Linguistic miracles in the Quran – Response to Wikiislam

Last updated: 12th August 2021

By: Mustafa Sahin.

Critics of Islam, have not been able to meet the challenge to respond to ALL of the Linguistic Miracles in the Quran. See the video above and you will see many incredible examples that the Quran is none other than “inspired” by the Allah (All-Mighty)

And due to this desperate attempt, they have only focussed on writing a response to only a small fraction of the examples in the Video. How many? Well they object so far to only about 4 or 5 out of the entire 37 examples.

So we shall respond, to the critics on those points they disagree with.

So let’s begin.

Objection one:

The Quran claims “Middle Nation”


They wrote:

The supposed miracle is that the sura has 286 verses and the word وسطا (translated as “middle”) is in the middle verse, that is verse number 143.

  • 286 is an even number and therefore there is no middle verse in the sura. This is like claiming that the number 2 is a middle number between numbers 1, 2, 3, 4.
  • Sahih International doesn’t even translate the word وسطا as “middle”
  • A different verse 2:238 also contains the word “middle” (الوسطى) and it talks about the “middle prayer” (that is the 3rd of the 5 daily prayers). So in this verse, the meaning “middle” is more fitting than in 2:143.
  • The numbering of verses is arbitrary. Muhammad didn’t specify where a verse ends and starts a new one. So the whole sura could be interpreted to have a different number of verses.
  • This is a cherry-picking fallacy. What about words like “first” and “last”, do they appear only at the beginning and ends of suras?



Muslim – Response:

They wrote:

286 is an even number and therefore there is no middle verse in the sura. This is like claiming that the number 2 is a middle number between numbers 1, 2, 3,


He says because 286 is an even number, we can’t get the middle? Is this author serious, or he hasn’t passed grade 3? You can get the middle of “odd” or “even” numbers. For example, the middle of 3 is 1.5 and the middle of 4 is 2. So I’m amazed at the lack of stupidity of the Author at Wikiislam.net.

The author at Wikiislam.net lacks basic common sense by comparing (middle) of 1 to 4 and the (middle) of 1 to 187.

So of course pointed out number 2 or 3 being the middle of 1 & 4. Would be insignificant.

It then becomes much more significant when you have a much greater number in the hundreds and you manage to find the centre, which becomes more significant, a range of 286 and when you have a verse talking about “middle nation” if anyone understandsbasic; (odds, mathematics and probability) the more the numbers the greater the odds, so trying to land your odds between shorter numbers your chances are much higher compared to landing your odds between numbers that are much lower. The higher the number themuch more significant it is to find the center, which the Quran did.

Brother M Kai, makes a good point on this issue;


They wrote:

A different verse 2:238 also contains the word “middle” (الوسطى) and it talks about the “middle prayer” (that is the 3rd of the 5 daily prayers). So in this verse the meaning “middle” is more fitting than in 2:143


Now let’s discuss the notion that the Quran does not get it right “exactly ” on the centre of 1 to 186 which is 143. The verse is actually about “middle nation” mentioned at 143, that’s exactly half of 186, just divide 186 and see what you get thats 143.

143rd verse of surat al-Baqarah, which is composed of 286 verses, contains the word “middle” (143 is half of 286)

Now even for arguenent say, its not 143 but 142 or 144. This is still close enough to be in the middle, how else can mathematics define the middle of 286 verses in any book? So the fact that the Quran mentions it reasonable close within the “proximity of the middle its sufficient enough. Even in Mathematics we have a ratio or round off rule, for example:

Here’s the general rule for rounding: If the number you are rounding is followed by 5, 6, 7, 8, or 9, round the number up. Example: 38 rounded to the nearest ten is 40. If the number you are rounding is followed by 0, 1, 2, 3, or 4, round the number down.

Thus, even if the Quran mentions it on a even number, it can be rounded off, so the middle of 286, can be anywhere from 142,143,144.

So the Quran is still accurate.

They wrote:

  • The numbering of verses is arbitrary. Muhammad didn’t clearly specify where a verse ends and starts a new one. So the whole sura could be interpreted to have a different number of verses.


This is false. The Chronological order of the verses of the Quran, were being formulated even in the Prophet’s time

See many examples from Quran and Hadith:



So what we have is, not only was the Prophet instructing the companions on teaching them the Quran, He even taught them which (ayah) verse comes first.

And I find it hilarious how the Authore at Wikiislam.net. claims;  “the whole sura could be interpreted to have a different number of verses”.

And yet Wikiislam.net on their own article declares there are (286 verses) In sureh Al- Baqarah see:


Source: https://wikiislam.net/wiki/Chronological_Order_of_the_Qur%27an

Talk about a “face palm” moment.

They wrote:

  • Sahih International doesn’t even translate the word وسطا as “middle”


That’s just the translator’s choice of word. Sahi international uses;


Sahi uses the word “just” community. However when we look at the Arabic:


let’s take a closer look at Wasatan and its root word:


Even according to the Sahi international, If its read as “just” or “Just balanced” which means that being a just balanced nation is balanced in the middle of the entire verse. So that is still correct to show balance significance (i.e) balancing something “justly” on a scale and getting a “just” reading. And the “Arabic” can also be “Middle” even if the translater has not gone for it, because at the end of the day, there trying to do there best in translating and filtering what word describes the arabic. The fact is both words can be correct, “justly” or “Just” ,”balance” or “middle”. Therefore one can assume “middle” is the most accurate rendering, because that is no doubt one of the meanings. One word in arabic can have multiple meanings, but in close relations. Thus claiming its not specified in Sahi is a problem with the choice of word of translater, and not the arabic. As the Arabic clearly also defines it as “Middle” nation. And most  other Quranic translator’s have used the word “middle” which means its still even more accurate.

They wrote:

  • This is a cherry-picking fallacy. What about words like “first” and “last”, do they appear only at the beginning and ends of suras?


Cherry – picking fallacy.

Do first and last appear only at the start and end.

No they don’t. Therefore it wouldn’t be cherry picking now would it? Your clearly a 3rd graded and you have no idea what a cherry- picking Fallacy is. A cherry picking fallacy would imply that the word “first” and “last” appears at the start of the Quran and end of the Quran, and so I conveniently ignore those and cherry pick from a verse in the “middle” to express more significance to the Quranic linguistic miracle.

I would like to also add, other critics claim the Hafs version Quran has devided Sureh Baqarah to 286 verses while, Hafs has devided the verses into 285. Therefore 143, is not the centre for chapter 2.

Visit: This has been dealt with here, according to the Mathematics of Golden Ratio, the dividing of the verses of Hafs is more accurate then Warsh.


Objection two:


They wrote:

The miracle is that it says “man” while a man doesn’t have two hearts, but a woman somehow has two hearts because she can have a baby inside her and inside the baby is another heart.

  • The verse doesn’t clearly say that
  • A woman doesn’t have the “two hearts” most of the time
  • When a woman is pregnant, she can have more than one baby inside her, so “two hearts” is still inaccurate for many pregnant women
  • It is common sense in any human to know that a woman will have “two hearts” inside her when she has one foetus. We dont need an Allah to teach us this, that too when the Qur’an hasn’t even clearly mentioned, “a woman has two hearts.”
  • The Qur’an tried to use the term “man” in the generic sense to refer to humanity like “man” in English or any other language.

Classical interpretations of Islamic scholars:


Source: https://wikiislam.net/wiki/Linguistic_miracles_in_the_Quran#Two_hearts_in_a_woman_.2833:4.29

Muslim – Response:

They wrote:

  • The verse doesn’t clearly say that
  • A woman doesn’t have the “two hearts” most of the time.


It doesn’t need too. The fact that it singles out Men, not having two hearts. Would mean women are exempted from this criteria having only one heart inside them.

They wrote:

  • When a woman is pregnant, she can have more than one baby inside her, so “two hearts” is still inaccurate for many pregnant women


The Quran did not say, “Only” two hearts. Therefore its not inaccurate. So the general rule is, men do not have two natural hearts in the body. Which means women can have two hearts, and even more then two hearts, because the verse did not say ” only two hearts”, which can imply its more then two and not limited to two hearts.

They wrote:

  • It is common sense in any human to know that a woman will have “two hearts” inside her when she has one foetus. We dont need an Allah to teach us this, that too when the Qur’an hasn’t even clearly mentioned, “a woman has two hearts.”


The critic missed the point, the miracle isn’t in the notion that women have two hearts or more then two hearts inside of her, the miracle is more to do with Men having “no two hearts”  meaning He will never bare a child, no matter how technological advance we become, and never would a man be able to even have two natural hearts of his own, placed by Allah. And we know from human development that, a man has never had two natural hearts, which goes to affirm the Miracle.

Also the Quran “specifies” the two hearts can not be found in the “body”, of any Man. The term used here is “Joewf” which means “body” and not Chest.

Allah did not specify a specific location, because we know that if a women is pregnant not all those hearts are found in the “chest”. Which makes another clear distinction between Men and Women, and that Allah was talking about Men in its generic form that He has not placed in the “body” (Jeoewf), which implies He Allah unlike Men put the Hearts in the body (Jeowf) of Women.

You can read more about it here;


They wrote;

  • The Qur’an tried to use the term “man” in the generic sense to refer to humanity like “man” in English or any other language


False, The word that is used here is “rajulin” which is specific for men. The word that is used for both genders is insan.

As for the ” commentatary” from Al-Jalayn and Tefsir ibn Kathir.

Again, commentatary is not “Revelation” unless it comes from the Prophet himself. Therefore peoples opinions on the Quran can be limited 0r invalid.

We do have an Update to this response.

It has come to our attention that, a person in history has had two hearts. His name is George Lippert . So we have further reserached to come up with an updated response. We have found that the verse in Question, does not have to mean TWO biological hearts. But rather a deeper meaning. So WikiIslam authors I will concede have only found a “Error” in the Tefsir or in Noamin Ali Khans claimed linguistic miracle. This does not mean their is a “Error in the Quran”. Rather a ” Error” in those who are making claims upon the Quranic text. In other words their opinions are what the Errors are, and not the Quran. So what WikiIslam authors have found is 1 error that dismisses a claimed linguistic miracle. Which means all 36 of the linguistic miracles are still yet to be refuted. That said, let us now look at what other interpretations show that their are “no errors in the Quran”. Take a read;

To brother, Houssem Lahbib

I would say, you are correct

These stooges think that Ibn Kathir is gospel
It’s not. It can be mere error in the opinion of ibn Kathir. Don’t get me wrong, ibn Kathir is amazing, but it’s not revelation and sometimes He will give his own opinion that can be wrong.

Anyhow, the verse indeed as you described does not have to mean two biological hearts.

I just knew there must be a deeper meaning or moral we can take from this acknowledgement thats not necessarily a scientific fact being revealed about the male anatomy. I so I have found my answer in Sheik Al-Nabulsi’s Tafseer, so here is some beautiful insights:
The verse here has some reflection on the intangible characteristics of our hearts. The idea being that we are created in such a fashion that our hearts will not provide space for two contradictory entities in nature from the spiritual realm. The heart can’t find peace in darkness as well as light in the same time. Lets take this simple statement in a more practical sense.
You will have a hard time having inclination for staying in Allah’s gatherings if your heart has an affinity for Shisha places for example where Allah is most likely not going to be the first candidate for a discussion topic. You might think to yourself…well obviously. But that’e the thing; its not new information, but we’re getting deeper insights in the root cause of the issue. We think,“I’m just not the religious type, thats why I can’t go to a mosque and listen to a sheik talk about something for 10 minutes after Isha”, “Im someone who just enjoys a good night with the boys playing playstation and having a good laugh not praying 4 Rak’at at 2 AM. Its just not me”. Its not really true, thats like saying Allah created some people with some religious inclination and some with none of it, already preprogrammed in their genes. Kinda harsh no?
Its not about you, its about what you allowed your heart to contain, to be filled up with. And whatever love your precious organ absorbed, it will influence your way of thinking about it. Another classic example is music and the Quran. Regardless of our thoughts if its haram or halal (It doesn’t matter for this discussion). You know that if you were to fill up you heart with loud profane hip-hop, its really hard to just want to listen to ayas right after. And vice versa, because Allah ordained there can’t be two hearts in a man! I even sometimes find it hard to utter ayat on my tongue after an intense musical session. Man. You just can’t explain these phenomenas except through the revelation on the unseen matters of our heart that Allah has explained to us.
Its not because its who you are, its just what your heart is pushing you towards. I think this gives hope more than anything, and shows you how malleable we are as people when it comes to loving the path and finding a drive to race towards it. Whatever state you are in, its because of the capacity of content that your heart is residing in itself. And that can easily change. Don’t make yourself enslaved to what you think your into, thinking you are predestined to be like this forever. I heard a couple of friends tell me that music helps them cope with life more than religion, and they firmly believe this. Its not true, its just what your heart is pushing you towards.
And therefore you must replace the bad with the good in our heart’s consumption, and inevitably your mind, thoughts and aspirations will change on their own for a different mindset on what you genuinely have love for.

A Christian wrote back saying:


Muslim – Response:

It took 800 years to explain Allahs clear verses?

As if Muslims sit there, saying I can’t live my life in guidance if I don’t understand the “deeper meaning of two hearts?

Yes the Quran is a clear book, but there are verses, that require interpretation and analyses, that’s what makes the book more beautiful and mysterious and less boring. It is a book like no other. It presents new findings to mesmerize the reader. Take for example the 37 linguistic miracles of the Quran, that has been outlined;

Again, you must have heard the wrong details regarding, metaphors regarding Gods hands. The Correct understanding is, we don’t say Gods hands are metaphoric. They are literal. But they are not the same as our hands. A good example is, is the hand of a cloke the same as the hand of a human being? No they are not, even if both mechanisms are called a hand.

But of course, wisdom and understanding is not your strongest point. Cause Your a green horn apologist.

We can actually keep playing with his own logic.

It took 800 years, to understand the real meaning of two hearts. But it’s taken over 1300 year’s for the holy spirit to tell these Christians that verses in the Bible, are not really part of the Bible like the last 12 verses In Marks Gospel.
(facepalm moment)

This Christian has a problem with Metaphores in the Quran? But what about his Bible? Literal or figurtive?


It gets even more funnier? Who wrote book Hebrews? Why couldn’t the biblical God tell us who wrote it? Christians are confused. See here:

So the Question remains, if they can’t tell us, could it be satan?

So the Christian religion is full of uncertainty, metaphors, etc.

And here this desperate Christian stooge wants to mock why verses of the Quran are still being corrected in it’s deeper interpretation .

Objection three:


The linguistic miracle is that they used the old name “Yathrib” even after the city was renamed to “Medina un-Nabi” (The City of The Prophet). They used Yathrib, because they didn’t agree with the new name.

  • This idea comes from the hypocrites. The author of the Quran just quoted them. So even if this was a “linguistic miracle”, then how could the author of the Quran take the credit for it?

Muslim – Response:

The linguistic miracle is not in the mere mentioning of the name “Yathrib”. Rather the linguistic miracle, was when the Hypocrites exposed their “True” allegiance to Yathrib instead of their true allegiance to the Prophet, since  Yathrib had a new name which was “Medina” but the Hypocrites did not use the term Medina but rather used Yathrib. Because the term “Medina” was a term named  by the Prophet himself, and so the Hypocrites exposed themselves, when they didn’t use the term “Medina” which then gave the alarming sign that they were lying about, making a oath of allegiance to the Prophet, when they will keep telling the Prophet they believed in him, however refused to identify their city as Medina. So there real intention was to claim they were Muslim and believers, but deep down they wanted their old city back, and wished to conspire to kill the Prophet. Well that’s exactly what happened, in the battle of the trench, Jews such as the Banu Qurayze, were mislead by other Hypocrites, and so the Jews instead of defending the Prophet against the Enemy forces, they turned on the Prophet.

Forward to “minute 16” Noahmin Ali Khan explains it here:

Objection four:

Palindromes in Verse 74:3 in the Quran



They wrote:

  • Non-Muslims can make long palindromic sentences
  • Author of the Quran supposedly managed to make a short palindrome



Muslim – Response:

There isn’t much to refute the authore after going on a long diatribe, says there is no palindrome, then concludes by saying there is a palindrome but a short one. And yet, He/She wants to talk about “Mental Gymnastics. The irony.

Our response is “Yes” it is short, but does being short mean it’s less significant. No let’s look at other examples of short palindrome, however even in its shortness it is pretty “significant” take for example;

Also the Critic, missed the point. Yes people can make much longer palindrome, but people do that not at one go, but they require editing, and Re-writing to get it perfect. However the Quran was not revealed as in, the revelation comes down, and then the Prophet goes through a drafting process. Not at all, once the revelation comes, He then gives the sentences to his companions and its done. There is no “editing” and going back once the word is past on. And the Quran tells us, that the Prophet can neither read or write, therefore we can not assume He took time in writing and drafting it himself. Also the Prophet never told his companions that, ” here look I just came up with a palindrome” which proves I’m a Prophet, and the Revelation I bring to you is, indeed high elequence and a miracle. He never convinced them of those things. These are something other Muslims later on realised, to see that this Revelation isn’t a mere guess work or made up, but rather has linguistic high character and higher intelligence, that comes from the most High.

Take for example “Reverse symmetry”:

We can still show much longer, examples of other types of linguistic miracle is about 9 sentences long:

Objection five:




Muslim – Response:

I really don’t know who is using this particular passage as s linguistic miracle. Maybe if the Authores at Wikiislam.net. Can provide this arguement from a Muslim. Wikiislam.net seems to writes that a Muslim aledges this passage as a arguenent, though they don’t site a reference.  So until they can provide it, I really can’t comment. For example I haven’t heard Noahmin Ali Khan use this passage as a linguistic miracle. If I have missed it, I will update a reply.

Objection six



Muslim – Response:

This is yet again another blunder of a arguement, there claim is that the middle of 114 since its a even number, chapter 57 is just as middle as chapter 58.

Well, guess what. If both chapter 57 and 58 are both considered the middle of chapter 114.

Then there still is no error. Because regardless if the iron chapter was mentioned in chapter 58 or 57. Its still in part of the middle or round about half of 114 chapter. Therefore the miracle still counts. And we gave the Mathematic accepted rule to prove this, such as;

“Rule for rounding”

Here’s the general rule for rounding: If the number you are rounding is followed by 5, 6, 7, 8, or 9, round the number up. Example: 38 rounded to the nearest ten is 40. If the number you are rounding is followed by 0, 1, 2, 3, or 4, round the number down.

Thus, finding the rounding rule for chapter 114 in the middle can be equally rounded off to the figure 58,57 Thus the Quran miracle is still affirmed.

In fact brother skakvac makes a good point here take a read;



Also to mention, the Quranic verse about the miracle of the Iron, also suggests the “iron” was sent down to earth. This is exactly consistent with modern Science. Check out the video bellow:

So interesting the authores at Wikiislam.net, didn’t comment on this. Why? Maybe they truth has bewildered them.


By the way these critics claim that other people in history won Nobel prizes and created incredible linguistic literature, but what these fools do not consider is that the Prophet himself was “illiterate” meaning unable to read or write. Despite this He came with a Quran with linguistic miracles, not only linguistic but even Scientific miracles as we provided regarding the iron verse, So these fools are comparing those who have literacy and their works compared to a illiterate Prophet, despite that his book containes marvellous grammatical linguistic miracles and Scientific miracles. This proves his none other then a inspired Prophet and certainly not someone who’s hallucinating or someone who was literate and just a marvellous writer.

Refuting the claim the Prophet can read and write:


Sam Shamoun – Mishap on determining Truth.

Last updated: 24th July 2020


By: Mustafa Sahin


I wish to respond to Sam Shamoun from (Answering-Islam). He had a Debate with a Muslim Apologist respected Brother Ijaz Ahmed from (CallingChristians.com) on the topic of  Is Jesus God?


(Minute 19:58 onwards) Ijaz uses a Modern Historian to prove that the verses in the Bible, don’t refer to Jesus as the deity but the Father, and early christians worshipped the father and not Jesus. And learning about truth one can appeal to historiography to check the validity of the Bible.

So the arguement from Ijaz Ahmed sums up us, we shouldn’t just believe in the Bible using the Bible alone, and we shouldn’t just believe that the Bible is true, because the Bible’s says its true, but rather look at what other Historians have said, testing the Historicity of the Bible.

Sam Shamoun then condemn Ijaz for using 20th or 21st century Scholar’s or Historians to discredit the Bible.

(Minute 21:21) Sam shamoun says, to try and escape the burden of proof and appeal to “Modern Criteria”.

When that’s a criteria unknown to your prophet. Unknown to his companion’s, unknown to the Christian’s in the 1st century. 2nd centuary, and 3rd century.

To mention 20th or 21st century, Criteria was not used to determine truth. That’s not what your Prophet did. He didn’t appeal to this criteria ( historiography) to determin what Jesus said, centuries prior.

Sam continues to argue,

(Minute 22:02) Sam says; Use your Prophets method of determining historicity. Not a method, brought up by 20th or 21st century.

Sam Shamoun claims Ijaz Ahmed should not be quoting modern 20th to 21st Century Scholars or Historians to determine Historicity or truth of the Bible.

I find this really strange that Sam would dismiss people living in the 20th or 21st century. When Sam Shamoun even at his website at (answering-Islam.com) quotes several Historians to prove the historical accuracy of the Bible who happen to be from the 20th or 21st century.

Take for example;

“Bart Ehrman: A Hero for Islam?” https://www.answering-islam.org/authors/thompson/bart_ehrman_hero.html

Sam Shamoun publishes a article written by Keith Thomas quoting a “Modern day 21st Scholars” like New Testament Scholar Bart Ehrman. Where Bart Ehrman believes that Jesus was indeed Cruicified, unlike what the Quran claims.

Now just incase Sam Shamoun says the reason why, He brings up Bart Ehrman, was not to use him as a reference but only to use him against Muslims, to show that Bart Ehrman disagrees with Muslim.

Well not that i believe Sam, because I can assure you many other Christians use Ehrman as a point of reference since his (unbiased) not a Muslim or a Christian)  therefore Christians think quoting Ehrman validates the Cruicifiction narrative since his secular and not a Christian (thus unbiased) but for arguement sake let’s just assume that Christian’s like Sam shamoun only bring up Ehrman to counter the Muslims because Muslims are honouring the works of Ehrmans, no problem let us continue…..

Sam Shamoun uses other 20th century Historians, to determine the historical accuracy of the Bible.

From Sam Shamouns own Website again;
Source: “The New Testament Documents and the Historicity of the Resurrection” https://www.answering-islam.org/Shamoun/documents.htm

He writes: Other skeptics who have conceded the Bible’s historical accuracy include the renowned Jewish archaeologist Nelson Glueck:

“It may be stated categorically that no archaeological discovery has ever controverted a biblical reference,” and “the almost incredibly accurate historical memory of the Bible, and particularly so when it is fortified by archaeological fact.” (Josh McDowell, Evidence That Demands A Verdict p. 65)

Nelson Glueck is a 20th century Historian, whom Sam Shamoun has no problem quoting to determine the historical accuracy of the Bible.

Let’s keep going:

Sam Shamoun continues to use 20th Centuary Historians and Scholars to even determine that the Gospel of John maybe even dated before Luke and Mathew, and possibly as early as Mark.

See: Source: https://www.answering-islam.org/Shamoun/documents.htm

He writes:
The NIV Study Bible furnishes additional evidence for the early dating of the Gospel of John.

If Jn is the most Jewish rather than the least Jewish of the Gospels, it becomes doubtful that it is the latest. If it is to be dated at the latest before 70. It is probably earlier than both Lk and Gk Mt, and possibly early as Mk …”

So Sam Shamoun uses a 20th century Scholar named: John L. McKenzie. To determine the date of Johns Gospel, and claims John is even as early as Marks Gospel.

He references:
The Dictionary of the Bible by John L. McKenzie continues to say in relation to the evidence furnished by the Dead Sea Scrolls and its effect on the dating of John.
McKenzie, Dictionary of the Bible [Touchstone Book; New York, NY 1995], p. 449)

So there you go, Sam has no issue in using 20th or 21st century Historians or Scholars to pass judgements on Ancient Scriptures.

Hypocrisy perhaps?

Let’s continue…..

Why does Sam Shamouns Christian brethern  David Wood from (Acts17Apologetics) appeal to use Daniel Brubaker, a 21st centuary Modern Qur’anic textural Scholar to disprove the historical accuracy of the Quran?




Will Sam Shamoun also now condemn David Wood for appealing to 21st centuary Scholar to discredit the authenticity of the Quran? Just as Sam condemns Ijaz for using Modern Scholars to discredit the New Testament?

In fact; Sam Shamoun argues that “David Wood” is the “Best English speaking Debater”.


So David wood is the Best English speaking Debater, yet David refers to 21st centuary Westen Academics to discredit the accuracies of the Quran?

Hypocrisy or what?


Let us continue:

Sam Shamoun publishes a articles written by Ernest Hahn. The topic was “Jihad in Islam: Is Islam Peaceful or Militant”?

They spoke about violent verses being abrogated in the Quran, for more peaceful verses. All though they admit early scholars agree that the violent verses are abrogated with the more peaceful ones, interestingly enough, Answering-Islam still goes ahead and uses, contemporary Muslim Scholars from the 19th centuary, that being Sir Sayyid Ahmed Khan, who rejects the claim about, violent verses being abrogated for the more peaceful verses.



Source: https://answering-islam.org/Hahn/jihad.htm

So again, I call Mr Shamoun out. Why does He condemn Ijaz ahmed for using Modern Scholars that being 20th or 21st century Scholar’s/Historians to make a case against the Bible, and Sam has no problem publishing articles that reference contemporary Scholars that being in the 19th century, to use against Muslims? So Sam disputes using 20th century Scholars but not 19th century Scholar’s?


Sam clearly has exposed his own Hypocrisy for condemning Ijaz Ahmed for using “Modern Scholar’s/Historians” I.e Modern Criteria, to determine through historiography, the true interepretaion of the Bible, and yet He Sam Shamoun has no problem using Modern Scholar’ or near  to Modern Scholars for His own convenience when it comes to proving the reliability of His Bible. Or criticising the Islamic sources. Nor does He have a problem with David Wood, who He say’s is the “Best English speaking Debater. And yet David also appeals to Modern Scholars using the method of historiography to cast judgements on the truth about the Quran.

So why the double standards?


I personally sent Sam Shamoun my article response, refuting his arguements, and exposing him for what He is. Sam got extremely triggered and started bad mouthing, check it out:



Yep, triggered indeed!


Christian Missionary Mishap – Why the Gospel can not be taught in Muslim state?

Last updated: 19th July 2020


By: Mustafa Sahin


A Christian missionary accused Islamic countries for being intolerable for not allowing the Gospel to be preached:

He writes:


I then questioned Christopher to say, your own Bible does not allow or welcome the Quran to be taught in a Christian home.

He then wrote:



So Chistopher denied it saying, No. And that they are allowed to allow Muslims to come to their homes and preach them the Quran.

So I then showed him the following verse:


So in the above verse, if a Muslim preacher wished to go over to his Christian neighbours house to preach the Quran, He is not to be welcomed, in fact it goes onto say if they don’t teach the truth about Christ again they are not to be welcomed. In otherwords if they accept the Bible and preach only from the Bible only then they are welcomed. So now I guess Christian’s will say, the Bible is false because it too dismisses other scriptures to be taught? Thus intolerable? I guess Christianity is also worried about the truth? And so it censors any other book?

Funny enough the Christian was oblivious of the above verse, so He writes;


I then said, no. It’s 2 john 1:10.

He then writes back:


And again He writes;


The Christian fell on his own sword. He was totally oblivious  to his own teachings that forbid Muslims from coming to his house to preach the Quran, all according to his Bible. He even accused that Islam must fear the truth and that its worried about the preaching of the Gospel in Islamic countries. And when his own Bible preachers similar things, He hit a “brickwall” i must say what a brickwall that one was. He then concluded that, as Christians they shouldn’t have allowed the Quran to be preached, So He starts to condemn his own Christian folks for allowing the preaching of the Quran.

Talk about Christian missionary Mishap.

Here are other Christian’s dismissing the idea of the Quran being taught in American schools:

Ken Ham, posts a link showing his disgust at some politicians wanting the Quran to be taught at American Schools. See the first comment:



Furthermore when we go into Biblical commentary, take a read;



You can see, that this Bible commentary, brings a arguement which is really just his own opionion, backed up by no other historical references to show that this was really just a isolated case (special case), because some heretic were trying to come and misguide a Christian, he goes onto say, his not laying down a general rule.

One has to ask the Question, then what gives that privilege to that particular Christian to avoid heretics and why don’t modern day Christians get that same privilege to use this verse to avoid Heretics?

Now even for arguement sake it was just a isolated case, why would God reveal a verse for one single isolated case? Or perhaps that Christian is held abovd all other Christians? But isn’t that discrimination?

Furthermore, even if it was refering to one special case, are we to believe this special event can not occur again in the future tense, similarly even if this verse was only addressing an isolated event, example the early christians being bothered by early heretics, shouldn’t the earliest Christians who are closest to Christ life set the rest of the Christians as being an example, to trust in God, and trust in scripture, and to welcome heretics anyway into your home, because if you claim to have the truth, then no heretic, could effect you. So it seems then even the early Christians were not confident in their own text, so they would just censor and not welcome anyone else who lived by another doctrine. It just seems that, when Christians try to misinterpret the Bible, they think there making it better but rather they create more problems.

See I personally don’t have a problem with censorship, just as i wouldn’t want my child being brainwashed at school on Darwains theory of Evolution, for the same reasons I wouldn’t like Christians preaching the Gospel in a Muslim country trying to misguide the ignorant people who are not really grounded in faith. Because many Christian missionary will even distort the Quranic text to misguide Muslims, so that sort of preaching in the Muslim world, I believe it should be censored, because that person could get misguided and sent to everlasting Hell. Which is much worse, then censorship.

Again, I do believe that Christians for example can live in Muslim countries, they can read there Bible, they can practise their faith, but I don’t agree to them going public, in the street and trying to Evangelise them like going door to door, or giving them media positions, to share the Gospel. Yes they can share it in the privacy of their own home, on social media, but I mean to actively go out in society to call people to Christ, in a predominantly Muslim country i disagree with. Though I do agree with debates, between Professional debaters in a formal setting that’s fine, but I don’t agree with Christian Professional men, on loud speaker, trying to Evangelise lame masses. Even if Christians disagree with Me, it seems the Biblical text, agrees with my Muslim position here. And even Christopher’s Leslie, agrees that as a Christian, He shouldn’t have allowed Muslims to preach either. Again I don’t say this because I’m not confident in my own Religion. I am because I’m learned. And I’m also learned in the Bible. And so I personally dont mind being preached too, because I have the knowledge to confront those, who try to misguide me. But I know that there are a lot out there who are not so well “versed” therefore I don’t believe those groups of people should be left vulnerable as “sheep” are two “Wolves”

Also i feel the Gospel commentary just made up his own interpretation to try and make the text sound better, to really no real explanation at all, since his own explanation, is not divine. What is however divine is the Bible (according to Christianity) and his opionion is just an opionon, which is not found in the Bible.






Did Jesus die on the Cross? Historical records that challenge.


Historical sources that support the Islamic narrative about Jesus not being killed on the Cross.

There are historical accounts that have veriences to the Crucifixion narrative, did Jesus really die on the Cross or was it made to appear as though as the Quran states. But they killed another man?

There seems to be other historical sources that challenge the Christian perspective such as


And also:
(Gnostic Apocalypse of Peter) http://gnosis.org/naghamm/apopet.html

That’s two early historical accounts that challenge the Christian New Testament Narrative and seems as though it supporters the Quran narrative. That they surely killed him not. But it was made to appear as to fool the enemies.

And [for] their saying, “Indeed, we have killed the Messiah, Jesus, the son of Mary, the messenger of Allah .” And they did not kill him, nor did they crucify him; but [another] was made to resemble him to them. And indeed, those who differ over it are in doubt about it. They have no knowledge of it except the following of assumption. And they did not kill him, for certain. Quran 4:157.

We also read in Quranic commentary; That Jesus asked another desciples of his to take his place. On the Cross.

Abu Layth al-Samarqandi (d. 375 H) narrates a common view that Judas Iscariot, who had betrayed Jesus عليه السلام, was crucified in his place:

The Jewish leader ordered a man to enter the house, it was said to Judas (or it is said, Tatianos). Then Gabriel, upon him be peace, came and raised Jesus, upon him be peace, up to the heavens. When the man entered the house, they did not find him. Allah cast the likeness of Jesus over him, and when he exited they thought he was Jesus, so they killed and crucified him.

Source: Abū al-Layth al-Samarqandī, Tafsīr al-Samarqandī, 1:354 verse 4:157

And yet another:

A report from Wahb ibn Munabbih expresses this view:

Jesus came with seventy disciples with him to a house and they were surrounded. When they had entered, Allah cast the image of Jesus over all of them. They said to them, ‘You have bewitched us! Present Jesus to us, or else we will kill you all!’ Jesus said to his companions, ‘Who among you will purchase Paradise with his life today?’ A man among them said, ‘I will.’ He went out to them and said, ‘I am Jesus,’ and Allah had cast the image of Jesus over him. They took him, killed him, and crucified him.

al-Ṭabarī, Jāmiʻ al-Bayān ‘an Ta’wīl al-Qur’ān, 9:368 verse 4:157.

In this reading, it was one of the disciples who heroically stepped forward to save his beloved prophet from a gruesome death and humiliation. This mirrors the willingness of Ali ibn Abi Talib رضي الله ﺗﻌﺎﻟﯽ عنه to put himself in harm’s way to protect Prophet Muhammad ﷺ by sleeping in his bed on the night the Quraysh intended to assassinate him. The true disciples of the prophets love their prophet so much that they would readily sacrifice themselves for them.

What is even more so interesting is that Jesus had powers to hide his identity; Christian Apologist Write Jesus had power to Veil himself, and change his own image!!

Here is the most amazing thing. Both the Quran and the Gnostic Apocalypse of Peter suggests that Jesus, Vanishes from Cross or another put in his likeness substatuted as to appear it was Jesus when in fact it was not. The New Testement it’s self also testifies that Jesus could conceal his own image to one that can be disguised:

Read the second last paragraph in the link screen shot bellow: http://www.gotquestions.org/recognize-resurrected-Jesus.html

Where Christian Apologist explain why two Desciples could not Recognize, Jesus Christ right after the Ressurection.

They say” Jesus Super naturally prevented them from Recognising Jesus Christ, Jesus perhaps changed his own Appearance not to be Recognized.

It is then Clear that the reason why the 4 Synoptic Gospels wrote Jesus was Cruicified because they would have mistakenly thought it was Jesus on the Cross, if Jesus has the power to change his own image, one would then except it no difficult for Jesus to put his own image on sombody else on the Cross.

I find this really interesting that Historical writings of the past agree to some extent to the Islamic perspective, whom Christian’s deem heretical.

Of course there are Christian apologist out there who try to dismiss these reports saying, they are untrustworthy because they come from people who have “heretical views” however, this isn’t always a good arguement to make. Because one can argue the early desciples or orginal text of the New Testament preachers not the Doctrine of the Trinity. And it was “added” centuries later, as Christian Scholar Daniel Wallace admits [1]. Therefore one could conclude the Bible introduced “heretical beliefs” that are not found in the Old Testament or the earliest ancient Manuscript of the N.T. And yet we are told to accept everything in the New Testament as realiable. In fact Christians even bring up, historical sources from Roman sources who are pagan, (i.e Heretical who believe in pagan Gods) in order to prove that Jesus died on the Cross, Christian’s don’t have issues referencing those pagan sources. They use these sources in order to give credit to the Bible, to show that even sources outside the Bible agree with the Bible. And of course Christians don’t have a issue in quoting hadith sources, in order to discredit some of the things the Prophet Muhammed (pbuh) did. To prove that his a false Prophet. So then why do Christians dismiss historical accounts of early Christians based on being heretics when it dismisses Christ cruicified, and yet accept all the other information from heretics in order to support their version of the narrative? So the point is, just because you may have heretical views does not mean, everything else you believe in is false, heretics can believe or contain valuable truthful information as well.

Conclusion: We have the Quran, we have the Quranic commentary one of those are from ibn Kathir, and we also have additionally to early Christian writings dated to the second century that validated the Islamic position that someone else besides Jesus took his place on the Cross, yes their are veriences on who took his spot, but the bottom line is they ALL agree it was not Jesus but someone in his “likeness”. We also have evidence from the New Testament, that Jesus had powers to conceal his true identity.


[1] Wallace on the Trinity