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!


Violence against Women in Islam, and what about Bible and the West?

Last updated: 4th, Jan. 2022


Wife beating Verse in Sureh 4:34?




Responding to Truth will set you free;

Beating Humans is also endorsed by the West. They just changed the authority from husband and gave that authority to the state. Now the state can use legal proportionate force, to use against even women. And beat them like a dog, using either an open hand, batons and Tasers, if anyone goes against public order.

But alhamdulillah for Islam if your wife gets out of order, then a mild tapping can occur, where the Quranic Scholars such as the Prophets companion known as Ibn Abbas said, this beating should be conducted in a non-violent fashion. Meaning no marks to be left, no bruising, no punching on the face..etc etc. In other words, the (ayah) in the Quran is only meant to be a “symbolic beating” only to express the seriousness of the matter, for extremely foul women. Because even the mildest taps, can insult women. Now compare that “patriarchy” to the ” “patriarchy” you created in your systems, where you have given the power to a state to conduct some of the most brutal beatings, where people have died as a result. And here you are wanting to Question Islam about women beating and human rights.

As Muhammed Hijab would say,” You got destroyed, bro”.

Sureh 4:34 correct interpretation is how the earliest Muslim Scholar ibn Abbas interpreted and understood it. He says ” a beating that is (Non-Violent)”.



Ask yourself now the question what type of beating is non-violent?

Answer: a tap. Like taping extremely (lightly) like taping a drum.

Here I’ll shall show how an Islamic Sheik shows how the (tap)
Is done using the (Miswak lightly where it’s non-violent)

We see from the Quran, in conjunction with the Tafsir: That woman should not be treated “Harshly” except of course if she has cheated on her husband like committing Adultery.


Source: http://m.qtafsir.com/Surah-An-Nisa/Women-Should-not-Be-Treated-wi—

Christian wrote:


My Response:


Ibn abbas are the companion of the prophet. The narrator of many hadiths.

So who would know the Quran better than Prophets companions? The Prophet himself, in multiple Sahi Narrations also spoke about a beating done in a non-violent way. For example, he said,

How does one beat his wife then go to bed with her?

The Prophet (PBUH) also expressed astonishment at the cruelty of certain men when he said: “Could any of you beat his wife as he would beat a slave, and then lie with her in the evening ?” (Bukhari and Muslim).

Narrated Mu’awiyah ibn Haydah: “I said: Apostle of Allah, how should we approach our wives and how should we leave them? He replied: Approach your tilth when or how you will, give her (your wife) food when you take food, clothe when you clothe yourself, do not revile her face, and do not beat her.  (Sunan Abu-Dawud, Book 11, Marriage (Kitab Al-Nikah), Number 2138)

He also said, when one beats. He should avoid the face. And He also said, when one beats it should not leave a mark.

Abu Hurayrah, may Allah be pleased with him, narrated that the Prophet  said, “If one of you were to hit, he should avoid the face…” [Musnad Ahmad]

You can view the narrations here:

So as you can see, Ibn Abbas interpretation is actually “in line” with the many “Sahi Hadith”. That also demonstrates a non-violent beating.

New video where a Scholar explain the verse:


A Critic wrote in response:


Muslim – Response:


Your name is Follower of logic. But it seems logic and reasoning isn’t what you claim to be.

Where in the Quran, it uses the term (Sex, or Rape) Slaves. But you critics have to add the word (Sex or Rape) in order to portray that taking slaves was about Sex and Rape?

Where in the Quran does it use the word (suicide bomber) but you critics use the verses of war to show that the Prophet endorsed Terrorism to target women and children?

Where in the verses of the Quran, does it use the word, Pedophilia but use critics add your own words into the Quran, saying the Quran allows sex with minors?

Where in the Quran, does it say that Allah is a pagan moon god. But use add the term moon to Allah?

Should I continue with your stupid logic or does it now make sense how silly you sound?

We use the Hadith to explain certain verses of the Quran, because the Quran specifically says, “We sent you o Muhammad to explain to men what’s in the Quran. So we unlike the critics don’t just make things up, we use the Prophet’s life and how he applied the verses as to how we fully grasp and understand the Quran. The Term ” idrooboona” can mean “strike” and strike can mean hitting or tapping a drum. Can you tap a drum very lightly and very hard? If you can tap a drum hard, why can’t you tap it very light?

The Prophet understanding is, whenever one strikes, never allow the skin to break. Never cause a bruise or a mark, and never strike on the face.

Ibn Abbas who is the companion of the prophet who narrated the second most hadith, says regarding the verse on the beating, to be conducted in a (non-violent manner) this report is recorded by (Tafsir ibn Kathir) one of the highest known commentaries on the Quran.






So Muslims are not just simply adding verses into the Quran. Rather they are taking authoritative external explanation which is how we conclude our understanding of verses. Islam unlike your secular liberal stand on human abuse is so much more humane, go see what secular liberal law enforcement agencies do when they try to discipline people during public order, where they use, baton, open hand punching, capsicum spray, and tasers, which can be pretty brutal at times.

And here you are having a go at the Quran for endorsing violence.


Now answering the Hadith where the Prophet “Struck Ashia his Wife on the Chest: (Listen from minute 9.24)

Also, see this video response:


Jesus Endorsed women to get beaten up”.


Imagine this verse for a moment? If you beat your slave with a baseball bat black and blue, blood all over the place, as long as the Slave doesn’t die, then their is no sin upon you?

And yet these Triniterians want to attack the Quran for the supposed condoning violence?

Seriously what leg do these Christians have to stand upon? The real joke is on them.

Jesus as the God of the Old Testament apparently inspired the verses in the Old Testament. Now even if a Christian asserts they have the New Testament. And the Old law no longer needs to be followed.

Can I say, is that because your God didn’t know about “human rights”? And it took him time to work out what abuse looks like? How are we expect to believe that the Biblical God, is so perfect and ethical that He passed such a law like this in the first place?

I can see why Atheists have a field day of fun with the Christian concept of God.

Finaly let’s now turn our attention to the Secular Western Moral values regarding using violence? No I mean real violence.

But now let’s point the finger at you, What’s the verse in the West? That say’s Police officers can use, Capsicum Spray, Electric stun guns, and Baton to smack protesters who are acting disorderly? Security guards can use proportionate force to evict people acting disorderly.

Isn’t that insensitive towards human beings?

Women beating in Islam vs the West.

Beating Humans is also endorsed by the West. They just changed the authority from husband and gave that authority to the state. Now the state can use legal proportionate force, to use against even women. And beat them like a dog, using either an open hand, batons and Tasers, if anyone goes against public order.

But alhamdulillah for Islam if your wife gets out of order, then a mild tapping can occur, where the Quranic Scholars such as the Prophets companion known as Ibn Abbas said, this beating, should be conducted in a non-violent fashion. Meaning no marks to be left, no bruising, no punching on the face..etc etc. In other words, the (ayah) in the Quran is only meant to be a “symbolic beating” only to express the seriousness of the matter, for extremely foul women. Because even the most mildest taps, can insult a women. Now compare that “patriarchy” to the ” “patriarchy” you created in your own systems, where you have given the power to a state to conduct some of the most brutal beatings, where people have died as a result. And here you are wanting to Question Islam about women beating and human rights.

A Critic Wrote back saying:

The West doesn’t specifically encourage violence towards women. Rather state laws have measures against both sexes.

Secondly, you can legally be sued for violently removing somebody from the premises. What are you talking about?

Yes, some kind of authority is bound to exist because we are not anarchists. But one that gives more freedom and minimal suffering is appreciated in the liberal paradigm.

My counter Response:

For example you said you can be legally sued for forcing and evicting a person.

Um, not exactly. Security guards in Australia for example can place people in legally abiding painful submission holds and force them out of a night club for example. This means they can bend your hand into certain very painful positions known as:
Such as this

This is all legal and part of the law.

Also, Police officers carry tasers and batons. Thats the law. You can’t sue a police officer for using proportionate force.

You then said I believe the Liberal west, does not specifically encourage the beating of women.

Um, that doesn’t matter. It still encourages to hurt both men and women. So the argument still stands.

Also if you watch my video, you can scroll through, where we show that the beating of women in Islam is not meant to be conducted violently. Therefore the Quranic verse is still much better than the Western standard, when it comes to dealing with matters of taking disciplinary measures.


Satanic Verses & Allah is a Deciever? What about the Bible?


Refuting the claim the Qur’anic satanic verses?



After, reading the above link, you can get a real grasp to the events, basically Satan tries to come to the Prophet, to try and confuse him, and Satan tries to reveal false verses to the Prophet, and then Allah jumps in to tell the Prophet those verses are incorrect, and Allah then removes those verses, and then rectifies to the Prophet that Allah never gave the Prophet those verses. Again this remained Privart between Allah and his Prophet, and the Prophet never recited those verses to any of his companions. So in other words, this whole narrative proves the Prophet is a true, Prophet. If He were false, then the narration or the Qur’anic passage would never say, Allah corrected the truth, which proves the Prophet and the Quran was “protected”. Even Samuel Green a Christian Apologist who is a “Author” at the AnsweringIslam website, agrees the Quran, was “Corrected”. In otherwords there was “No satanic verses”, that were left, or made part of the Quran:


So as you can see, the Prophet never walked around preaching the satanic verses, or never said to any companion this is part of the Quran.

It was a very short lived moment, Satan comes tries to deliver the Prophet verses, then Allah quickly intervenes telling the Prophet, I didn’t give you those verses, so then Allah removes those verses, before those verses reach other companions. Christians assume, that the satanic verses were revealed, and then the Prophet narrated them to a companion, then those companions and scribes wrote those verses down, and made it part of the Quran. However none of this is true, and it never got to that point. Allah (swt) quickly removed what was casted in the mind or toung of the Prophet and it was all quickly removed, which proves again that his a True Prophet, and not a false one.

Other Christians bring arguements such as: Satan can play tricks by putting some truth in the Quran?


Its funny how he says Satan put some Truth in the Quran to make you believe its true then added lies to decieve you its true. Well same could be said about your bible. And your Bible says Satan can not say truth or else he will be destroyed. So your got owned by the standard of your bible.

(Mark 3:26) Satan will not work against himself.

Now Quran says (26:210); No evil one has brought down this Revellation.

Hence according to your Bible. If there are satans words in Quran it can’t be, because He will be destroyed according to your Bible. Satan will not work against himself be revealing Truth.  Sure 26:210; declares no evil one brought down the Quran. If these words were Satan’s words, that would mean his working against himself, which the bible declares can’t happen, and Satan would be destroyed!

And here is another “inconsistency”  Christians says it’s very very clear ALLAH = SATAN


Inconsistency much?

Christianities main two figures effected by (Iblis) Satan according to their own Bibles:

St.Paul possessed by demon in inspiration

Jesus possessed by Demon in the Bible

Proof for the devils words in the Bible

Was Prophet Mohammed (Pbuh) squeezed by Demon?

Part 1/2:

Part 2/2



Muslim Response to Allah is the “Best Deciever”?



Now evidence the Biblical God can “Be a Deciever”


Christian say’s; Allah is best deciever, and gets Humiliated. After back and forth discussion admits;

Christian say’s in text comment bellow his own God (Yahway) sent Allah to Muslims as (Strong delusion) meaning Deceived the Muslims, when he tries answering: 2 Thessalonians 2:11

So Yahway is Responsible for sending deception and causing people to be “decieved ”




Now let’s see what, strong delusion means according to the English dictionary?


Yep, it means Deception.

So according to Christians there own God (Yahway) sent “Muslims a deception. He decieved Muslims basically, by sending them a False God called Allah?

Yet these Christians accuse Allah for being a Deciever? Yet they agree their own Biblical God sent a false Allah to Muslims?



Christian Prince Errors & Lies Exposed by Br.Farid


Over 100 lies & Errors of Christian Prince. Exposed by Br. Farid

Introduction video:

Br. Farid and Muhammed Hijab, discuss, CP.

CP fans admit, He is dishonest and a Liar.

CP. Lies #1-4

CP Lies. #5-6 ( Mohammed and Khatice)

CP on Slavery the double standard

CP, Doesn’t know what Christ Means (Zakir Hussain)

CP, 3 times. Lies #7-9

CP about Fornicating with Children. Lies #10-14

CP, to doubting Muslim. Lies #15-16

CP reads the Quran

CP God is a rooster. Lies #17

CP about Idol, named Ahad. Lies #18

CP verse about farting. Lies #19-22

CP, denies asking for money. Lies #23

CP, prophet stole bekeni Lies. #24-27

CP Tries to prove Trinity in Islam

CP lies 11 times in 1 minute. Lies #28-38

CP the moon eclipse was the Moon split. Lies #39-41

CP the Prophets name is sperm hyena. Lies #42-49

CP Nudity around the Kabbah. Lies #50-53

CP hangs up call. Busted. Lies #54-56

CP tricks a man out of Islam. Lies#57-59

CP, on Forign Policy in the Seerah. Lies #60-62

CP, busted on Satanic verses. Lies #63-66

CP hangs up phone, says Muslim hangs up. Lies #67

CP hates Everyone

CP Allah prayes. Lies #68-70

CP the Geologist. Lies #71

CP, Arabs put penis in Black Stone. Lies #72 -73

CP All Muslim say Allah is Physical. Lies #74

CP response to Farid “big mistake”

CP alwayse Wins.

CP and Panties. Lies #75-82

CP on Zaid and Zaynab. Lies #83

CP lies about Jesus. Lies #84

CP lies Bukhari is a companion. Lies #85

CP on Omar and the Black Stone. Lies #86-89

CP, Umar changed prayer direction. Lies #90-94

CP, busted by Azhar Sheik. Lies #95-98

CP fails to read (In the name of God). Lies #99

CP, season finale. Lies #100

CP Epilogue. Lies#101

CP attempts to Challenge Farid to Debate.

CP attempts to Respond to. Lie #1

CP, this video will turn CP into Joke

CP, Epilogue 2. Lies #102-107

CP, Farid vs Christian Prince (2017 old debate)

Christian Prince book review

This Video will end Christian Prince Credibility Forever

CP, challenged Me to refute this.

“Public Apology” to CP

Farid asks CP fans, if CP is a Liar

CP, Prophet had no children. Lies #110

CP, does’nt makes no sense.

CP, Imam Murrah Exists!

CP, teaches Me about Ghusul

CP, sex with children in Bible

Diffrence Between Farid and CP

Reaction to a CP video response

CP, attempts to defend himself 11 lies.

How CP got Afzal to leave Islam for Christianity

Does CP bring fake Muslims to his show?

CP does Fake Debate with DR Sabeel

Sam Shamoun claims Christian Prince is his “teacher” Yet Sam Shamoun admits CP books are written poorly in a way where it’s not intelligible, meaning it’s not understandable.

Conclusion: Between Christian Prince and Farid.

Also see, Investigating CP Islamic Scholarship Credentials


Christian dilemma the two natures of Jesus Christ


■ last updated: 10th June 2020

By: Mustafa Sahin

In this article, we shall respond to the Christian Trinitarian assertion, that Jesus has two natures. One being fully human, while being fully God. Christians have invented this theology to address the many controversial issues in the Bible, when talking with Muslims, and debating the idea that Jesus is God. When Muslims bring up many verses showing flaws in Jesus Christ that prove Jesus is not devine, the Christians in response use a get away car, to suggest that Jesus has two natures. So when Jesus feels hungry or needs to sleep, or He feels pain, or at times, He is helpless, and at times, not all knowing. Christians argue, that these qualities of Jesus are just his humanely attributes, which is distinct from his Godly nature. And so since Christians have “opened” the can of Worms” I shall demonstrate that when Christians invent new ideas into the Bible, to fix a problem they have in fact Created more problems for themselves, and we shall now explore those problems.

1 – Where are the explicit Words of Jesus having TWO natures?

The first Question I like to ask Christians is, where did Jesus, Paul or any of Jesus Desciples claim that ” Jesus had two nature”. And I know what Christians are thinking, they are reading this and saying, well that’s easy I’ll just pull a verse from there, that shows Jesus is God. Then I’ll bring a verse from over there too, show Jesus has human attributes, and there you go, here I’ve proved Jesus has TWO natures.

Here is the problem, anyone can get a verse, then force his own interpretation. One would imagine that in the entire Bible, if the central message of the Bible is about the Divinity of Jesus, then we would have seen at least one single verse, that combines both natures of Jesus into one single verse. Just a example, Jesus could have said, I have two natures. Period.  Yet we don’t find that in the entire problem.

Even Christian Apologist named Sam Shamoun from Answering-islam admits, that if pressed He can not show the two natures of Jesus in one person in the Bible, because it’s not there. That precise language, see

2 – Where is the Human nature of Jesus in the afterlife?

We often hear, from Christians how Jesus will be in his new Glorified body, and in the afterlife, He shall be seated at the right hand of the Father. Only the Godly nature of Jesus will be seated on the Throne. So the Question is, where will the Human nature of Jesus go? Why don’t we get any information, where the Human nature of Jesus be? Or are Christians suggesting the Human nature is also seated on the Throne? How can that be possible though when “only” God sits on the Throne? Perhaps Jesus human nature will split from the Godly nature, so are we to believe that there will be Jesus with a twin in the afterlife? We are told that the Human nature of Jesus, endured so much suffering, surely then, He will be compensated with a heavenly abode. So why is there no information on this, since the Human nature was if not the closest human being to perfection. After all Christians tell us, Jesus never commited any sins even by his human nature.

If Christians assert that, Jesus will be spiritualized as the God, sitting at the right hand, then Christians need to explain in book revelations, who is that one that is the lamb and looks slain? (Revelation 5:6) So how can something spiritualized look slain if it’s Jesus? So we are left with so many problems, we have Jesus as the son sitting on the throne as the God, then  Jesus as the Son who looks slain? Why is a Resurrected Jesus looking slain?

3 – Did Jesus commit a Sin with his Human nature? “The Inconsistency”

Christians tell us, Jesus never commited any Sins. And that’s proof, He is God. Well I ask the Christians, if Jesus is God, Because He never commited a Sin, and in doing so your suggesting his a “Perfect being”. What about his human nature? Is that also sinless? If the answer is, Yes! The human nature is also sinless, but wait a minute, I thought the Human nature, is not perfect, only the devine nature is perfect. I mean after all, you tell Muslims, Jesus human nature has flaws which is supposed to be distinct from his Godly nature, so why are we being told, both Jesus human nature and Godly nature are both sinless? This would now only suggest, that Jesus human nature is also Godly, after all it has the ability to resist Sin, even the smallest of the smallest sins?

My short video on this:

3 – Jesus Praying to heaven

When Muslims say how can Jesus be God yet Jesus prayed, did God praye to himself? A Christian will say, no Jesus had (two nature’s) so the human nature of Jesus prayed to his Godly nature. However when reading the Bible we come across the following verse;

“After Jesus said this, he looked toward heaven and prayed: “Father, the hour has come. Glorify your Son, that your Son may glorify you -John 17:1

After reading the above verse one now has to ask the question why on earth would Jesus look towards a direction other then his Godly self if He was God on earth having TWO natures? Why didn’t the human side of Jesus look towards himself, maybe walked up to a pong and tried to look at his own reflection, then ask his own Godly self for Glory.  Yet instead Jesus turns away from himself and glares into the heavens and requests Glory from above. Did not Jesus believe He had two natures?

I would like to ask Christians if God did come to the earth. Show us a example where Jesus himself prayed directly to this earthly God like he prayed to the Heavenly God. This clearly proves the falsehood of the notion that Jesus has two natures, human and God.


4 – Jesus Godly nature ignores Him.

We read a remarkable, event that takes place in the Bible, where Jesus is lead away into the wilderness, He suffers under Satan’s temptations, and as a result; “An Angel from Heaven appeared to Jesus and Strengthened Jesus” (Luke 22:43)

Now this begs the Question, If Jesus really believed, He had two distinct natures, why is Jesus depending on angels to give him strength? Surely if Jesus believed he was God, He wouldn’t need the assistance of angels, you would think Jesus would simply request his Godly nature who is already present in Jesus to give him strength, so what happened did the Godly nature of Jesus walk off? Did it go to sleep? So where was He?

To answer this, dilemma Christian Apologists suggest that, Jesus wanted to humble himself before the Angels, for why He turned towards Angels to be strengthened. They use this verse:

“But we do see Jesus, who was made lower than Angels for little while.
Hebrews 2:9″

However this makes no sense, isn’t it more important to humble your self before God, then before angels? Also, why would Jesus need to prove that his human nature is lower then Angels? Were the Angels confused about Jesus divinity?

Christians then suggest, why can’t God just use angels to do things for him, however this makes no sense. It’s not as if, God is somewhere in a distant location, or that his just busy doing other things, his right there, inside Jesus, yet He refuses to help Jesus directly himself. This could have been in fact the perfect opportunity for Jesus to prove He has two natures, yet Jesus refuses to request assistance from himself.

5 – The Two natures, Jesus does not know the hour?

The Bible tells us, that Jesus as the Son (the second God head of the trinity), has “NO” knowledge when the “Hour” is, let’s read:

New International Version
“But about that day or hour no one knows, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but only the Father. (Mathew 24:36)

As you can see the NIV says: nor the son.

However when we read the King James Version & New King James Version:

king James Bible
But of that day and hour knoweth no man, no, not the angels of heaven, but my Father only. (Mathew 24:36)

New King James Version
“But of that day and hour no one knows, not even the angels of heaven, but My Father only.

Nor the Son, has been “Removed” from the passage, why?

Todays Biblical Scholars tell us, the (New International Version) bible, is more accurate because it uses much earlier ancient manuscripts, compared to the Manuscipts used for the King James Version.

Now here is the issue, if today’s Christian Apologist say, Jesus has TWO natures, one being God, and one being Human. Therefore when (Mathew 24:36) says, the “Son does not no” when the hour is, this is talking about the (Human nature of the son), and not his Godly nature, therefore this verse does not prove his not God, they argue.

So my question is, then why did the ancient scribes remove: “nor the son“, from the King James version? Surely if they believed ” nor the son” is just talking about the “Human nature” and not the devine nature, they would have left the verse as it is, yet instead they removed it from the passage, dishonestly. They tried to forge it out of the Bible. That tells me, biblical scribes deep down understood “nor the son” displays a problematic display about Jesus being divine and  so they removed it from the text was the best option for them, because they know, not many people are going to buy the arguement like, “oh but wait! that was the “human nature!”. Because the text is clear it says (the son is included) in “not knowing” when the hour Is. Because the text itself even shows that lets read again carefully:

New International Version
“But about that day or hour no one knows, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but only the Father. (Mathew 24:36)

Lets look at two parts of the text:

no one knows.

So this part of the verse already deals with Jesus human nature.

Then the verse says,

nor the Son

So why would the passage repeat itself and say, nor the son, also means Human nature? If God has already clarified the Human nature not knowing in the first part of the verse, “no one knows”, So the first part of the verse already covers Jesus human nature, so why then would God then need to cover the Human nature by mentioning the Son?

The best explanation I can think of is, it’s as though God predicted,  Christians will claim the Son was God, so God had to also remind them that not knowing the hour, also included the Son!

And because God made it clear to them that Jesus as the Son, was not God by showing us his ignorant of the hour, they tried removing the verse from the text. Now talk about, how dishonest one can be! Of course only now they have added it back to the Bible in the NIV, because they got caught red handed when, ancient manuscripts were studied, and it was found out that the earliest manuscripts did include the “nor the son part” Well thank you for being honest after getting caught red handed!

Christians when refering to “The Human” nature, have no escape! Because God refutes them, even when they try to remove it! Even when they try and twist the verses, they still get exposed! And thats why they were so bothered by the text that includes “The Son” they tried so hard to hide it for so long, that God foiled their plans!

Now here is another point, I will show you, Christians play the inconsistency and the convience card. Just imagine for a moment the verse read:

“But about that day or hour no one knows, not even the angels in heaven, but only the Son, and the Father knows the hour”.

Of course the verse doesn’t say this, but let’s just imagine it did read this way:

Christians will no longer say this is refering to “human nature”, but this now refers to his “Godly nature”. Why? Because the verse makes Jesus equal with the father. So as you can see, Christians play the convienience card, they quickly claim it’s the Godly nature, when it suits them, and human nature when it goes against them. They will never say, the Son knows, because God shares all secrets with the Son who is just a human and God loves him. No of course they will never accept such explaination, They will instead say, no. The Son knows everything because His God. Period.

6 – Does only the Human nature suffer? Or also God’s nature?


If Christians claim, God the father did not die on the Cross, and also suffer as the Son. I suggest Christians, to refer to a Christian Apologists by the name of  Dr James White, who believes that The Father, is not a selfish God. He didn’t just send his Son, to suffer for our sins on the Cross. The Father also came down himself to get himself sacrafised along with his Son.  There Dr james white argues, God himself is not selfish, God himself also endured those sufferings.

Dr. James white says” The elective God joined them, Gods death became there Death, in reference to Jesus Christ and the Holy Spirit”.

Dr James white confessed to admit this to counter our Question why was the Father selfish that he didnt die himself yet gets his own Son to die. So James white admits there is no selfishness and that the Sons death became there death i.e (The Father and Holy Spirit) and Jesus Christ ressurection became there ressurection (Father and holy Spirit)

Source: https://youtu.be/SzslKkjEb_g
Listen from (minute 63:20)

A Christian shouldn’t feel uncomfortable to talk about his God feeling Hungry, he cries, or goes to bathroom to have a poop, just as God can go through death, he can also do those other human attributes.

7 – Did God die on the Cross or was it only the Human nature?

Christian Apologist disagree with one another:

David Wood vs Jay Smith & Dr James White.

David wood says: “ONLY human Nature Died”. David says it makes no sense that God can die.

However he tries to assume if Jesus became a Man then it was the human nature that died. So God did not Die but only human nature.


Jaysmith disagree’s with David Wood. And that God can die. See
Jay argues God died. Qoute” He certainly did!

Source: (5.22 minutes)

Dr.James White also disagees with David wood. And that God did die on the Cross!


James says” The elective God joined them, Gods death became there Death, in reference to Jesus Christ and the Holy Spirit”.

Dr James white confessed to admit this to counter our Question why was the Father selfish that he didnt die himself yet gets his own Son to die. So James white admits there is no selfishness and that the Sons death became there death i.e (The Father and Holy Spirit) and Jesus Christ ressurection became there ressurection (Father and holy spirit)

Source: https://youtu.be/SzslKkjEb_g
Listen from (minute 63:20)

Who is telling the Truth? Who has the Holy Ghost? The Bible teachers that the Holy Spirit will speak to You and guide You to ALL truth. (John 16:13)

Surely they all can not be Correct?

If We follow David Woods line of thinking, both Jay and Woods concept of God being Eternal Fails according to David if God was killed as both Jay and James white believes. And If We followed in James white and Jay Smiths line of thinking, than that would mean David Woods concept of God fails since his God would be a “Selfish God” as the Father sends the human nature as the Son to die while the father himself pays no penalty of his own, making the father selfish didnt come down himself to die instead sent his Son. Makes his Son sacrifice himself while the father does not sacrifice himself by getting killed as a God

We have put this in video here;

8 –  More Christian mishaps. “Jesus death”.

Muslim tell Christians how can Jesus be God? If Jesus died on the Cross? There are Christians who say, oh no that was only  “The Human Nature that died”.


I pointed out to Bosingr, is the “Soul” of Ravi Zacharias also God? It does not die, like the Godly nature of Jesus, Interesting Hey?

9 – A Christian admits, His God has Male Genitals.


So as you can see, Christians are confused and it’s really difficult to get consistency from them, you have some Christians who try to hide the shame that God has a Penis, they will say that was the “Human” side. But then you will have Christians like Dr James White who say, God died (God’s death became their death) so God was in actual fact like a human being, for he became a Human and really did die.

It’s also, Interesting, that Jesus also rose to Heaven, both spiritually and Physically into Heaven. According to book (Revelation 5:6) “He looks Slain” Therefore this would mean God has a physical appearance as Jesus, thus God has Male Genitals even in Heaven as He did as on Earth. And yet the Bible tells us: “God is not a Man” Bible: (Numbers 23:19)

In conclusion: Christian Trinitarians who think that they can simply get away with answering flaws in their God by blaming those flaws on Jesus human nature, only create more problems then solving the questions raised about their Man God.

Please also visit:



“Figurtive or Literal” games Christians play to Prove Jesus is devine God

Last updated: 13th August 2021.

By: Mustafa Sahin


Jesus God or Exaggerated? ” Figurative “or “Literal” games?

Here are some examples, where Christians manipulate the interpretation of the Bible so that it can conform with their theological beliefs about Jesus being “God”. We show that these interpretations are forced to prove that Jesus is God.

1 – Jesus said; “I and father are one”. Figurative or Literal?

Christian will say: “Literal”.

Notice: Christians will say “Literal” to conveniently prove Jesus is God.

2 – Jesus said everyone is ONE with God. (John 17:21) Literal or Figuratively?

Christians will say: “Figuratively”!

Note: Christians will never say, Disciples are One with God in the literal sense because then that would mean a Christian would make blasphemy to say, Disciples are One with God therefore it could imply the Disciples are God as well. This is why they will say it’s “figurative”, conveniently as to cause no blasphemy. So why then Christians conveniently interpret this verse as Figuratively, but don’t do the same when Jesus is defined as being “one with God? Why not say, that was “figurative also” oh but wait, that would not serve their agenda to prove that Jesus is God, so let’s conveniently interpret that as being literal when being one with God applies to Jesus!

3 – Jesus said Me and Father are One & When you see Me, You see the father.

Christian will say: “Literal”!

Note: Christians will never say, it’s figurative because saying it’s literal, will prove Jesus is one with God therefore a God like Yahweh.

4 –  Jesus said Jews are Gods (Theos) John 10-34 Literal or figuratively.

Christian will say: “figuratively”!

Note: Christians will say:  “(Theos) or (Elohim) can mean ANY spiritual being angelic human or both. But the tetragrammaton is the Elohim of Israel which Yeshua applied to himself and was nearly stoned for blasphemy”.

However, this is inconsistent, because Theos, is not just used for Jews in the O.T but also for Jesus in the N.T yet it is translated as meaning as his God. For example John 1:1. And Christians use john 1:1 heavily to prove his God, and they don’t claim its meaning is just (any spiritual being). Theos is also used for Jesus in (Hebrews 1:8) and Christians don’t interpret as (any spiritual being) rather as God, so why the inconsistency? Why not also interpret John 1:1 or Hebrews 1:8, as (any spiritual being) instead of God”?

Christians then say they nearly stoned him to death? However did they forget the part when Jesus rebuked them and also called them gods, to prove to the Jews, it’s not blasphemous to call each other Gods. Jesus was trying to illustrate to the Jews, terms such as Gods was never to be understood as literal terms. It’s rather like being called Godly people because people who serve God are defined as Godly. But Christians have misinterpreted these verses to suit their theology

5 – Jesus called (Theos) a God.
(Hebrews 1:8) Figuratively or Literal?

Christian will say Literal!!!

Note: Notice Christians don’t translate Theos in (Hebrews 1:8) as being figurative like any spiritual being”, no of course not here, it’s “literal”? Why, because the Christians force the meaning to go that way when it’s convenient for him to prove Jesus is God.

6 – Prophet Daniel worshipped in bible Daniel:2-46: Literal or Figuratively?

Christian will say: “Figuratively”!

Note: Christians will say Daniel wasn’t being worshipped it was God for God revealed mysteries or dreams to Daniel that came true, so they argue technically the Worship was directed to God and not Daniel. However the same thing could be said about Jesus being worshipped, the disciples fell in worship when Yahweh revealed a miracle through Jesus (like Jesus holes in his arms being healed by God), so technically the worship was directed to Yahweh and not Jesus. If you notice disciples only fall in worship when they see a miracle being performed not when Jesus or Daniel is going by their daily natural business when miracles or mysteries or true dreams are not being revealed, we are not seeing Disciples or people fall in worship towards Jesus or Daniel, rather when people see miracles getting performed is only when they fall to worship towards them, so one can conclude, people are getting mesmerised by the miracle and not the person.

Here are those examples:

Jesus only gets worshipped when a “miracle” takes place.

Mathew 14:33
Jesus only worshipped When Shown a Miracle. (Astonishment)

Mathew 2:11 Again Seeing the Miracle of Virgin Birth. Jesus Worshipped. (Astonishment)

Mathew 28:9 again seeing the Miracle (Astonishment) that Jesus came from the dead they worshipped him.

Notice every single verse where Jesus was worshipped follows by his disciples seeing a Miracle of God performed before them. I challenge any Christian to show me, where Jesus was worshipped where the context of the verse does not show a miracle being performed. Surely if Jesus was God, you wouldn’t worship God only when He shows you a miracle right, you will also worship him, while he’s not performing any miracles. So then can Christians bring forth a verse in the Bible where Jesus was still being worshipped even though he wasn’t displaying them all these wonderful signs and miracles, I bet they can not! Thus then we conclude Just like The King seen a Miracle of God revealed through Daniel. So If Daniel was worshipped because he represented a Miracle. And the Worship was technically directed to God. (Daniel 2:46) Then why when Jesus also represented a Miracle in the following verses. The Worship is not directed to God since God gave those Miracles to Jesus. Just like Daniel was Given the Miracles?

Just another example, when Moses parted the sea into two and performed a miracle, if suppose the children of Israel, fell to their knees and worshipped towards Moses, Christians will say, Moses wasn’t being Worshipped here, they were just worshipping the miracle of God being passed through Moses.

Ahmed Deedat response, that When Thomas witnessed the Holes of the Nails no more on Jesus, Thomas Proclaimed My God, My Lord out of Astonishment witnessing the miracle of God. Like if a person sees someone cutting their arm with a Rambo knife, we would say, My God! Anthony, what are you doing cutting yourself like that. This wouldn’t mean Anthony is God now, would it?

Another example, We human beings make such proclamations today like if you saw Ronaldo score a spectacular Goal we will say “My God” what a Goal! Would this mean; We Worship Ronaldo as God, or is this just a proclamation of showing emotional gratitude for witnessing such a spectacle?

7 – Jesus worshipped in the bible. Literal or figuratively.

Christian will say: “Literal”!

Note: Of course Christians won’t use examples of Disciples being mesmerised by the Miracle being performed from above, rather it was Jesus alone doing this, therefore his God. Convenient isn’t it? Even though Jesus said many times in the Bible the works He does are because of the father (John 14:10), and Jesus of himself does “nothing”. (John 5:30) But Christians will conveniently ignore those verses.  Of course, they would never ignore these TWO verses if it were Daniel.

8 – Jesus is the Son of Man. Literal or figuratively?

Christian will say: Figurative

9 –  All Jews are Sons of God in the Bible (Psalm 82:6). Literal or Figuratively.

Christian will say: “Figuratively”!

Note: Christians will claim the reason why it is Figurative because Bible scholars know what the divine council is and it’s spiritual. I would argue how convenient once again, saying All Jews are sons of God, is all spiritual, well isn’t Jesus spiritual in essence when His also the Son of God? Saying this is just “spiritual” does not negate your Jesus as not being as such as well, as all Gods children carry the spirit of God within them. Christians even today will profess the Holy Spirit dwells in them.

10 – Jesus Son of God? Literal or figuratively?

Christians will say: “Literal while others say “Unique”

Note: some Christians will claim, unique or literal means the same thing, but I say then why would they dispute the literal term? Anyhow there you have it, they will conveniently say Jesus is Unique or Literal Son of God, to prove his God, but Other Jews being Sons of God,  Nah that’s non-literal or non-unique, Jesus the Son of man, yeh Nah, of course,e, that’s, non-literal.


11 – Jesus said Kill Children who are disobedient to parents. ( Mathew 15: 1-9). Figuratively or literal?

Christians: Figuratively!

Note: Christians will say the above verse becomes ” Figurative” because it was ever enacted. In other words, Christians are saying Because there are no physical examples of children being killed in the New Testament for disobeying their parents is proof, that it’s meant to be understood as being Figurative One could simply imagine that no parent at the time, was willing to bring their disobedient child to court, because they would have feared, the consequences. Therefore saying Because there was no case brought up, doesn’t turn the ruling into a figurative ruling. Also consider, Jesus had more enemies than followers back then. Jesus had a very small number of followers and his ministry only lasted 3 years, therefore the chances of Christian devotees bringing children to court would have been almost impossible. Of course, Christians will conveniently opt-out to prove what a “Peaceful Religion” it is, to put a spin on the verse.

12 – Jesus said” I came not to send peace but sword. Literal or figuratively?

Christians: Figuratively or literal.

Note: Depending on what kind of Christian, you talking to He will tell you the verse is figurative, because the Sword here, refers to Words. But then you will have other Christians talking about the Sword being “physical” quoting, book revelations Jesus having a fight and coming back to fight the anti-Christ, and then you have (Luke 19:27) John Gills commentary talking about, Jesus coming back in the end times, and slaughtering those who did not accept him as King. Also, it’s pretty interesting that Christians refer to Jesus as being the same God as the Old Testament, yet we see a “physical sword” in (Samuel 15:3 & numbers 31 of the Bible) where People like Moses or the Ameliktes, including there women and children, were put to the sword, (but the virgins were spared) and only non-virgins killed, because of their disbelief to God. So when Christians try to prove “Jesus” to be some kind of pacifist God, it kinda sounding artificial, when History on their deity, doesn’t seem to suggest so. These swords were not words, and Moses under the instruction of God, killed and took the spoils of war, and shared it.

13 – Jesus said; “Love thy (Enemy)”. (Mathew 5:44)
Figuratively or Literal.

Christians: LITERAL!!!

Note: again this is a Christian convenient card, that it’s literal love because they wish to turn Jesus all-loving to a pacifist God because they are ashamed of the God of the O.T, so they now want to claim they have a God that changed his moral standards. Yes a God that is supposed to be all-knowing and all-wise, couldn’t figure out, until later that killing people on earth wasn’t the brightest idea of reflecting one’s compassion so he had to then act differently. Talk about, a God who improves himself? So Biblical God lacks moral wisdom and only understands it after killing children, babies and women?

14 – Jesus: will send disbelieving (Enemy) to Hell
Literal or Figuratively?

Christian: Literal/Figurative
** confused Much**

Note: Interesting they say, Jesus loves the enemy but sends them to hell for rejecting Christ? Pretty artificial “love” if you ask Me. I can’t imagine being told im loved even though im an unbeliever, or an enemy to Christ. I wonder if God loves Satan for being an Enemy as well? Of course, this is for those who interpret a literal Physical Hell. And for those who interpret it as Figurative (non-literal hell), I find that bizarre that people the likes of Adolf Hitler or  Satan will go to a Non-physical place of punishment, as they say, a place of separation from God, how is that justified, for gassing people in ovens, is beyond me. Of course, a Christian will say, we need the Holy Spirit to understand this yet those who have the holy spirit can’t answer these questions.

Now that we have established with certainty that Christians play with the biblical text to force a theology about Jesus being God, let’s look at what the Prophet Muhammed(PBUH) said in a Hadith;

” Do not Exaggerate About Me like the Christians did with Essa(Jesus) ibn Meryem, and Turned him into a God.”
Hadeeth is found in Muslim, Nasaii & Abu Dawood

In this amazing narration, the Prophet Muhammed (PBUH), understood that Jesus was never God and that God would never have meant to tell Christians that Jesus was God, and rather Christians have manipulated the text of the Bible, to prove that Jesus was God. And so the Prophet warned the Muslims, to never do this with Him, what the Christians did with Jesus Christ.

It is no surprise then, Muslims for decades have been requesting Christians to show a clear non-ambiguous verse where Jesus himself said the following: “I am God”. And there is not a single verse in the entire Bible! If Jesus was God, He would have made that clear statement. No wonder now why Christians have to force other verses of the Bible to say that Jesus is God, to compensate for something Jesus left out of the Bible, that being the explicit words to call himself I am God. Some Christians have even taken desperate measures to claim, Jesus was afraid to say those explicit words, because He feared persecution, but this explanation does not make sense for two reasons. One is that, wasn’t it part of Jesus mission to get persecute to die for your sins? So why then would He fear death, if he knew that was going to be his fate? And secondly, If he was so afraid of saying those words, why didn’t He say it on the Cross, that was the perfect chance to proclaim who He was explicit? Of course, when Christians are confronted by Muslim responses they resort to cheap tactics, like saying; show me a verse in the Bible where Jesus explicitly denied being God; like I AM NOT GOD.

But this can be easily responded to, because if Jesus had to deny every characteristic or attribute then that would be endless. Then a Muslim could say, show Me explicitly where Jesus said; I am not gay. Now imagine if people started claiming Jesus was a homosexual and telling you to prove where he explicitly said He is not Gay? Therefore this isn’t a good arguement to make as it can backfire. See Jesus was proving He was God, therefore He should have said those explicit words, which are supposed to be part of the core fundamental tenants of Christianity!

When a Christian is stuck here too He then tries to attack the Quran, and say where did Allah say the explicit words that He is God. Like the following Christian. But this has been refuted here:

Missionary Mishap – Copying Bad Arguments

The verse:

Indeed, I am (God) Allah. There is no deity except Me, so worship Me and establish prayer for My remembrance. (20:14.)

Muslims believe Prophet Moses is also a Prophet of God, in Islam. And we can see Allah telling us in the Quran, He told Mises that He is God (Allah) this would also mean, He showed Prophet Muhammed PBUH) who He specifically Is, by bringing up a statement He told Prophet  Moses long ago.

And in another verse;

So know, [O Muhammad], that there is no deity except Allah and ask forgiveness for your sin and the believing men and believing women. And Allah knows of your movement and your resting place. (47:19)

Allah, He now directly again tells Prophet Muhammed explicitly, there is no God except Allah.

Therefore if Christians need to show there is a consistency in the message, the God of the Old Testament, was explicit in saying the words: I am Yahway, your God. (Exodus 20:2-6)

The Quran says the same, however, these words are missing in the New Testament. Which clearly show an inconsistent pattern in God’s message.

So where did Jesus say, I am Elohim or Yahway, your God? In the New Testament? This in of itself is enough to prove: Jesus was never a God!

Enough said.

Update: I sent my article and posted it to Christian Apologist David Wood & Sam Shamoun and this is how the followers of David and Sam Shamoun reacted:


When Muslims like myself expose the way Christians play games when interpreting the Bible, to prove Jesus is God and mislead people, the Muslim is the liar? They no longer want to talk to Muslims. This is the hostility we always get when we take the time to write articles, and when we respond, we are told we are not educated enough to respond? May I ask what Islamic academia has David or Sam Shamoun got when day and night they try to fault Islam? But they are knowledgeable! Why because they are Christian, but a Muslim can never be knowledgeable about the Bible, only Christians can know about the Quran.

Yep, that’s how it is, but then again these are the followers of Sam Shamoun and David Wood, they have taught them, Islam, pretty well;


Also please visit a related article where we demonstrate how Biblical Scribes have manipulated the Bible;


So it’s no surprise that Christians today, follow the deceitful measures of their earlier predecessors.


Refuting Pedophillia Lie of Atheists & Christian claims against the Prophet Muhammed Pbuh.

  • Last Updated: 18th, May.2022

Watch video response: Ali Dawah gives a wonderful Response:

Now watch this:

Also, see:

And finally watch this also before we continue…




Let’s first show Christianity before we continue…..

Joseph “90 Years old” married 12-Year-old St.Mary
According to Christian (Historical Record) http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08504a.htm
{ According to the Roman Catholics’ Encyclopedia “New Advent”Mary was as young as 12 when she married 90-year old Joseph. This means that she was around 11 when she got pregnant with Jesus.}

Nabeel Qurashi a Christian Apologist even admits that Mary and Joseph were “Young Children” when they conceived Jesus.


Bible: We also have a clear verse in Bible. KILL women but keep virgins (little) girls to your selves.
Numbers 31:17-18. In this passage of the Bible a priest was given 32 virgin girls as “war booty”.

A Christian named Christian Prince even admits,  these girls were taken as slaves and after one month time, you can marry them. So after killing their parents in war, you take them as slaves and you can desire to wed them. See:

And then they attack the Quran about wedding children?

No wonder Christian Priests follow the Bible they are known as the Biggest Pedophiles world widworldwide00 Priests Convicted of Rape just in the U.S.A
Proof: http://bishop-accountability.org/priestdb/PriestDBbylastName-A.html

I believe Allah has punished the Christians for their slandering of our Prophet so Allah has exposed them. So they are taking their anger out on Islam.

Prophet Muhammad (PBUH) had many enemies and they claimed many things against him but never of Pedophilia ( astaghfirullah)
It’s unfair to judge people of 1400 years to even as far back as 100 years according to today’s laws and customs, you have to judge them if they were doing something wrong or not, by their laws and customs during their time.

Age of consent was set at Puberty in History:
Age of consent & customs
The Encyclopaedia of Britannica 15th edition volume 26 page 850.
Definition for puberty:
In human physiology, puberty is the stage or period of life when a child transforms into an adult normally capable of procreation

100 years ago for Islamaphobes and ignorant people go read history in “1889 America age of consent 7 to 10 years old in history in the WEST. Clearing the Prophet of going against the laws in history hence clearing Pedophilia.

This is taken directly from Wikipedia:


Under Subtitle History and Social attitudes.

Alexios II Komnenos Byzantine emperor married Anna of France at 8 years old she was born in 1171 married at 1179 died in 1204
Isaac II Angelos Byzantine emperor married Margaret of Hungry (empress) in 1184 when she was only 9 years old she was born in 1175 and died at 1204

Today around the world the average is between 13 and 16
Spain 13 Argentina 13 Austria 13 Bulgaria 14 Germany 14 Italy 14 Portugal 14 Brazil 14 Ecuador 14 Canada 14 and many more. The list is on the link below.

Legislation varies across Europe, with countries setting different legal ages of consent:

  • 14 years old: Austria, Germany, Hungary, Italy, Portugal
  • 15: Greece, Poland, Sweden
  • 16: Belgium, the Netherlands, Spain, Russia

In the UK the age of sexual consent is 16,

Source: https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-43300313

So if we look at it with a sound mind; Your ancestors can be classified as a pedophile as well. Your family is born from pedophiles. I am ashamed of you, you are an outcome of pedophilia, Perhaps?

Not to mention throughout history people would get married young because the average life span was short. And it was normal during the customs of that time. Take a look at 1700 to mid-1900.


Source: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life_expectancy

25 years to 35 years was the age expectancy. So this is more proof that people would have married much earlier.

Also, this begs the question if life expectancy was low, then girls developing early to women hood would have been a factor too. Some people ask, would you give your 9-year-old daughter to a 50-year-old man? The answer is, we dont live 200 years ago let alone, 1400 years ago, where girls matured much earlier based on puberty. Just as life expectancy had evolved so could have girls maturing later.

Just 200 years ago, the American constitution had laws that set marriage between 7 and 10 years old. These days it’s not the same, so no I wouldn’t condone 50 years old marrying today’s 9-year-olds. Because we know that, they can hardly be developed as, today’s human biology has changed significantly.

We can see even the age of puberty dramatically changes:


So who can say for sure, girls didn’t develop earlier back 1400 years ago, Just as age death expectancy changes and so does puberty, it’s then possible girls and boys developed into women and men much earlier than today’s standard.

Christian Apologist Sam Shamoun admits on his Website.
at Answering-Islam.com

Thus, we have a biblical text establishing that the age for marriage begins when a girl has become post-pubescent, i.e. when she has reached a point where she is past puberty. Source:http://www.answering-islam.org/Shamoun/marriage_age.htm

According to experts in the medical field, the average age for the start of puberty starts between 9 and can end at 15 or 16. So this would mean Sam Shamoun is suggesting that after the age of 15 or 16. Then a girl can be wedded. However, if we follow Sam’s explanation there are laws in both Australia or most states in the United States of America that have the legal age set at 18. However, the Bible says “Post- Pubescent which would mean around 15 or 16. That’s still two to three years younger than the legal requirement. So will the critics also  believe the Bible condones Pedophilia because it would now allow a 30 or 40 or 50-year-old man, to get married to a 15 or 16-year-old? Sam Shamoun now has to accept that a 50-year-old man wedding a 15-year-old is not then defined as Pedophilia because He argues the Bible says, Post-Prebuscent is when she can get married.

Now, this gets more interesting, all though “the average” age for the start and end of puberty can be between 9 and 15. It can even start much earlier depending on which ethnicity or race, or the geographical region you are belong too. For example in the African or Hispanic continent, it can start much earlier like age 7 and can take 3 to 4 years of the process of puberty to end. That would mean by age 10 a girl can be Postpubescent!

See here:


Source: https://www.dukehealth.org/blog/when-puberty-too-early

Therefore Sam Shamoun technically accepts that Young marriages to even 10-year-old girls are Biblical!

So again when the Prophet Muhammed consummated his Marriage with Ashia, she could have been 9 years and 11 months old. (i.e) close to 10 years old.

And we know Islamic sources do say, she was 9 when Marriage was consummated. And not 6.

At age 6 she was only betrothal  to the Prophet, (a mutual promise or contract for a future marriage) meaning only worded contract, nothing more than that. There was no “sexual intimacy”.

So now going back to the Bible and looking at this book for approval of the Prophets marriage, which is approved Biblically and scientifically as being PostPrebuscent.

The West understands  the difference between a child and a adolescent is the onset of Puberty. Ashia (r.a) the Prophets youngest wife after becoming post prebuscent was married according to the norm of the society at the time.

Christian Apologist Dr James white reminds christians not to use the pedophillia arguement because, Young Marriages were common back then:
Source: https://youtu.be/wyvPhcsWbzY

Here is the Evidence from History and Present Day!
Age of Marriage was low back then. Western World.

Even in our Modern World 12 Year old Girls.

Read this:
2000 to 2010, the most recent year for which most states were able to provide information. We learned that in 38 states, more than 167,000 children — almost all of them girls, some as young 12 — were married during that period,

Source: 1:


Source 2:


We even have the “French” 🇫🇷  in Our Modern World reducing the age of sexual consent from 18 to only 15 years old. Source:


Makes you now wonder, how the WEST is confused on the specific age of sexual consent. Having sexual relations between a 40 year old and a 15 year old, would be considered rape in the UK, Australia and Most states of the U.S, well not so now in France. But again who gets to call they are “Progressed”? France or the Rest?

Here is another Christian conservative Apologist Milo Yiannopoulos who is Anti-Islamist agrees that for a 29 year old man to have consensual sex with a 13 year old who is ready sexually. It is not Pedophillia! He argues. Take a read:

For more details read: Responses to Common Arguement Christians make about Pedophillia read:

According to Journal of Human development reaching Puberty meant becoming a Adult in terms of Giving Consent read:

Young Teenagers in History who went through Puberty were able to give consent according to The Journal of Human development. As the onset of Puberty marked Maturity, Responsibility and Behavior. The link i provided attests to that for why the age of consent coincided with the Age of Puberty.

At the same link here:

Go to the Anti-Islam responses section bellow the page, we deal with all the twisted lies in the hadith that Ashia. Did not reach puberty at 9 years of age. Playing with Dolls, Does the Quran allow sex with prebubscent children? Did Abu Bekir Refuse Marriage? Also above the page we deal with the lie that she was only SIX years old. When this is not exactly correct, all though there was marriage at age 6, this wasn’t consummated until she was 9. We explain it further here:

See here:



  1. All though we do not condone Child marriages or sex with minors check out this point from a Atheistic point of reference;

Atheist can not even say from a Scientific perspective that child marriages are wrong or raping people is wrong. Take a listen here; there are no real objective morals in Science.

Again I’m not condoning Child marriages just showing the double standards according to their own Atheist world view.

In the Year 1976 “Taking Nude and Sexualized pictures of a 10 year old Girl in the West.


From the Religion of Love. 10 and 8 years olds in Romania promised Arranged Marriage:

12 Year Old Gives Birth in Australia.
Source: https://thewest.com.au/news/health/12-year-old-girl-gives-birth-in-perth-hospital-report-ng-b881084396z

Of course it’s possibly another Legal Teen pregnancy due to boy & girl friend relationship. Will now hush our Bogan Culture Under the table?

What about these: 17,000 Pedophiles in Australia?


Should we now say, Pedophilia is Australian Culture?

Rebuttal section:

The critics write; Muslims follow Pedophile/ Warlord Prophet as the “Best Exemplar”.


The West still has laws in the Modern West that still allow sexual relations on the onset of Puberty. Look at America the age of consent still set at 12 in some states. Our Prophet has nothing wrong as being the best exemplar since he never brock the ruling of young marriages which were accepted through out history. So yes his still the best exemplar for ALL time. Ashia marriage age was certainly normal and even today U.S laws still have the age of consent as low as 12. Just because your subjective opionion raises it to 18 does not mean who ever disagree is a false exemplar. Its a straw man arguement its like argueing if i change the consent law to age 28, who ever does not full fill this and disagrees and marry’s people who are 18 is the wrong exemplar.

So whos the best exemplar? Puberty at 9 is wrong for sexual maturity. But puberty at 13 is O.K for sexual maturity according to West? Teen pregnancy isn’t encouraged but still acceptable in West but marriage to a 13 year old is wrong?

Furthermore even if you like to dispute and say his not the best examplar due to our current laws. That still a incoherent arguement  because his life was the best exampler through out history. As you are aware his young wife was not the only wife, he had wives that were even older then him, therefore he was still the best exempler as he full filled both pre-modern laws and full filled Modern laws by marrying women whos ages of consent was accepted in the past and future. So to then judge him with todays modern laws proves nothing since he still married older women within even his own life time. Who knows maybe in the future Westerners may drop the age of consent back to Puberty, just like today they still accept teen pregnancies in the West so to try and character assisinate him on today’s subjective laws is quite unfair and illogical. And since when is the West the measuring stick of the best exemplar? The same West that has legal necrophilia, incest, sodomites, even having sex with animals. Girls who identify themselves as being Male, and then you have a lady marrying her piano, you can find these laws legal in parts of Western countries. So “No” the West is not the measuring stick of what is determined as best Exemplar. For Muslims engaging in these sorts of behaviours such as man on man is the wrong exemplar. Therefore imagine i used my subjective opionion and criticized West for being the wrong exemplar for human kind? See im showing you that its a incoherent arguement to apply a subjective opionion to determin what makes or makes not a good exemplar.


“Your Prophet was a pedophile! He was married to and cohabited with Aisha when she was just nine years old!”

You trolls need to find some new lines. The Prophet, peace be upon him, married Aisha with the blessing and approval of her parents and he was committed to her, took care of her, taught her, and, through his care, she became one of the most knowledgeable and influential scholars of Islam and a leader of the community. This was the kind of marriage practiced by Muslims and Christians and Jews and every other culture and religion for nearly all of human history. Girls were married young by their parents to committed husbands. My own great grandmother was married at 13.

In contrast, the pedophilia pioneered in the modern West, practiced by rich and poor Western perverts alike, involves, among other things, diddling one’s child relatives secretly in closets and dark rooms, orgies with underage girls that are essentially kidnapped, the most evil child pornography, sex rings with thousands of abducted children, where once they have drugged up the children, used them and put them through the most degrading, vile sex acts, passing them around among their friends like broken objects, these children are discarded like trash. Some are killed and never heard of again. This is the pedophilia of the “superior” west that you disgusting trolls want to equate with the noble, pure marriage of the Prophet peace be upon him to our mother, Aisha.

Don’t project the filthy degeneracy found in the “superior” West onto the superior religion.

-Daniel Haqiqatiu

A Critic Wrote: Yes I do know catholic’s also have a problem in Child Molestation but most of them seem to be historic cases, they seem to have got their house in order, We no longer have Grooming Modern day gangs as prolific in the West unlike the Muslim ones.

My Response: Predominately Christian cases are only Historic are they?

Most of the top 5 countries in the World are Predominately Christian countries who have a significant Child Abuse Cases. So Child abuse is part of your filthy non-Muslim Modern day culture, not just history.


South Africa

One child is raped in South Africa every three minutes, according to a 2009 report by trade union Solidarity Helping Hand.

A 2009 survey by the country’s Medical Research Council found that one in four men admits to raping someone, 62% of boys over 11 believe forcing someone to have sex is not an act of violence and a third believe girls enjoy rape, the Independent reported


In its 2013 report India’s Hell Holes: Child Sexual Assault in Juvenile Justice Homes, the Asian Centre for Human Rights said that sexual offences against children in India have reached epidemic proportion.

The report stated that more than 48,000 child rape cases were recorded from 2001 to 2011 and that India saw an increase of 336% of child rape cases from 2001 (2,113 cases) to 2011 (7,112 cases).

“Imagine 48,838 children raped in just 10 years


Police spokesperson Assistant Commissioner Charity Charamba said in 2012 that rape cases against children continued to increase countrywide, according to NewsdeZimbabwe.

“The (rape) cases are on the increase and during the week ending 25 September 2012, the cases rose to 81 from 65 the previous week. Evident from our investigations is the fact that relatives commit most juvenile rape cases,” said Charamba. 30,000 boys and girls sexually abused

United Kingdom

A quarter of a million Britons – more than one in every 200 adults – are paedophiles, according to figures released by Scotland Yard, the Telegraph reported in 2000.

In 2012/13, there were 18,915 sexual crimes against children under 16 recorded in England and Wales, according to the National Society for Prevention of Cruelty to Children (NSPCC). Included in that figure were 4,171 offences of sexual assault on a female child under 13 and 1,267 offences of sexual assault on under-13 male children.

In the UK, one in 20 children (4.8%) have experienced contact sexual abuse and over 90% of children who experienced sexual abuse, were abused by someone they know, NSPCC said.

A paedophile ring linked to Britain’s worst abuser Robert Smith, arrested in 2005, is ‘still at large’, the Herald reported in 2013.

United States

“Even if the true prevalence of child sexual abuse is not known, most will agree that there will be 500,000 babies born in the US this year that will be sexually abused before they turn 18 if we do not prevent it,” according to the Children Assessment Centre (CAC).

What is more “Shocking is that even in our modern World some states it is legal to Wed girls as young as 12 years old read:

2000 to 2010, the most recent year for which most states were able to provide information. We learned that in 38 states, more than 167,000 children — almost all of them girls, some as young 12 — were married during that period,



BBC-Reports Angel was just 13 years old when she was forced into Marriage in the U.S:

According to the local department of tourism, more than 4.7 million foreigners come to the Philippines each year. Of these, 1.2 million are men who arrive on their own. Most numerous are tourists from Korea, the US, China and Australia. The UK is ninth on the list, closely followed by other European countries.
Freedom to leave children behind?

In conclusion:

We need to understand we live in a Modern new world. Things that were practised in the past, were done in the context of environmental differences from today. 200 to 300 years ago, Marriages to adolescents were accepted even in the West, between ages 7 to 10 years old. Now since then the age of consent has been raised to 14 or 18 depending what part of the Western World you live in.

The reason being in our modern era, girls tend to develop much later. This is part of human evolution. And no, I’m not talking about Darwinian evolution, but rather accepted changes that naturally fluctuate depending on nutrition and environmental circumstances. For example they say, girls and boys who live in hotter climates tend to develop earlier then those who live in colder climates. And so if we accept that these changes can occur, who is to say 1400 years ago the climate was much diffrent and so was the science behind girls developing much younger? So for example todays 15 or 16 year old girl could be equivalent to a 9 or 10 year old back 1400 years ago?

And so based on that, it would be unfair to judge the Prophet based on the age He married Ashia, when she most probably did not look anything like todays 9 year old girls, but rather looked like she was 14 or 16 for the matter.

1400 years ago was awfully a long time ago, and many things may have changed by then. Thus the critics trying to attack the character of the Prophet have no real arguement at all, since they conflate our modern era, to that of very ancient times. For those who dispute and claim there is very little evidence that, biological changes occur or that there is no evidence that girls developed earlier in pre-modern times, well i would ask you to read this article:

So to sum up:

There you will read that even in our modern times, people are going back to maturing earlier based on nutritional factors . So I ask what makes you think it wasn’t possible for girls to mature earlier during the Pre-modern era? If changes are observed today then its also possible changes occurred in ancient times, thus the fact that there is now evidence that biological development fluctuates in our modern times what makes you think it didn’t fluctuates back in the ancient times? If it’s possible now, then it was possible back then, end of story.

Also makes me laugh, when a critic claims back in the ancient times there are no records to suggest that girls in ancient times matured earlier. This makes me laugh, because they think almost 1500 to 2000 years ago, there were scientists collecting data from all parts of the globe measuring when girls conclusively went through development. These fools think, that science back then was interested in those findings as if there were hundreds of universities collaborating with one another on such findings, well news flash things of that nature and interests about such topics were very vague and not conclusive and hardly was there investigation agenda as there is like in today’s modern world, they just didn’t have that sort of accessibility, people back then would spend months and years travelling from  one continent to another let alone, attain all the knowledge about human development of the time. Science and data was hardly even collected for conclusive rulings, so yes it does make me laugh, when today’s Modern critic rules out the evidence of early development in girls in pre-modern time because he thinks there is no evidence. Well, the absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, all it means is that people didn’t pay attention to collecting data more broadly back then, because of environmental factors, or other circumstances like the development of science. So for these silly critics to dismiss possibilities based on no data is foolish and ignorant and arrogant indeed. Because that’s not how things are to be dismissed. Just because there was no data in ancient times about the existence of DNA does not mean that DNA isn’t true, is it? Well, it is, even if there wasn’t supporting evidence for it in ancient times. Just as we have supporting evidence today of the existence of human DNA and the genome, we also have evidence of human development evolving at times maturity comes much later and at times much earlier which in of its self also evidence those changes could have occurred much earlier in ancient times.

A Christian wrote;



Clearly this person is a liar. The Prophet did not explain how the rules of the religion made it possible. Rather Abu Bekir hesitation was due to Aisha being already engaged to someone else at the time. And So Abu Bekir didn’t know how to approach this and end it, He later then found it a good idea to help end his daughters engagement to another man who was a member of the Qurashe who were enemies of the Muslims, so infact Abu Bekir thought this was eventually a good idea to end that engagement. Which begs another question, if Islamic rules were there to convince Abu bekir to so those rules favour the Prophet, why was Abu Bekirs daughter already engaged to someone else before the Prophet?

This in itself debunks the accusers, and that young marriages were practised before the Prophet engaged with Abu Bekirs Daughter. This now refutes the notion that the Prophet was like a cult figure trying to introduce a law to suit the Prophet, when there was already customs of young marriages being implemented before the Prophet wish to engage with Aisha R.A.


Christian Apologist Caught bad behavior

Last updated: 23rd July 2020



The Christian Missionary” dumpster section”. Note this will continue to Update.

Jesus said;” You will know them by their Fruits. Mathew 7:16

Here is a list of Qoutes of Christian missionaries and their Foul mouths and true colors exposed on social Media.

Steven Tilley:
Gets caught lying. And deletes his post instead of Apologizing.

Christian Robert Wells:

“He does not care if Muslim Buisness are sprayed by Bullets or Mosque Vandelized so long as their are no personel injuries.
Proof: https://m.facebook.com/groups/872453962812726?view=permalink&id=991943360863785

Note: To view some of the links” you need to add facebook group called” World Muslim Debate Academy” once your in the room the links that can’t be accessed  will work!

Link 2: goes against Jesus turn the other cheeck he Qoutes” When Muslims kill Christians ” enough is enough”.

Link 3: condones “Rape”
If Jihadi Rape other Jihadies. Im all for it.
Proof: https://m.facebook.com/groups/872453962812726?view=permalink&id=983152251742896

Link 4: Qoutes ” He does not care if Muslims kill other Muslims. He only cares when Muslims kill Non-Muslims.

Link 5: Calls Muslims” Dirty Rag Heads” He interestingly also called Good Christian deeds Dirty Rag heads?

Link 6: Calls a Muslim Apologist Yusuf Ismael a” Swine” https://m.facebook.com/story.php?story_fbid=10153619190498650&id=735888649

Christian Nakdimon Yesman:

Qoutes” Tells Muslim to lick another Muslims “butt Hole”.

Note” Nakdimon Yesman once he got exposed, did Apologise for his statements”. Years later.

Christian David Wood:

admits he” Lied about leaving ” Aplogetics” and called it ” April Fools day”

Christian Sidwell Johaness:

Active Christian Missionary on Facebook.
” Qoutes, God can be stupid.

Christian Prince of InvestigateIslam:

Link 1: He wants to F##K Muslim mother if he can prove Paul in Quran

Link 2: He insults a Muslim by calling him ” Donkey Penis come to Mic”

Christian Sam Shamoun:


From Answering-Islam.com: Calling Muslim ” Fag Rat” Fat Idiot”.

Link 1 http://www.answering-christianity.com/shamouns_foul_insults_exposed.htm

Link 2: https://youtu.be/adxMGLmGzno

Link 3: http://callingchristians.com/2016/02/19/missionary-mishap-jonathan-mclatchie-sam-shamoun-target-dr-shabir-ally/

Link 4: https://callingchristians.com/2016/04/06/missionary-mishap-sam-shamouns-cursing-rage/


I personally sent Sam Shamoun a response I wrote.

And so Sam Shamoun starts sending Me, abusive Messages:




As you can see, He is very insulting towards women and a sexist. “Thinking like a Girl”

It’s a shame that his raising Two daughters of his own, talk about bad parenting skills and discrimination towards girls.


Christian France Francis Evg:

His a Apologist from India,
Caught condeming Muslims for Mocking his Religion while he got caught red handed mocking Muslims.

Link 1: https://m.facebook.com/groups/872453962812726?view=permalink&id=985905158134272

Link 2: http://callingchristians.com/2016/01/25/missionary-mishap-pig-headed/

Link 3: https://m.facebook.com/groups/872453962812726?view=permalink&id=1008642402527214

Christian Jonathen mclatchie:

Qoutes” Muslim immigrants to Europe are a “Cancer” and “Virus”

Christian Dr James White:

Insults Muslim named Yahya Snow. He calls him, ” Yahya Smell”
He also makes racist remarks against ” Middle Easterners: https://m.facebook.com/story.php?story_fbid=1681709005447682&id=100008257968099

Christian Naqeel Qurashi:

Ex-Qadiani now Pagan Triniterian: Mocks Sami Zaatari voice. https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=j7KowEzUAj4&feature=youtu.be

Christian Walid Shoebat:

Evangelist Activist foul mouth exposed calling another person a” Bastard”


Are the four Gospels first hand Eye-Witness accounts?

Last update: 17/05/2022


By Mustafa Sahin

Note: Bellow there is a rebuttal section to a Christian also read the Debate.

Most Christians say” The Four Gospels were written by the Four Disciples of Jesus Christ known as Mark, Luke, Mathew and John.

Even Christian apologists like (Nakdemon Yesman) and many Christians believe that the Gospels were written by Contemporary Witnesses. What contemporary means is that those were the Eye-Witnesses living at the same time as Jesus and directly recorded the events as Desciple of Jesus Christ

Well is this so? Let us see what another Christian colleague to Nakdemon is another Apologist Matt Slick and his testimony on the subject:

Please notes that Both Nakdemon and Matt Slick together write articles on the Answering-Islam.com website. They’re basically on the same team.

Matt Slick Quotes:

1: Mark was not an eyewitness to the events of Jesus’ life.

2: Luke was not an eyewitness to the life of Christ. He was a companion of Paul who also was not an eyewitness to Christ’s life.

3: Mathew. Matt Slick tells us again nothing about Mathew Being an Eye-Witness instead he admits Quote:

This would mean that if Matthew did write in Aramaic originally, he may have used Mark as a map.

So as you can see Matt Slick admits that Mathew perhaps copied or used Mark’s information who also was not an Eye-Witness then added his narrations additional to the Text.

4: John( Although Matt Slick claims John was an Eye-Witness to the Events. Matt tells us

Quote: The Gospel of John was written by Eye-Witnesses or under the direction of eyewitnesses.

What he’s saying is him not sure if it was written Directly by an Eye-Witness or perhaps if someone else Wrote hearing from an Eye-Witness.

So as you can see Matt Slick admits ALL 4 Gospels written were not direct Eye-Witnesses penning down the Events. Rather they were Anonymous people Quoting from Hearsay from other Eye-Witnesses. So the next time a Christian boastfully tells you we have 4 Direct Eye-Witness Testimony by the 4 Gospels written by the Disciples of Jesus. They are simply misleading you.


Extra info:

When we read Luke 1:1 says he ( Apostle Luke) investigated from the first Eye-Witness accounts. This could mean he copied from the first eyewitnesses. And then took that knowledge and then wrote out his own accord. So they would have borrowed a Narrative.

Christian wrote to me and said Quote;
“So Luke used other sources available. Is that supposed to be a problem for some reason? That’s what any historian at the time would do. End Quote.

Muslim Response;

Luke said he investigated. This implies he didn’t trust their holy spirit. Why would someone have the Holy Spirit need to borrow from others? He should have been able to know the whole event without having to look anywhere else. Since they were all individual eyewitness accounts. This proves they were not all different eyewitness accounts rather a non-Eye Witness copied the Eye Witness of somebody else.

Yes if he was to only remain a historian we have no objection. But soon as Christians claim he was inspired and an Eye-Witness then this raises the questions of errors.

Another Christian Apologist Mike Lincon also states the same that Mathew borrowed and edited his Gospel watch:

Now the Rebuttal Question will go through how a Christian responded when he denied our article so we gave him an example of why he can not deny it. We showed him if the Writers of the Gospel were indeed based on “Eye Witness accounts” they ALL would have written the same message on the thorn crown on Jesus’ head upon the Crucifixion:

Mustafa Sahin wrote:

Tell us what was written on Jesus’ head if there were Eye Witness accounts. Surely if they are guided by God it will all read the same thing. Let’s put you through an acid test.

Christian named Nick Peters wrote:

Why should they all say the same thing? The message was written in different languages and was translated into different languages and paraphrasing was perfectly acceptable.

Sorry. I’m not a fundamentalist like you are.

Mustafa Sahin wrote:

There was only 1 language written on Jesus’ head, not 4 different languages.


(Matthew 27:37) – “And set up over his head his accusation written, THIS IS JESUS THE KING OF THE JEWS.”
(Mark 15:26) – “And the superscription of his accusation was written over, THE KING OF THE JEWS.”
(Luke 23:38) – “And a superscription also was written over him in letters of Greek, and Latin, and Hebrew, THIS IS THE KING OF THE JEWS.”
(John 19:19-20) – “And Pilate wrote a title, and put it on the cross. And the writing was JESUS OF NAZARETH THE KING OF THE JEWS. 20This title then read many of the Jews: for the place where Jesus was crucified was nigh to the city: and it was written in Hebrew, Greek, and Latin.

So if there are 4 different interpretations from an original? What was the original writing in Arabic? Greek? Hebrew? over Jesus’ head. It can not be ALL. Yet the Bible witness can not decide.

Of course, it will not be the same if it didn’t have first-hand multiple eyewitnesses.

Christian wrote:
Sorry Mustafa, but that’s a modern concept. Ancient minds weren’t interested in word-for-word accuracy but in getting the gist of the idea correct. Try reading scholarship.

Mustafa Sahin Wrote:

Thats a cop-out, exactly any excuse. The ancient text wasn’t interested in divine guidance as well I see?

Christian wrote;

Sorry dude, but no one holds to divine dictation theory. And no, that’s not a cop-out. Read Small’s “Wax Tablets of the Mind” for instance.

Mustafa sahin wrote:

Don’t hold to Divine dictation. Why say it’s divine guidance and thus divine inspiration?

As you can see for yourself the Christian when shown an example of why the Gospel accounts are far from being an eye-witness account rather I believe it follows hearsay. He resorted to blocking it out by saying, the scribes were not dictated to write.

Well if it’s not dictated and guided by the Holy Spirit then I agree the Scribe gave an un-guided opinion of hearsay. That can be the only explanation why ALL Scribes could not pen down ” Word for Word” what exactly was written down over the head of Jesus nailed on the Cross.

We can go a step further,

The Fact of the matter is. The 4 Gospels appear to be 4 Witnesses. But the reality is they ALL copy from Mark only improving the narrative. They all go back to Pauls’s narrative. Because Paul said if a Gospel is preached other than the one I preach then let him be cursed. So not only was the later Gospels copying from Mark they also had to stay in line with Pauls’s witness. Yet Paul never met the living Jesus during his ministry nor witnessed the Crucifixion. Additionally, the 4 Gospels are Anonymous. The term Mark, Mathew, Luke and John do not exist as Subtitle headings in the Earliest Manuscripts. These came later into the Manuscripts to show they were 4 different witnesses the reality is those subtitles were never there. Additionally when you open the Gospel of Luke 1:1″ He tells us that he is writing an account from the first eye witness. And he felt that he should write an account also. But notice Luke doesn’t claim he is writing as a witness to the events himself. Rather he narrates what he “Heard” not what He Saw himself. In the Crucifixion story for example we are told all the disciples fled and only in a distance there was 1 disciple who witnessed the Crucifixion and not 4 Disciples. But only 1 disciple. And the interesting thing is the name of that witness disciple is not even mentioned. Rather he is called ” The Desciple who he loved”.

Christian Wrote:
The authors probably wanted to eliminate interest in who wrote the story and to focus the reader on the subject. More importantly, the claim of an anonymous history was higher than that of a named work. In the ancient world an anonymous book, rather like an encyclopedia article today, implicitly claimed complete knowledge and reliability. It would have reduced the impact of the Gospel of Matthew had the author written ‘this is my version instead of ‘this is what Jesus said and did.’  – The Historical Figure of Jesus by E.P. Sanders page 66.

They also don’t all copy from Mark. John doesn’t and why shouldn’t Matthew and Luke use Mark as another source as well?

Mustafa Sahin wrote:

I didn’t say John copies only from Mark but also Paul. If John didn’t copy from Paul then John would be preaching a different Gospel. And Paul said if anyone preaches a different Gospel than the one I preach let him be cursed. ( Galatians 1:8) So if John is not narrating the same Story as Paul then John is cursed.

Im baffled also how by you think anonymous writing credits ability. If it’s anonymous then satin can be the Author and not the eyewitness

Christian wrote:
You’re confusing the gospel with the Gospels. The two are not the same. The Gospels as understood are Greco-Roman bio centred around the life of Jesus. The Gospel is the content and the message of the story. That does not mean the story has to be exact verbatim identical. The Gospel is the good news about the life of Jesus. The Gospels are accounts of the life of Jesus.

As for anonymous, this is not my opinion alone but that of E.P. Sanders, a leading Biblical scholar in the field. If we want to know who wrote the Gospels, we can look at the earliest traditions that we have and make cases based on internal and external evidence.

Mustafa Sahin wrote:
Well if they are Anonymous. Then Christians can not claim they have 4 Witnesses looking at the earliest manuscripts. For all, I care it could be 1 Witness. Copying and slightly improving or adding their vents from hearsay and not what they witnessed themselves as luke 1:1 tells us.

Because our Christian guest thought that, the story doesn’t have to be the same?

This is a wrong analysis. I agree that one story can add more information than the other which just can mean one gives more detail than the other, however,

Even in today’s Criminal Justice system if Mulitple eyewitness testimony is given as evidence. The Judge can dismiss the evidence based on the testimony if it’s not the same between the witness box, meaning the Storyline is not adding up) or if it’s contradictory. Then someone is telling a lie claiming to be an Eye- witness to the Crime scene.

Here is an example of that;

If Luke was correct mark must have been wrong?

Below we have two accounts from the same event, however, they differ in the order of chronology :


Jesus healed Peter’s mother-in-law and later John the Baptist was arrested (Mark 1:29-31) (Mark 6:17-18)

While in Luke we find the opposite ??

John the Baptist was arrested and later Jesus healed Peter’s mother-in-law (Luke 3:19-20) (Luke 4:38-39)


How do u rectify this problem, it’s the same event but in the opposite order? now here’s where the problem GROWS EVEN BIGGER, Luke tells us he has an accurate account of what happened during the Ministry of Jesus?

Many have undertaken to draw up an account of the things that have been fulfilled[a] among us, just as they were handed down to us by those who from the first were eyewitnesses and servants of the word. With this in mind, since I have carefully investigated everything from the beginning, I too decided to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus, (Luke 1:1-3)


Note from the above passage from Luke how he states MANY HAVE UNDERTAKEN TO DRAW UP AN ACCOUNT? Who are all those Many, when Mark and Matthew are his only predecessors according to the Cannon, Also notice how he HAS AN ORDERLY ACCOUNT OF THE EVENTS? ThMarks’s’sMarks’s order was WRONG and thats according to Luke if not how do u rectify this Discrepancy?

Who are all those Many, when Mark was the only one who wrote before him? Unless there were more if so where are their writings?

This clearly shows that Luke didn’t agree exactly with Mark’s narrative. Thats why Luke had to investigate. This also begs the question why did Luke have to investigate the information since he had divine inspiration? If one claims to write by inspiration there is no need to investigate. This proves the Gospel writers didn’t believe they were individually inspired.

Also, im wondering if our Christian opponents would like to use the filtering arguement here. Luke is wrong and Mark is right because the earlier the more authentic?

This is clear evidence that they were not Eyewitnesses and that accounts nor what they wrote was divinely inspired. We can see why Matt Slick was at least honest in confessing this, I hope other Christians follow in Matt Slick’s footsteps.

Please also visit :

Rebuttal Section:

Christian wrote:


What are you talking about. Bart Ehrman dismmises the notion the Early church fathers, knew which desciples of Jesus wrote the four gospels.

Read for example

Tertullian, of course, would have no way of knowing who actually wrote these two Gospels.  He is simply repeating the tradition he learned when he converted, that Mark represents Peter’s views and Luke Paul’s.  By his time this was the accepted view, and it continued to be the accepted view until the modern era.


Sure you can say, that the gospel writers may have known the early disciples, but of course this doesn’t necessarily mean it’s true. They have  perhaps heard from them without meeting them. For example,

If you read the opening chapter of luke.

It writes:

1 Many have undertaken to draw up an account of the things that have been fulfilled[a] among us, 2 just as they were handed down to us by those who from the first(B) were eyewitnesses(C) and servants of the word.(D) 3 With this in mind, since I myself have carefully investigated everything from the beginning, I too decided to write an orderly account(E) for you, most excellent(F) Theophilus,(G) 4 so that you may know the certainty of the things you have been taught.(H)

If you notice the person who wrote lukes gospel, was not a eye witness himself. Meaning he was not a disciple of Jesus himself.

Notice it says, early disciples wrote an account, and those accounts were handed down. But then this begs the question, why did luke write his own account to add to the account? This shows all the luke repeats some of the early things handed down to him by early disciples, his not satisfied so he continues to write and add to the account.

So what we have is, perhaps the gospel of luke which has partially the accounts of early disciples who were Jesus descipled. Mixed with the accounts of people like Luke who weren’t exactly an eye witness or a disciple of Jesus.

Related link:

Our Authentic Islamic Hadiths are more reliable then the Gospel.


Does the Quran approve the Bible? Vs Does Christians approve the Bible?

Last Update: 26th June 2021

■ New updates, Responding to Answering-Islam blog

■ New updates, Responding to Allah protecting & guarding the Bible.

■ New updates, Proof Bible scribes forgot to add verses to the Bible!

By: Mustafa Sahin

Christian missionaries use several Quranic verses like (Sureh 2:87, 5:46, 3:3, 10:64) and other similar verses, to prove that the Bible can not be corrupted. They misinterpret the verses of the Quran and Hadith to show that the Gospel is truth and light and guide for humanity whereas Muslims are even requested to Judge by it. They even claim the Islamic sources speak about Biblical Preservation.

These misinterpreted verses have been refuted here;


But here are some useful points to counter their arguments and expose how this arguement can be used against them.

Point 1: Muslims don’t claim  Everything in the bible is distorted.

No Muslim who understands the Quran or Hadith claim everything within of the Previous Scripture (i.e) verses of both the Old Testament or the New Testament is altered or corrupted. The Muslim & Quranic/Hadith position is like that of the Christians concerning the Bible. Christians themselves believe there are “Un-Authentic” narrations or verses among the many ” Truthful Statements” in the Bible. So for example, Christian Apologists like Dr James White and David Wood and many other more prominent Biblical Scholars agree that there are ” Un-Authentic” additions to the Bible. So Both Muslims and Christians attest that the Bible has been contaminated. All through the Quran speaks that there is truth and light and guidance for Humanity concerning the Bible. The Islamic Sources also testify there are contaminations within the Text, please visit the link below to see examples:

Proof: http://www.call-to-monotheism.com/evidence_that_islam_teaches_that_there_was_textual_corruption_of_the_christian_and_jewish_scriptures

Point 2: ” If the Bible is error-free, then why do Christians dismiss certain verses”?

If Christians want to assert that the Quran does not assert the Bible is contaminated with false information. Then why do Christian Apologists and Scholars themselves attest that there are ” Un-Authentic verses attached to today’s New Testament? So it is clear that Christians are not even consistent with their arguments. Why then do Christians not accept everything as Canonical inspired and Authentic?

For instance, have a look at this:

Christian Apologist “David Wood,” says; Every Scholar in the World agrees with the last part of Mark’s Gospel as being” Un -Authentic” Proof: Forward to (3 Minute 42 seconds).
Watch: https://youtu.be/Uko0Saf-orQgg

It is now evidently clear that both Muslims and Christians agree ” Not Everything in the Bible is authentically Reliable. So if Christians want to accuse Muslims of misinterpreting the Quran for speaking corruption of the Bible, why then do Christians attest to fabrications and alterations in the Bible? Now even if a Christian suggests, that they know exactly where the changes are, therefore they can remove corruption, and affirm the Bible as a preserved book, they still have issues because Christians don’t just have interpolated issues, but also canonical differences between Christian denominations that are not agreed upon.

This will be discussed further…..down below.

Point 3:   “The Quran itself is a guide”

More cherry picking inconsistency by Christians. They go to the Quran to tell us that the Quran says the Bible is a Guide. And Muslims & Christians are commanded to Judge by the Bible.
However, they leave out the part where Allah also says: The Quran itself is a guide, let’s read:

“The month of Ramadhan [is that] in which was revealed the Qur’an,  A GUIDANCE for the people and clear proofs of guidance and criterion. So whoever sights [the new moon of] the month, let him fast it; and whoever is ill or on a journey – then an equal number of other days. Allah intends for you ease and does not intend for you hardship and [wants] for you to complete the period and to glorify Allah for that [to] which He has guided you, and perhaps you will be grateful”. (Quran 2:185)

Notice the Quran all although mentions parts of the bible i.e ( Un-Distrorederd parts) are a guide or a light in other verses of the Quran, it however does the same with the Quran in the verse above. So why do Christians cherry-pick by appealing to the Quran, to prove the authenticity of the Bible but leave out the verse in the Quran, that says the Quran is also a guide?

Let’s read; Al-Bukhari Hadith 4.658 Narrated by Abu Huraira Allah’s Messenger (saws) said “How will you be when the son of Mary (i.e) Jesus (a.s.) descends amongst you and he will judge people by the Law of the Qur’an and not by the law of Gospel. So Christians cherry-picking is not a good idea. When Both the Quran and Hadith attest that it is also agguidancguidance Jesus will judge by the Quran and not the Bible. So why do Christians accept the part that the Bible has guidance but reject the very same verses in the Quran that say the Quran is guidance also.

Now a Christian may claim, why does Jesus in the Islamic version not Judge by the Bible but only the Quran? isn’t that a double standard since Allah claims both the Quran and the Injeel bible is light and guidance?

My response would be. No not really, I mean think of it this way, Christians claim both the Old Testament and the New Testament are from Yahweh God right? Despite this Christians of today claim, they are only to be judged by the New Testament, though Christians still believe the Old Testament is inspired. So I can’t see why they would then have issues of Jesus of the Islamic version using the Quran instead of the Bible.


Point 4:  “Judge by the Bible”?

Since Christians appeal to the Quranic verses to prove that, we are commanded to Judge by the Bible. How come Christians do not also full fill this condition and judge by the Previous Scripture. For example, does it then include the Bible Gnostic Apocalypse of Peter?
Do these ancient texts claim Jesus was not Crucified rather substituted on the Cross similar to what the Quran claims. Read here for yourself:


Notice Christians reject Certain Christian writings and deem them Apocryphal. Different Christian religious sects have different amounts of books among themselves. So why then do they not judge by everything and instead dictate to Muslims what “is” inspired and what is “not” inspired?

So notice the Christians are guilty of what they accuse Muslims of. If the Christians can selectively “choose” what is part of revelation. Then why are the Muslims condemned for doing the same by filtering out what they believe is the only authentic verses within the Bible? So according to the Christians,  Muslims are supposed to go look at the Bible for Judgement but not just any Bible. It has to be a Bible version that only specifically agrees to the Christians narrative. Isn’t that convenient? 

So notice the Double standards. They accuse Muslims that they should judge by the previous scripture and accept it, as the Quran commands. Yet Christians themselves do not judge by everything and reject certain bibles and certain passages of the Bible and deem it ” Un-Authentic”, and force Muslims to concede to their particular version of the Bible what they think is Authentic.

So Christians are guilty of the same thing by telling Muslims to listen to their bogus interpretation of the Quran and to judge by everything of the previous book sent down, yet they don’t listen to the very Quran they interprete by rejecting Bibles of the past by deeming them Apocryphal or Non-Authentic and trying to pick out the Correct Bible for both Muslims and  Christians to judge by. Sorry but that is just hypocritical and convenient and no different from accusing the Muslim of claiming not all Bibles or verses of the Bible are accurate. When a Muslim tries to also figure out what verses are accurate he gets ridiculed, Yet the Christian can pick out what he pleases as Authentic. Hypocritical.


Some of those Bibles those Christians reject may include;
-Shepherd of Hermes
-Epistle of Barnabas
-Apocryphal Gnostic Apocalypse of Peter

In addition, Christian Scholars tell us more than (30 verses) were deleted from the NIV version bible which is still found in the KJV Bible. They are either completely removed from the page, or moved to the footnote, just as a historical reference, but their inspiration is disputed since they don’t exist in the earliest ancient manuscripts.

It is then clear that when Muslims or Christians are told to judge by the Gospel it is only to Judge by the authentic parts and not ALL of it. And Since the Quran does not define the exact truthful amount of books in the previous Scripture such as the 27 Books in the New Testament. Then Christians have no right in forcing  Muslims to what their standards of authentic books are For all, I care the many Gnostic could be Authentic as well. And so could the verses Christians dismiss from their bible, and since the Quran does not outline what exactly is the ” Authentic ” Canon” or the Authentic verses, then this is an open field day for all parties for both Muslims and Christians. The Christians claim to have a position of working out “Authenticity”, they try and rely on the Most Earliest ancient manuscripts. We have dealt with this arguement here, that when Christians claim they can fix the errors in the Bible by referring to the earliest material, See:


Also, referring to the Earliest is not always a good idea. Because it can still be early and Un-Authentic read ( Galatians 1:4-8) Where Paul admitted there were false books and scribes as early as (50 A.D) and Paul insisted his Disciples turn away from those scribes. A Christian can try and be clever here by saying Paul didn’t consider those other books to be other bibles, therefore there weren’t any other bibles back then. However this is incorrect, when Paul dismissed it, it didn’t mean those other early scribes did not exist or that their documents did not exist as their version of the Bible, if they didn’t exist then why would Paul say turn away from them? They did exist, and Paul did not want them considered to be a bible because Paul disagreed with them, thus this does not mean other bibles did not exist, they were just false ones according to Paul, thus proving early documents even in Paul’s time can be wrong, so what makes you think if something is written early means it’s correct? It isn’t according to the biblical premise!

The Muslims on the other hand take the approach with what agrees to the Quran or not in contradiction to it, as the safer option. Now a Christian may look at this and frankly assert that is absurd. But then again these are the same Christians who want Muslims to appeal to the Quran for validation of the Bible, interesting Hey?

Point 5: “The Double standards”

Christians tell Muslims that the Quran is corrupted. And that Allah is a different God than the Bible they even say; an evil spirit demon gave the Quran to Prophet Muhammed in a cave. Yet the same Christians say Allah in the Quran, says He gave Christians the Bible as Truth and Guidance and a Light”. Now how can Satan who is Allah give Christians a Bible which is light and guidance? Makes no sense now does it?

If Christians say, no we don’t just say ALL of the Quran was from a Demon, But it also contains plagiarization copying the Bible. Well, this brings up more difficulties for the Christian. Why? Because if Christians appeal to the Quran, where Allah tells Christians he sent them the Bible? Then how can this be plagerization? Since both the Quran and bible (Truth parts of the Bible) come from the same source that being ( The preserved Tablet in heaven) which is from Allah! Therefore plagiarization arguement does not stand, so the Christians have to now submit to the original arguement that all of the Quran is from Satan, and if this is the case, then again how can Satan say in the Quran, the gospel is “truth and a light”? Why would Satan confess this? Satan will only say the Bible is truth and light, if it’s a False bible, therefore when Christians appeal to the Quran and say it speaks that the Bible is truth and light, yet claim the Quran is from Satan is an illogical fallacy, thus the best explanation is, that “yes” the Quran is not from Satan, nor copied, and both the Quran and only the truthful parts of the Bible that have survived distortions are the Truth and the light!

Point 6: “The Inconsistency” Muslims to refer to the Quran, that approves the Bible?

Inconsistency to call the Quran not a Reliable Historical Source? The Christians say that the Quran is not a credible historical source of information.


Now that begs the Question? If the Quran is not a reliable source of information why then do Christians refer to the Quran and tell Muslims to also refer to the Quran that “approves” Qur’anic “verification of the Bible? You can’t have it both ways. You can’t say the Quran is a false book yet at the same time claim it’s a reliable source of information for saying the Bible is light and guidance. If the Quran is not a reliable source since it was transmitted many years later after the Bible, why then do Christians tell Muslims even your Quran approves it? If the Quran is not reliable then that would mean, the verse in the Quran regarding the Bible being truth and right side is also unreliable. See we Muslims do not claim everything written in the Bible is Falsewhwhere ChriChristians the Quran! they go to the extent of saying the Quran is from a Demon yet use the work of a Demon to approve the Bible. Interesting!

So is the Quran a Historically true and accurate testification of the truth of the Bible? If the answer is “No” then you are asserting the Quran lied about the Bible being a guide and light. If your answer is ” Yes” then you ought to agree the rest of the Quran is true as well. You can’t simply “cherry pick”

A Christian may claim why do Muslims “cherry-pick” from the bible, well that’s simple. That’s because “We can” since we don’t claim it’s all distorted, however, Christians claim the Quran is demon inspired!

Point 7: ” Did Allah send the Gospel which is the whole New Testament and much of the Bible forgotten according to the Quran”? Also, there are Christians who appeal and also misquote Hadith or Qur’anic verses about “The Protection” of the Injeel or the Bible”?

The Christians show more inconsistency when they reference the Quran out of context. They will bring verses like the Quran says we will preserve the Injeel. However, this is talking about the “preserved tablet in heaven” (al-law al-Mahfouz) https://islamqa.info/en/answers/7002/what-is-al-lawh-al-mahfooz

So the original copy of the Injeel in heaven “Yes that will remain unchanged” however the copy sent to earth, Allah may have preserved the Bible only during the “ministry of Jesus” Christ while on earth.

“A Christian may argue and say, they don’t believe a Bible or (complete Injeel) existed during Jesus ministry”

However,r this can be easily disproven because as you know today’s New Testament are only copies of the words Jesus spoke or his companions. And that originals of the (Injeel) ought to have existed in the 1st Century which we dont have today just fragmented copies, so once Jesus left the earth the Injeel or Gospel full-filled its duty making way for the Quran so Allah may have then “lifted the protection” which may explain why the copies we have are not fully reliable as we can not compare them to originals since we don’t have them. Christian Apologists till today try extremely hard to try and date their manuscripts to the 1st century, and they continue to fail in disappointment, as almost all of their carbon dating comes in the 2nd and 3rd Centuries after Jesus. Now isn’t that interesting! The same Christians who try to dismiss the evidence of an earlier original, are usually the ones trying to assume an earlier date for the manuscripts they have to 1st century now is that interesting. And of course therefore biblical scholars who even entertain the idea of the Gospel Q which the claim ought to have existed: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Q_source

We also have Wallace a Christian Scholar of N.T who argues there was an “original bible” that has “disappeared” see:

The fact is there is not a single verse in the Quran or Hadeeth that says the Gospel will be protected or guarded “forever” in the earthly abode. Rather it was only a temporary guard during Jesus’ ministry since it didn’t matter for it to remain preserved as the Quran was coming way as the last final revelation. 

Another great explanation can be found here:


Islamic sources and Tafsir, explain that Allah may have only “preserved” the important parts of the message, such as the “coming of the Prophet Muhammed”, and the essential message like Tawheed in the Bible, like the “ones” of God, and things like the 10 commandments.

“Now a Christian may say, that’s just absurd!”

However, I find this interesting because, whenever Muslims point out Interpolation in the Bible, or corruption in the Bible, referring to Biblical variances, Christians often say, well it “doesn’t matter” if the Bible has “Textural variances” and they point out, the “errors” in the Bible dont matter, and what matters is that the central message of Christianity is still preserved and the textural variances of the Bible dont effect that central message. Well then if Christians can make that justification for the preservation of the Bible, Muslims can equally say; there is no contradiction when Allah says, He will guard the Bible, and this doesn’t mean ALL of the Bible, and rather that He will “only” preserve and guard the central message.

Now here is another Hilarious point, Christians misinterpret the Quran and keep insisting that Allah promised to guard and protect the earthly Bible,  yet these Christians “believe” Allah is a Devil, and the Quran, was revealed to Muhammed in a Cave by a Demon. So this would mean, the Devil inspired the Quran. So my question is, if Allah is a Devil, and if the Quran was inspired by a Demon, did now a Demon who authored the Quran promise that He will guard and protect the Bible? Interesting Hey?

As Christian Apologist; “Dr James white” says; Inconsistency is the “sign” of a failed arguement”.

Furthermore: “Christians say, well why did Allah fail to preserve the earthly Injeel bible”?

Im was sure if Christians lost everything in the O.T Bible they wouldn’t care much and say well we have the New Testament which is the latest information for us to follow, hence I would argue the same for the Quran, as the last and most latest source to follow and it wouldn’t matter if the New Testament hasn’t been preserved. After all, even though Christians have the O.T they don’t use it much and say only the New Testament applies to them.

This gets more clear when Allah says in the” (Quran 5:13-14)….. “much of the Injeel” (Gospel) has been “forgotten”.

So notice how can Christians Quote the Quran believing the Quran speaks of the preservation of the Original Bible yet leave out the verse where the Quran says much of it has been “forgotten”.

The verse is clear read: 5:13

Sahih International: So for their breaking of the covenant We cursed them and made their hearts hard. They distort words from their [proper] usages and have forgotten a portion of that of which they were reminded. And you will still observe deceit among them, except a few of them. But pardon them and overlook [their misdeeds]. Indeed, Allah loves the doers of good.

As you can read, the jews distorted the book, and so Allah cursed them. And then he made the jews forget a portion. Meaning He took (parts) of the original book away from them as a punishment by causing them to forget it.

Continue reading:
Verse 5:14

Sahih International: And from those who say, “We are Christians” We took their covenant, but they forgot a portion of that of which they were reminded. So We caused among them animosity and hatred until the Day of Resurrection. And Allah is going to inform them about what they used to do.

Notice again, Allah did this because they brock his covenant.
Notice it says they have forgotten a portion of what was reminded that being verses to do with the covenant.
It’s clear, that the Torah and the Injeel were not preserved with them in their entirety for they have become cursed for playing with God’s revelation for distorting it.
Ask yourself, why was a portion of the revelation caused to be forgotten? If God was trying to preserve it through their scribes?
And also, why is Allah cursing them till the day of judgment despite as these missionaries claim Allah preserved the previous scripture with them. Are we to suggest Allah preserved a book with the Jews and Christians whom He cursed? So on one hand Allah has cursed them till the day of resurrection while at the same time blessed them with a preserved book? Doesn’t make sense now does it?

Furthermore; the earliest copies of the New Testament from the Original manuscripts come from E to 240 CE. Thats almost 100 years after Jesus. Therefore a lot can be forgotten from what was contained in these Original Bible we don’t have today just copies written later on. The Copies we have of today’s new Testament word for word, chapters and verses can not be compared to an original. Because we dont have originals or a complete original of the New Testament within the 1st century. So every that that ng ame in the (Second centuries are only believed thats what the originals may have said. There is very little tangible evidence of this only maybe a few letters of certain passages of the N.T and not everything within the 1st century.  And even the dating of these letters are disputed, and there is no real evidence there dating are 1st-century documents,  nevertheless, the point is, Christians can not even cross-reference their second-century Manuscripts with 1st-century ones, because 1st-century documents are not available and as Christian Scholar Pro. Bart Ehrman says, how do we know if the 2nd2nd-centuries are correct if we don’t have the originals to verify that the copies are correct or in line with the originals, since the earlier we go the more mistakes we find when we try and reconstruct an original:

See here: Re-construct with confidence 98% of the Original? Watch Ehrman Vs Wallace: from (Minute: 1.30.21) Go then again to (minute 1.56.07) onwards, and Bart Ehrman, shows can trust something 97%? Accurate?

Also here is a video, demonstrating the problem of not having an “original Bible available” and how Christians are left confused on the text of the Bible on what it said, due to the variances. Christians believe that they can correct the Biblical Errors by referring to the Oldest Manuscripts of the New Testament, however, this falls flat on its face take a read here:


To further prove that verses have been “forgotten”, as the Quran suggests. The New Testament says it is “WRITTEN” in the Law of Moses Jesus will; “die and rise on the third day”. (Luke 24:44-46)

I request Christians to bring us these explicit words: “Rise after the third day” from the Law of Moses, and not half the Prophecy like; “He will die and rise”. Christians can never show this explicit part; ” rise after Three Days” in the Law of Moses. So notice this is evident Proof they have forgotten to write this explicit statement. All they have is; He will die and rise, but no mention of “Rise after the third day”. It’s nowhere to be found in the Old Testament, yet Luke claims that exact statement word for word, was written there. However when we look in the Old Testament, or the law of Moses, books the statement is not there, this goes to show, either Luke made a false error in assuming it was written like the way, He said it was. Or that, it was there or was supposed to be in there, but the scribes “forgot to put them in there”. Again for me, it’s not important because as a Muslim I don’t believe in the Christian narrative about Jesus being crucified, however, I’m just demonstrating that scribes have forgotten to put a lot of things in the Bible, and this is just an example of that.

See my video here, where I continue to respond to a Christian; “He asks where is this Injeel”?

Furthermore, Christians can not prove the correct “preserved Canon” of the Bible today. They don’t have a unanimous agreement on it between the Protestants, Catholics and Greek Orthodox. If they had an Original they would have all agreed.

Here is a link showing different amount of Books accepted in one denomination compared to another Christian denomination:

So when the Christians say the Quran says it preserved. They need to be able to show which Bible Canon. Simply Quoting the Quran and not being able to prove which Canon is Preserved defies the whole purpose of appealing to the Quran. And even if you claim you have a Preserved Canon Bible its still subjective as other Christians’ Denominations differ from what you believe is Preserved Canon agreed on Books. An example from unveiling Christianity web site:

73 Catholic Canon Books

63 Protestant Canon Book

Both Can not be Right.

It is thus clear, Allah was correct in saying, much of the Injeel (Bible) has been caused to be forgotten (Quran 5:13-14) the Christians though they have parts of the Bible that have truth and light and some guidance for mankind, a lot of it has been slipped away from them.  And of course, we have explained already why Allah would allow such a thing so important like that to slip away, well perhaps because of their sins, so Allah partially took guidance away from them, and secondly because the Quran was going to make way, but if this is still difficult for a Christian to understand why God would do such things, a Christian would then need to then explain, why would Yahweh also allow the Quran to come which according to Christians allowed the misguidance of so many Muslims away from the Bible and allowed confusion like this? Even if Christians say that wasn’t Yahway who did that, rather it was satan, that still begs the question of why would Yahway allow Satan to cause such confusion like that. But then again the same Christians tell Muslims to refer to the Quran for the truth of the Bible. Interesting! See we can play the same Questioning with Christian Yahway God of the universe.

Point 8: ” Why do Christians filter and dismiss verses, we can play the same”

If Allah in the Quran tells us Muslims to follow ALL the accounts of the Bible why do Christian Scholars filter out what they believed was the Authentic parts of the Bible? And remove what they believe is ” Un-Authentic? If Christians can filter the bible what makes you think Muslims can not? Thus proving that not everything is “Authentic”.

So Yes! Muslims in being consistent can refer to Prophet Muhammed (Pbuh) being in the Bible, for example, this is not being hypocritical at all since Muslims do not say “everything” is corrupt. But you Christians say ” ALL the Quran was given to Muhammed by Satan in a Cave that being ALL the Quran is corrupt” yet you Christians say this Satan’s book ( Quran) approves the Bible. So a Corrupt evil Book like the Quran is used to affirm the Truth of the Bible? How so?

These Hypocritical Christians, tell Muslims that Allah says ” Everything in the Bible is Authentic! yet the Christians tell us their Bible has verses in there that are not Authentic! and removed a lot of verses that they felt was not part of what they believe was not closer to the original Bible. Amazing isn’t it?

We can play the same game on the Christians. The Christians have to accept the Gnostic Bibles and Unite on a Biblical Canon! because the Quran said to confirm them ALL. If they don’t accept this. Then how can they expect us to follow their version of the Bible? If they reject bibles and verses within the New Testament and disagree on the Canon of the Bible, then that validates Muslims to do the same! Plain and simple!

I guess no Christian would accept that premise, so why do they expect Muslims or the Quran to accept their version of the Canon that is according to their denomination? Interesting that the protestants will then tell Muslims to stay away from the Catholic Canon which differs from the Protestant Canon, but hey Allah told Muslims what the Christians have today is preserved and authentic, yet Christians can’t tell us which one! And it all depends on their subjective opinion depending on which Christian denomination they belong to.

Point 9:  “Counter Rebuttal to some of my points”

Rebuttal Section can be found on YouTube in Audio:

1st counter Rebuttal: (Responding to Sam Shamoun of Answering-Islam)

2nd Counter Rebuttal (to a random online Christian Apologist)

3rd Counter Rebuttal: (Responding to Sam Shamoun of Answering-Islam)

slam Blog).

4th Counter Rebuttal: (Responding to Sam Shamoun of Answering-Islam) his article can be found here:


My Response:

As I expected Sam Shamoun didn’t deal with my arguments. All He did was, switch the subject to “The Preservation of the Quran”. The Preservation of the Quran is not the subject here. The Subject is, does the Quran confirm the Bible, and we counter the arguement Christians make that the Quran claims the Bible to be true in its complete form. That is why I have pointed out the flaws of the Bible. Because Christians try and use the Quran to validate the truth of the Bible. So Sam Shamoun trying to prove that the Quran preservation is false doesn’t validate your bible on the flip side it makes it much worse for Him, for bringing up Qur’anic Corruption claims because in doing so, invalidating the Quran. Funny that his attempting to invalidate the Quran, yet trying to use the same Corrupt Quran to approve that the Bible is true. See how silly He just made himself look? If the Quran is Corrupt all of it as you Christians claim, then why would Christians use the Quran as a historical valid document to prove the Bible is correct? Christians say, a Demon authored the Quran, so I ask how can a Demon who wrote the Quran, tell Christians the Gospel is truth and light? So this desperate Apologist, instead of dealing with all my arguments instead tries to throw mud on Islam. News flash for you my arguments are still valid, and Sam has failed to deal with them.

His old arguments have been refuted at the following link:



Point 10: ” Clear evidence of Bible corruption”

Now see for yourself Evidence of the Corruption tampering within the Bible Christian Apologist like Jay Smith admits  and say’s “We Know the Bible has been changed, and We know where those changes have been made:

See video:

See also how we have demonstrated that not only has there been “corruption” of how many books are to be part of the original Biblical  Canon, but even within the New Testament Text, there are clear signs of distorting words, and interpretations, interpolations, and textural variances, in adding words to the latter gospels and shifting around words, to force a theology about Jesus, Salvation, Divinity, crucifixion and so on:

See: https://mustafasahin33.wordpress.com/2016/08/20/proof-how-christology-evolved-in-the-four-gospels/






Point 11: “Today’s New Testament is the same Bible in Muhammad’s time?

Sam Shamoun asks, is today’s New Testament the same as the one in Muhammed’s time?

Christians hold today’s bible and say this is the Bible that is the same one in Muhammed’s time. Yet the same Bible they hold they admit has fraudulent verses in there like the last 10 verses of Mark Gospel.

Did those 10 verses of Mark’s Gospel exist in the Bible in Muhammed’s time? The answer is also “Yes”. Since those verses pre-exist Prophet  Muhammed according to the dating of those late Manuscripts.

Therefore even in Muhammad’s time, Yes there was a bible. But was it fraudulent free? The answer ought to be No. Unless Christians assume the ending of Mark was not there in Muhammed’s time. However, they can’t do that since again those manuscripts predated Prophet Muhammed (Pbuh) Therefore the Christians fail to prove a point to show, what existed in Prophet Muhammad’s time was fraudulent free. When the historical records show otherwise.


I like to ask Sam Shamoun since the Codex Sinaiticus is a 4th century Bible that predates Muhammed. It contains 29 books of the New Testament instead of 27 books. So this would mean in Muhammed’s time there was Codex Sinaiticus that had 29 books. So why doesn’t today’s Protestant canon of 27 books of the New Testament agree with the Bible in Muhammed’s time?  According to Sam Shamoun God only inspired 27 books of N.T? So in Muhammed’s time, they didn’t have the preserved right canon. It had forgery even back then of 2 extra books. Ouch!

So No Sam Shamoun even “in” or “before” Prophet Muhammed (pbuh) time, you had verient Bibles that had a different amount of Books in a canon, and there was not one canon identically the same that was in agreement to today’s accepted Canon.

Point 12:   ” Allah’s Words Do Not Change”

Christians missionaries like Sam Shamoun will say; Surah 6:115 and 18:27 state that no one can change the words of Allah. The Torah and Gospel were the words of Allah. Since they couldn’t have changed that means that Islam testifies to the incorruptibility of the text of the Bible.

Bassam Zawadi already deals with that here: https://www.call-to-monotheism.com/refuting_the_argument_regarding_allah_s_words_do_not_change

And So has Dr Shabir Aly also refuted this:

In these articles, we see that Allah does not say the Torah and Injeel specifying them can’t change. Rather He said Word. Word doesn’t have to imply the previous revelation rather it could mean, His decree as outlined in the sources provided in the links above, also it could be talking about the preserved tablet in heaven that cannot change, which both the copies of the original Injeel and Torah come from. So what is on the earth could change such as previous scripture but not the preserved tablet in heaven the master original, of the Quran the last book which Allah said, it will be guarded against corruption.

I would also like to ask Christian Apologists, Like Sam Shamoun if they believe that Allah’s word can not change in the way they understand it when referring to the Bible, then why does Sam Shamoun in the second part of his response found here: https://answeringislamblog.wordpress.com/2018/09/01/the-quranic-affirmation-of-the-holy-bible-revisited-pt-2/

Demand that Allah’s word “can change” in Qur’anic manuscripts? It seems Sam Shamoun is not even being consistent with his arguement. “FacePalm” moment.

Point 13: ” Christians like Sam Shamoun use Surah 61.14 “To Prove that Allah says the Christians will be Victoria’s which includes the Protection of their Bible.

However, being Victoria’s has nothing to do with the preservation of their Bible, see:


Please also visit this video by Ijaz Ahmed who Refutes more Hadith brought up by Christians about Quran confirmation of the Bible:

Some funny back and forth, Christian wrote:

My Response;

If you are in doubt?

Ask the People of the Scripture if you are “found in it”?