Search and find articles and topics quickly and accurately! See different advanced ways to search for articles on this site.
Facts vs. revelations in the Quran
Irrational belief must yield to facts
By Sami Zaatari
If anyone studies the Quran objectively, he or she will be struck by the verses that differ widely from cherished Biblical passages and one historical fact. Normally, these differences should not pose any material or down-to-earth problems, provided they remain in the realm of abstract theology.
If anyone also studies the Bible objectively they will be struck by the verses that allow rape, torture of slaves, the sex and slave trades. Since I dont want to spend time on this topics since they are not related, I will merely post the links:
However, these differences do not remain in abstraction, but are applied to life and politics in the Islamic world, sometimes with troubling consequences for the western world and elsewhere around the world struggling with Islam.
This article explores passages in the Quran that contradict one simple historical fact, and transform or add assertions to the much older and much more reliable Bible.
Yes, let us see what that historical fact is, for your sake lets not hope its not something mentioned in the Bible because that will expose you as a person. The reason I say that is because James wants to make a big deal of something that is in the Quran which differs with the Bible, and from that he wants to make an argument. Let me correct this mistake of his, just because your Bible says something doesnt make it true, first prove it is true not assume it is. Also do not assume everything in your Bible is historically true, So James begins his errors even before he begins in his article! How sad indeed.
James also goes on to contradict himself, he earlier stated to look at the Quran objectively, well it seems he cannot follow his own rule because he is going to attack the Quran because it differs with the Bible. It is one thing to state that both books contradict each other, it is another thing to start an argument against one of the books because of the contradictions between both books. A Christian cannot objectively argue against the Quran, that is simple fact as James just proved that point, his argument is all based on the point that the Quran differs from the Bible on a specific issue, so then this makes the Quran wrong. That is not objective.
Thirdly if James was merely being objective and showing contradicting verses between the Bible and the Quran, we must then ask, what is the use of writing a whole article about it? Especially from a Christian who constantly attacks Islam? It is clear that James is not going to be objective at all, but he seeks to fool his readers into the notion that he is being objective. Very sad missionary decieving tactics.
It goes something like this:
Christian Missionary: I am going to be objective when i debate.
Muslim: Thats good, hopefully I can do the same.
Christian Missionary: Well lets start, I dont believe your Quran is from God.
Christian Missionary: Well it contradicts history AND MY BIBLE.
Muslim: Well arent we supposed to be objective here? If we are then it doesnt matter if my book contradicts your book.
Christian Missionary: Ummm, Jesus loves you!
1. An absolutist doctrine of inspiration lands Islam in interpretive difficulties.
In Islamic theology, it is believed that the Quran existed in heaven, and the angel Gabriel came down and over time spoke it to Muhammad and therefore spoke it into earthly existence as a physical book. Sometimes a comparison is made between the Qurans "inlibration" (from the root "libr" or "book") with Christs "incarnation" (from the root "carn" or "flesh"). That is, as the heavenly Son of God was "made flesh," so the heavenly Quran was "made book."
This is an exceptionally high view of inspiration.
For problems inhering in this doctrine, see this article <../../Quran/Contra/qi011.html>, which discusses Gabriels role. This article <../../Shamoun/eternal_quran.htm> brings out the paradox of Islamic belief in the Oneness of Allah and the uncreatedness of the Quran.
By comparison, basic Christian theology of Scriptural inspiration does not come even close. It says God inspired the New Testament writers, true, but he did not through Gabriel dictate to them or recite Scripture into their ears. This is clear even from a casual reading of the New Testament.
James simply goes over old arguments which I have already addressed, here is the link to this argument of his:
Paul, for example, writes his epistles mainly to solve problems (1 and 2 Corinthians) or to explain his theology systematically (Epistle to Romans), and the reader can see his mind sorting out his answers to the problems or his theology based on his thorough knowledge of the Old Testament or Hebrew Scriptures (Romans 14:5, 22; 1 Corinthians 1:13-17; 7:6, 10, 12, 17). Also, the Gospels Matthew and Luke borrow from Mark and each other, and Luke says outright that he researched other accounts before he wrote his Gospel (Luke 1:1-4). Thus, basic Christian theology of inspiration is much more "organic" and human-cooperative than the claimed inspiration of the Quran.
Now since James claims that Matthew and Luke borrowed from Mark I was wondering if James can tell us from where did Matthew borrow this information:
Matthew 27: 52-53:
52 And the graves were opened; and many bodies of the saints which slept arose, 53 And came out of the graves after his resurrection, and went into the holy city, and appeared unto many
is claiming that dead people walked through
since James brought up the point of historical facts, I would like James to bring me one
piece of history that talks about this event, just one. So James, are you up for it? I
hope you are, because we will all be waiting for you to bring this
historic facts of dead people walking through
The following passages illustrate the extremely strict doctrine of Quranic inspiration:
While Muhammad was living in Mecca before his Hijrah (Emigration) to Medina in 622, the Meccans disputed the divine origin of the Quran and wanted Muhammad to change it, but Allah tells Muhammad how to answer them in this verse:
When Our clear revelations are recited to them, those who do not expect to meet Us say, "Bring [us] a different Quran, or change it." [Prophet], say, "It is not for me to change it of my own accord; I only follow what is revealed to me, for I fear the torment of an awesome Day, if I were to disobey my Lord." (MAS Abdel Haleem, The Quran,
This promise of torment as a penalty for changing the Book applies not only to Muhammad, but also to all later followers. Today, most Muslims take that verse seriously and would not dare to change a versethey may interpret some difficult verses softly, but never change them. However, as the Quran was being formed over the early decades, it did undergo changes, as this article <../../Quran/Text/> shows
Yes, Muslims would not dare change the Quran as Christians did with the Bible. As for Muslims changing the Quran, here are the links that refute your claim and the link you posted:
39:28 An Arabic Quran free from any distortionso that people may be mindful.
55:1 It is the Lord of Mercy 2 who taught the Quran.
75:17 We shall make sure of its [the Qurans] safe collection and recitation. 18 When We have recited it, repeat the recitation 19 and We shall make it clear.
26:192 Truly, this Quran has been sent down by the Lord of the worlds: 193 the Trustworthy Spirit [Gabriel] brought it down 194 to your heart [Prophet], so that you could bring warning 195 in a clear Arabic tongue.
All of these verses land Muslims in interpretive problems, because every word must be taken as they are written, when the passages are clearnot, for example, when a passage is an illustration (39:27-29). However, the following passages are not illustrations, but are clear and straightforward. We will explain the dilemma that confronts strict Muslim commentators through simple but absolutist logic.
Muslims are in no problems at all, I hope you elaborate on your point since I see nothing to respond to.
2. The Quran contradicts one simple historical fact: the crucifixion of Jesus.
4:157 [A]nd [the Jews] said, "We have killed the Messiah, Jesus, son of Mary, the Messenger of God." (They did not kill him, nor did they crucify him, though it was made to appear like that to him. Those that disagreed about him are full of doubt, with no knowledge to follow, only supposition: they certainly did not kill him.
denying Jesus actual death absorbs Gnostic teaching circulating around the larger
Mediterranean world, which holds that the flesh, the physical body, is evil. Therefore, a
divine person like Jesus could not really die in the flesh, but would merely appear to do
so, though Muhammad did not hold that Jesus was divine, but merely a
prophet like himself. (For more information on Gnosticism and other sources
inspiring this belief in the Quran, see this chapter <../../Books/Tisdall/Sources/chap4.htm>,
and scroll down to "Denial of the Crucifixion of Jesus.") Thus, later Muslims
who adopt an absolutist interpretation of straightforward verses have difficulties in
showing that Jesus was not crucified. Some commentators, for example, Maulana
Muhammad Ali, assert without reliable evidence that Jesus traveled
Well Mr. James, are you trying to imply that the prophet Muhammad borrowed from Gnostic sources? I hope you are not, but since I think and know you are, I will not have to refute you since you refuted your self, here you go:
This passage denying Jesus actual death absorbs Gnostic teaching circulating around the larger Mediterranean world, which holds that the flesh, the physical body, is evil. Therefore, a divine person like Jesus could not really die in the flesh, but would merely appear to do so, though Muhammad did not hold that Jesus was divine, but merely a prophet like himself
So James refutes his own argument! The Gnostic teaching as says that divine people do not die in the flesh, however so as James rightly pointed out, Jesus is not divine in Islam! The prophet Muhammad did not believe he was so hence you have quite a big difference between the Gnostic and the Quran.
Anyway, James also brings up old out-dated arguments, that the Quran borrowed from other sources, here is the link refuting that nonsense:
Now let me ask James this, okay lets go with your argument, the Quran contradics the history on the point of Jesus getting crucified, what does that have to do with your Bible? NOTHING. That doesnt make your Bible true!
You see one of the main problems Christians cannot grasp is this, just Islam is false ( which its not), this does not make Christianity true! For all we know Hinduism could be correct! So I really do not see the point that James is trying to make.
The following syllogism reflects the conflict between an absolutist doctrine of the inspiration of the Quran, a clear verse that is impossible to rationalize away (Sura 4:157), and unadorned history.
historical fact that contradicts the revealed Quran did not
(2) The crucifixion of Jesus is an historical fact that contradicts the revealed Quran.
(3) Therefore, the crucifixion of Jesus did not actually happen.
The conclusion can be shown to be false because the death of Jesus is supported by seven ancient texts outside of the New Testament by writers who did not favor Christianityindeed, some were biased against it.
The very same sources that claim that Jesus did get crucified also deny that he was RAISED FROM THE DEAD, so what exactly is your point?
Did'nt I tell you the reader, that James would not be objective, didnt I tell you? I can sure remember writing it! James does not care that the Quran disagrees with a historic event, all he wants to really do is attack the Quran for disagreeing with the Bible. I mean it is pretty obvious note what he says:
The conclusion can be shown to be false because the death of Jesus is supported by seven ancient texts outside of the New Testament by writers who did not favor Christianity
Now he is letting it all out, he wants to make it seem that the NT is historically correct therefore its true! He is trying to make it seem like just because some men who didnt favor Christianity agreed with a certain event in the Bible then this makes the Bible true! What is sad about this whole thing is that those same people deny Jesus rising from the dead. So James, what exactly is your point since you seem to have non?
"letter of Mara Bar-Serapion" (c. 73 AD), housed in
Second, the third-century Julius Africanus (c. 221 AD) reports that the first-century historian Thallus says that "when discussing the darkness which fell upon the land during the crucifixion of Christ," it was an eclipse.
Third, the Roman historian Cornelius Tacitus (c. 55-117 AD) wrote: "a wise man who was called Jesus . . . Pilate condemned him to be condemned and to die." Tacitus also notes that the disciples of Jesus "reported that he had appeared to them three days after his crucifixion and that he was alive."
Fourth, Josephus (c. 37-100 AD) the Jewish historian wrote: "Pilate, at the suggestion of the principal men among us, had condemned him [Jesus] to the cross (18.3).
second-century Greek satirist Lucian (born c. 120), who traveled
widely in the eastern Mediterranean world where
Sixth, the Roman author Phlegon, freedman of the Emperor Hadrian (who reigned 117-38 AD) never doubted that Jesus was crucified: "Jesus, while alive, was of no assistance to himself, but that he arose after death and exhibited the marks of his punishment, and showed how his hands had been pierced by nails."
the Talmud does not deny the death of Jesus (his divinity is another matter): "on the
eve of Passover they hanged Yeshu (of
Therefore, in light of all this extra-Biblical evidencequite apart from its theological interpretationthe historical fact of the crucifixion is verified, and the much-later Quran, to speak plainly, is wrong on this matter. This should surprise no one, for Muhammad never conducted historical research.
Therefore, the first absolutist syllogism collapses under the weight of historical facts.
For a superb analysis of how absurd this denial of the crucifixion can become even within the Quran itself, see this article <../Wood/deceptive_god.htm>.
This article <../Wood/best_argument.htm> compares the best argument for the validity of Islam (the Quran) with the best argument for the validity of Christianity (the Resurrection).
Does any of this actually prove your Bible is from God? Nop. So what are you getting at? Why dont you just let it all out since its raging inside you, its obvious you want to explode and scream out the Quran is wrong because it disagrees with the Bible and several historic figures who were not Christians agree with the Bible!!!!!!
Why dont you just let it out? Since I know James is really saying that, I will address that. To begin with, again, all this proof does not make your Bible true! James forgets that these same sources dont agree with Jesus being resurrected from the dead! That is not a historic fact! In fact if we want to be objective, the Quran is more correct than the Bible! Let us take both books as simple history books, not books from God, since James is taking the role of a historian, let us play the role of one then!
The Bible claims that Jesus died, yet the tomb was empty, since we are historians and being objective, we dont say he rose from the dead, we look at other possibilities. Those possibilities could include:
1- People stole his body
2- He never died and was alive, that is why the tomb was empty
The Quran says Jesus did not die on the cross, rather he was saved, historically we could agree, we could say he managed to survive, that is exactly why his tomb was empty, because he was not dead. I am saying all this in a 'historical way of thinking'. So hence the Quran is more true than the Bible if were to exam both books as simple history books.
However so, all this 'historical way of thinking' leaves the issue of Jesus raising from the dead out of the question, we cannot accept that in a 'historical way of thinking', however so we can accept the Quran's account that he survived which is why the tomb was empty.
Now I dont believe what I said, I believe God saved Jesus, I believe the Quran is the word of God, not a historical book. What I just did was use James silly tactic against him, I took the role of an objective historian who took both the Quran and the Bible as mere history books and judged from there, so dont mix up what I was saying and what I really mean, I was simply using James approach against him.
3. The Quran contradicts the Biblical biography of Abraham and Isaac.
37:102 When the boy was old enough to work with his father, Abraham said, "My son, I have seen myself sacrificing you in a dream. What do you think?" He said, "Father, do as you are commanded and, God willing, you will find me steadfast."
In Genesis 22 the sacrifice of Isaac is known as the Akedah ("binding") because Abraham bound Isaac and was about to sacrifice him under the knife until the angel of the Lord intervened at the last moment, raising the readers suspense. However, Muhammad contradicts this passage because Abrahams son Ishmael, born from Hagar, Sarahs handmaid, was to be sacrificed. Even though Ishmael is not mentioned by name, his identity is a fair deduction because Sura 37:117 says that Allah gave Abraham the good news of Isaac after the near-sacrifice of (the unnamed) Ishmael. Be that as it may, Abraham and Ishmael, says traditional Islam, both pass the test. Countless Muslims believe this took place, not the Akedah in Genesis.
If there is any contradiction or discrepancy, the fault must lie in the earlier Bible, because Muhammad believes that he spoke the final revelation. Jews were said to conceal the truth about Muhammads prophethood and the righteous practices of Islam (Suras , 146, 159, 174; 3:187-188; 5:70), so the Bible really testifies about him, though the Jews do not want this to leak out. His later followers assert that the Bible had been corrupted or altered (2:75, 79; 3:77-78; -49).
This belief leads to the (unspoken) logic of any later absolutist interpreter of the Quran:
passage in the earlier Bible that disagrees with the later Quran
has been altered or corrupted.
(5) The Akedah in Genesis 22 disagrees with the later Quran.
(6) Therefore, the Akedah in Genesis 22 has been altered or corrupted.
Before we challenge this unsound logic, we should examine a similar revelation in the Quran and another absolutist syllogism.
For more information on the Quranic confusion on Abraham and Ishmael, see this article <../../Shamoun/sacrifice.htm>
Well the Quran corrected your Bible, in fact your own Bible says Ishmael was the sacrificed one, they just placed the name Isaac over it, here is the proof:
Genesis 22: 11-12 :
11 And the angel of the LORD called unto him out of heaven, and said, Abraham, Abraham: and he said, Here am I. 12 And he said, Lay not thine hand upon the lad, neither do thou any thing unto him: for now I know that thou fearest God, seeing thou hast not withheld thy son, thine only son from me.
Isaac cannot be Abrahams ONLY son since Abraham had Ishmael, the only way the text can refer to Abraham is by it talking about Ishmael, because when Ishmael was alive he was Abrahams ONLY SON, not Isaac. The author merely switched the names. Ishmael is the only one who could ever be called Abrahams ONLY son since he was the first one, any sons comming after Ishmael can never be called the ONLY son since the latter one already exists and is alive.
Genesis 22: 1-2 :
And it came
to pass after these things, that God did tempt Abraham, and
said unto him, Abraham: and he said, Behold, here I am. 2 And
he said, Take now thy son, thine
only son Isaac, whom thou lovest, and get thee into the
land of Moriah; and offer him there for a burnt offering upon
one of the mountains which I will tell thee of.
Thine ONLY SON cannot be Isaac, when Isaac was alive so was Ishmael, therefore Isaac is not the only son, Ishmael is the only one who could be refered to as the Only son! (Thats alot of ONLY'S being mentioned!)
So it is obvious they switched the names. How sad.
4. The Quran adds to the Biblical biography of Abraham and Ishmael.
passage asserts that Abraham settled Ishmael in
Remember when Abraham said, "Lord, make this
verses claim that Abraham and Ishmael, while in
2:127 As Abraham and Ishmael built up the foundation of the House [Kabah] [they prayed, "Our Lord, accept [this] from us" . . . .
In these two
passages Muhammad receives revelations that make historical claims, not strictly doctrinal
claims, such as the unity of God as opposed to the Trinity, neither of which can be
verified by empirical investigation. The two passages are also based on the Bible, for
Abraham and Ishmael would never have been known in
This full syllogism follows from those two passages about the Biblical patriarchs and lurks unseen behind any absolutist interpreter who desires earnestly to maintain the strict inerrancy of the Quran:
(7) If the
revealed Quranic adds to the Bible and fabricates historical
facts, then the revelations are still true and accurate.
revelation about Abraham and Ishmael adds to the Bible and fabricates historical facts.
(9) Therefore, that revelation is still true and accurate.
The syllogism is long, but it reflects the iron-clad attitude of absolutists who need to cover all of their bases. The essence of the argument can be boiled down to this: any verse in the revealed Quran that touches on history supercedes or trumps actual historical evidence and facts.
What James first needs to do is actually show that Abraham and Ishmael did not build the Kaaba rather than believe it didnt just because he thinks it didnt. To do that James has to show the Quran is not the word of God, something that cannot be done Im afraid. So there really is nuthing to respond to here, James is merely ranting, just because something is in the Quran and not his corrupt Bible he attacks it, how objective! ( If anything how can we take James seriously when he committed such a lie!)
Personally, I believe Abraham and the other patriarchs actually lived, but I must concede
that no extra-Biblical evidencee.g. archeological or
textualconfirms their existence. Therefore, by extension, no reliable historical
evidence can be advanced to support Abrahams sojourn down to distant
Yes, and strange you cannot prove that but just talk it out. As they say my freind, talk is cheap. So quit ranting, bring some proof to disprove the story which you cannot do and you know it. So all you can do is just rant on it and try to fool some people. In fact if we wanted to use your same logic, we could say that every story in the OT of Abraham is a fake and invented and is borrowed from myths that floated around in that time. So James should really be careful when trying to attack other beliefs, because the same logic can be used against him, he even admits it:
Personally, I believe Abraham and the other patriarchs actually lived, but I must concede that no extra-Biblical evidence-e.g. archeological or textual-confirms their existence.
How sweet, so he only takes the word of his Bible as his proof, something I dont argue against, however it just shows how illogical his own argument is since the very same thing can be said against him! It is hillariously funny to how he makes an argument just a few words which fall flat on his face:
Personally, I believe Abraham and the other patriarchs actually
lived, but I must concede that no extra-Biblical evidence-e.g.
archeological or textual-confirms their existence. Therefore,
by extension, no reliable historical evidence can be advanced to support Abrahams
sojourn down to distant
How funny, so he attacks the story in the Quran because of no historical evidence, yet he concedes that there is non for Abraham in the Bible accept the Bible!!!!
By the way, what happened to being objective here? Saying I believe in something just because the Bible said it is not being objective at all is it?
B. What motives could Muhammad have for assimilating this folk belief into his Quran?
First, he was
deeply attached to the Kabah shrine. While living in
Second, the Kabah drew numerous pilgrims to it, long before the new religion Islam arrived on the scene. But it was dedicated to polytheism, so Muhammad could not let that stand. Indeed, he says in another passage that his Muslims should fight polytheists there until "the religion becomes that of Allah" (Sura 2:193, Majid Fakhry, An Interpretation of the Quran, NYUP, 2000, 2004). This motive is theological, mixed with jihad.
Third, it cannot be denied that the Meccans persecuted Muhammad before his Hijrah, so permission from God was granted to him to fight the polytheists until "the religion becomes that of Allah." He thus incorporated the dubious Arab custom of retaliation into the eternal Quran, which pose interpretive difficulties for Muslims today. This motive is cultural.
Finally, we must not overlook the fact that the Kabah generated a lot of money from pilgrimages, and it would have increased the fortunes of the Muslims. Simply put, Muhammad, from the moment of his Hijrah and his (unprovoked) raids against Meccan caravans, to his military conquest of the city in 630, wanted to control the popular Kabah.
What James always seems to forget is this, according to the pagan Arabs they believed it was Abraham and Ishmael who started the piligrimige at Makkah, the pagans later on perverted the religion of Abraham with their idols. God then restored the religion of Abraham with the prophet Muhammad, the prophet Muhammad destroyed their idols and returned the Kaaba to how it originally was intended to be. To refute all this James must try and show the Quran is not the word of God, something he will not be able to do. The fact is Abraham and Ishmael had gone to Makkah and built the Kaaba, that is the fact.
As for your last fact, I find that point pretty sad. The prophet Muhammad needed no money, he was already succesful and had a good future ahead of him before the Quran was revealed to him, so James argument falls flat on his face based on that simple information.
The Quran supports this reason: "God has made the Kabathe Sacred Housea means of support for people, and the Sacred Months, the animals for sacrifice and their garlands" . . . . Sura (5:97). This motive adds up to fame through prowess (an Arab cultural value) and fortune.
C. Did Moses
(or anyone else) alter or corrupt Genesis 22 and the other chapters that recount
Abrahams life just to spite other peoples and tribes? It is simply beyond sound
scholarship to argue that he (or anyone else) could have foreseen the troubles with the
Muslim Arabs and hence corrupted the text to replace Ishmael with Isaac in Genesis 22 or
erased Abrahams journey to
rarely does a serious scholar believe that the Hebrew Bible from the editorship of Ezra in
the fifth century BC down to the Medieval Masoretic text
(largely the basis of the Hebrew Bible) has been altered substantially, and certainly not
maliciously. This has been confirmed by the finding of the Isaiah scroll at
Therefore, the last two syllogisms simply dissolve away, A, B, C.
The Kaaba being a means for people, a support for them, an asylem for them, this basically means the Kaaba is a blessing for the Muslims and people living around it, and I ask, is not a blessing?
No, Moses did not not alter Genesis, in fact how do you know he even wrote it? Who wrote the parts about him dying?
Either way, I gave enough proof to show how Genesis is corrupt, it was Ishmael not Isaac even accroding to your own book! They just put the different name.
these are the two main reasons I believe that Abraham and the other patriarchs existed:
there is no evidence outside the Bible that denies their existence, and there is no
evidence that the manuscripts of Hebrew Bible have been corrupted, especially against
disputes that arise two millennia later and hundreds of miles away in
Despite the positive evidence for Jesus crucifixion or the absence of evidence for Abrahams sacrifice of Ishmael (outside the Quran) and his sojourn to Mecca, a devout Muslim is entitled to believeby a sheer act of faiththat the Quran on those matters is true. However, this questionable belief should live only in his or her heart, not in material or political life. The real world should follow evidence, and history should trump revelation.
On the other hand, those of us on the outside of Islam are allowed to question the absolutist claims in the revealed Quran that support by circular reasoning its own inspiration. And we are allowed to doubt the rigid interpretations of Muslim absolutists about verses claiming historical knowledge, but which actually have no basis in historical facts.
I love how James shoots himself in the foot:
a devout Muslim is entitled to believe-by a sheer act of faith-that the Quran on those matters is true.
Well my freind, how do you know Jesus rose from the dead? Did you see it? Did any non christian scholar admit it? Please tell me how you know other than being bias. Also what about this:
Matthew 27: 52-53:
52 And the graves were opened; and many bodies of the saints which slept arose, 53 And came out of the graves after his resurrection, and went into the holy city, and appeared unto many
Do you believe this? Can you apply this in the material or political world? As you said:
However, this questionable belief should live only in his or her heart, not in material or political life
So tell me can you use those verses in the political and material world? Can they live in the material world? This shows you dont know your own Bible, so let me give you some advice you silly missionary. The next time you want to attack Islam, make sure the very same arguments cant be used against you, because every argument you brought up can be used against you, even you yourself admited thats how desperate you are!
Also the reason I call this silly man a silly missionary is simply because he is one! Anyone reading this rebuttal can see how each argument he uses can be turned against him! Including his last one about Muslims accepting things on faith alone! The man is also a silly missionary because he lied, he said he would be objective, however so he was not objective at all always ranting about believing things just because the Bible said so! So when you want to lie next time, dont make it so obvious, or just be honest and dont come under a smoke screen. Anyway, I dont have much confidence in him doing so, he is a missionary, and what can you say? A missionary is a missionary.
The inspiration of the Quran, as outlined in the introduction of this article, is suspect, so the entire Muslim holy book must be placed under the microscope of sound scholarship.
You my freind are not a sound scholar. You are a silly lying confused Christian missionary who does not know what he's saying, anyone reading this rebuttal will see that for himself. Every argument you brought up can be used against you!
The only book which needs to be examined under the microscope is the the Bible, you dont believe me? Read these verses:
1 Then we
turned, and went up the way to
1 Kings 13:1-2
At the LORD's command, a man of God from
The tribe of
Benjamin, however, failed to drive out the Jebusites, who were
Israelites grew stronger, they forced the Canaanites to work as slaves, but they never did
drive them out of the land. The tribe of Ephraim also failed to drive out the Canaanites
Numbers 31: 7-18 :
Midian just as the LORD had commanded Moses, and they killed
all the men. All five of the Midianite kings Evi, Rekem, Zur,
Hur, and Reba died in the battle. They also killed
Balaam son of Beor with the sword. Then the Israelite army
captured the Midianite women and children and seized their
cattle and flocks and all their wealth as plunder. They burned all the towns and villages
where the Midianites had lived. After they had gathered the
plunder and captives, both people and animals, they brought them all to Moses and Eleazar the priest, and to the whole community of
Moses, Eleazar the priest, and all the leaders of the people went to meet
them outside the camp. But Moses was furious with all the military commanders who had
returned from the battle. "Why have you let all the women live?" he demanded.
"These are the very ones who followed Balaam's advice and caused the people of
Judges - 24 :
So they sent
twelve thousand warriors to Jabesh-gilead with orders to kill
everyone there, including women and children. "This is what you are to do," they
said. "Completely destroy all the males and every woman who is not a virgin."
Among the residents of Jabesh-gilead they found four hundred
young virgins who had never slept with a man, and they brought them to the camp at
assembly sent a peace delegation to the little remnant of Benjamin who were
living at the rock of Rimmon. Then the men of Benjamin
returned to their homes, and the four hundred women of Jabesh-gilead
who were spared were given to them as wives. But there were not enough women for all of
them. The people felt sorry for Benjamin because the LORD had left this gap in the tribes
thought of the annual festival of the LORD held in
So would you care to respond? I dont think you can respond.
So far, the results do not look promising.
For more information on the problems inhering in the Quran, go to this page <../../Quran/index.html>, and click on any of the articles.
For more information on the reliability of the Bible, go to this page <../../Bible/index.html>, and click on any of the articles.
For other articles dealing with the non-crucifixion of Jesus, go here <../../Shamoun/preserved-crucifixion.htm> and here <../../Shamoun/crucifixion.htm>.
This article has a companion piece that may be read here <apocryphal.htm>.
How funny, this silly missionary thinks that if Islam is false then this makes Christianity true!!!! What kind of dumb logic is that? Only missionaries can imagine such thoughts.
As for those links you posted, I will be happy to inform you most of what are on those links has already been refuted:
As for the reliability of the Bible, it has been well documented that the Bible is corrupt:
As for the rest:
So it pretty obvious James is no sound scholar, he goes against his own word and that makes him a liar. Just go read the beggining of his article, where he talked about being objective, how he changed from that view through out his article. Very sad to see Christian missionaries act like this, I hope James is not the best Christianity has to offer in dialogs etc.
Rebuttals, and exposing the lies of the Answering Islam team section.
Rebuttals to James Arlandson's Articles section.
Sami Zaatari's Rebuttals section.
Send your comments.
Back to Main Page.