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!


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s