Further Topic Research:
Run "Go" twice to bypass Bing

What's new | A-Z | Discuss & Blog | Youtube |

Answering Islam’s Desperate Attempts

By Abdullah Kareem


[Part I] [Part II] [Part III] [Part IV]


The article can be accessed here: (http://www.answering-islam.de/Main/Responses/Osama/smith_scholarship.htm)


I usually read what Muslim apologists write with awe and wonder because of their dubious reasoning skills, but never until now have I encountered something where I can't stop myself from laughing as I do about this one.

Recently I came across an article by Abdullah Smith, one of the writers of "answering-christianity", titled "The False Jesus of Christianity" (here). I would like to use it as an illustrative and revealing example of the kind of "scholarly research" that Muslim apologists go through before they publish anything.


My dubious reasoning skills, what are you talking about? Christianity is not based on reality, it’s against logic and reason.


Rationally considered also the dogma of the Trinity is untenable. It is not just beyond reason, it is repugnant to reason. As we said earlier, the belief in three Divine Persons is incompatible with the oneness of God. If there are three distinct and separate Persons, then there must be three distinct and separate Substances, for every person is inseparable from its own substances. Now if the Father is God, the Son is God, and the Holy Ghost is God, then unless he Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost are three distinct Northings, they must be three distinct Substances, and consequently three distinct Gods. Furthermore, the three divine Persons are either infinite or finite. If infinite, then there are three distinct Infinites, three Omnipotents, three Eternals, and so three Gods. If they are finite, then we are led to the absurdity of conceiving of an Infinite Being Having three finite modes of subsisting or of three persons who are separately finite making up an infinite conjunctly. The fact is that if the Three Persons are finite, then neither the Father, nor the Son, nor the Holy Ghost is God. (Ulfat Aziz-us-samad, Islam and Christianity, p 32)

Like the Trinity, the doctrine of the Incarnation was also developed long after Jesus. In fact, one can trace the stages through which Jesus was gradually deified. In ‘Q’ he was regarded as a prophet of God, as a human being and nothing more, in ‘Urmarcus’ there was an attempt to glamorize his person and attribute many miracles to him; in works of the first and second century he was presented as a mighty angel, the first born of all creation, but still a creature; and finally in the preface to John’s Gospel and other works of the third and fourth century he was made into a God…Reason refuses to accept a man who was born of a woman, suffered from human wants, ignorance and limitations, and gradually grew in stature, power and wisdom, like all other human beings, as God. (ibid, pp. 35-36)

"God sacrificed his own son in place of humans who needed to be punished for their own sins might make some Christians love Jesus, but is an obscene picture of God. It is almost heavenly child abuse, and may infect our imagination at more earthly levels as well. I do not want to express my faith through a theology that pictures God demanding blood sacrifices in order to be reconciled to us." (John Dominic Crossan, Who is Jesus? p. 145-146)

“We can no longer accept the appalling theological doctrine that for some mystic reason a propitiatory sacrifice was necessary. It outrages either our conception of God as Almighty or else our conception of Him as All-Loving. The famous Dr. Cruden believed that for the purpose of this sacrifice ‘Christ suffered dreadful pains inflicted by God’, and this, of course, is a standpoint which nauseates the modern mind and which may well be termed a hideous doctrine, not unconnected with the sadistic tendencies of primitive human nature. Actually, it is of pagan origin, being, indeed, perhaps the most obvious relic of heathendom in the Faith”. (Arthur Weigall, The Paganism in Our Christianity)


My article The False Jesus of Christianity is factual and correct. I challenge you to refute my article Did Jesus Have Female Breasts? And you wouldn’t be able to do it.

The Islamic scriptures are distorted by the Christian missionaries to prove the deception of their own pens. “Answering Islam” has been debunked by various Muslim websites and scholars.

The Christian missionary Shamoun has been badly exposed for being a clown. I have exposed his laughable interpretations on the Quran in my rebuttals.

A series of AUDIO recordings exposing his foul manners: [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9]

There’s no basis for what the deceiver Shamoun writes. The Christians are too busy sexual sinning, so the majority of people who visit “answering islam” are Muslims  (Isaiah 56:5: Muslim is the future believers' name.  Sons and daughters titles will be "no more"), but Christians are too pre-occupied.

The jokers at “answering islam” clearly stated that they will not use atheist material:

On “Answering Islam” we will purposely not use atheist articles against Islam, since we know ourselves more connected with Muslims  (Isaiah 56:5: Muslim is the future believers' name.  Sons and daughters titles will be "no more") on the basis of our common belief in one God, than with atheists who are mocking both of our faiths. Our goal is not the attack and destruction of faith in God, but that our Muslim co-believers in the Creator God will come to recognize the full truth of what God has revealed about himself and His will for our life. [1]

The Muslim apologist MENJ has exposed “answering islam’s” false policies to attack Islam. The following excerpt is derived from Bismika Allahuma’s article. 

Unfortunately, Answering Islam does not seem to practise what it preaches. Of late they have been relying on atheist material from hostile anti-Islamic websites in order to further their goal of “the presentation of the truth and genuine Christian scholarship”. Is it considered “the presentation of the truth” to rely on material from which they themselves denounce its source — known atheist websites openly hostile to Islam such as Freethought Mecca, Mukto-Mona and Faithfreedom International– to the extent that they are being used freely and widely throughout their articles? One of their team members — despite the so-called “official policy” of Answering Islam to never resort to atheist material — even had the audacity to state in an e-mail dated January 21st 2004, as follows: [2]

The infidels broke their promise!

The Christian missionary Shamoun attacks the Prophet Muhammad for marrying Aisha at a young age, yet his own grandmother got married before puberty! Here is a conversation that took place between Osama Abdallah and Sam Shamoun:

QuranSearch Com: question
Answering Islam: yes
QuranSearch Com: how old was your grandma when she got married?
Answering Islam: 12 perhaps

The fact that his own Biblical Prophets married 100s of wives each and fathers used to sell their daughters as slave girls to other men without any age limit makes it extremely possible and probable that several if not many of these wives were little girls between 9 to 13, while the Prophets were MUCH MUCH OLDER than them.  If his own grandmother who exited THOUSANDS of years later still married at 12, then what makes it impossible for girls during Biblical times to have married way much older men than them when they were little ones? [1]

The bogus writers of “Answering Islam” play with emotions.

.Org, a Neo-Conservative Website, propagates articles of the nature described here that discuss specific, knowledge-based Islamic topics, without using a knowledge-based approach. By appealing to their readers’ emotions rather than the pursuit of truth and serious scientific research, [1]


In reality, the “answering islam” website is against the Truth. We are doing a very good job defending Islam, but your goal is corrupting the world.

The webmaster Jochen Katz does not remove the “Quran contradictions” after these so-called contradictions have been refuted.  Katz says:

It is not for me to make that decision on their behalf. This is one reason that I will not remove even those contradictions that I find answered to my personal satisfaction. (*)

Jochen Katz deceives his readers. The “Quran contradictions” have been destroyed, so the page must be removed.





The thrust of the above mentioned article is that the Islamic description of Jesus is true while the Christian one is not, and that Christians have invented a Jesus that never actually existed. The article is full of quotations and a reader unfamiliar with these theories may get the impression that this is a scholarly article. This is not the case, however, when we look at those quotations a bit more carefully.





My article is sound and correct; the Christian religion has invented a ‘Christ’ which does not exist. Paul, the real founder of Christianity, has developed the Greek concept of ‘Christ’ (a divine man-god) and eradicated the original Jewish meaning. The Jews considered the ‘Christ’ to be fully human, but Paul changed the ‘Christ’ into a perverted idea.

Paul’s use of the term ‘Christ’ (the Greek term for the Hebrew ‘Messiah’) as a divine title has thus no precedent in Judaism, and would be felt by any Jew to be a complete departure from Jewish thinking about the Messiah. Further, the idea of ‘being in Christ’, which occurs frequently in Paul’s letters, is entirely without parallel in Jewish literature, whether of the Pharisees or of any other sects. It means a kind of unity with, or sinking of the individuality into, the divine personality of Jesus, and a sharing of his experience of crucifixion and resurrection. Apart from the implied elevation of Jesus to divine status, this concept involves a relationship to the Divine that is alien to Judaism, in which the autonomy of the individual human personality is respected and guaranteed. The idea of ‘being in Christ’, however, can be paralleled without difficulty to the mystery cults.(Hyam Maccoby, The Myth Maker: Paul and the Invention of Christianity, p. 63)

Even more shocking to Jewish religious susceptibilities is Paul’s use of the term ‘Lord’ (Greek, kurios) as a title for the deified Jesus. This is the term used in the Greek translation of the Hebrew Bible, the Septuagint, to translate the tetragrammaton or holy name of God Almighty, Creator of Heaven and Earth. To apply the name kurios or Lord in its divine sense to a human being who had recently lived and died on earth would have seemed to any Pharisee or other Jew sheer blasphemy. However, to the recipients of Paul’s letters, the use of the term ‘Lord’ for Jesus would not have seemed shocking at all, for this was the regular term for the deities of the mystery Cults, those salvation gods with whom the devotees united their souls in communal dying and resurrection. (p. 63)


The scholar Tom Harper writes:

John’s Jesus seems to be human – for example, he suffers thirst at the well in Samaria – but this aspect is overshadowed by his personal sense of majesty and control in every situation. In fact he strides the earth, boldly proclaiming himself Son of God, the only way to the Father, from the opening page. That this portrait represents a later mythologizing of the primitive accounts is evidence to all but the most determined of fundamentalists. The author has taken the title Son of God far beyond anything intended by the term in the Old Testament and closer to the contemporary Hellenistic view of gods who make their appearance in the guise of humans. (For Christ’s Sake, p 86)

The NT books were written under the influence of Paul 1, and the Jewish sects of Galilee. The synoptic Gospels represent the Human Jesus, and the Gospel of John represents the “divine” Jesus. Many of the philosophical and mythological elements present in the writings of St. Paul and the Epistle to the Hebrews can also be found in the fourth Gospel (ibid, p. 109).

Jesus eludes every attempt to define him in preconceived religious concepts. After his death and Resurrection, a wholly new understanding of Messiahship became inevitable – a Messiah who announces God’s Kingdom as already here and yet still to come in power, who appears to fail when is cruelly done to death, but who is vindicated and raised to be “the leader of those who are ready for God at his coming”. It was the earliest (Gentile) Christians, trying to come to grips with this story, who began to weave around Jesus every exalted Messianic concept available, until soon even the authentic expression “Son of Man” came to be loaded with overtones it never had in Jesus’ own usage. Like “Son of God” it was stretched to denote a supernatural, heavenly being whose humanity was more seeming than real. (ibid, p. 88, brackets are mine)


The Islamic scholar Ulfat Aziz-us-Samad says:

The doctrine of the Trinity was developed as a consequence of the deification of two creatures. Jesus Christ and the mysterious Holy Ghost, and their association with God as partners in His Godhead. As explained in Christian literature it amounts to the separate personification of three attributes of God. Whether considered from historical view point or otherwise, it is a regression from rational theology to mythology. For, at the root of all mythologies lies the irrational tendency of the human mind to deify great men and personify non-personal forces and attributes and to present them as Divine Persons. (Islam and Christianity, p. 33)

The Islamic version of Jesus is superior, so the Biblical portrait must be rejected. The Jesus of Christianity is the Christ of the Church; the Jesus of History is preserved in the Holy Quran.  

Another reason for Jesus’ second coming is that he will be honored with the opportunity to personally correct the belief of his people. Too many have disbelieved and rejected him. Many others have believed incorrectly about him. When he returns, everyone will believe in him correctly. Yet another reason for his coming is that some of his teachings have been forgotten (see Qur'an 5:14), and replaced by misguided teachings (see Qur'an 5:77, 9:30). Jesus will have the honor of breaking the symbols of such false teachings and dramatically confirming his true teachings which were also taught by his brother in faith, the last prophet, on whom be peace. (Shabir Ally, Answers to Common Questions People Ask About Islam, p. 38) 

More and more people are now aware that the Christianity they know has little to do with the original teachings of Jesus. During the last two centuries the research of the historians has left little room for faith in the Christian “mysteries”, but the proven fact that the Christ of the established Church has almost nothing to do with the Jesus of history does not in itself help Christians towards the Truth. The present dilemma of the Christians is illustrated by what the Church historians of this present century write. The fundamental difficulty is, as pointed out by Adolf Harnack, that “By the fourth century the living Gospel had been masked in Greek philosophy. It was the historians’ mission to pluck off the mask and thus reveal how different had been the original contours of the faith beneath”. (Muhammad Ataur-Raheem, Jesus Prophet of Islam, 1992 edition, p. 13) 

Muslims  (Isaiah 56:5: Muslim is the future believers' name.  Sons and daughters titles will be "no more") believe the original Jesus as preached by the early Jewish Christians immediately after his departure. The real Jesus is hidden beneath the mask of Christianity. Our job is to remove the mask, which has covered the Historical Jesus in complete darkness. For the light that extinguishes darkness is Islam.

We recommend the following book that exposes Christianity:

The Great Deception: And What Jesus Really Said and Did by Gerd Ludemann

What Really Happened to Jesus: A Historical Approach to the Resurrection

The Resurrection of Christ: A  Historical Inquiry



2.   Quotations taken from fellow Muslims  (Isaiah 56:5: Muslim is the future believers' name.  Sons and daughters titles will be "no more").

For instance: "The argument is simple: the Torah and the Gospel were originally Revelations from God Almighty; however, certain groups have changed and altered these books for whatever reasons. Due to this fact, their purity and status as the unadulterated Word of God has diminished. (Faisal Siddiqui, The Bible’s Last Prophet, p. 7)"

Such a quote demonstrates nothing but that Muslims  (Isaiah 56:5: Muslim is the future believers' name.  Sons and daughters titles will be "no more") don't like the Bible, but this is something we already know. The rest of the quotes that Smith uses from his fellow Muslim apologists have no merits in them because they are simply projections of their own opinions.




The Muslim scholars are supported by Christian assertions, which are based on logical analysis and scholarly research. How do we know? The Muslim scholars are backed by Christian evidence. For example, the scholar Faisal Siddiqui cites various Jewish sources; he also quotes from the well-known Arab Christian scholar Kamal Salibi to prove Muhammad (pbuh) was foretold in the Bible (p. 40). The Christian missionaries are responsible for deliberately misquoting the Quran and Hadith, they are known for distorting the Islamic texts.


Why don’t you study the New Testament text? The Greek manuscripts are divided into four types; the Bible is classified into versions (NIV contradicts the KJV). This explains why the Bible is corrupted.

The "local texts" of the New Testament gradually developed in the early centuries of the expansion of Christian Churches. In and near the large cities such as Antioch, Alexandria, Rome, Carthage, Constantinople etc., the newly established Churches were provided with the copies of the scriptures in the form which were current in that area. As additional copies were made to cope with the expansion of the Christianity, the number of special readings and renderings would be both conserved and, to some extent, increased, so that eventually a type of text germinated which was typical of that locality.

Modern scholars have identified the type of text preserved in the New Testament manuscripts by comparing their characteristic readings with the quotations of those passages in the writings of the Church Fathers who live near or in the chief ecclesiastical centres. [1]

There are no complete pre-Nicene manuscripts; many changes were made during the Diocletian’s persecution in 303 CE.

In AD 303, a quarter of a century earlier, the pagan emperor Diocletian had undertaken to destroy all Christian writings that could be found. As a result Christian documents- especially in Rome- all but vanished. When Constantine commissioned new versions of these documents, it enabled the custodians of orthodoxy to revise, edit, and rewrite their material as they saw fit, in accordance with their tenets in accordance with their tenets. It was at this point that most of the crucial alterations in the New Testament were probably made and Jesus assumed the unique status he has enjoyed ever since. The importance of Constantine's commission must not be underestimated. Of the five thousand extant early manuscript versions of the New Testament, no complete edition pre-dates the fourth century. The New Testament, as it exists today, is essentially a product of fourth-century editors and writers – custodians of orthodoxy, ‘adherents of the message’, with vested interests to protect. (Michael Baigent, Holy Blood, Holy Grail, pp. 388-389)

Critical theologians seemed particularly outraged at the forgery of entire documents, such as the Second Epistle of Paul to the Thessalonians and the Second Epistle of Peter. The same can be said of all of the passages implying trinity, among them 1 John 5, 7 and the baptismal formulate “in the name of the Father, and the Son, and of the Holy Ghost” (Matthew 28, 19).

Given these circumstances, it was the logical next step that incarnation and trinity, the dogmas emerging in the 4th and 5th century from Nicaea, Constantinople, and Chalcedon, became subject to heightened scrutiny. What is more, the entire critique of the New Testament grew into a gigantic theological effort to go back before 325 to rediscover the original, if not genuine, Jewish-Christian Christology. John Hick, the foremost critic of these dogmas, believes with some justification that simply opening both incarnation and trinity to discussion has already robbed them of their dogmatic status, relegating them to mere theories (Murad Wilfried Hofmann, Religion on the Rise, p. 141).

The Testimony of Christian scholars:

"It is well known that the primitive Christian Gospel was initially transmitted by word of mouth and that this oral tradition resulted in variant reporting of word and deed. It is equally true that when the Christian record was committed to writing it continued to be the subject of verbal variation. Involuntary and intentional, at the hands of scribes and editors"  Peake's Commentary on the Bible, p. 633

"(. . .) the wording and form of description that result from a long evolution of tradition are not as authentic as in the original. Some readers of this work will perhaps be surprised or embarrassed to learn that certain of Jesus's sayings, parables, or predictions of His destiny were not expressed in the way we read them today, but were altered and adapted by those who transmitted them to us. This may come as a source of amazement and even scandal to those not used to this kind of historical investigation." (Maurice Bucaille, The Bible, The Quran and Science, p. 63)

"Yet, as a matter of fact, every book of the New Testament with the exception of the four great Epistles of St. Paul is at present more or less the subject of controversy, and interpolations (inserted verses) are asserted even in these."  Encyclopaedia Brittanica, 12th Ed. Vol. 3, p. 643 

"Orthodox theologians were tempted, by the assurance of impunity, to compose fictions, which must be stigmatized with the epithets of fraud and forgery.
They ascribed their own polemical works to the most venerable names of Christian antiquity." (Edward Gibbon, History of Christianity, p. 598)

"It is highly probable that not one of the Synoptic Gospels (Matthew, Mark, and Luke) was in existence in the form which we have it, prior to the death of Paul. And were the documents to be taken in strict order of chronology, the Pauline Epistles would come before the synoptic Gospels."  History of Christianity in the Light of Modern Knowledge, Rev. Charles Anderson Scott, p.338

"A pernicious maxim which was current in the schools, not only of the Egyptians, the Platonists, and the Pythagoreans, but also of the Jews, was very early recognised by the Christians, and soon found among them numerous patrons - namely, that those who made it their business to deceive with a view of promoting the cause of truth, were deserving rather of commendation than of censure." [66:9]

"No fable could be too gross, no invention too transparent, for their unsuspicious acceptance, if it assumed a pious form or tended to edification. No period in the history of the world ever produced so many spurious works as the first two or three centuries of our era. The name of every Apostle, or Christian teacher, not excepting that of the great Master himself, was freely attached to every description of religious forgery." [67:6]

"But a graver accusation than that of inaccuracy or deficient authority lies against the writings which have come down to us from the second century. There can be no doubt that great numbers of books were then written with no other view than to deceive the simple-minded multitude who at that time formed the great bulk of the Christian community." [68:7]

"There never was any period of time in all ecclesiastical history in which so many rank heresies were publicly professed nor in which so many spurious books were forged and published by the Christians, under the names of Christ and the Apostles, and the Apostolic writers, as in those primitive ages: several of which forged books are frequently cited and applied to the defence of Christianity by the most eminent Fathers of the same ages as true and genuine pieces, and of equal authority with the Scriptures themselves." [67:5] 

A colossal fraud lies at the very basis of Christianity. Its Gospels are palmed off as the work of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John, four of Christ's disciples. Yet scholars are perfectly aware "there is no evidence that either the Gospels, the Acts of the Apostles, or the other writings, as we have them, existed within a hundred and twenty years after the Crucifixion." The canonical books of the Now Testament came into existence at the same time as the host of "apocryphal" ones, an incomplete list of which comprises over seventy documents. Our four Gospels were selected by the Church, which pronounced them the true Word of God. The Church guarantees the books, but who will guarantee the Church? (G.W. Foote, The Crimes of Christianity, online Source)

“The historical inconsistencies and improbabilities in parts of the Gospels from some of the arguments advanced in favor of the Christ myth theory. These are, however, entirely outweighed-as we have shown-by other considerations. Still, the discrepancies and uncertainties that remain are serious-and consequently many moderns, who have no doubt whatever of Jesus’ real existence, regard as hopeless any attempt to dissolve out the historically-true from the legendary or mythical matter which the Gospels contain, and to reconstruct the story of Jesus’ mission out of the more historical residue.”

(Mr. C.J. Cadoux "The life of Jesus")         


When, therefore, enterprising spirits responded to this natural craving by pretended Gospels full of romantic fables and fantastic and striking details, their fabrications were eagerly read and largely accepted as true by common folk who were devoid of any critical faculty and who were predisposed to believe what so luxuriously fed their pious curiosity. Both Catholics and Gnostics were concerned in writing these fictions. The former had no other motive than that of a pious fraud.... But the heretical apocryphists, while gratifying curiosity, composed spurious Gospels in order to trace backward their beliefs and peculiarities to Christ Himself. The Church and the Fathers were hostile even towards the narratives of orthodox authorship. It was not until the Middle Ages, when their true origin was forgotten even by most of the learned, that these apocryphal stories began to enter largely into sacred legends, such as the "Aurea Sacra," into miracle plays, Christian art, and poetry. A comparison of the least extravagant of these productions with the real [sic] Gospels reveals the chasm separating them. Though worthless historically, the apocryphal Gospels help us to better understand the religious conditions of the second and third centuries, and they are also of no little value as early witnesses of the canonicity of the writings of the four Evangelists. (The Catholic Encyclopedia, online Source)

The Testimony of the early Church fathers:

"As the brethren desired me to write epistles (letters), I did so, and these the apostles of the devil have filled with tares (changes), exchanging some things and adding others, for whom there is a woe reserved. It is not therefore, a matter of wonder if some have also attempted to adulterate the sacred writings of the Lord, since they have attempted the same in other works that are not to be compared with these." (Dionysius, Bishop of Corinth, [1]

For we, brethren, receive both Peter and the rest of the apostles as Christ Himself. But those writings which are falsely inscribed with their name, we as experienced persons reject, knowing that no such writings have been handed down to us. (Serapion of Antioch, [2]

"And yet these are veritable fables, which have led to the invention of such stories concerning a man whom they regarded as possessing greater wisdom and power than the multitude, and as having received the beginning of his corporeal substance from better and diviner elements than others, because they thought that this was appropriate to persons who were too great to be human beings. (Origen, 254 CE) [3]

The truth of these matters must lie in that which is seen by the mind. If the discrepancy between the Gospels is not solved, we must give up our trust in the Gospels, as being true and written by a divine spirit, or as records worthy of credence, for both these characters are held to belong to these works. (Origen, Commentary on John, [online Source]


"[the New Testament had] in many passages undergone such serious modification of meaning as to leave us in painful uncertainty as to what the Apostles had actually written"  Secrets of Mount Sinai, James Bentley, p. 117


In all, Tischendorf uncovered over 14,800 "corrections" to just one ancient manuscript of the Bible, the Codex Sinaiticus (one of the two most ancient copies of the Bible available to Christianity today), by nine (some say ten) separate "correctors," which had been applied to this one manuscript over a period from 400AD to about 1200AD. Tischendorf strove in his dealings with his holy texts themselves to be as honest and sincere as humanly possible. For this reason he could not understand how the scribes could have so continuously and so callously. [1]


The King James Version has grave defects!


Yet the King James Version has grave defects. By the middle of the nineteenth century, the development of Biblical studies and the discovery of many manuscripts more ancient than those upon which the King James Version was based, made it manifest that these defects are so many and so serious as to call for revision of the English translation. (Preface to the Revised Standard Version, (online Source)


The Church father Hippolytus explains how the Jews divided into sects:

Originally there prevailed but one usage among the Jews; for one teacher was given unto them by God, namely Moses, and one law by this same Moses. And there was one desert region and one Mount Sinai, for one God it was who legislated for these Jews. But, again, after they had crossed the river Jordan, and had inherited by lot the conquered country, they in various ways rent in sunder the law of God, each devising a different interpretation of the declarations made by God. And in this way they raised up for themselves teachers, (and) invented doctrines of an heretical nature, and they continued to advance into (sectarian) divisions. (Hippolytus of Rome, [2]

The Holy Quran confirms the historical fact:


No just estimate of Allah do they make when they say: "Nothing doth Allah send down to man (by way of revelation)" Say: "Who then sent down the Book which Moses brought?- a light and guidance to man: But ye make it into (separate) sheets for show, while ye conceal much (of its contents): therein were ye taught that which ye knew not- neither ye nor your fathers." Say: "(Allah) (sent it down)": Then leave them to plunge in vain discourse and trifling. (Al-Quran 6:91)

O Messenger. let not those grieve thee, who race each other into unbelief: (whether it be) among those who say "We believe" with their lips but whose hearts have no faith; or it be among the Jews,- men who will listen to any lie,- will listen even to others who have never so much as come to thee. They change the words from their (right) times and places: they say, "If ye are given this, take it, but if not, beware!" If any one's trial is intended by Allah, thou hast no authority in the least for him against Allah. For such - it is not Allah's will to purify their hearts. For them there is disgrace in this world, and in the Hereafter a heavy punishment. (Al-Quran 5:41)

Let us quote the scholar Faisal Siddiqui on the Torah.

Modern scholars of the Torah agree (with the Quran) that the Torah which is present today contains little remnant of the original Revelation given to Moses. It has become tradition among Bible scholars to separate the Pentateuch into four main texts of authorship – the Yahvist texts, the Elohistic texts, the Deuteronomic texts, and the Priestly texts. Each text is believed to be written at a different time period by various people. These major text divisions are then further delineated into numerous subtexts. (The Bible’s Last Prophet, p. 7)

We recommend the following links:






The Torah and Gospel have been adulterated. The entire Bible has been changed over time.

“The number of deliberate alterations made in the interests of doctrine is difficult to assess.”  [Bruce M. Metzger's "The Text of the New Testament: Its Transmission, Corruption and Restoration", 1964]

Some of the events in the early mission of Jesus] were not strictly true but were added to the story of Jesus by the early Christians to express their faith in him as a Messiah."  [London Daily Mail, page 12, 15/July/1984] 

You are arrogant and foolish enough to believe the Torah and Gospel have been preserved? The Holy Quran says that God revealed the Torah and Gospel, but they were subsequently corrupted.

Then woe to those who write the Book with their own hands, and then say: "This is from Allah," to traffic with it for miserable price!- Woe to them for what their hands do write, and for the gain they make thereby. (Al-Quran 2:79)


The Greek translations of Jesus’ sayings are not authentic, the Logia is perished forever.


Jesus taught his disciples as he moved about, and his words were first passed around by word of mouth. The gospels portray Jesus as one who speaks, not as one who writes. Jesus' native tongue was Aramaic. We do not know whether he could speak Hebrew as well. His words have been preserved only in Greek, the original language of all the surviving gospels. If Jesus could not speak Greek, we must conclude that his exact words have been lost forever. (The Jesus Seminar, The Five Gospels, p. 3)

The four Gospels were altered in 506 CE by Anastasius.

Victor Tununenis, an African bishop of the sixth century, wrote a chronicle ending at the year 566. It records that in the year 506 at Constantinople, by order of Emperor Anastasius, “the holy Gospels were censured and corrected”. One of the Church Fathers, a Bishop Dionysius, complained that even his own writings “had been falsified by apostles of the devil”. No wonder, he added “that the Scriptures too were falsified by such persons”. Even Origen had noted that already the differences between copies of the Gospels in his day were “considerable”, partly because of the carelessness of individual scribes but also partly because of the impious audacity of “those who added or removed what seemed good to them in the work of ‘correction’. (Tom Harper, The Pagan Christ, p 24)


I hope you understand the Bible has been corrupted.


Continue to Part 2



What's new | A-Z | Discuss & Blog | Youtube