Rebuttal to James Arlandson's article Facts vs revelations in the Quran.

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

Further Topic Research:
Syntax help

 Rebuttal to James Arlandson's article
Facts vs. revelations in the Quran

Irrational belief must yield to facts

 

By Sami Zaatari

 

 

 

 

He Wrote

 

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.

 

My Response

 

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:

 

http://answering-christianity.com/sami_zaatri/book_with_no_limits.htm

http://answering-christianity.com/sami_zaatri/terrorinthebible.htm

http://answering-christianity.com/jochen_preposterous_lies.htm

http://answering-christianity.com/fathers_rape.htm

http://answering-christianity.com/sami_zaatri/rebuttal_to_sam_shamoun_16.htm

 

 

He Wrote

 

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.

 

My Response

 

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.

 

Muslim: Why?

 

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!

 

 

He Wrote

 

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 Quran’s "inlibration" (from the root "libr" or "book") with Christ’s "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 Gabriel’s 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.

 

My Response

 

James simply goes over old arguments which I have already addressed, here is the link to this argument of his:

 

http://answering-christianity.com/sami_zaatri/rebuttal_to_sam_shamoun_21.htm

 

He Wrote

 

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.

 

 

My Response

 

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

 

So Matthew is claiming that dead people walked through Jerusalem! From where did Matthew get this information?

 

Secondly, 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 Jerusalem.

 

 

He Wrote

 

 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:

 

10:15 When Our clear revelations are recited to them, those who do not expect to meet Us say, "Bring [us] a different Qur’an, 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 Qur’an,

 

Oxford UP, 2004. This translation is used in the rest of the article, unless otherwise noted)

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 verse—they 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

 

 

My Response

 

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:

 

http://www.islamic-awareness.org/Quran/Text/Gilchrist/

http://www.islamic-awareness.org/Quran/Sources/Sarh/

http://www.islamic-awareness.org/Quran/Text/hajjaj.html

http://www.islamic-awareness.org/Quran/Text/Qiraat/hafs.html

http://www.islamic-awareness.org/Quran/Text/forgery.html

 

 

He Wrote

 

39:28 An Arabic Qur’an free from any distortion—so that people may be mindful.

 

55:1 It is the Lord of Mercy 2 who taught the Qur’an.

 

75:17 We shall make sure of its [the Qur’an’s] safe collection and recitation. 18 When We have recited it, repeat the recitation 19 and We shall make it clear.

 

26:192 Truly, this Qur’an 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 clear—not, 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.

 

My Response

 

Muslims are in no problems at all, I hope you elaborate on your point since I see nothing to respond to.

 

He Wrote

 

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.

 

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. (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 to Kashmir and was buried there (Sura 23:50). Though he belongs to the Ahmadiyyah sect, this shows how far revelation and the interpretation of revelations can go astray. But how can we blame Maulana Ali? After all, Muhammad went astray in Sura 4:157.

 

My Response

 

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:

 

http://www.islamic-awareness.org/Quran/Sources/

 

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.

 

He Wrote

 

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.

 

(1) Every historical fact that contradicts the revealed Quran did not actually happen.
(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 Christianity—indeed, some were biased against it.

 

My Response

 

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?

 

He Wrote

 

First, the "letter of Mara Bar-Serapion" (c. 73 AD), housed in the British Museum, asks of Jesus’ crucifixion: "What advantage did the Jews gain from executing their wise King?"

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).

 

Fifth, the second-century Greek satirist Lucian (born c. 120), who traveled widely in the eastern Mediterranean world where Israel is located, in his On the Death of Peregrine, speaks of Christ "[A]s the man who was crucified in Palestine because he introduced a new cult into the world," also calling him a "crucified sophist."

 

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."

Seventh, even the Talmud does not deny the death of Jesus (his divinity is another matter): "on the eve of Passover they hanged Yeshu (of Nazareth)" . . . . (Sanhedrin 43a, "Eve of Passover").

 

Therefore, in light of all this extra-Biblical evidence—quite apart from its theological interpretation—the 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).

 

 

 

 

My Response

 

Does any of this actually prove your Bible is from God? Nop. So what are you getting at? Why don’t 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 don’t 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 don’t 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 don’t 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 don’t 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 don’t mix up what I was saying and what I really mean, I was simply using James approach against him.

 

 

 

 

He Wrote

 

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 reader’s suspense. However, Muhammad contradicts this passage because Abraham’s son Ishmael, born from Hagar, Sarah’s 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 Muhammad’s prophethood and the righteous practices of Islam (Suras 2:42, 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; 4:44-49).

This belief leads to the (unspoken) logic of any later absolutist interpreter of the Quran:

 

(4) Every 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>

 

 

 

 

My Response

 

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.

 

 

 

 

He Wrote

 

4. The Quran adds to the Biblical biography of Abraham and Ishmael.

 

The following passage asserts that Abraham settled Ishmael in Arabia near Mecca so that he could lead the Arabs in prayer and denounce idol worship:

 

14:35 Remember when Abraham said, "Lord, make this town [Mecca] safe! Lord, preserve me and my offspring from idolatry . . . .

 

And these verses claim that Abraham and Ishmael, while in Mecca, rebuilt and purified the Kabah, the sacred shrine that houses a black stone:

 

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 Arabia without the Bible.

 

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.

(8) The 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.

 

 

 

 

My Response

 

What James first needs to do is actually show that Abraham and Ishmael did not build the Kaaba rather than believe it didn’t just because he thinks it didn’t. To do that James has to show the Quran is not the word of God, something that cannot be done I’m 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!)

 

 

 

 

He Wrote

 

A. 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 Abraham’s sojourn down to distant Mecca. Muhammad was simply relying on Arab folk belief or his own imagination, not revelation, and elevated it to his sacred Scripture. This is not surprising, since he was not an historian, say, as Luke was, who researched the material for his Gospel and his Book of Acts (Luke 1:1-4).

 

 

 

 

My Response

 

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 Abraham’s sojourn down to distant Mecca.

 

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?

 

 

 

 

He Wrote

 

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 Mecca, he often circled it and prayed to Allah. One early Muslim historian, Ibn Ishaq, whom historians even today respect as a reliable source (except the miraculous elements), says he kissed the black stone (Life of Muhammad, trans. A. Guillaume, Oxford UP, 1955, p. 131). This attachment prevented him from rising above a religious, geographical location and looking to a "spiritual" Kabah alone, so to speak, as Jesus looked beyond the earthly Jerusalem (John 4:19-26). This motive of Muhammad is psychological.

 

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 Qur’an, 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.

 

 

 

 

My Response

 

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.

 

 

 

 

He Wrote

 

The Quran supports this reason: "God has made the Ka‘ba—the Sacred House—a 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 Abraham’s 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 Abraham’s journey to Arabia.

 

In fact, 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 Qumran and comparing it with the Masoretic text of Isaiah. Only a few incidental lines and words are different, and none affects the theology of the Book. Jewish copyists throughout history took their craft seriously.

Therefore, the last two syllogisms simply dissolve away, A, B, C.

 

 

 

 

My Response

 

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.

 

 

 

 

He Wrote

 

Furthermore, 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 Arabia. Therefore, I can count on the authors of Scripture not to make such things up. However, other much-later legends that embellish the Bible are suspect, given the motives to create legends like Abraham and Ishmael honoring the Kabah in Mecca with a visit. The Bible takes top priority, since it came before the Quran and is the foundation of the later legends.

Despite the positive evidence for Jesus’ crucifixion or the absence of evidence for Abraham’s sacrifice of Ishmael (outside the Quran) and his sojourn to Mecca, a devout Muslim is entitled to believe—by a sheer act of faith—that 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.

 

 

 

 

My Response

 

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.

 

http://answering-christianity.com/sami_zaatri/examining_sam_shamoun_4.htm

 

 

 

 

He Wrote

 

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.

 

 

 

 

My Response

 

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:

 

Deuteronomy
Chapter 3

 

1-7

 

1 Then we turned, and went up the way to Bashan: and Og the king of Bashan came out against us, he and all his people, to battle at Edrei. 2 And the LORD said unto me, Fear him not: for I will deliver him, and all his people, and his land, into thy hand; and thou shalt do unto him as thou didst unto Sihon king of the Amorites, which dwelt at Heshbon. 3 So the LORD our God delivered into our hands Og also, the king of Bashan, and all his people: and we smote him until none was left to him remaining. 4 And we took all his cities at that time, there was not a city which we took not from them, threescore cities, all the region of Argob, the kingdom of Og in Bashan. 5 All these cities were fenced with high walls, gates, and bars; beside unwalled towns a great many. 6 And we utterly destroyed them, as we did unto Sihon king of Heshbon, utterly destroying the men, women, and children, of every city. 7 But all the cattle, and the spoil of the cities, we took for a prey to ourselves

 

1 Kings 13:1-2

 

At the LORD's command, a man of God from Judah went to Bethel, and he arrived there just as Jeroboam was approaching the altar to offer a sacrifice. Then at the LORD's command, he shouted, "O altar, altar! This is what the LORD says: A child named Josiah will be born into the dynasty of David. On you he will sacrifice the priests from the pagan shrines who come here to burn incense, and human bones will be burned on you."

 

Judges 1:21-35

 

The tribe of Benjamin, however, failed to drive out the Jebusites, who were living in Jerusalem. So to this day the Jebusites live in Jerusalem among the people of Benjamin. The descendants of Joseph attacked the town of Bethel, and the LORD was with them. They sent spies to Bethel (formerly known as Luz), who confronted a man coming out of the city. They said to him, "Show us a way into the city, and we will have mercy on you." So he showed them a way in, and they killed everyone in the city except for this man and his family. Later the man moved to the land of the Hittites, where he built a city. He named the city Luz, and it is known by that name to this day. The tribe of Manasseh failed to drive out the people living in Beth-shan, Taanach, Dor, Ibleam, Megiddo, and their surrounding villages, because the Canaanites were determined to stay in that region.

 

When the 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 living in Gezer, and so the Canaanites continued to live there among them. The tribe of Zebulun also failed to drive out the Canaanites living in Kitron and Nahalol, who continued to live among them. But they forced them to work as slaves. The tribe of Asher also failed to drive out the residents of Acco, Sidon, Ahlab, Aczib, Helbah, Aphik, and Rehob. In fact, because they did not drive them out, the Canaanites dominated the land where the people of Asher lived. The tribe of Naphtali also failed to drive out the residents of Beth-shemesh and Beth-anath. Instead, the Canaanites dominated the land where they lived. Nevertheless, the people of Beth-shemesh and Beth-anath were sometimes forced to work as slaves for the people of Naphtali. As for the tribe of Dan, the Amorites forced them into the hill country and would not let them come down into the plains. The Amorites were determined to stay in Mount Heres, Aijalon, and Shaalbim, but when the descendants of Joseph became stronger, they forced the Amorites to work as slaves.

 

Numbers 31: 7-18 :

 

They attacked 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 Israel, which was camped on the plains of Moab beside the Jordan River, across from Jericho.

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 Israel to rebel against the LORD at Mount Peor. They are the ones who caused the plague to strike the LORD's people. Now kill all the boys and all the women who have slept with a man. Only the young girls who are virgins may live; you may keep them for yourselves.

 

Judges 21: 10- 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 Shiloh in the land of Canaan.

 

The Israelite 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 of Israel. So the Israelite leaders asked, "How can we find wives for the few who remain, since all the women of the tribe of Benjamin are dead? There must be heirs for the survivors so that an entire tribe of Israel will not be lost forever. But we cannot give them our own daughters in marriage because we have sworn with a solemn oath that anyone who does this will fall under God's curse."

 

Then they thought of the annual festival of the LORD held in Shiloh, between Lebonah and Bethel, along the east side of the road that goes from Bethel to Shechem. They told the men of Benjamin who still needed wives, "Go and hide in the vineyards. When the women of Shiloh come out for their dances, rush out from the vineyards, and each of you can take one of them home to be your wife! And when their fathers and brothers come to us in protest, we will tell them, 'Please be understanding. Let them have your daughters, for we didn't find enough wives for them when we destroyed Jabesh-gilead. And you are not guilty of breaking the vow since you did not give your daughters in marriage to them.'" So the men of Benjamin did as they were told. They kidnapped the women who took part in the celebration and carried them off to the land of their own inheritance. Then they rebuilt their towns and lived in them. So the assembly of Israel departed by tribes and families, and they returned to their own homes.

 

So would you care to respond? I dont think you can respond.

 

 

 

 

He Wrote

 

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>.

 

 

 

 

My Response

 

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:

 

http://answering-christianity.com/quran/quranerr.htm

 

As for the reliability of the Bible, it has been well documented that the Bible is corrupt:

 

http://www.islamic-awareness.org/Bible/

 

As for the rest:

 

http://www.islamic-awareness.org/Quran/Sources/

http://answering-christianity.com/crucified.htm

http://answering-christianity.com/blessed_jesus.htm

http://answering-christianity.com/que7.htm

http://answering-christianity.com/ac24.htm#links

 

 

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.

 

 

MISSIONARY EXPOSED

 

 

 

 

 

 

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.