than 10, and these people would be generations after each others!  In other words, they're not people at the same age or the same group.  And the worst dilemma of all, is that many of these chain of narrations have broken links in them, meaning, that two or three generations are missing in the chain!

Most of the hadiths are corrupt and are not recognized as authentic.  Most certainly the books of Al-Tabari and Ishaq are among the weakest and most doubtful sources, because they are more like history books that were written 300 years after the Prophet's death.  Their narrations were orally transmitted by others.   Many people took hadiths out of context, and many others added or took from them, and many others even fabricated lies, as Allah Almighty Warned us in the Noble Quran:

"A section of the People of the Book (Jews and Christians) say:  Believe in the morning what is revealed to the believers (Muslims), but reject it at the end of the day; perchance they may (themselves) turn back (from Islam).  (The Noble Quran, 3:72)"

Also, it is almost impossible to narrate a narration/saying accurately after 300 years in Arabic, because the language is very complex, poetical and artistic:

From www.answering-christianity.com/warning.htm:

Problems with the proper Arabic language and the large quantity of narrations:

In Arabic, only original Arabs and those who speak proper (not slang) Arabic fluently, understand and appreciate the fact that the words are very minimum and their meanings are very maximum.  It is true and not a deception or innovation by translators to English that a single Arabic word can and would be translated to 3-5 English words!  The reason for this is because in Arabic (and this is part of the complexity in grammar, art and poetry of the Arabic language) meanings and not necessarily actual words can be all put together in one word.  In Arabic, a word is not original.  There are of course "root" words, but in most proper Arabic words, the actual word is not original; meaning that depending on the grammar, letters (of meaning) can be added to or taken from it to add or take from its meaning and intention.  This can change the entire meaning of the whole word  and sentence.

That is why Arabic poetry is historically known to be a very complex and advanced one.

Having said all of this, in the case of the hadiths, given the fact that there exists "weak/doubtful ones", and what is considered as "strong and reliable ones", it is difficult to know for sure if a single hadith was told as is 100% unchanged (intentionally or not intentionally) by the Prophet peace be upon him. One word taken off from the hadith and the whole meaning can and would be changed to something else.

For those "reliable or strong" hadiths, their sources are doubtful.  I have no doubt that the companions of the Prophet may Allah Almighty bless their souls did not intentionally commit forgery or lies.  But for one such as Abu Huraira to narrate thousands upon thousands of hadiths is preposterous!  Given the complexity and sensitivity of the Arabic language, it is extremely vital that every word be included in the narration.  I find it impossible to believe that Abu Huraira and many others like him were able to narrate everything perfectly in its original text.

That is why I accept the hadiths that are linked to the Noble Quran as the Truth and reject the others.

Also, there is no proof what so ever that all of the accepted hadiths of today were all written during the Prophet's time.  Some or even many of them were probably written down from individuals for personal use, but the thousands of hadiths (I was told close to 2 million hadiths!!) that exist today were not possibly all written during the Prophet's time. 

I only accept the hadiths that have a direct relationship to the Noble Quran, such as explaining how to Pray, fast, etc....

Example about my own name to simplify things:

Take "Osama" for example.  First of all, Osama in Arabic is written as "Osamat" with the "t" silent.  The "t" however is not always silent, and it can be used to give meanings and intentions to the name "Osama".  Osama can be written as "Osamatun", "Osamatan", "Osamatin", "Osamata", "Osamati", "Osamato".  The punctuations added to the "t" cause for any of these names to be pronounced.

When writing positively about "Osama", such as "Osama bin Zaid", the leader who defeated the Romans in one of the battles, these punctuations are added to his name for praising.  Unfortunately, I am not an expert in Arabic, nor can I explain in deep details about proper Arabic, but I know that use of punctuations IMPROPERLY can result in insulting the individual.  I can write negatively about a name using punctuations in their proper places.

THE REASON WHY THE NOBLE QURAN IS SO PERFECT IS BECAUSE its grammar was constructed in a very complex way, and the Arabic words were not only original words, but were put together uniquely in an excellent artistic fashion that no Arabic poet could match up to back then when Allah Almighty challenged the Arabs to come up with a "SURAH LIKE IT".

To the reader, please visit:  What parts of the Bible and Hadiths do Muslims believe are closest to the Truth, and Why?

He wrote:

Returning to the Hadith, we discover an interesting artifact concerning the early Meccans and their Ka’aba. It also heralds from the Year of the Elephant. Abdul Muttalib was a big shot in town, a wealthy idolater born two generations before Muhammad. In the line of Qusayy, he became the custodian of the Ka’aba. Tabari VI:15 “After the death of his uncle al-Muttalib, Abdul Muttalib took over the privilege of watering and feeding the pilgrims which the sons of Abd Manaf had held before him. He was honored and was a man of great importance, for not one was his equal.” Ishaq:62 “Sleeping on the graves of Hagar and Ishmael he was ordered in a vision to dig Zamzam. ‘Allahu Akbar,’ he shouted. ‘This is the well of our father Ishmael.’” Tabari VI:15 “He brought out what was buried there, namely, two golden gazelles, swords and coats of mail. He made the swords into a door for the Ka’aba.” It’s interesting that the Ka’aba’s treasure contained the implements Muhammad would use to loot the world: swords and coats of mail. The door to Allah’s House and the path to Islam were the same.
    Ownership of the newfound booty was determined by a gambling game. Divining arrows were thrown at Hubal’s feet, “the greatest of the idols.” Ishaq:64 “Muttalib prayed to Allah and the priest threw the arrows. The Ka’aba won the gazelles.”
    Abdul Muttalib “was the first to institute the two yearly caravans.” He was “the first to obtain for the Quraysh guarantees of safety which allowed them to travel far and wide from the sacred precincts of Mecca,”—guarantees Muhammad would break.
    Then one day, sun boring down on the treeless town, Muttalib was struggling to clear the well of Zamzam when: Ishaq:66/Tabari VI:2 “It is alleged, and Allah only knows the truth, that Abdul Muttalib encountered opposition when he was digging Zamzam. He vowed that if given ten sons, to make his labor less arduous and to protect him, he would sacrifice one of them to Allah at the Ka’aba.” Bad move, because eventually he had ten sons. So, foolishly faithful to the rocks, he tossed divining arrows at Hubal’s feet to determine which son should die.  Ishaq:67 “They used to conduct their affairs according to the decisions of the arrows.” His youngest lost. The boy’s name was Abd-Allah, or Slave-to-Allah.
    Now why would someone name a kid “Slave-to-Allah” a generation before Islam’s prophet claimed Allah was the creator-god of the universe? The answer is as embarrassing as any in the annals of religious lore. For all Muhammad really did was promote one of the existing Meccan idols, the moon god Allah, above Hubal, Al-Lat, Manat, Al-Uzza, and hundreds of others. On this day Allah had to compete for adoration, as Muttalib’s tossing arrows at Hubal’s feet attests. A Bukhari Hadith confirms the godly congestion: Bukhari:V5B59N583 “When the Prophet entered Mecca on the day of the Conquest, there were 360 idols around the Ka’aba. The Prophet started striking them with a stick.”
    Islamic scholar Montgomery Watt, one of the English translators of Tabari, adds an interesting footnote. He says, “The name [not word] Allah has throughout been [wrongly] translated as ‘God.’ It should be kept in mind, however, that in the pre-Islamic period it does not necessarily mean “God” in a monotheistic sense. It is known from the Qur’an (29:61 and 39:38) that many pre-Islamic Arabs believed in Allah as a god who was superior to the other gods whom they also recognized.”
    Allah was a name, much like the Judeo-Christian “Yahweh.” But Muslims desperately needed the world to see it otherwise. For if Allah was a proper name—not a word—their religion was a fraud. The creator of the universe can’t be a pagan god, no matter how big a stick Muhammad swung. And Allah can’t be Yahweh any more than I can be George Washington.
    Arabic, like Hebrew before it, is a Semitic language. In Hebrew, “el,” was the word for god—lower case “g”—as in idols. Elohiym was used with the article to convey “God” with a capital “G.” In Arabic, “el” became “il.” Then, over time, Arabs derived a secondary word for god, “ilah.” With “al” being the Arabic word for “the,” Muslims would have us believe that “Allah” is a contraction of “al” and “ilah.” But the first pillar of Islam contradicts this claim when it says: “There is no ilah but Allah.” If “Allah” were the Arabic word for god it would have been written: “There is no allah but Allah. Moreover, the Qur’an itself uses “Ilah” when Allah claims to be “the God of Abraham” (Qur’an 2:132). And that ends the debate because the only way Muslims can claim Allah, not Ilah, is the Arabic word for “God” is for the Qur’an to be errant or for its author to be either ignorant or deceitful. Further, there are hundreds, if not thousands, of Islamic traditions like the one we just reviewed that confirm that Allah was the name of a well-known pagan deity (at least in Mecca). Their own scriptures profess that Allah had an ignominious rule as a Meccan rock idol centuries before he was transformed from god to God, from an ilah to Allah. All of which serves to destroy the most essential Islamic myth: “We all worship the same God.”
    Back in Mecca: Ishaq:67 “When Abdul Muttalib had ten sons grown to maturity and he knew that they would protect him, he told them of his vow, and called on them to keep faith with Allah in this matter. They expressed their obedience, and asked what they should do. He replied, ‘Let every one of you take an arrow, write his name on it, and bring it to me.’ They did this, and he went into the presence of Hubal in the interior of the Ka’aba. Hubal was the greatest of the idols of Quraysh in Mecca.” Ibn Ishaq, the earliest compiler of Muslim Traditions, just told us that the high god of the Ka’aba was Hubal—not Allah. Doesn’t this make Allah (also the second god of the Qur’an following Ar-Rahman) a second rate deity?
    Papa Muttalib started having second thoughts. So he went off and consulted with a sorceress, hoping to get the “right” advice. Tabari VI:2 “By Allah! You shall never sacrifice him but you must get an excuse for not doing so.” This sounds innocent enough until you realize that the person swearing by Allah is a Devil worshipper. “There is a sorceress who has a familiar spirit; ask her, and you will know what to do. If she commands you to sacrifice him, you will sacrifice him, and if she commands you to do something which offers relief to you and to him, you can accept it.” Sorceresses are occult mediums: in other words, witches. Their familiar spirits are demons.
    The noose around Islam’s neck is tightening. We have multiple gods in the Ka’aba and a witch deciding the fate of Muhammad’s father. “So they went to Medina where they discovered that the sorceress had moved to Khaybar. They rode until they reached her. She said, ‘Retire from me until my familiar spirit visits me and I can ask him. Abdul Muttalib stood and prayed to Allah.” Now there’s a picture: idolaters praying to Allah in Islamic fashion in the presence of a Devil worshiper. So, what do you think Satan’s representative had to say? Would she pardon Muhammad’s papa and allow Islam to be born?
    Lucifer must like Islam because...“On the following day they went back. She said, ‘Yes! News has come to me. How much is the blood-money among you?’ They replied, ‘Ten camels.’ She said, ‘Bring forward the young man and ten camels, and cast arrows. If they fall against the boy, add camels until your Lord [Would that be Satan, Hubal, or Allah?] is satisfied.’”
    We continue with Ishaq’s account: Tabari VI:5 “They returned to Mecca when they had all agreed on the matter, Abdul Muttalib stood and prayed to Allah inside the Ka’aba beside Hubal. The arrows fell against Abdallah, so they added ten camels, making twenty. With Muttalib standing and praying to Allah they went on this way ten times. Each time the arrows fell against Abdallah.” Satan’s representative seems to have been considerably more accommodating. There is just one chance in 1024 that fifty-fifty odds will go awry ten times in a row.
    Tabari explains the horror of it all: “Abdul Muttalib stood beside Hubal in the interior of the Ka’aba, calling upon Allah. The custodian of the arrows took and cast them, and the lot fell against Abdallah. So Muttalib took Abdallah by the hand. He grabbed a large knife. Then he went up to the idols Isaf and Nailah [the fornicating stones] who Quraysh used to slaughter their sacrifices, to sacrifice Abdullah.”
    But rather than slice his son’s throat, Muttalib opted for one more cast of the divining arrows. They finally fell in favor of the boy. So Abdul, the stones, idols, gods, diviners, and sorcerers came to an understanding. Abdallah’s life was spared. “Your Lord is satisfied at last. The camels were slaughtered and left there. No man or wild beast was turned back from eating them.”
   “Abdul Muttalib took Abdallah by the hand. It is alleged they passed by Umm Qattal bt. Abd al-Uzza [Slave-to-the-goddess-al-Uzza], the sister of Waraqa [the Hanif]. She was by the Ka’aba. When she looked at his face she said, ‘Where are you going, Abdallah? I have seen many camels slaughtered for you, so sleep with me now.’” Sure, why not add a little prostitution into the mix. We’ve already got devil worship, paganism, gambling, and child abuse occurring around the Ka’aba.
    But the bribe was evidently insufficient. So the proud papa, king of Mecca, custodian of the Ka’aba, and heir to the religious scam, took his son to the wealthiest and most powerful man of the neighboring clan, the Banu Zurah, and arranged for his son Abdallah to marry the chief’s daughter Aminah. The blushing bride’s grandmother was abd al-Uzza, which made her “genealogy and status” perfect, according to Ishaq.
    Before we consummate this marriage, I must say I’m surprised Bukhari, Tabari, and Ishaq recount this sordid tale. Muhammad grew up a stone’s throw from where it occurred. Yet he chose to ignore his ignominious past, revising Jewish history instead, in order to make the near sacrifice in his backyard shrine look monotheistic. In lieu of the truth, he said that the Hebrew patriarch Abraham had nearly sacrificed Ishmael at Allah’s House.
    Take a deep breath. The next Hadith begins with an inordinately long sentence. Tabari VI:6 “It is alleged that he consummated his marriage to her there as soon as he married her, that he lay with her and that she conceived Muhammad; then he left her presence and came to the woman who had propositioned him, and said to her, ‘Why do you not make the same proposition to me today which you made to me yesterday?’” To which she replied, “The light which was with you yesterday has left you, and I have no need of you today.”
    Remember, these Hadith found paper in Baghdad centuries after Muhammad’s passing. By that time, the Muslim scholars who authored them had well-defined agendas. In particular, they had to make their guy look as godly as that Christian guy, or they’d be out of business. The Gospels proclaimed that Christ was the light of the world, so Muslims contrived this Hadith to make their prophet appear similarly enlightened. And if you think that I’m being too cynical, listen to the next line from Tabari. “She had heard about this from her brother Waraqa bin Nawfal, who was a [Hanif turned] Christian and had studied the scriptures; he had discovered that a prophet from the descendants of Ishmael was to be sent to this people; this had been one of the purposes of his study.”
    Holy hogwash. The Bible says no such thing about the descendants of Ishmael. It says that he’ll give rise to twelve rulers and that his descendants will live like wild asses of men, hands raised against their brothers, living in hostility with the world. While prophetic, it’s hardly prophet material.
    So why did the Muslim scholars choose to deceive us? They needed to, that’s why. And within their community they could get away with it. And Arabs would never be wiser for it. They were illiterate, and even the miniscule percentage who could read were out of luck when it came to the Bible. There is no trace of an Arabic translation of the Old Testament prior to that of Saadias Gaon in 900 A.D., decades after this delusion was promulgated. And the oldest Arabic New Testament was published by Erpenius in 1616 from a transcription of a 1171 Coptic scroll.
    In the territories controlled by the Muslim warlords of the seventh through tenth centuries, words were irrelevant, as unimportant as evangelists. Islam grew by sword through conquest, not by words and reason. And those who benefited from this ruse knew that by the time their deception was exposed, it would be too late; the victory would have been won.
    For those who may think I am perhaps making too much of too little, consider this: Tabari VI:7 “When Abdul Muttalib was taking Abdallah to marry Aminah they passed by a female soothsayer called Fatimah, a convert to Judaism from the people of Tabalah who had read the scriptures and who saw light in his face. ‘Young man,’ she said, ‘would you like to lie with me now, and I will give you a hundred camels?’” Contriving a phony Christian endorsement of the Muslim prophet was not enough. Now a Jewish soothsayer is called to verify the light. But why would a Jew react this way? The Judeo-Christian scriptures say nothing—zip, zero, zilch—about the father of a prophet having a light in his face. Further, Judaism and soothsaying are mutually exclusive. Jews serve Yahweh; soothsayers serve Satan.
    The third variant of this desperate grope for credibility demeans Abdallah. “His father took him and married him to Aminah and he stayed with her for three days. Then he left her and when he passed by the Khath’am woman he felt a desire to accept the proposition which she had made. He asked her, ‘Would you like to have what you wanted before?’ ‘Young man,’ she said, ‘I am not, by Allah, a woman of questionable morals. I saw light in your face and wished it to be within me. But Allah willed that He should place it where He wished.’” The Devil worshiper wanted the Devil’s child.
    Then our Allah/Devil-serving soothsayer: “recited the following verses: ‘I saw a sign which shone in the black clouds. I comprehended it as light which illuminated like the full moon. I hoped to have it as a source of pride which I might take back with me…. By Allah, no other woman has plundered your person of that which Aminah has…. Not all the fortune which the young man inherits comes from resolve, nor does that which escapes him come from remiss. So if you desire something, behave with restraint for two grandfathers combined to ensure it for you. A hand clenched or outstretched will ensure it for you. When Aminah conceived that which she conceived from him, she conceived an incomparable glory’” From black signs to pride, from full moons to plundering, from inherited fortunes to grandfathers ensuring loot, the young prophet would get what he desired from both open and clenched fists. This passage is so fraught with portent, so twisted with harbingers of Muhammad’s con, the originator must have laughed himself silly as his quill met parchment. He evidently got himself so worked up he bungled the tense in his parting salvo. Once again a simple story belies the nature of Islam. “Our guy is better than your guy and we will say anything, no matter how absurd, to prove it.”
    Abdallah lived long enough to father a son, but not to see him born. In a haunting overture of what was to come, the prophet’s father died while on a business trip to Yathrib. Fifty-two years later the religion of Islam would die there as well when a prophet went on a business trip to Yathrib and became a profiteer.

My response:

Again, throughout my previous rebuttals, I've said all along that the hadiths were corrupt.   You have mentioned nothing new.  On the contrary, this debunks your points and purpose about quoting from the Al-Tabari and Ishaq throughout your entire book as if the quotes were as reliable as the Noble Quran itself. 

Like I mentioned above,  the hadiths were literally documented 100s of years after the Prophet's, peace be upon him, death.   Not everything you read is accurate and was necessarily told by the Prophet word for word, or even if at all!  It is important, if you wish to be objective and honest, to put the Noble Quran as the center for any Islamic argument.  If the Noble Quran makes a claim, then it is definitely agreed upon by all Muslims, and it is perfectly authentic.  Otherwise, GOD Almighty only Knows about what is true and what is false regarding the narrations that you use in Hadiths and Sunnah books.

The "Sahih Bukhari" or "Authentic Bukhari" in English was the first volume to be compiled.  Bukhari is not an Arabic name!  Bukhari is derived from the word "Bukhara", which is a city in Afghanistan:

"We now come to the Iron Gate which corresponds exactly to the Quranic description, and has the best claim to be connected with Alexander's story.  It is near another Derbend in Central Asia, Hissar District, about 150 miles southeast of Bukhara......."  (www.answering-christianity.com/iron_gates.htm)  

For anyone who knows the Islamic history, this means that the Muslims spread Islam to the pagan Arabs, established the Islamic State in Arabia, then fought the Persians (Iranians) and the Romans; invaded the Persians and crushed the Romans, then fought the Hindus in Hindustan, invaded much of their lands such as "Pakistan", "Afghanistan", and much of the Indian territories, convert people there to Islam, and then Brother Bukhari appeared from his home town, Bukhara and decided to compile the Hadiths of "Sahih Bukhari".

Are these narrations all 100% perfect and reliable?  Any person with the least atom of a brain would say no.  I am not saying that all of the Hadiths must be rejected.  But for us to day to have close to 2,000,000 of them is quite ridiculous, because they can't all have been written down during our Prophet's times in Arabia.  Most of the Hadiths' chains of narrations today have 10s of narrators in them.  In the Hadith books, you would see something like the following:

"About such and such, that he heard his father say that such and such said, that he heard such and such say, that he heard such and such say, etc...."  Most of the narrations' links have tons of narrators in them, many times more than 10, and these people would be generations after each others!  In other words, they're not people at the same age or the same group.  And the worst dilemma of all, is that many of these chain of narrations have broken links in them, meaning, that two or three generations are missing in the chain!

Most of the hadiths are corrupt and are not recognized as authentic.  Most certainly the books of Al-Tabari and Ishaq are among the weakest and most doubtful sources, because they are more like history books that were written 300 years after the Prophet's death.  Their narrations were orally transmitted by others.   Many people took hadiths out of context, and many others added or took from them, and many others even fabricated lies, as Allah Almighty Warned us in the Noble Quran:

"A section of the People of the Book (Jews and Christians) say:  Believe in the morning what is revealed to the believers (Muslims), but reject it at the end of the day; perchance they may (themselves) turn back (from Islam).  (The Noble Quran, 3:72)"

Also, it is almost impossible to narrate a narration/saying accurately after 300 years in Arabic, because the language is very complex, poetical and artistic:

From www.answering-christianity.com/warning.htm:

Problems with the proper Arabic language and the large quantity of narrations:

In Arabic, only original Arabs and those who speak proper (not slang) Arabic fluently, understand and appreciate the fact that the words are very minimum and their meanings are very maximum.  It is true and not a deception or innovation by translators to English that a single Arabic word can and would be translated to 3-5 English words!  The reason for this is because in Arabic (and this is part of the complexity in grammar, art and poetry of the Arabic language) meanings and not necessarily actual words can be all put together in one word.  In Arabic, a word is not original.  There are of course "root" words, but in most proper Arabic words, the actual word is not original; meaning that depending on the grammar, letters (of meaning) can be added to or taken from it to add or take from its meaning and intention.  This can change the entire meaning of the whole word  and sentence.

That is why Arabic poetry is historically known to be a very complex and advanced one.

Having said all of this, in the case of the hadiths, given the fact that there exists "weak/doubtful ones", and what is considered as "strong and reliable ones", it is difficult to know for sure if a single hadith was told as is 100% unchanged (intentionally or not intentionally) by the Prophet peace be upon him. One word taken off from the hadi