Dr. Adel Elsaie's Book, "History of Truth, The Truth about God and Religions" http://www.usislam.org/01pref.htm

A review.

By

Dallas M. Roark, Ph.D

I will begin with the Preface and work through the chapters as they appear. The divisions will be clearly marked.

Dr. Elsaie claims that he started his search for truth with total objectivity. "Humans have choices to select a religion, but they cannot control the consequences of their choices. Consequently, I started my search with an open mind and a total objectivity." (Preface)http://www.usislam.org/01pref.htm The most influential books listed was that of "God and the modern sciences written by Dr. Abdel-Razek Nofal." This writer is a Muslim.

He wrote: "I excluded Judaism since it is not a universal religion and not just anyone can be Jewish. It is hard to believe that God, the Ultimate Just, has chosen only about 15 millions Jews as His people at the present time, and the 6 billion gentiles on Earth have no chance for salvation."

My reply: As a matter of fact anyone can become Jewish. There is a way to convert. The whole world could be converted to Judaism if it desired to. This is a great misunderstanding. One wonders if the Islamic history about the Jews rejecting Mohammed underscores this reasoning. Such a comment as this makes me suspicious of the work from the beginning. The writer seem ignorant of the promise in the Bible that God would bless the world through the Jews in the person of the Messiah, Jesus, the Son of God.

He wrote: "A Muslim has to believe in Moses, his message, his miracles, as well as the Jewish and all other prophets."

My reply: So Moses was a prophet and there were Jewish prophets, but what are "all other prophets?" He does not answer. He continued: "This makes the original Judaism included in Islam." How would this be so? This sounds like it ought to work, but there is a world of difference between Judaism and Islam. In Islam there is only one prophet–Mohammed– so who are the other prophets? The message of the Old Testament (Judaism) is quite different from that of Mohammed. For example, jihad is emphatically required in the Qur'an. There is no jihad in the Old Testament in the Quranic sense. (See Is there Jihad in the OT? http://www.answering-
islam.org/authors/roark/jihad_ot.html-) Moreover, what Yahweh commanded and what Allah commanded are contradictory. If they were the same how could their commands have been forgotten and contradicted?

He wrote: "I had so many troubles with the Bible. My first problem was the eternal confusion of the mystery of the trinity. Is God one, or two, or three? My Christian friends told me that God is one. But there is a statement in the Bible that says that Jesus ascended to heaven and sat on the right hand side of God. This makes them two separate beings. I was told that they are two but they are one, and I just had to have faith." (Bold emphasis mine)

My reply: It does not seem that the writer has really been interested in the mystery of the Trinity. He advanced the statement that Jesus did not claim to be the son of God, rather Paul is blamed for that later, and then the Council of Nicea in 325 AD.

It is interesting that the author refers to the right hand side of God. This bothered him but he does not seem to check out its meaning. Where did the phrase come from? Who used it?

What does it mean?

It is a reference to Psalm 110:1 which was regarded by the Jews as a messianic reference to the coming Messiah. "The LORD said to my Lord, "Sit at my right side, until I make your enemies into a footstool for you." (CEV)

"One day when Jesus was speaking to the Pharisees in Jerusalem, He asked them what they believed concerning the identity of the Messiah. From whom would the Promised One be descended? They answered correctly that He would be the Son of David. But Jesus showed them that according to Psalm 110 (which they acknowledged to be messianic) the Messiah would also be David's Lord. How could He be David's Son and David's Lord at the same time? And how could David, the king, have someone who was his Lord on earth?

The answer of course was that the Messiah would be both God and Man. As God, He would be David's Lord. As Man, He would be David's Son. And Jesus Himself, combining in His Person both deity and humanity, was David's Master and David's Son.

It was the moment of truth for the Pharisees. Yet in spite of all the evidence, they were unwilling to acknowledge Jesus as the long-awaited Messiah:" (Believers' Bible Commentary )

The author claims that Jesus never said he was the son of God. One wonders what evidence means for the writer. In the context of this troubling verse we have the conversation between Jesus and the Pharisees. "But from now on the Son of Man will be seated at the right side of Almighty God." They all said, "Are you, then, the Son of God?" He answered them, "You say that I am." And they said, "We don't need any witnesses! We ourselves have heard what he said!" (Luke 22:69-71)

This is Jesus' claim to be the Son of God for in the minds of his enemies it was blasphemy for which they condemned him to die.

There are lots of references in the New Testament concerning the nature of Jesus as the Son of God. Not only did he claim it but it is directly acknowledged by the angel Gabriel, the shepherds, the wise men, holy people in the temple, through out the Gospels in his teaching and in his claims to be the Son of God. There are many passages in the New Testament that point to Him as the Son of God. These passages are given at Who is the Real Jesus? (http://answering-
islam.org/Authors/Roark/real_jesus.htm )

The author has claimed that it is the most important decision a person will make about religion. It does not appear that he has researched the issue as he intimates. His use of the New Testament appears superficial. If it is so important one wonders why he has so glibly rejected the Gospel message without really investigating it. Talking to a few Christian friends is not an investigation anymore than talking to a few Muslim believers gives you a thorough understanding of the Qur'an.
His second objection is that there are 4 versions in the Gospels about the death of Jesus.

He wrote: "Next, the last words of Jesus on the cross are very confusing. First, there are four different versions of the Gospels according to Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John. This raises major questions about the accuracy of recording a Holy Book. These verses are part of a Christian doctrine of divine inspiration. If God had inspired these four gospel writers, why did God inspire them to record different words? These verses are not just different words, but totally different concepts. It seems that the closest statement should be the one that Jesus said in his own Aramaic language:"

My reply: A few issues: First, inspiration does not mean sameness. If you had all the same words in the four gospels many would raise the question of collusion meaning that there are not really four different gospels, but one with four different names. This does not allow for the purpose of the gospels being written to 4 different audiences. Matthew wrote for the Jewish audience describing Jesus as fulfilling the Old Testament, Luke wrote to Theophilus, and John wrote to a more Greek audience. There was a diversity of purpose in writing.

There were a number of Qurans circulating after the death of Mohammed with contradictory information. This was a problem and an official Qur'an was commissioned and all the others destroyed. What does this do to inspiration? Did they destroy the wrong one? Or ones? This probably does not raise questions in the author's mind, or maybe he is not aware of it.

Now the author claims that there are different concepts, not just different words. However, there is really no big difference between "being abandoned" and "being forsaken."

The author does not elaborate on the difference, but makes the claim that it is so. The author has three alternatives: Jesus said it, Jesus did not say it, or the man on the cross was not Jesus.

The second one is out of consideration that Jesus did not say it. The third one is that someone other than Jesus said it. This is a favorite Muslim claim to deny that the crucifixion of Jesus really took place at all. This charges Yahweh with deception which is contrary to his character. On the other hand, Allah is the greatest of deceivers (3:54; compare 8:30). It was someone else who looked like Jesus. All the witnesses knew that Jesus was crucified. So we can look at the first one, in which Jesus claimed that God had abandoned or forsaken him.

The most simple explanation is that Jesus was mediating on Psalm 22:1. This was a messianic psalm. Jesus was often quoting the Old Testament which began with the temptation story of the Gospels. Three times he used the Old Testament to reply to Satan. On other occasions he read the Scripture in the synagogue and told them that it referred to Him. (Luke 4:21) He taught the following: "And the Father, who sent me, also testifies on my behalf. You have never heard his voice or seen his face, and you do not keep his message in your hearts, for you do not believe in the one whom he sent. You study the Scriptures, because you think that in them you will find eternal life. And these very Scriptures speak about me! Yet you are not willing to come to me in order to have life." (John 5:27-40)

One of the original objections related to the Trinity. "My first problem was the eternal confusion of the mystery of the trinity. Is God one, or two, or three? My Christian friends told me that God is one. But there is a statement in the Bible that says that Jesus ascended to heaven and sat on the right hand side of God. This makes them two separate beings. I was told that they are two but they are one, and I just had to have faith."

The author has emphasized the importance of a decision that affects one's eternal destiny, but at the same time seems to glibly write off the Trinity because it is a mystery. What seems important in deciding the issue is math: 1+1= 2. But what about another way of viewing math: 1x1=1 There is no attempt to understand the words of Jesus: "Do you not believe, Philip, that I am in the Father and the Father is in me? The words that I have spoken to you," Jesus said to his disciples, "do not come from me. The Father, who remains in me, does his own work. Believe me when I say that I am in the Father and the Father is in me. If not, believe because of the things I do." (John 14:10-11)

What about the words of Paul, "What we mean is that God was in Christ, offering peace and forgiveness to the people of this world. And he has given us the work of sharing his message about peace." (2 Cor. 5:19)

"Jesus replied: If anyone loves me, they will obey me. Then my Father will love them, and we will come to them and live in them. But anyone who doesn't love me, won't obey me. What they have heard me say doesn't really come from me, but from the Father who sent me. I have told you these things while I am still with you. But the Holy Spirit will come and help you, because the Father will send the Spirit to take my place. The Spirit will teach you everything and will remind you of what I said while I was with you." (John 14:23-26 CEV)

The impression is given that the Trinity was decided much later in Christian history at the Council of Nicea. The evidence for the Trinity leading to that doctrinal formulation is found in the New Testament. This is a common attempt by Muslim writers to ignore the New Testament and claim that the doctrines which Islam rejects are a late corruption by the church. Wrong!!! There would not have been a controversy to be solved if the New Testament had not been the basis of speaking about Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.

Muslims are inclined to impose meaning on the New Testament. Reference is commonly made to the gospel of John that the Holy Spirit, the Comforter is said to be Mohammed and a prophecy about Him. It is strange that the commission by Jesus to the disciples is to "go make disciples of all nations baptizing them in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit."

How strange that people should be baptized mixing the name of Father and Mohammed!! What a distortion of Scripture. This would have no meaning for the apostles.

There are a number of articles at http://www.answering-islam.org/Trinity/index.html Where one can read further on the issue from a Christian perspective.

He wrote: "Arab-speaking Christians and Muslims recognize Allah as the only name of God. Any Arab-speaking Christian, when asked about the name of God, would answer Allah! The English Old Testament starts with: "In the beginning, God created the heaven and earth." The Arabic Old Testament starts with: "In the beginning, Allah created the heaven and earth." The name of God throughout the Arabic Old and New Testament is Allah."

My reply: This is an attempt to find common ground. The same word does not have the same context. Allah in the Old and New Testaments has a different character than Allah of the Qur'an. The God of the Bible is one who seeks the sinner for restoration of fellowship. The God of the Qur'an is distant and hidden. Their characters are quite different in other ways. Allah of the Qur'an commands jihad against all but Muslims; Yahweh of the Bible comes in love seeking to save people from their sins. The original revelation was in Hebrew, not Arabic. Arabic translations came many centuries after the Hebrew and Greek documents of the New Testament.

For more of the differences see: http://www.answering-islam.org/lovesus.html

The writer says, "Moreover, some Christian may feel that the Quran has satanic origin, God forbid, because the Quran does not recognize the divine nature of Jesus (Pbuh). This is a false notion. Satan is rejected and accursed in many verses in the Quran. Also, Muslims have to seek the protection of God from Satan every time they recite the Quran."

My reply: The reasoning here seems interesting. First, we must look at the words of Jesus about Satan. Speaking to the religious leaders who claimed the heritage of Abraham, Jesus said,

"Your father is the devil, and you do exactly what he wants. He has always been a murderer and a liar. There is nothing truthful about him. He speaks on his own, and everything he says is a lie. Not only is he a liar himself, but he is also the father of all lies." (John 8:44)

As the father of lies he lies to people. What more deceptive practice could there be than to bring people to believe that Satan has not deceived them. The epistle of John anticipates the rejection of Jesus by Mohammed in these words: "Who is the liar but he who denies that Jesus is the Christ? This is the antichrist, he who denies the Father and the Son." (1 John 2:22) Mohammed denied the most basic issue in Christianity–the Son of God. If the character of Allah in the Bible is different from the character of Allah in the Quran, who is the real Allah? Who has been deceived?

Before turning to the first chapter, it should be noted that the sources listed for this book (http://www.usislam.org/102ref.htm) are mostly Muslim. Only one Christian book is listed by Josh McDowell, there are some books by Christians but they focus on creationism by Morris and Duane Gish. There is no Christian theology, no Christian apologetic, and when Christians are mentioned in the preface it is about Christian friends–who are not scholars. Most of the sources are Muslim and particularly Ahmad Deedat who was a deceptive debater for Islam.

Chapter I My Defense, what is yours?

The central theme of this chapter is a discussion of death and the merit of thinking about death as if one had only 15 minutes left. I found some interesting comments that seem ambiguous for a Muslim writer. I am not sure the author was aware of the implications against his view.

The first is: "People who encountered a near death situation tell us that their priorities changed drastically. They say that they started appreciating flowers, human relations, etc. Some even start thinking about God. The question is why should we have to wait for a near death experience to think or feel. And are we going to have a second chance of life or are we not going to have a chance at all."

My reply: The study of near death experiences has been basically an American study. Many of these people were from a Christian background. The fact is that they were admitted to "heaven" before returning to finish up their lives. What does this do for the Muslim doctrine that all non-
Muslims go to hell? Why is there jihad against non-Muslims if the near death experience has meaning and these "non-Muslims" go to heaven before the general resurrection?

The second is: "Some people are therefore programmed and brain washed to accept evolution as a fact, and the contrary evidence passes unnoticed. It is the arrogance of some scientists that prevents them from admitting that there is a possibility that they are wrong. Some scientists do not always base their conclusions on facts."

My reply: Ah, evidence and arrogance.... There is no better example of this than the Muslim ignoring the evidence for the crucifixion of Jesus. The arrogance of a man like Deedat calling it a cruci-fiction. All history up to the time of Mohammed was agreed that Jesus died on the cross. Mohammed claimed that a revelation from Allah reputed the crucifixion and no Muslim believes it now. Can it be that Mohammed was deceived by Satan? There are were Satanic verses in the Qur'an that had to be corrected. The last line "some scientists do not always base their conclusions on facts" applies equally to Mohammed as a prophet. The facts of history contradict him. We can raise again the matter of ignoring the facts at the end of the work when the author is blind to the facts of Mohammed's life. The claim of objectivity in the beginning of the book is tossed under the bus when the life of the prophet is considered. Muslims treated Mohammed like a Teflon prophet who cannot be allowed criticism.

The third is: "An additional reason leading to human's confusion is the failure of the men of religion to convince the masses that they are good examples to follow. The scandals and corruption of the TV Evangelists are a reason for people to think about the religious record of hypocrisy. When one religious leader is found to be a hypocrite, the unreasonable approach, of condemning all religions with hypocrisy, prevails. Moreover, people think that religious institutions have turned into a big show business. They observe religious programs on TV, where the host sings, cries, screams, and dances in a way that competes with the best actor in Hollywood. People have observed clergy support for murderous dictators. They know that people of the same religion have killed one another by the millions in war, with the clergy backing each side. People after that tend to condemn the religion itself and every one that tries to talk about religion."

My reply: All of this can apply as well to Islam and hypocrisy. What are the scandals and corruptions of Islam? Does it not bother the Muslim that Mohammed had a large number of wives when ordinary Muslims were limited to four? Mohammed taught that wives could be beaten, adulterers were to be stoned, the hand of thieves were to be cut off, he attacked and plundered the caravans. Mohammed called for the assassination of poets who composed sarcastic poems against him, he brought about the beheading of a Jewish tribe who disagreed. The number of Jewish men killed were between 600 and 900 depending on the source. Most wicked of all was the launch of a crusade against the rest of the world. Since the time of Mohammed it is estimated that 270 million people have been put to death by Islamic crusaders. (http://www.politicalislam.com/tears/pages/tears-of-jihad/) Where is the peaceful Islam? Mohammed turned a religious movement into big business with the jizya imposed on non-
Muslims. They discovered that it was more profitable to tax non-Muslims than to kill them. But even today jihadists who are faithful to Mohammed are willing to kill anyone who does not convert. Can it be really said that Mohammed is a good example to follow?

He wrote: "In the second century, the philosopher Praxeas promoted the idea that God, the father, and God, the son, were so completely unified that both the father and the son were crucified and died on the cross. "God is dead" became a slogan used by several theologians and philosophers."

My Reply: The view expressed about Praxeas is unclear. Seeberg's Textbook on the History of Doctrines, p. 167, vol. 1, says about Praxeas, "After that time the father was born and the Father suffered. Jesus Christ is proclaimed as the Father born, the Father suffering, God himself, the omnipotent Lord. Father and Son are therefore the same person."

Never in the Bible is there reference to the Father being born!! Why would the author search out some obscure writer who was condemned as a heretic by orthodox Christians, and then not even accurately quote him but misrepresent his ideas to mislead the readers into thinking that such thinking is true of all Christians?

Why not deal with Augustine's treatise On the Trinity? There is an Islamic minority called the Sufi's. Would he quote a Sufi to talk about orthodox Islam? Probably not, since they are generally rejected from main stream Islam.

Moreover, there is a disconnect between that sentence and the implication that the God is dead movement came out of it. The God is Dead movement arose in the last half of the 20th century and was connected with very liberal theologians who did not believe in miracles, the deity of Christ, and the resurrection. They had no connection with Praxeas and probably some of them may not even have heard of Praxeas.

1.1 The Law of Repetition

The author begins with a number of repetitions in the Qur'an and proceeds to draw a principle of repetition in the world of nature. He said, "This similarity or repetition in their design reveals that the Designer or Creator of these physical objects is the same, regardless of their size or function." Then he says, "Because atoms surrender to the Will of God and are in a constant act of worship, it follows that humans are born into this world with a pure and innocent condition. This also means that the basic nature of humans is righteously created, with no original sin inherited from Adam or Eve."

My reply: Do atoms have wills that they "surrender" to the will of God? One would ask if a stone has a will to surrender to laying on the ground? He concludes that innocent atoms is a prelude to innocent human beings with no original sin inherited. There is a stretch of analogy and reasoning here. Atoms don't have fathers and mothers. Atoms do not have a will, they cannot make decisions. Thus they can neither obey nor disobey. Therefore Atoms have no relation to sin, but humans do. The Muslims reject the idea of original sin. But they still die. The question has to be raised how innocent babies become selfish, demanding, growing up to be selfish people who if left to themselves will become tyrants at any level they can succeed. Why is this? If the doctrine of original sin was not known, it would have to be invented.

However, there is more in the Qur'an about original sin than Muslims admit.

Man is created impatient. "Verily, man is created impatient and miserly. When evil touches him, he is full of lamentations, But when good falls to his lot, he is niggardly, Except those who pray, Those who are constant in their Prayer; And those in whose wealth there is a known right–" Sura 70:19-24 (Sher Ali).

Man is created weak. "Allah doth wish to lighten your (difficulties): For man was created weak (in flesh)." Sura 4:28

Man inclines to evil. "Nor do I absolve my own self (of blame): the (human) soul is certainly prone to evil, unless my Lord do bestow His Mercy: but surely my Lord is Oft-forgiving, Most Merciful." Sura 12:53

The Quran explains that the reason why man has a natural tendency for evil is because Allah breathed wickedness into him! "By a Soul and Him who balanced it, And BREATHED INTO IT ITS WICKEDNESS and its piety," Sura 91:7-8 (Rodwell) Does this make Allah the Cause of evil in man?

Man is incapable of becoming pure in and of himself. "O ye who believe! follow not Satan's footsteps: if any will follow the footsteps of Satan, he will (but) command what is shameful and wrong: and were it not for the grace and mercy of Allah on you, not one of you would ever have been pure: but Allah doth purify whom He pleases: and Allah is One Who hears and knows (all things)." Sura 24:21

More information on original sin in Islam can be found here:

http://www.answering-islam.org/Responses/Osama/zawadi_original_sin.htm

The last issue in this chapter is the application of the law of repetition to civilizations. The older civilizations last longer than modern ones. What really is a civilization? I would question much of this as artificial, and in some cases wrong. For example, he claims that American civilization began in 1865. No reasons given. What happened in 1620 when the country began to be settled and the time between 1620 and 1865?

The concluding issue is this: "Duration of civilization decreases with time. The only exception to this Law is the Islamic Caliphate. Since the Muslims lost the Ottoman Caliphate, Islamic revival is growing in all Islamic countries, and Islam is the fastest growing religion in non-Islamic countries."

The principle of decreasing length of time is related to all other civilizations as a law but somehow Islam is not part of the principle. No mention is made of the nature of the growth of Islam either now or in the past.

One other issue relates to the question of the fast growing rate of Islam. Numbers do not equate with truth. The truth may be held by only a small number of people. If all Muslims believed that the word is flat that does not make it true. (See www.answering-
islam.org/Assumptions/moreisbetter.htm)

One last issue, the growth of religion. The implication is that Christian faith is not growing as fast as Islam. What is overlooked in statistics is the house church movement which is not counted, both in China and Muslim countries. The Muslims do not want to admit the house church movement in their countries.

Chapter 4 God

He wrote: "Contrary to the Christian doctrine that man is born sinner, Islam emphasizes that God forgave Adam, and every born baby on this Earth is pure, clean, and sinless. We do not inherit sins from anyone before us, not even Adam or Eve. This is what you would expect from a Just God. Why should we be punished for a crime that we did not commit, and we have nothing to do with it? In Islam, every newly born baby comes to this world with inherent submission to the One God. So if this baby were left alone without brainwashing him or her with atheistic or polytheistic ideas, he or she would grow up to be a Muslim. As man grows up, Allah provides him with a very special brain capable of discerning what is right and what is wrong."

"It is related from Abu Huraira that the Apostle of God said: "When God created Adam he stroked his back, and there fell from his back all the men whom he was creating from his descendants until the Day of Resurrection. And he placed before the eyes of each man of them a flash of light. Afterwards he brought them to Adam. Adam said: "O my Lord who are these?" He replied: "They are thy descendants." And he saw a man amongst them whose flash of light between his eyes astonished him. He said: "O my Lord, who is this? He replied: "David." Then he said: "O Lord, how long hast Thou fixed his life?" He replied: "Sixty years." Adam said: "My Lord increase it from my life by forty years" The Apostle of God said: "When the life of Adam was completed except for forty years, the angel of death came to him. And Adam said: "Are there not yet forty years of my life remaining?" He replied: "Didst thou not give them to thy son David?" Then Adam denied, and his descendants have denied, and Adam forgot and ate of the tree and his descendants have forgotten, and Adam sinned and his descendants have sinned." (Tirmidhi)

My reply: The reasoning here is questionable. On the one hand the Christian doctrine of original sin is rejected as well as mis-understood, but on the other hand what is affirmed has the same consequence as the doctrine of original sin. The last line affirms that Adam sinned and his descendants have sinned. Muslims do not escape the consequences of the sin of Adam. They die just as Adam did. Moreover, the hadith is non-historical, fraudelent.

God and Science:

He wrote: "Galileo was condemned by the Church for his scientific beliefs and was ordered in 1616 not to discuss Copernicanism either orally or in writing. Only in 1984 a papal commission acknowledged that the church was wrong, but it was not until 1992 that the church actually reversed its condemnation of Galileo. It took the Church about 4 centuries to admit that it was wrong."

My reply: Galileo became a cause celebre for many who want to criticize Christianity. The real problem as historians have noted is that Galileo made fun of the pope for being so slow to recognize the merit of his views and as a result Galileo suffered home detention, mild reproof, and died peaceable in his bed, all the while supported by a pension from the church.

This is hailed as a major obstacle to the progress of science. How did it go in the Muslim world? Galileo was not put to death, but there was the threat of death for any teacher of the natural sciences in the Muslim world. For more on this see: Science and Islam. http://answering-
islam.org/Authors/Roark/science_islam.htm

He wrote: "At present, in trying to deal with the enormous scientific and spiritual information that is available to us, it may help to abandon the above categorization of science and put the above three categories under a new name called Evidences of God! Or attach the Name of God to all branches of science such as physics of God, biology of God, etc. If we do that, the simplest physical law, biological and sociological phenomenon can then make sense. Asking questions about: who, why, and how can then have one answer, and one answer only....... If scientists make it their business to uncover some of God's Grand Design, humanity will enjoy a much greater scientific achievements, paralleled only to the great scientific advances that Islam inspired in the Middle Ages."

My reply: This proposal is a rehash of what took place in the early days of Islamic science. The madrases were schools limited to the study of the Qur'an, the hadiths, etc. and the foreign (natural) sciences were excluded from the curriculum. Result–very little advance in science apart from astronomy–needed for projecting hours of prayers, medicine–obvious need, and optics.

Arabic science was the most advanced in the world from the 8th to the 14th centuries. The Arabs had access to the Greek scientific heritage which was lost to the West after the fall of the Roman empire. The great works of Greece and other cultures were translated into Arabic. Along with this the Arabs borrowed the Hindu numeral system.

What happened to Muslim science?

A division was made between Islamic sciences and "foreign" science. Islamic sciences related to the Quran, the traditions of the Prophets (hadith), legal knowledge (fiqh), theology (kalam), poetry, and the Arabic language. Arithmetic was useful for dividing inheritances, astronomy was useful for prayer time computations, and there was a purpose for medicine. But beyond these areas Arabic science did not break through to the modern era of science. The author's proposal would send science back to the middle ages.

He wrote: "Muslims made great contributions in the fields of mathematics, astronomy, physics, botany, medicine etc. There is no numeral of greater significance than the zero, which came from the Arabic word "sifr" or empty."

My reply: This is more Muslim propaganda. The zero came from the Hindu's, not the Muslims.

He wrote: "During the 10th century, Cordoba, the largest city in Europe, was a center for Islamic learning. Its mosque, known as La Mezquita, was one of the largest in the Islamic world. Ibn Rushd (1126-98), born in Cordoba, known in Latin as Averroës, was a Spanish-Arab Islamic philosopher, jurist, and physician. He also studied theology, philosophy, and mathematics under the Arab philosopher Ibn Tufayl (1105? -85) and medicine under the Arab physician Avenzoar (1090-1162). The Caliph's library at Cordoba included 400,000 books."

My reply: There is too much that is not told in this claim for the advancement of Muslim science. For example, Averroes was free to pursue his work in philosophy only as long as he had royal protection. When that was withdrawn the emphasis on the "foreign sciences" was at risk. Averroes had to flee because of the local ulama who threatened his life. Later his books were burned by his co-religionists. So much for the freedom to pursue knowledge wherever it leads.

The author mentions a vast library in Cordoba. There were lots of libraries in the Muslim culture, but many of them attached to madrasas. Some of them had manuscripts of the natural sciences, but the main purpose of the madrasas was the promotion of Islam, not the natural sciences and philosophy.

He wrote: "The first university on earth, Al-Azhar (the resplendent) was established after the founding of Cairo itself in 969 AD. This university has an important effect upon the development of educational institutions in Europe."

My reply: This is a claim that does not take into consideration the differences between the concept of the university. Colleges (madrasas) were designed to promote religious studies, the Qur'an being the basic text. The author forgets, or overlooks, or is ignorant of the fact that "the study of the natural sciences and philosophy was banned in the Islamic colleges of the Middle East and that all such inquires were undertaken in carefully guarded private settings." Toby, The Rise of Early Modern Science, p. 227

In the madrasas a student memorized texts written by Muslims and when he had accomplished this he was awarded an ijazas, a certificate given by the teacher who tested his memorized text. In contrast the university in Europe developed a set curriculum that all students must meet and pass tests view by a community of faculty members. This allowed for universal standards rather than personal ones in the madrasas.

To conclude, the first university, Al-Azhar, was a university in name only, not a university in the sense of what arose in Europe.

He wrote: "Polytheism:" (http://www.usislam.org/43poly.htm) The author surveys Babylonian, Egyptian, Greek, Hindu, and Buddhism as examples of polytheism. There are a few comments in this survey that are unfounded and without documentation. He wrote: "The people of Canaan (near the Mediterranean Sea) were influenced by the myth of Ea (the god) and Marduk (the son of god). Later, Christianity adopted this concept of god and son of god into its doctrine."

My reply: The author gives no explanation on how a pagan polytheistic concept would enter a radically extreme monotheism as in Judaism and Christianity. One can trace the influences on Mohammed. He borrowed many things from the Jews, the Christians, the pagans, the Sebeans, and the Zoroastrians. The only original feature in Islam is that Mohammed claimed to be a prophet and that would not be so bad in itself it if were not connected to jihad against anyone denying his claim.

Second, he wrote, "It has been suggested that their original monotheistic belief came from Osiris, who was actually Enoch of the Old Testament, and Prophet Idris in Islam. Notice the similarity of the names Osiris and Idris."

My reply: Again, no evidence is offered, no citations, and no reasoning to warrant the comment. The author seeks to find relations where there are none. The Egyptian mythology of Osiris, and Isis, and Horus is a cyclical mythology related to the seasons of spring, summer, and winter in which thing come to life, live, and die and the cycle is repeated yearly. The resurrection of Jesus is not a repeatable event, it is a once for all time event entirely unrelated to the cycle of life in nature.

Third, he wrote, the most glaring comment is the open paragraph about the rise of polytheism. "According to Islamic traditions, the first idols on Earth were during the time of Noah (Pbuh i.e. Peace be upon him). Noah was the tenth grandson of Adam (Pbuh). The names of these idols were Wadd, Sawaa, Yaguth, Yauq, and Nasr."

My reply: The phrase "According to Islamic traditions" usually means there is no historical record of the claim. Islamic traditions are usually at odds with history. The claims set forth in the Qur'an with regard to people of the past are often without a firm basis. Check out the claims about Haman and the Pharoah here.	http://www.answering-islam.org/authors/katz/haman.html

Monotheism: There are a number of ideas that are objectionable in this section. Let's think about them together.

First, he wrote, "The Jews and Muslims find the Christian doctrines of the trinity and incarnation almost impious."

My reply:	Let's admit that Jews and Muslims reject these two ideas. Muslims are the real problem. The Qur'an admits that Scriptures given before are to be studied. The ideas requiring the concept of the Trinity are in the Bible, and the Incarnation is certainly there along with that doctrine hated by the Muslims, the crucifixion and resurrection.

If God has revealed Himself in terms of Father, Son and Holy Spirit, who are you to argue that He cannot do that. Who are you to argue that the Trinity cannot be? Who are you to argue that the Incarnation cannot take place? What is irrational about God taking on human form and expressing his love to his creation? More seriously, it is an insult to the Creator who has revealed his nature and Muslims are rejecting it. Who are you to argue that the finite must comprehend the infinite?

Second, he wrote, "One form of Christianity, Unitarianism, denies the doctrines of the Trinity, maintaining that God exists in One Being only."

My reply:	Christianity and Unitarianism together is an oxymoron. They don't belong in the same sentence. Unitarians began to reject the Trinity early in the history of the USA and have become so liberal that one is not required to believe in God to be a part of the group.

Third, he wrote, "From the middle of the second century to the end of the third century a succession of distinguished Christian teachers maintained the undivided unity of God...."A native of Libya, Arius studied at the theological school of Lucian of Antioch, where other supporters of the Arian's belief were also trained. Unitarians are generally close to the Jews and Muslims. They deny the doctrines of the Trinity, the delegated atonement, the deity of Jesus Christ, and the original sin."

My reply:	Arius believed more than Unitarians and Muslims believe about Jesus. Arius believed that the Logos was created and then created the world. Moreover, Arianism did not attribute a human soul to Christ. (Seeberg, Textbook of the History of Doctrine, pp.203-204) Thus when a Muslim contemplates the beauty of the world he is contemplating the handiwork of the Logos. The author might desire to revise this reference to Arius.

Fourth, he wrote, "These pagan gods are totally useless: they are powerless, and they cannot guide or protect humans. Instead, Muslims believe that Allah is the ultimate and unequaled reality:"

My reply:	How would a Unitarian view these words? I suspect that a Unitarian would look at the events relating to Allah of Mecca and conclude the same. The Unitarian would ask about the terrorists who came to Mecca and killed people, the rush of pilgrims in which lots of pious Muslims were trampled under foot and died. Where is the protection of Allah in delivering Sunnis from Shia in bombings of Mosques? And vise versa?

Fifth, he wrote, "We must not think of Him as a human having a son or a father, for that would be to import human qualities into our conception of Him."

My reply:	Surely Yahweh is God and there is no one like Him. But what has He told us about Himself. The Old Testament reveals many prophecies about the coming events. The Old Testament gives a basis for God taking to Himself human form (Isa 9:6) and dying a terrible human death (Isa 53) and making a new covenant with mankind (Jer. 31:31). Muslim seem to regard the revelation of God as a mythology. As surely as Moses lead the Israelites out of Egypt so surely these words are true.

Sixth, he wrote, "Only by acknowledging Him the Uncaused Cause of all being, Muslims address a dimension of reality beyond time and space."

My reply:	The question needs to be raised concerning Allah. Is Allah beyond time and space as declared in the sentence, or is Allah as close as the jugular vein? This statement makes Allah remote and unknowable.

Seventh: he wrote, "Because there is only one God, all rightly guided religions must derive from Him alone, and the basic beliefs of those religions should not change. The unity of God is also manifested in the Quran by the command of Allah to the Muslims to believe in the authentic revelations and books revealed to all prophets, even if they do not exist in our present time."

My reply:	This is rather confusing because the author is claiming that only Islam is a "rightly guided religion." What other religions are 'rightly guided?" What books do not exist in our present time? Certainly the Bible existed before Mohammed and after, and it has not changed in its nature.

Eighth, he wrote, "The author refers to 4 people who affirmed monotheism. Akhenaton of Egypt is the first short example which did not survive his death. The second is Ibn Sina (980-1037), who had to flee for his life because the ulma did not agree with his science and philosophy and his books were burned. Abu Hamid Alghazaly (1058- 1111) is the third example. Most interesting is his reference to Sir Isaac Newton (1642-1727). Newton is a famed scientists who came to question the Trinity.

My reply: Newton never abandoned the Bible for he was an avid reader and dabbled in prophecy. The fact that he rejected the Trinity proves only that Newton chose not to understand it and accept it. One cannot read the New Testament without learning that Jesus is truly the Son of God Incarnate.

One might raise a question about Islam: which is true Islam, Shia or Sunna? They do not regard one another as being orthodox since they are killing one another!

4.6 His Name is Allah. He wrote

"YHWH became Yahweh and JHVH became Jehovah! Jehovah Witnesses say that the Letters YHWH occur in the Hebrew Scriptures 6823 times, and it occurs with combination with the word "Elohim" 156 times in Genesis alone. This combination YHWH / ELOHIM has been consistently translated in the English Bible as "Lord God." Since the Jews did not articulate the word YHWH for centuries, and since the Chief Rabbis would not allow the unspeakable to be heard, they have forfeited the right to claim dogmatically how the word should sound. We have to seek the aid of the Arabic language to revive Hebrew, a language that had once died out. In every linguistic difficulty, recourse has to be made to the Arabic, a sister language, which has remained alive and viable."

My reply:	Muslims seek to find a Biblical source for the name of Allah as God. The name of God, YHWH, in the Old Testament was so sacred that it was not pronounced. This was probably based on a mis-translation of the Hebrew into Greek Septuagint in which it states that the Hebrew woman's son named the name, not blasphemed. Out of this misunderstanding arose the practice of not saying the name of Yahweh, instead saying Adonai.

There is only one name for the God of Israel and that is Yahweh, not God, not God almighty, etc. The name is Yahweh, not Allah. Allah is a generic term referring to the Islamic deity.

For more on this see: http://www.answering-islam.org/Authors/Perez/name_of_god1.html

http://www.answering-islam.org/Authors/Perez/name_of_god2.html

http://www.answering-islam.org/Authors/Perez/name_of_god3.html

http://www.answering-islam.org/Authors/Perez/name_of_god4.html

5.1 The Old Testament

He wrote:"It important to start with that the Bible admits its own corruption by the scribes who wrote down and copied the different chapters of the Old Testament. First Moses warns the people of Israel that the Covenant, heaven and earth would be against them because they are very stubborn, Deuteronomy 31:24-29. He predicted that the Jews, who refused to obey him while he was with them, would become evil and corrupt. Then in the Revised Standard Version, Jeremiah 8:8, God asked Jeremiah to tell the people of Judah:

"How can you say, 'We are wise, and the law of the LORD is with us'? But, behold, the false pen of the scribes has made it into a lie."...... This is an obvious statement from Prophet Jeremiah that the scribes corrupted the Bible. They claim that the Bible says that they are wise, but they are liars."

My reply:	The author assumes too much too quickly. The passage in Dt. 31:24-29 talks about the corruption of the people, not the corruption of the Scripture. Moreover, the author assumes that the Jeremiah passage refers to corrupting the Scripture, rather than the scribes writing their own message that contradicted the Scripture. Moreover, he has a problem with the Qur'an in its testimony to the Scriptures before given, the Torah, the prophets, and the Gospels.

Surah 2.41 "And believe in that which I reveal, confirming that which ye possess already (of the Scripture), and be not first to disbelieve therein, and part not with My revelations for a trifling price, and keep your duty unto Me."

Surah 2.89 "And when there cometh unto them a scripture from Allah, confirming that in their possession - though before that they were asking for a signal triumph over those who disbelieved - and when there cometh unto them that which they know (to be the truth) they disbelieve therein. The curse of Allah is on disbelievers."

Alano Perez sums up the dilemma for this author concerning the name of Allah as well as the passage in Jeremiah. "Since the Quran claims to be a confirmation of the Bible while contradicting the Bible on a point as simple as the name of God, we must conclude that the two do not have the same origin. If the Quran is correct in its claim that the name of God is Allah, then this means that the Bible contains error, and since the Quran elsewhere affirms the trustworthiness of the Bible, the Quran itself must not have divine origins (or it would not affirm the trustworthiness of a false book). If the Quran is simply wrong about God's name, then it should be rejected as having divine origins. Thus, while it may be possible (in the theoretical realm) that neither book is true, it is impossible for the Quran to be right about the trustworthiness of the Bible and its own trustworthiness at the same time. This would mean that the Quran actively teaches falsehood concerning the doctrinal soundness of the previous scriptures, its own self-sufficiency, its claim to be in total harmony with the previous scriptures and to have no contradictions, or any combination of these areas. Since this is the case, it is therefore impossible for the Quran to be a totally truthful book and it is not profitable for doctrine or a divinely inspired composition." (http://www.answering-islam.org/Authors/Perez/name_of_god1.html)

Chapter V.1, The Old Testament

In this section the author attacks the Old Testament, particularly, the Pentateuch claiming that it was not written by Moses, and using the evolutionary documentary hypothesis to claim that it is unworthy of trust. Unfortunately, the author does not seem to know that he is contradicting the Qur'an, and in doing so may be regarded as a kufur (??)_

When the Qur'an is considered there are lots of verses indicating that the Torah, the books of Moses, were authentic and approved by Mohammed. Consider the following quotes.

Verses showing the Torah to be true at the time of Jesus.

19.12 (It was said to his son): "O Yahya (John)! Hold fast the Scripture [the Taurat (Torah)]." And We gave him wisdom while yet a child.." (Hilali-Khan)

3.48 "And He will teach him the Scripture and wisdom, and the Torah and the Gospel." (Pickthall) These are the words of Gabriel to Mary when she questioned how she could have a child not being married."

66.12 "And Mary, daughter of 'Imran, whose body was chaste, therefor We breathed therein something of Our Spirit. And she put faith in the words of her Lord and His scriptures, and was of the obedient." ( Pickthall)

The only Scriptures that Mary had was the Old Testament. The only Scriptures that Jesus referred to in his teaching was the Old Testament. Is the Qur'an right about the Old Testament? If the answer is yes, then this author is wrong in attacking the Old Testament.

If the Qur'an is wrong, then it is filled with error.

3:49-50 "And (I come) confirming that which was before me of the Torah, and to make lawful some of that which was forbidden unto you." These are the words of Jesus in the Qur'an. There are other references such as 61:6, 5:49, 5:113. These verses affirm that the Torah was unchanged in the time that Jesus lived.

There are another category of verses indicating that true Christians were living during the period between Jesus and Mohammed.

5:110. "When Allah saith: O Jesus, son of Mary! Remember My favour unto thee and unto thy mother; how I strengthened thee with the holy Spirit, so that thou spakest unto mankind in the cradle as in maturity; and how I taught thee the Scripture and Wisdom and the Torah and the Gospel;"

3.52-53. "But when Jesus became conscious of their disbelief, he cried: Who will be my helpers in the cause of Allah? The disciples said: We will be Allah's helpers. We believe in Allah, and bear thou witness that we have surrendered (unto Him). Our Lord! We believe in that which Thou hast revealed and we follow him whom Thou hast sent. Enrol us among those who witness (to the truth)."

57.26-27	"And We verily sent Noah and Abraham and placed the prophethood and the scripture among their seed, and among them there is he who goeth right, but many of them are evil-livers. Then We caused Our messengers to follow in their footsteps; and We caused Jesus, son of Mary, to follow, and gave him the Gospel, and placed compassion and mercy in the hearts of those who followed him. But monasticism they invented - We ordained it not for them - only seeking Allah's pleasure, and they observed it not with right observance. So We give those of them who believe their reward, but many of them are evil-livers."

The reference to monasticism is important for it did not start until the fourth century.

While monasticism is considered an aberration, it is important to note that the references to the Gospel and the prophets is without question. There are other references one may consider such as 18:10,25, 85.4-9. The story about the 7 young Christians in a cave sleeping for 300 years would be dated somewhere around 450 AD.

Verses showing that the Torah and the Gospel were true and unchanged at the time of Mohammed.

10.37 "And this Qur'an is not such as could ever be produced by other than Allah (Lord of the heavens and the earth), but it is a confirmation of (the revelation) which was before it [i.e. the Taurat (Torah), and the Injeel (Gospel), etc.], and a full explanation of the Book (i.e. laws and orders, etc, decreed for mankind) - wherein there is no doubt from the the Lord of the 'Alamin (mankind, jinns,and all that exists)"Hilali-Khan

12.111 " Indeed in their stories, there is a lesson for men of understanding. It (the Qur'an) is not a forged statement but a confirmation of the Allah's existing Books [the Taurat (Torah), the Injeel (Gospel) and other Scriptures of Allah] and a detailed explanation of everything and a guide and a Mercy for the people who believe."

There are many other verses confirming the Old and New Testament scripture in Mohammed time. One may check them out: 34.31; 35..31; 10.37; 6.154-157; 40.69-70; 46.12; 46.29-30; 2.91; 3.3; 4:162-163; 9.111; 5.51

There are verses in which Mohammed actually quotes or appeals to the Torah and/or the Gospel

.

53.33-38 "Didst thou (O Muhammad) observe him who turned away,And gave a little, then was grudging? Hath he knowledge of the Unseen so that he seeth? Or hath he not had news of what is in the books of Moses And Abraham who paid his debt: That no laden one shall bear another's load," (Pickthall)

7.157 "Those who follow the messenger, the Prophet who can neither read nor write, whom they will find described in the Torah and the Gospel (which are) with them."

There are many other verses reflecting the same ideas of appealing to the Torah and Gospel. 26.192-197; 20.133; 21.7; 21.105; 43.44-45; 10.94; 16.43-44; 17.101; 17.107-108; 13.43; 7.156-
157; 7.159; 7.168-170; 2.113; 3.23; 3.79; 3.93-94; 4,60 For more references click here

www.answering-islam.org/Campbell/s2cl.html

5.2 Contradictions in the Old Testament

There are a number of supposed contradictions listed. Some of them depend upon accepting the JEDP theory of composition of the Old Testament which contradicts the Qur'an. It should be noted that the JEDP theory was developed by very skeptical Biblical scholars centuries ago.

We have already commented on this above. There is one listed contradiction that may illustrate the mis-use of history that the author accepts. It is the story of Ishmael and Isaac. He claims that it was really Ishmael who was the child to be sacrificed. This is simply Islamic revisionism of history. The earliest information we have on Ishmael is that of the Old Testament. The Qur'an has a lot of non-historical stories in which Muslims seek to regard as history. The Qur'an comes at least 2000 years later than the Old Testament stories. Moreover, there is the claim that the well that Hagar found is the well in Mecca, Zamzam. The legendary stories have no basic in fact. There is no evidence that Abraham was ever in the Arabian penisula. The reader must remember that Muslims call real facts, fictions, and then claim that fictions are real facts.

5.3 The Prophets in the Old Testament

The author singles out stories of Noah, Moses, Lot, Jacob, Jacob's family, Judah and Tamar, David and adultery, David kills ten thousand, Solomon and paganism, David's son and incest, and another of David's sons and multiple rape.

He wrote: "Here are some of the stories from the Bible about the corruption and sins of the Prophets. These stories show that the Jewish people did not have any respect for most of their Prophets. None of the following stories are mentioned in the Quran or the Islamic tradition."

My reply But he has a problem. The Qur'an declares: 4:163 "Lo! We inspire thee as We inspired Noah and the prophets after him, as We inspired Abraham and Ishmael and Isaac and Jacob and the tribes, and Jesus and Job and Jonah and Aaron and Solomon, and as We imparted unto David the Psalms;"

There is no word of Noah, Lot, Judah, or Solomon being declared a prophet in either the Old Testament or the New. Noah was a preacher who warned the people to repent, but the title of prophet was not given to him as it was to Jeremiah, Isaiah, and others. However, the Qur'an includes Ishmael, Job, Aaron, and Solomon as prophets. We have already shown up above about the Qur'an testimony the veracity of the Torah and the Gospel. Therefore, if the Qur'an is correct about the Torah and the Gospel, it is incorrect itself in designating these people as prophets.

He concludes the section with this: "Societies today are raged by violence and sex. However, the present violence and sex do not reach that level that were committed by Prophets and there (check ) families. Are these the Prophets of God that we should look up to them as examples for righteousness and obedience of Allah?"

My reply First, we don't look to many of these people as examples to follow. In the Old Testament the Law was to be followed regardless of bad leaders, bad prophets, and there were many of those bad, false prophets. Read the book of Jeremiah. Second, the Old Testament does not white-wash any of the characters of the Old Testament. David, Solomon, Lot, and others were sinners. Their sins are written large in the Scripture. Third, there has been only one sinless person, Jesus, who did not sin and whose life was given by Himself for the sins of mankind. Fourth, the author is working up to the goal of white-washing the life of Mohammed. He will disregard his killings, his revenge on his enemies, his plundering of caravans, villages, the Jews, and others. The author will white-wash his marrying a child of 6, the jealousy about his wives not to be seen by anyone else, forbidding them to marry after he dies. He will overlook the fact that over 270 million people have died because of the Muslim jihad against non-Muslims. In his view Mohammed is the perfect man who never did anything wrong. It will be the total ignoring of the facts of Islamic history.

5.4 The Axial age

The Axial age refers to the period around 500 BC when great movements took place in religion and politics. The politics involves the fall of the northern kingdom to Assyria, and the fall of Judah the southern kingdom to Babylon. During this period the author declares: "This period had a crucial effect on the development of Christianity after Jesus. During this time, polytheistic religions, history, and philosophy were setting the stage for shaping a religion that was founded by Jesus, and later compromised and reinterpreted by other people."

My response: This is a very liberal assumption that Christian was influenced by pagan sources. How can one prove that these influences took place on Jesus and his followers. When one reads the New Testament, affirmed by the Qur'an to be reliable, the Christian belief system is still the same. The New Testament has not changed. An individual people may have questions about some concept or other, but it has not changed.

Interesting enough, the author omits any reference to Buddhism that arose in this age. He refers to Zoroastrianims and Confucius, but not to Buddha. Maybe his feelings lean more to Iranian than to the Orient and Buddhism. I do not know why he omitted it. It is also the age of Lao tuz and the Taoism beginnings.

5.6 Greek Philosophy

The author describes briefly the Greek goal for wisdom and then treats briefly Socrates, Plato, Aristotle, and Philo. The importance of Greek philosophy relates to the following.

"... many of the moral ideas of pagan Greek philosophers have been incorporated into Christian moral doctrine."

My reply: Of course he does not mention any of these ideas that were incorporated into the Christian moral doctrine. There is a huge difference between the morality of Plato and Aristotle and what one finds in the New Testament. The four virtues of Greek philosophy, wisdom, courage, temperance, and justice are a long way from the Christian virtues of love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, and self-control. To say that God is love, agape, would cause Plato to flip over in his grave. The author intimate too much with too little evidence for what he is saying.

5.7 Jewish Religious Groups

The author briefly describes the Sadducees, the Pharisees, and the Essenes. He commented on the Sadducees as follows: "So the Sadducees did not believe in the resurrection of the dead because it is only found in the book of Daniel, composed long after Moses' time, which in their view lacked authority.

My reply: This is a debatable claim. Many claim that David's comment about the loss of his son indicates something of life after death. 2Sa 12:23 "But now he is dead, wherefore should I fast? can I bring him back again? I shall go to him, but he will not return to me." Job 19:25 "But as for me I know that my Redeemer liveth, And at last he will stand up upon the earth:

It is ideas like these and the one in Daniel that he mentions that fueled the belief in the resurrection in the time of Jesus. The Sadducees were more influence by the Greek idea of the immortality of the soul, not the resurrection of the Body.

Concerning the Essenes he wrote: "Their practice of purification through ritual submergence in water might have been a significant influence on the development of the ritual of baptism in the early Christian church."

My reply: The author simply declares something without a basis of evidence. The fact that the Dead Sea community and the Essences baptized does not indicate an influence on the idea of baptism in the Christian view. The Essenes did baptisms frequently. It was rite of purification. The Christian view of Baptism was an identification with the resurrection Christ and it was performed only once. There are totally different meanings attached to the rite. The only common idea is water....

6. Evolution of Christianity Four Phases Theory

The author wrote: "I tried to understand how did the teachings of Jesus (Pbuh) evolve into a religion, with a name that was neither declared by Jesus, the original founder, nor mentioned in the Bible. How did the theology of Christianity evolve? Who started the name "Christianity"? What is the origin of the Trinity? Jesus never mentioned the Trinity. As I was studying the Christian history, it became obvious that Christianity evolved in four phases. Each phase took it further away from Jesus' message. Historians report stories of the past with a certain package that depends on their intention and the message that they attempt to emphasize. Sometimes, historical facts are being "tampered and altered" to convince the people with certain points of view. Christian history is abundant with such views. Christianity as it exists today is an altered version of the teachings of Jesus Christ."

My Response: For a person who claims to have studied the story of Christianity, he raises questions that indicate he has read only skeptical or liberal works of unbelieving authors. If he had read the book of Acts he would have learned that the believers were first called Christians–followers of Christ–at Antioch (Acts 11:16) The term took on meaning for later when Paul defended himself before Agrippa the king responded "In such a short time do you think you can talk me into being a Christian?" (Acts 26.28)

He wrote: "The first phase: The establishment of Pauline Christianity as a major drive to attract the Gentiles to the new religion. This was accomplished by the victory of the liberal Paul, who cancelled the Mosaic Law, over the conservative original apostles."

My response: How very convenient, make a claim and not discuss it anymore. There is no development of this claim. It appears that the author has never read the book of Acts which describes the growth of Christianity reaching out to the Gentiles and welcoming them into the New Covenant. Paul is not a liberal and the apostles Paul, John, and James welcomed him as a colleague. Acts 15 describes the real story concerning the keeping of the Law and the opposition from the Pharisees.

" The apostles and church leaders met to discuss this problem about Gentiles. They had talked it over for a long time, when Peter got up and said: My friends, you know that God decided long ago to let me be the one from your group to preach the good news to the Gentiles. God did this so that they would hear and obey him. He knows what is in everyone's heart. And he showed that he had chosen the Gentiles, when he gave them the Holy Spirit, just as he had given his Spirit to us. God treated them in the same way that he treated us. They put their faith in him, and he made their hearts pure. Now why are you trying to make God angry by placing a heavy burden on these followers? This burden was too heavy for us or our ancestors. But our Lord Jesus was kind to us, and we are saved by faith in him, just as the Gentiles are." (Acts 15:6-11)

Peter confirms Paul's position of preaching to the Gentiles. The Old Testament serves as a basis for the coming of Jesus, the Messiah, the Son of God and the founding of a new covenant which involved the law within the heart, not the external law. Jeremiah declares, "The LORD said: The time will surely come when I will make a new agreement with the people of Israel and Judah. It will be different from the agreement I made with their ancestors when I led them out of Egypt. Although I was their God, they broke that agreement. Here is the new agreement that I, the LORD, will make with the people of Israel: "I will write my laws on their hearts and minds. I will be their God, and they will be my people. "No longer will they have to teach one another to obey me. I, the LORD, promise that all of them will obey me, ordinary people and rulers alike. I will forgive their sins and forget the evil things they have done." (Jeremiah 31:31-34)

Jesus did this in the last supper establishing a new covenant in his blood and his death, a last will and testament which involves the gift of the Spirit and forgiveness of sin.

He wrote: "It is important to note that if there were even a single contradiction in the Gospels, the idea of divine inspiration would collapse. The Almighty does not contradict Himself."

My reply: I think that it is interesting the author claims that the Almighty does not contradict Himself. This is especially interesting to see if he would apply this great principle to the idea of Abrogration in the Qur'an. One little example relates to the Qibla which was changed from Jerusalem to Mecca. The cities are not mentioned but the directions are given.

"The foolish of the people will say: What hath turned them from the qiblah which they formerly observed? Say: Unto Allah belong the East and the West. He guideth whom He will unto a straight path. Thus We have appointed you a middle nation, that ye may be witnesses against mankind, and that the messenger may be a witness against you. And We appointed the qiblah which ye formerly observed only that We might know him who followeth the messenger, from him who turneth on his heels. In truth it was a hard (test) save for those whom Allah guided. But it was not Allah's purpose that your faith should be in vain, for Allah is Full of Pity, Merciful toward mankind." 2:142-3:

If the Qur'an is eternal and unchangeable as Muslims are supposed to believe, what happen? Did Allah forget, not remember, or did Mohammed not remember the correct direction? Who was wrong, or incompetent? On the basis of the author's standard, the entire Qur'an is worthless.

This is not the only example of abrogration. Another example: in 109.4-6, "And I shall not worship that which ye worship. Nor will ye worship that which I worship.	Unto you your religion, and unto me my religion." 109.4-6 This appears to give great tolerance to the people of other religions. But in 9.5 there is jihad against non-Muslims, "But when the sacred months are passed away, kill the idolaters wherever ye may find them; and take them, and besiege them, and lie in wait for them in every place of observation; but if they repent, and are steadfast in prayer, and give alms, then let them go their way; verily, God is forgiving and merciful."

There are many others. Some Muslims believe that over 200 verses have been abrogated. You only need one example according to the author in regard to the Gospels to prove them wrong. The same principle applies to the Qur'an.

He wrote: "As for the New Testament, it appears that the discrepancy of the genealogy of Jesus according to Matthew and Luke was the first contradiction that was discovered."

My reply: Critics who disbelieve God's creation, the miracles of the Exodus, the Virgin Birth of Jesus seek to discredit the New Testament wherever they see a chance. The genealogy of Jesus requires us to think that a person has two genealogies, one from his mother, and one from his father. Gilchrist wrote: "Matthew makes it plain that he is recording the genealogy of Joseph (Matthew 1.16) and throughout the narratives relating the appearances of the Angel Gabriel and the birth of Jesus in Matthew's Gospel we find Joseph taking the part of the central character. In Luke's Gospel, however, the narratives of the same events set forth Mary as the primary figure and Luke himself states specifically, at the beginning of his genealogy, that Jesus was the son, "as was supposed", of Joseph (Luke 3.23)" Since neither Joseph nor Mary had the same parents there would be differences in the past genealogy. See here (http://www.answering-islam.org/Gilchrist/Vol2/7b.html)

He wrote: Apart from the general accounts of Jesus' arrest, trial, death, and resurrection, which are generally similar in all four Gospels, they differ in important details. Neither Matthew nor John accounts for Jesus' Ascension. Luke in his Gospel places the Ascension on the day of the Resurrection and forty days later in the Acts of the Apostles, which is assumed to be by the same Luke. Mark mentions it, without giving a date, which suggests that it is not thought to be authentic. The Ascension, which is a major Christian event, therefore, has no solid scriptural basis. Commentators nevertheless approach this subject casually.

My reply: There is a story about Albert Einstein that relates here. A book appeared with a title like 100 scientists who believe Einstein is wrong. Einstein responded, "if I am wrong you only need one, not a hundred." In the application, if the ascension really did happen, only one account is needed. Since Mark and Luke both record the Ascension what is the advantage of more?

The time between the resurrection and the ascension is not clearly delineated in Luke, but it is in Acts 1. There is no reason to think Luke has to have the exact same words as Acts since the author, Luke, is continuing the story line. The claim that the Ascension has no solid scriptural basis is silly. It is the author's assumption that the Ascension took place on the resurrection day. Certainly Luke's story of the two on the road to Emmaus involves longer time than the day of the resurrection. It is ironic that the Qur'an gives a good word for the Gospels and later Muslim writers have taken to lampooning the Gospels. Is the Qur'an wrong?

The author then begins to discuss the documentary theory about the Gospels origination. The idea is that a source called "Q" for Quelle, a German word for "source" was used by the writers to put together the Gospels. The straight forward testimony of the early church is that Matthew wrote Matthew, Luke wrote Luke, Mark wrote Mark, and John wrote the gospel of John. The evidence is very early and there is no reason to suggest that they falsified the matter.

He wrote: "Paul did not think of his letters to his churches as constituting inspired revelation to the entire humanity at all time. It was suggested that the divine inspiration was a case of verbal inspiration that took over the voice of the prophet."

My Reply: How does he come up with these conclusions. I don't think he has ever read the letters Paul wrote to the churches. "God's plan was to make me a servant of his church and to send me to preach his complete message to you." (Colossians 1:25) "After this letter has been read to your people, be sure to have it read in the church at Laodicea. And you should read the letter that I have sent to them." (Colossians 4:16)

He wrote: "The subjects of authenticity and history of the early Bible are not readily available in common Christian bookstores. It appears that the history of Christianity began in 325 AD, when the council of Nicaea condemned the theology of Arius and declared that Christ is "one in essence with the Father". There are no written details of events of what actually happened after Jesus until the council of Nicaea."

My Reply: I have become tired of so many unfounded and false statements. Statements that are made without any justification and maybe out of ignorance. If not ignorance, the author is following the talking points of Muslim propagandists. If there is no history until 325 AD, what about the book of Acts. Church history works give many pages to details before the Council of Nicea. If the author really wanted information it is available. For example, http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/ http://www.biblequery.org/ These are just two sources on the Internet that supply significant information between Jesus and the Council of Nicea. He does admit that persecution brought about the burning of Christian literature. This is in contrast to the Muslim Uthman's order to burn all other version of the Qur'an in order to bring unity to Islam. Who knows that maybe better versions were burnt than the accepted version?

6.1 Versions of the New Testament

The author seeming is not aware of his contradiction in this and the last paragraphs. He wrote here, "The 27 books of the New Testament are only a fraction of the Christian scriptures in their first three centuries." Apparently the author does not regard these books as important in any way telling the story of what happened between the time of Jesus and the Council of Nicea.

The claim is made: "The New Testament consists of 27 documents written between 60? - 150? AD."

My Reply: There is no reason given for such late dates. There is good reason to believe that no book of the New Testament was written later than 70 AD. Jesus predicted that the temple would be destroyed (Matthew 24) and it was destroyed in 70 AD. If any book had been written after that time surely the prediction of Jesus would have been confirmed and widely circulated. The book of Hebrews talks a lot about the Temple and the role of the priests. If such a destruction had been known the writer could hardly have omitted referring to it in a dramatic way.

He wrote: "Tracing the history of the development of the New Testament by noting which of the books were quoted or cited by the early Fathers of the Church is an uncertain process."

My Reply: Reason? None given. Perhaps he does not want to see the New Testament virtually reproduced in the writings of the early Christians.

Original Manuscripts

He wrote: "One would assume that the word of God that was delivered to Jesus would be recorded somehow.....So what happened to the original New Testament? This is one of the biggest mysteries in Christianity. It is agreed upon that the original manuscripts of the Christian Bible have perished!"

My reply: First, his sentence is written to imply that Jesus was not the Son of God and only a prophet. The word of God was not delivered to Jesus, He IS THE WORD OF GOD. (John 1:1-
3) Moreover, what He spoke was the Word of God. Second, the presumption seems that without the autograph, original, manuscripts the New Testament is unreliable. However, the science of textual criticism with over 5000 texts and many thousand more translations give a text of the New Testament that is authentic. The other presumption not declared is that the Qur'an is more credible than the New Testament. It should be declared that "The oldest manuscripts of the Qur'an still in existence date from not earlier than about one hundred years after Muhammad's death."

http://www.answering-islam.org/Gilchrist/Jam/chap7.html

The author chastises Protestants for rejecting the catholic apocryphal book. He refers to Rev. 22:18-19 as evidence that Protestants were taking away from the words of the Bible. He applied the words to the whole of the Bible, rather than the words of the book of this prophecy which is Revelation itself. The reason that Protestants never accepted these books is that they were not part of the Hebrew Bible, and these books were not affirmed to be in the Catholic bible until the Council of Trent in the sixteenth century.

6.3 Other Gospels

The author writes about three other gospels, The Gospel of Jesus, The Gospel of Barnabas, and the Gospel of Thomas.

He wrote, "It is obvious that Jesus had a Gospel, and now that Gospel is not known to anyone."

My reply: The author totally mis-understands the Gospel. The word Gospel means good news. It is good news in two senses: 1) John the Baptist was questioning whether Jesus was the Messiah or not, "Jesus said to the messengers sent by John, "Go and tell John what you have seen and heard. Blind people are now able to see, and the lame can walk. People who have leprosy are being healed, and the deaf can now hear. The dead are raised to life, and the poor are hearing the good news" (gospel). ( Luke 7.22) 2) the second sense the word: the word Gospel is good news of something that happened recently. Paul describes it in his letter to the Corinthians.

"And now I want to remind you, my friends, of the Good News which I preached to you, which you received, and on which your faith stands firm. That is the gospel, the message that I preached to you. You are saved by the gospel if you hold firmly to it---unless it was for nothing that you believed. I passed on to you what I received, which is of the greatest importance: that Christ died for our sins, as written in the Scriptures; that he was buried and that he was raised to life three days later, as written in the Scriptures; that he appeared to Peter and then to all twelve apostles. Then he appeared to more than five hundred of his followers at once, most of whom are still alive, although some have died. Then he appeared to James, and afterward to all the apostles. Last of all he appeared also to me---even though I am like someone whose birth was abnormal." (I Cor. 15:1-8)

There never was an unknown Gospel of Jesus. The gospel of His Son and about His Son are the Same. The idea of a Gospel of Jesus is a skeptics dream to negate the real Gospel about Jesus. The death and resurrection of Jesus is the good news, the Gospel. Muslims are running away from the Gospel which brings everlasting life, forgiveness of sins, and the gift of God's Spirit. The horrible thing about hell is not what God may do to me, but what I may do to myself in neglecting the Gospel.

The author begins a pathology relating to people who thought they were the Messiah. People who go overboard. His questions equally relate to people like Bin Laden who has brought death to thousands in the name of pure Islam.

The Gospel of Barnabas

The author claims a number of things about the Gospel of Barnabas that are wholly untrue. Most of what he claimed was written in a book by Muhammad `Ata ur-Rahim, Jesus A Prophet of Islam, Karachi: Begun Aisha Bawany Waqf, None of the claims are verifiable. In the interest of space I would recommend the reader to check out here. The Gospel of Barnabas was written in the 16th century by a man who was never in Israel, did not know the land, and made terrible mistakes in writing. http://www.answering-islam.org/Green/barnabas.htm

The Gospel of Thomas. The author suggests that the "Gospel was accepted until late in the second century (as a Christian work) and rejected at the first ecumenical council of church."

In contrast to his claim we have these words: "As for the Gospel of Thomas, written only slightly earlier than the others, almost all scholars agree it was not actually written by the disciple, Thomas. The reason it lacks a Passion narrative is because it does not tell any narratives at all! It is a collection of purportedly "true sayings" of Jesus Christ, and records only His supposed words. More recently, Nicholas Perrin has argued persuasively that the Gospel of Thomas was originally written in Syriac after AD 170." http://www.answering-islam.org/Responses/Ataie/ml_handout.htm

6.4 Sources of the Gospels The author refers to a work by " Benoit and Boismard, both professors at the Biblical School at Jerusalem, called "Synopsis of the Four Gospels," 1972-1973," in which a 4 source theory is developed for the Gospels with intermediate sources such as "an intermediate Matthew, intermediate Mark, etc. before the works were finished. The conclusion of the work and the present author is that the Gospels are not to be trusted . It is not without interest that both writers of the Synopsis do not believe in miracles. Moreover, the attempt to regard the Gospels as unreliable is contradicted by the Qur'an as we have seen above.

6.5 Contradictions in the New Testament

The author lists a number of supposed contradictions in the New Testament. One quick example relates to the time. He quotes Mark 15 25 and John 19:14-16 as contradictory, one giving the time at the third hour and the other as the sixth hour.

He wrote, "The third hour of the day was 9 am and the sixth hour was noon"

My reply: One simple solution relates to the culture. They were both right. Mark gives the Jewish manner of time and John gives the Roman manner of time.

Many of these supposed contradictions have been dealt with extensively in other articles and the reader is will be happy to find them in various works. Here.http://www.answering-islam.org/Bible/Contra/index.html You will find many sources on the alleged contradicitons.

6.6 Paul and the Judaeo-Christianity

The opening statement is this: "All historians agree that the existing Christian theology is based on the perception of Paul and not on the true message of Jesus." Surely not all historians, but surely Muslim historians, or agnostic historians, surely liberal historians. He offers no sources for such a statement. In a section on Paul: Evangelist to the Gentiles, the author seeks to deal with the times Paul went to Jerusalem and believes that there are contradictions between the times mentioned in Galatians and Acts. He is seeking to describe the visits or lack of visits in terms of viewing Paul's Daytimer, or his calendar.

He wrote: "The New Testament contains 13 letters bearing Paul's name as author, and 7 of these were almost certainly written by Paul himself: 1 Thessalonians, Galatians, 1 Corinthians, 2 Corinthians, Romans, Philippians, and Philemon. Christian scholars debate the authenticity of the rest of the letters."

My reply:

He does not say which "Christian scholars" debate the rest. Are these "Christian Scholars" the group who make up the Jesus Seminar which turned to the issue of Paul's writings? Identification of scholars would be useful to avoid using agnostic scholars to justify positions that are favorable to the Muslim viewpoint.

The Pauline and Judaeo-Christianity....In this section he seeks to create a division between James and Paul. He wrote: "They understood that the Jesus' message was for "the black sheep of Israel", and Jesus came not to "destroy but to fulfill." And here was someone, that they did not trust, pushing to steal the show and expand the religion beyond its original boundaries. The apostles were trying to conserve the Jewish law, while Paul was exempting the Gentiles from this law."

My reply: Trying to psycho-analyze people in the past is something that cannot be done. We have to stick to the documents we have. The important passage is Acts 15.

" But some Pharisees had become followers of the Lord. They stood up and said, "Gentiles who have faith in the Lord must be circumcised and told to obey the Law of Moses." The apostles and church leaders met to discuss this problem about Gentiles. They had talked it over for a long time, when Peter got up and said: My friends, you know that God decided long ago to let me be the one from your group to preach the good news to the Gentiles. God did this so that they would hear and obey him. He knows what is in everyone's heart. And he showed that he had chosen the Gentiles, when he gave them the Holy Spirit, just as he had given his Spirit to us. God treated them in the same way that he treated us. They put their faith in him, and he made their hearts pure. Now why are you trying to make God angry by placing a heavy burden on these followers? This burden was too heavy for us or our ancestors. But our Lord Jesus was kind to us, and we are saved by faith in him, just as the Gentiles are. Everyone kept quiet and listened as Barnabas and Paul told how God had given them the power to work a lot of miracles and wonders for the Gentiles. After they had finished speaking, James said: My friends, listen to me! Simon Peter has told how God first came to the Gentiles and made some of them his own people. This agrees with what the prophets wrote,

"I, the Lord, will return and rebuild David's fallen house. I will build it from its ruins and set it up again. Then other nations will turn to me and be my chosen ones. I, the Lord, say this.

I promised it long ago." And so, my friends, I don't think we should place burdens on the Gentiles who are turning to God. We should simply write and tell them not to eat anything that has been offered to idols. They should be told not to eat the meat of any animal that has been strangled or that still has blood in it. They must also not commit any terrible sexual sins."

(Acts 15:5-19)

Who is the first to carry the Gospel story to the Gentiles? Peter! Does James appear as an opponent of Paul? Not really. The view of the author is an attempt to set the story up so that eventually the views of Arius, the anti-trinitarian, was really the orthodox person. He claims that even Mary the mother of Jesus was against Paul. But like so many other charges he gives no evidence.

Paul's Theology The author attempts to impose his views on Paul's theology. He wrote about Jesus' status: "Unlike the Fathers of the Church, Paul never called Jesus "God". He called him "the Son of God" in the Jewish sense; Adam, David, and Israel were called sons of God. He never suggested that Jesus had been the incarnation of God. He only suggested that Jesus had the powers of God."

My reply: What will this author think about the letter to the Philippians where Paul wrote:

" Christ was truly God. But he did not try to remain equal with God. Instead he gave up everything and became a slave, when he became like one of us. Christ was humble. He obeyed God and even died on a cross. Then God gave Christ the highest place and honored his name above all others. So at the name of Jesus everyone will bow down, those in heaven, on earth, and under the earth. And to the glory of God the Father everyone will openly agree, "Jesus Christ is Lord!" Philippians 2:6-11

Only people of the liberal Jesus Seminar would question Paul's authorship of Colossians. In Colossians we have Paul writing these words: "Christ is the visible likeness of the invisible God. He is the first-born Son, superior to all created things. For through him God created everything in heaven and on earth, the seen and the unseen things, including spiritual powers, lords, rulers, and authorities. God created the whole universe through him and for him. Christ existed before all things, and in union with him all things have their proper place. He is the head of his body, the church; he is the source of the body's life. He is the first-born Son, who was raised from death, in order that he alone might have the first place in all things. For it was by God's own decision that the Son has in himself the full nature of God. Through the Son, then, God decided to bring the whole universe back to himself. God made peace through his Son's blood on the cross and so brought back to himself all things, both on earth and in heaven." (Colossians 1:16-20)

As I read these statements it appears to be the opposite of what the author has claimed. Christ was truly God and became Incarnate for the purpose of bringing mankind back to Himself. I don't see how one can read this otherwise.

Next we turn to his comments on:

Rejection of the Jewish Law: After the incident of Antioch in 49 AD, Paul rejected the Mosaic Law "The service that brought death (the law) was written and engraven in stone" (2 Cor. 3:7); "Christ hath redeemed us from the curse of the Law" (Gal.3: 13).

My reply: The author seems to make something out of his misunderstanding of the Law and Paul and Jesus. To start with the issue, Jesus Himself, instituted a New Covenant, based on the fulfillment of the prophecy of Jeremiah 31:31. This New Covenant eclipsed the Old Covenant. The Law of the Old Testament demanded full obedience. Paul wrote about this, "Those who depend on obeying the Law live under a curse. For the scripture says, "Whoever does not always obey everything that is written in the book of the Law is under God's curse!" (Galatians 3:10) Christ in the New Covenant delivered us from this curse and Paul echoes the words of Habakkuk the prophet that the just shall live by faith. (2.4) Moreover, Jesus eclipsed the outward performance to the Law in the sermon on the Mount in which he talked about the interior motives, one may not commit adultery but even lust is regarded by Jesus as adultery. (Matthew 5:27)

Accepting Jesus He wrote: "Paul did not call upon his audiences to repent of any sin, but rather to accept Jesus and his crucifixion as the only way of salvation. The symbol of the cross was a victory over all sins, and humans do not need to repent or ask God for forgiveness. Paul even rejected the call of John the Baptist to the Jews to repent, which Jesus did not object."

My reply: Paul's testimony and writings are ignored by this author when he wants to make a point that is without evidence. He does not offer evidence. It is unfortunate that the Greek word "repent" has been translated into English without using the English word "repent." For example, Paul spoke to the citizens of Athens and used the word repent in these words: "God has overlooked the times when people did not know him, but now he commands all of them everywhere to turn away from their evil ways. (Acts 17:30) "Turn away from evil" is the Greek word repent. The word for believing in Christ implies a "turning from sin" to Christ as Savior. Look at the words of Paul in his defense before Agrippa.

" Wherefore, O king Agrippa, I was not disobedient unto the heavenly vision: but declared both to them of Damascus first and at Jerusalem, and throughout all the country of Judaea, and also to the Gentiles, that they should repent and turn to God, doing works worthy of repentance. (Acts 26:19-20)

It looks like Paul has been preaching repentance. His testimony is surely better than the author's claim. In the book of Romans Paul wrote: "Or perhaps you despise his great kindness, tolerance, and patience. Surely you know that God is kind, because he is trying to lead you to repent. (Romans. 2:4)

Again, I think we can conclude that the writer is wrong about Paul's lack of emphasis on repentance.

He wrote: "Paul even rejected the call of John the Baptist to the Jews to repent, which Jesus did not object."

My reply: He does not document this so it is difficult to know what he refers to. If it is in reference to the disciples of John the Baptist in Acts 19 he misunderstands the passage. The disciples of John the Baptist had already repented. They needed something more which was believing in the one that John the Baptist referred to: namely, Jesus the Messiah. If one only repents from sin, one is not much better off unless one also turns to God's promise of forgiveness in Jesus the Christ. Repentance alone leads to emptiness, maybe depression. Repentance from sin and turning to Jesus is the way to forgiveness and everlasting life in God's presence.

6.7 Gnosticism

6.8 The Fathers of the Church

The author describes the early church fathers, Justin Martyr, Clement of Alexandria, Irenaeus, Tertullian, Origen, and Athanasius. Concerning the times, "No one knew for sure if Jesus was human, God, or the Son of God." and people were struggling to answer other questions. He claims "there was no official doctrine" seeming to imply that no Scripture existed, and no Gospel existed.

My reply: The author's original intention was to be objective with the facts. We have seen already many examples of ignoring this claim. There are questionable comments about the church fathers and one glaring example is the following about Origen:

"Origen's view of Jesus did not conform totally to the later Christian theology. For example, he did not believe that humans had been saved by the death of Christ."

Seeberg in his Textbook of the History of Christian Doctrines said about Origen, he "recognizess the fact that the salvation of the believer is dependent upon the sufferings and death of Christ. (E.g.,c. Cels.i.54; cf.61 fin.; ii.23.44; vii.57) (p.154) On the same page Seeberg describes Origen view of sin: "Sin requires a propitiatio before God, and this is effected by the bringing of a sacrifice. Christ is the high priest, who offered to God in our behalf his own blood as a spotless sacrifice, in order that God might become gracious to us and forgive our sins." (Ibid)

One cannot help but wonder where the author's ideas came from. Is this part of the Islamic propaganda program for people who probably would not bother to check the facts? This kind of error makes one question the veracity of the whole book.

The description of the Church fathers is written to give the impression that the heretics were really the true Christians who were beaten by the Orthodox who were really the bad guys. In reality the view that emerged as the Orthodox view is the view based upon Scripture. The doctrine about the Trinity is based on the facts of the Scripture. If there had been no struggle between Athanasius and Arius and any others, the view of the Bible is that there is the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit in the context of monotheism. This is still true in regard to the Muslim denial of the Trinity. The Scripture has not been corrupted.

6.9 The Ecumenical Councils of Church

In this section comments are made about the first seven ecumenical councils, beginning with Nicea. The author takes sides with Arius in quoting only one issue in the words of Jesus, "Arius argued that it was blasphemous to think that Jesus was divine by nature. Jesus had specifically said that the father was greater than he."

My reply: But Jesus also said more intimate things about His Father.

"My Father gave them to me, and he is greater than all others. No one can snatch them from his hands, and I am one with the Father. Once again the Jewish leaders picked up stones in order to kill Jesus. But he said, "I have shown you many good things that my Father sent me to do. Which one are you going to stone me for?" They answered, "We are not stoning you because of any good thing you did. We are stoning you because you did a terrible thing. You are just a man, and here you are claiming to be God!" Jesus replied: In your Scriptures doesn't God say, "You are gods"? You can't argue with the Scriptures, and God spoke to those people and called them gods. So why do you accuse me of a terrible sin for saying that I am the Son of God? After all, it is the Father who prepared me for this work. He is also the one who sent me into the world. If I don't do as my Father does, you should not believe me. But if I do what my Father does, you should believe because of that, even if you don't have faith in me. Then you will know for certain that the Father is one with me, and I am one with the Father." John 10:29-38)

Again the words of Jesus concerning his unity with the Father:

" Philip said, "Lord, show us the Father. That is all we need." Jesus replied: Philip, I have been with you for a long time. Don't you know who I am? If you have seen me, you have seen the Father. How can you ask me to show you the Father? Don't you believe that I am one with the Father and that the Father is one with me? What I say isn't said on my own. The Father who lives in me does these things. Have faith in me when I say that the Father is one with me and that I am one with the Father. Or else have faith in me simply because of the things I do." ( John 14.8)

Even more the words of Jesus, "In a little while the people of this world won't be able to see me, but you will see me. And because I live, you will live. Then you will know that I am one with the Father. You will know that you are one with me, and I am one with you." (John 14:19-
20)

In Jesus' prayer we find these words, "Holy Father, I am no longer in the world. I am coming to you, but my followers are still in the world. So keep them safe by the power of the name that you have given me. Then they will be one with each other, just as you and I are one." John 17:11)

Arius is described as a biblical scholar but his use of one verse ignoring all the others is hardly a standard of Scripture scholarship even in those days. Did Arius not know of John 1:1-3?

"In the beginning was the one who is called the Word. The Word was with God and was truly God. From the very beginning the Word was with God. And with this Word, God created all things. Nothing was made without the Word. Everything that was created received its life from him, and his life gave light to everyone." (John 1:1-4)

"The Word became a human being and lived here with us. We saw his true glory, the glory of the only Son of the Father. From him all the kindness and all the truth of God have come down to us." (John 1:14)

We must conclude that Arius had an agenda very much like the Muslim agenda. It is to ignore the clear meaning of Scripture and promote a form of ideology that ignores the profound meaning of the revelation of God in Christ as recorded in the New Testament.

The author declares concerning Arius: "The Logos had been the instrument used by God to bring all creatures into existence. The Word or the Logos had to be entirely different from God."

My reply: What kind of reasoning is involved in this statement. John's gospel declares that the Logos, the Word was with God and was God. Arius basically sought to ignore such Scriptures as disproved his case and reason that those against his case could not be understand by himself. Muslims are doing the same today. That seems to be the reason that they argue that Arius was so maligned.

Arius view implies that man's salvation rests upon something not divine. In this view Jesus did nothing for mankind. If He is not God neither can he be trusted to know anything about God. Only God can reveal God. A half-god cannot redeem what it took a whole God to make.

He wrote about Arius, "He contended that humans by imitating Jesus, the perfect creature, they too would be perfect creatures of God."

He wrote: The creed stated, "the Creator, God the father, and the Redeemer, Son of God, were of the same nature, and that Jesus is the only begotten of the father." This absolutely vital Christian law became the church's canon by imperial decree. That is how Jesus became identical with God. With this as a foundation, the bishops took Pauline Christianity to another level.

After the council, the bishops went on teaching the new creed, and the Arian crisis continued for another sixty years. Arius and his followers fought back and managed to regain imperial favor. Athanasius was exiled about five times. It was still very difficult to explain this creed because it was not in the scriptures and had pagan association. To an outsider or to an average Christian, these theological arguments seemed a waste of time: no one can possibly prove anything definitively one way or another, and the dispute simply proved to be divisive. No one disagreed about the special place that Christ holds, but the question remained in very many minds: What is Jesus Christ? Pauline Christianity had always been an inconsistent faith. Now at the first council, the church had added another paradox of incarnation, despite its apparent incompatibility with monotheism.

My reply: There are a number of problems in this paragraph. First, Jesus did not become the Son of God in the Council of Nicea. The claim that Jesus was the Son of God is established in the New Testament. This writer is merely ignoring it as well as Arius. Second, however mysterious it may be to the mind of mere humans, the concept of the Son of God is in the Scripture, contrary to his claim. Moreover, it did not have pagan associations. It has the background of the book of Daniel which is certainly not pagan. It is claimed by Jesus no less, and affirmed by the disciples who were with Him for 3 years of his public life. Third, the issue to the average Christian is not a waste of time. If Jesus is not the Son of God there is no redemption. If Jesus is not the Son of God Christians are only Jews with a different name. Fourth, there is far more evidence for the claim that Jesus is the Son of God in the New Testament than there is for a merely human prophet. Check out Who is the Real Jesus? Here and here

(http://answering-islam.org/Authors/Roark/real_jesus.htm) And (http://answering-islam.org/Authors/Roark/real_jesus2.htm)

Fifth, Pauline Christianity is hardly inconsistent since Paul preached the Gospel based on the ideas Jesus declared in the last supper,

"While they were eating, Jesus took a piece of bread, gave a prayer of thanks, broke it, and gave it to his disciples. "Take and eat it," he said; "this is my body." Then he took a cup, gave thanks to God, and gave it to them. "Drink it, all of you," he said; "this is my blood, which seals God's covenant, my blood poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins. I tell you, I will never again drink this wine until the day I drink the new wine with you in my Father's Kingdom." (Matthew 26:26-29)

Paul proclaimed the New Covenant that Jesus established which was foretold by the prophets–Jeremiah (31:31), Ezekiel (37.26) Isaiah (61.8) and at the day of Pentecost Peter, not Paul, spoke about the prophet Joel who foretold the wonderful events.

" 'This is what I will do in the last days, God says: I will pour out my Spirit on everyone. Your sons and daughters will proclaim my message; your young men will see visions, and your old men will have dreams. Yes, even on my servants, both men and women, I will pour out my Spirit in those days, and they will proclaim my message. I will perform miracles in the sky above and wonders on the earth below. There will be blood, fire, and thick smoke; the sun will be darkened, and the moon will turn red as blood, before the great and glorious Day of the Lord comes. And then, whoever calls out to the Lord for help will be saved.' (Acts 2:17-21)

The author proceeds to speak of The Second Council in Constantinople I - 381. His comments about Theodosius I (347-395) show his greatness as a Christian Emperor by having "all the inhabitants of the offending village slaughtered. In the year 390, he had seven thousand rebellious citizens murdered in a frightful blood bath; at the same time the "Halleluiah" (sic)came to be used in the Christian churches."

My reply: Could it be that the Muslims learned to shout Allah Akbar from this example when they murdered the millions of people since the time of Mohammed? Consider the invasion of India, "After the sack of the temples in Orissa, Firoz Shah Tughlaq attacked an island on the sea-coast where "nearly 100,000 men of Jajnagar had taken refuge with their women, children, kinsmen and relations". The swordsmen of Islam turned "the island into a basin of blood by the massacre of the unbelievers".http://www.hindunet.org/hindu_history/modern/moghal_atro.html

http://www.hinduwebsite.com/history/holocaust.asp

After considering the seven ecumenical councils, the author, writes,

"It is important to know the history of the evolution of Christian doctrines that was developed by humans and not by Jesus. Humans developed serious and complex fundamental Christian concepts. If these concepts were true, they should have been spelled out plainly by Jesus in the clearest way. They should not have been left to human interpretations of the Fathers of the Church or the Ecumenical Councils of Church. The job of the messenger of God is to deliver clearly the message of God and live as a role model of the teachings of the religion. This is what Moses, Jesus, and Muhammad did. The messages of Moses and Jesus were blurred and smeared by tribal feud and outrageous incorrect interpretations. On the other hand, Muhammad kept the message of God faithfully and steadfastly."

My reply: There is no evolution of doctrines, there is only the attempt to understand what Jesus taught. It is there in the Scripture. How is it possible to understand God taking human form to communicate his love for mankind? Can you understand the infinite God? Can you understand the finite human being? The Holy Spirit promised by Jesus came at Pentecost. How can one understand the Holy Spirit? The attempts of Council to understand and guard against false teaching was a worthy attempt. The author seems to ignore the divisions in Islam concerning doctrinal issues. The fact that Allah/Mohammed kept changing the rules is not mentioned.

The charge that humans developed the doctrines about Christianity is false. But there is an interesting situation in Islam in which humans developed around 600,000 hadiths that are mostly false, and so admitted to be by Muslim scholars who maintain that only a few thousand are authentic. It is also true that the Qur'an cannot be really understood without the hadiths. So where does this leave credibility in Islam?

Moreover, where does Sharia law come from? It is not in the Qur'an. It is not revelation. It was developed centuries later by a number of imams who were eventually killed by some of the Caliphs.

I have emphasized the role model phrase above. If we take the words correctly we can ask the question of how well Mohammed was the role model of the teachings of his religion. We shall speak more of his character in a section later when the author talks about the perfect man, Mohammed.

He repeats the same old talking point of the message of Moses and Jesus being blurred by "outrageous incorrect interpretations." The idea that the Scriptures have been corrupted and changed is only mentioned but not verified.

One final note: the claim that Mohammed kept the message of God faithfully and steadfastly is contradicted by the fact that Islam has four major schools of interpretation of the Qur'an, Maliki, Hanafi, Sha'fi'i, and Hanbali schools. All of them are regarded as orthodox even though they contradict one another. So a Muslim seeking an answer to a problem can shop around and find the answer that is easiest and more to his liking.

There are even groups who claimed to be Muslim but who are rejected by Muslims as unorthodox such as Nusayriyyah, who are generally regarded by Muslims as being outside the limits of Islam, regard themselves as originating with the eleventh Shi'a Imam al-Hasan al-Askari (d.873) and his student Ibn Nusayr (d.868).

The straight forward claim of revelation of the Qur'an is also obscured by the necessity for Sharia law to tell people what to do and how to live.

On top of it all there are the fatwas proclaiming laws for people to follow. One example that made the news recently was from Egypt. An Egyptian cleric's controversial fatwa claiming that nudity during sexual intercourse invalidates a marriage has uncovered a rift among Islamic scholars.

According to the religious edict issued by Rashad Hassan Khalil, a former dean of Al-Azhar University's faculty of Sharia (or Islamic law), "being completely naked during the act of coitus annuls the marriage".

The religious decree sparked a hot debate on the private satellite network Dream's popular religious talk show and on the front page of Sunday's Al-Masri Al-Yom, Egypt's leading independent daily newspaper. Suad Saleh, who heads the women's department of Al-Azhar's Islamic studies faculty, pleaded for "anything that can bring spouses closer to each other" and rejected the claim that nudity during intercourse could invalidate a union. During the live televised debate, Islamic scholar Abdel Muti dismissed the fatwa: "Nothing is prohibited during marital sex, except of course sodomy." For his part, Al-Azhar's fatwa committee chairman Abdullah Megawar argued that married couples could see each other naked but should not look at each other's genitalia and suggested they cover up with a blanket during sex." http://www.simplydumb.com/2007/04/egyptian-cleric-nixes-naked-sex/ What non-sense!!

7 Islam And Christianity

He wrote: "The confusion in the doctrines of Christianity started by a mathematical error! Jesus is called the Word of God. In John 1:1: "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God." Now the mathematical equation goes like this:

1. Jesus = The Word

2. The Word = God

3. Therefore Jesus = God!

If you replace the Word (Logos) with Jesus, the above verses read as follows:

"In the beginning was Jesus, and Jesus was with God, and Jesus was God."

The basic flaw in the above equation is that the first verse is misunderstood; as for the second verse, no one really knows where it came from; and the third verse is meaningless without using the Greek philosophy."

My reply: The reasoning here is really flawed and grasping. Consider his statement, "as for the second verse, no one really knows where it came from;" This author takes a very flippant attitude toward the New Testament. What would be his attitude toward the development of the Qur'an and the lost verses due to the deaths of those who memorized them?

The mathematical error does not explain the verse. The writer does not consider the rest of the story in John 1. The Gospel states: "In the beginning the Word already existed; the Word was with God, and the Word was God. From the very beginning the Word was with God." (John 1:1-
2) The Word (Logos) was with God and was God. There is no mention of Jesus here. It is only when there is an Incarnation that Jesus appears on the scene: "The Word became a human being and, full of grace and truth, lived among us. We saw his glory, the glory which he received as the Father's only Son." (John 1:14) In verse 17 we have the contrast between Moses and Jesus. "God gave the Law through Moses, but grace and truth came through Jesus Christ." John 1:17)

The author proceeds to talk about the Holy Spirit and fix a math formula that the Holy Spirit equals faith. He refers to a number of verses: "Acts 11:24 "For he (Barnabas) was a good man, and full of the Holy Ghost and of Faith" Acts 5:32 "And so is also the Holy Ghost, whom God hath given to them that obey." Luke 1:15 "And he (John the Baptist) shall be filled with the Holy Ghost, even from his mother's womb."See further Acts 6:5; II Peter 1:21; II Timothy 1:14; I Cor. 2:16; Luke 1:41. If we use correct mathematics for the above verse in Acts 11:24, as follows: Full of the Holy Ghost and of Faith"

He concludes: "It is clear from the above equation and the many verses of the Bible, that the Holy Ghost may simply mean faith. It may also mean the Angel that God sends to strengthen human faith, just like the one that was sent to Jesus during his crucifixion. "And there appeared an angel unto him from heaven, strengthening him," (Luke 22:43). It does not mean that complex concept of a physical Holy Ghost made of the same essence of God to assemble the tri-theistic form of God.."

My Reply: Is it not strange that the author omits or ignores the very basic references that began with the prophets and declared by Jesus and experienced on the day of Pentecost by the Apostles.

Joel 2.28 speaks of the coming of the Spirit of God upon people, Jesus spoke of the Spirit who would guide the disciples in John 14 and 16, and Acts 2 details the beginning of the Spirit in empowering the apostles to do humanly impossible things. The healing of people in the book of Acts was not the result of their faith but the power of the Holy Spirit. There is a big difference between the Holy Spirit and Angels. The author is too eager to write the Spirit off. He used the term "physical Holy Ghost made of the same essence of God" which has real problems. The nature of God is not physical, neither is the Holy Spirit physical, neither is the soul of man a physical entity. What is the real nature of God? God is Spirit (John 4:24) and the Holy Spirit is more than mere "faith." The Holy Spirit is God's presence in the life of the believer. This is obviously an experience that a Muslim cannot understand until his life is linked with Jesus, the Son of God.

He wrote: "Christianity is a very complicated religion that certainly did not follow the previous messages of God, delivered by hundreds of prophets before Jesus."

My reply: I suspect that "hundreds of prophets" before Jesus is a result of Islamic mythology. He does not cite any sources for this.

He wrote: "...keep silent about what Matthew said in 7:21 "Not everyone who says to Me, 'Lord, Lord,' shall enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of My Father in heaven." A Muslim, by definition, is the one who does to the Will of God. It is certain that without the backing of the atheist imperial power of the Roman Empire Christianity would have not succeeded.

My reply: There is a simple answer given by Jesus Himself. Check it out: Jesus answered, "I am telling you the truth: you are looking for me because you ate the bread and had all you wanted, not because you understood my miracles. Do not work for food that spoils; instead, work for the food that lasts for eternal life. This is the food which the Son of Man will give you, because God, the Father, has put his mark of approval on him." So they asked him, "What can we do in order to do what God wants us to do?" Jesus answered, "What God wants you to do is to believe in the one he sent."(John 6:26-29) The question can then be raised: are Muslims doing the will of God, or the will of Mohammed? To believe in Jesus as Lord is the answer to doing the will of the Father in heaven.

The author does not seem to remember that Christian faith grew in the 300 years before it was declared to be the religion of Rome. It survived persecution and spread throughout the Roman empire. Being regarded as the official religion was bad for Christianity.

7.1 The Doctrine of Trinity

He wrote: "According to the first two Ecumenical Councils of Church, God is three gods merged into one God. This one God is called the Trinity. This name of God does not exist anywhere in the New Testament! Also Jesus never mentioned the trinity and certainly did not explain it in the clearest way."

My reply: No, that is not the wording of the councils. There are three persons in the one Godhead. There is no merging at all. They are distinct persons. Of course, the word Trinity does not appear in the New Testament. But the ideas that led to the concept are there. The New Testament certainly speaks of the ideas that led people latter to formulate the concept.

He wrote: Concerning Isaiah 44:6 in which God is spoken of as the First and the Last he declared: "Every time I hear these Names, I become overwhelmed with the concept that God is the First, nothing was before Him, and the Last, nothing comes after Him. Human mind just can't comprehend this concept of First and Last. This shows the limited capability of the human mind."

My reply: If one cannot understand First and Last, why should it be so hard for him to confess that he cannot understand the Triune God? His mind is boggled by two concepts which are logical ideas. Why can he not be overwhelmed by the nature of God which is beyond logic and comprehension. We Christians who believe in the Father, Son and Holy Spirit are accepting this on the basis of the revelation related to Jesus, the Son of God who revealed the Father and who promised the Holy Spirit. Muslims are rejecting these ideas because Mohammed did. Given the character of Mohammed there is good reason to suspect his claim as a prophet. Why would one accept the words of Mohammed over against the words of Jesus?

He wrote:

"The above verses ( referring to I John 5:7-8) exist only in the authorized King James Version, and form the strongest evidence for the doctrine of trinity. As mentioned in the previous chapter, the King James Version has grave defects. Now this part, "the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one" has been removed in the Revised Standard Version of 1952 and 1971, and many other Bibles."

My reply: Contrary to his claim, these verses do not "form the strongest evidence for the doctrine of the trinity." The doctrine of the Trinity stands on the firm foundation of the rest of the New Testament, the word of Jesus, the Gospels, and I would urge the reader to check out Who is the Real Jesus here (http://answering-islam.org/Authors/Roark/real_jesus.htm) And (http://answering-islam.org/Authors/Roark/real_jesus2.htm)

He wrote: "In Matthew 28:19 there is a reference to the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, without stating that they are one. This statement has nothing to do with trinity."

My reply: When a person is seeking to reject something, something is often overlooked. The words of Jesus do have reference to the Oneness of the Trinity. They were to baptized in the name, a oneness, not names of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit.

He wrote: with reference to John 17.21, "It is clear from the first verse that God and Jesus are one, but also in the second verse that the disciples are one in God and in Jesus. Now if Jesus is God because Jesus is in God, why are not the disciples being recognized as gods, as they all are one in Jesus and in God? If God, Jesus, and the Holy Ghost form the trinity, then with the 12 disciples included, should they form One God with fifteen beings, and not three?"

My reply: Let's look at the verse itself, "I pray that they may all be one. Father! May they be in us, just as you are in me and I am in you. May they be one, so that the world will believe that you sent me." (John 17.21) Does it not seem obvious that the relationship of the Father and the Son is quite different than the sense of oneness among the disciples? This was stressed in the verses preceding the quote of the author, "And now I am coming to you; I am no longer in the world, but they are in the world. Holy Father! Keep them safe by the power of your name, the name you gave me, so that they may be one just as you and I are one." (John 17.11) The sense of oneness is relational, not nature. The sense of oneness of the Father and the Son is both the oneness of relation as well as oneness of nature.

He wrote: "When Jesus said in John 14:9 "... he that hath seen me hath seen the Father," does this statement mean that someone can actually see God? Of course not. Jesus said in John 4:24 that God is Spirit, and in John 5:37 "ye have neither heard his voice at anytime, nor seen his shape." Now, if God is Spirit according to John, and Jesus is of the same substance as God according to Athanasius, then the substance of both God and Jesus is Spirit. It follows that humans should not be able to see Jesus, because he is spirit!"

My reply: What did the disciples see? They saw the bodily form of a person called Jesus. Since Jesus claimed to be the Son of God Incarnate they learned what God the Father is like. They learned of the character of the Father in the Son, the will of the Father in the Son, and the love of the Father in the Son. The author is mis-using Athanasius as well as the words of Jesus.

He wrote: The Quran affirms that Jesus is the Word of God, which is simply "Be and it is." as in Surah 19, Ayah 35. This is the simple meaning of the Word of God. It is not the Logos of the Greek philosophy. It is the literal Word as John describes it in the start of his Gospel. It is the Word of God that created Jesus just like Adam. God created Adam without a father or a mother. Jesus was created without a father. An Islamic scholar stated that the four alternatives of human creation are as follows:

My Reply: This verse does not affirm that Jesus is the Word or God. The phrase "Be and it is" is used frequently in the Qur'an to talk about creative acts of God. Allah speaks and something is. This speaking has no reference to the person of the Son of God. The author confuses the birth of Jesus as the Incarnate Son with the Son of God that existed from eternity. The body of the Word that came into existence in the womb of Mary has a beginning, the Word does not have a beginning. If the Muslims could get away from thinking about the Son of God in sexual terms it would help them understand that the Father has eternally been a Father, and the Son has been eternally a Son.

He wrote: "The Holy Ghost is the Angel Gabriel."

My reply: Nowhere in the New Testament is the Holy Spirit associated with Gabriel. Since Muslims don't believe in the Holy Spirit they have to account for some of the communciation listed in the Qur'an as the work of Gabriel.

7.2 The Doctrine of the Son of God

He wrote: "Muslims take a strong exception to the Christian belief that "Jesus is the only begotten son." The word "only begotten" exists only in the Gospel according to John, only in the King James Version (1:14,1:18,3:16,3:18). Interestingly enough, this word "only begotten" does not exist in the Revised Standard Version, New Revised Standard, or the World English Bible. Consequently, the two basic principles of Christianity, trinity and son of god, exist only in Gospel according to John and in First Epistle of John, only in the King James version, a version that was described as having grave defects."

My reply: This paragraph is designed to confuse the issue. First, the King James, Revised Standard or the World English versions are only versions, or translations of the Greek Text. It does not matter that different words are used. The Revised Standard Version speaks of "the only Son from the Father." The CEV says, "as the Father's only Son" The Authorized Standard Version has "only begotten from the Father.". The real question is this: what is the Greek word behind these different translations? The answer: . This is the word for only begotten which John applies to Jesus.

Second is the question of how many times does something have to be said to be true for a Muslim. If it is true, one is enough for most people. However, it is used several times as the author indicates. Whatever questions he wants to raise about the King James the real issue rests on the Greek manuscripts and they are firm in their use of .

Third, the author only refers to I John but does not list the verse I John 4:9 in which . also appears. It is clear the author has a vendetta against the plain reading of the New Testament.

He wrote: "It is quite clear from the above verses that many righteous people were called sons of God. Israel and Ephraim were God's firstborn. David and Jesus were called begotten sons of God. So what does that mean? It is a metaphorical, not literal, descriptive term that is commonly used by the Jews to indicate closeness and affection to God. The authors of the New Testament used the same title of the Son of God to indicate closeness to God."

My reply: These claims have been answered many times before. One should go here

http://www.answering-islam.org/Silas/sonofgod.htm And http://www.answering-islam.org/Authors/Memsuah/son_of_god_bq.htm

http://www.answering-islam.org/Hahn/son.html

http://www.answering-islam.org/Gilchrist/Vol2/8b.html

It is quite obvious in the minds of the Pharisees and others that they understood that Jesus was not merely talking in metaphors about Himself. They were a number of occasion in the Gospels in which they were going to bring his death about because of his claims, and they finally did.

He wrote: "Many Christians believe that Jesus is the Son of God and God. From the above verses, it is clear that Jesus denied being God or the Son of God. It now leaves the Christians who believe that Jesus is God to provide just one single verse in the Bible where Jesus says, "I am God." God in the Old Testament declared, "I am God" over 200 times."

My reply: The sad part of this author's comment is that he wants a specific word or phrase. It is ironic that he rejects to the translations of the various Greek text and since they do not translate it the way he wants them to be translated, there must be something wrong. There are so many statements in the Gospels affirming Jesus being the Son of God that can't see the forest for the trees. If you want to see the real Jesus, Check out here http://answering-islam.org/Authors/Roark/real_jesus.htm And for the rest of the New Testament, check here http://answering-islam.org/Authors/Roark/real_jesus2.htm

7.3 The Doctrine of Original Sin and Atonement

He wrote: "In Christian theology, every human is born sinful. The origin of this concept has been attributed to Adam who disobeyed God by eating the forbidden fruit. Consequently, Adam's sin is transmitted by heredity to the entire human race. The Old Testament says nothing about the transmission of hereditary sin to everyone. Also, the term original sin is not found in the Bible. Paul suggested that humans are sinners."

My reply: Muslims reject the idea of original sin. The question has to be raised how innocent babies become selfish, demanding, growing up to be selfish people who if left to themselves will become tyrants at any level they can succeed. Why is this? If the doctrine of original sin was not known, it would have to be invented. Moreover, the question remains: why do people still die? However, there is more in the Qur'an about original sin than Muslims admit. Read the following:

Man is created impatient. "Verily, man is created impatient and miserly. When evil touches him, he is full of lamentations, But when good falls to his lot, he is niggardly, Except those who pray, Those who are constant in their Prayer; And those in whose wealth there is a known right–" Sura 70:19-24 (Sher Al).

Man is created weak. "Allah doth wish to lighten your (difficulties): For man was created weak (in flesh)." Sura. 4:28

Man inclines to evil. "Nor do I absolve my own self (of blame): the (human) soul is certainly prone to evil, unless my Lord do bestow His Mercy: but surely my Lord is Oft-forgiving, Most Merciful." Sura. 12:53

The Quran explains that the reason why man has a natural tendency for evil is because Allah breathed wickedness into him! " By a Soul and Him who balanced it, And BREATHED INTO IT ITS WICKEDNESS and its piety," Sura 91:7-8 ( Rodwel)

( Does this make Allah the Cause of evil in man? In the Bible story it is Adam and Eve who disobeyed Yahweh's command. (God's name in Hebrew) They are to blame. In the Qur'an it is Allah who is to blame.)

Man is incapable of becoming pure in and of himself. "O ye who believe! follow not Satan's footsteps: if any will follow the footsteps of Satan, he will (but) command what is shameful and wrong: and were it not for the grace and mercy of Allah on you, not one of you would ever have been pure: but Allah doth purify whom He pleases: and Allah is One Who hears and knows (all things)." Sura. 24:21

I high-lighted the phrase, Allah doth purify whom He pleases, because it is in sharp contrast to the words of the Bible that "God loved the people of this world so much that he gave his only Son, so that everyone who has faith in him will have eternal life and never really die.

God did not send his Son into the world to condemn its people. He sent him to save them! (John 3:16-17) Everyone includes you, me, anyone who comes to Him. You want eternal life. If you depend on your good works, good deeds, you will never do enough to please Allah. Allah is capricious, you don't know what he will do. The good news of the words of Jesus is that you can have the assurance of everlasting life now. I have studied Buddhism, Hinduism, Islam, Judaism, Confucianism, Taoism, and there is no other way than Jesus to get to heaven in God's eternal presence.

He wrote: "He (Paul) said in Acts 13:39 that we can have forgiveness from our sins through Jesus, that the Law of Moses could not free us from our sins, and every person who believes in Jesus is free from all his sins. In Acts 13:23, Paul proclaimed Jesus, not God, as the savior. And again keep silent about what Matthew said in 7:21." ... "In one moment the Christian is a born again by accepting Jesus as a savior, and then and only then can all his sins be forgiven. This was in contradiction with the teachings of John the Baptist, who was carrying the message of repentance to God, as this is the only way to human salvation."

My reply: What could the Law of Moses do? It could only condemn and point up sins committed.. John the Baptist did preach repentance and Jesus followed declaring repent for the kingdom of heaven is at hand. Paul also preached repentance.

The author seems to think that Paul did not talk about repentance. But he did. At Athens he addressed the city declaring, "The times of ignorance God overlooked, but now he commands all men everywhere to repent," ( Acts 17.30) In his defense before Agrippa, Paul said, "And so, King Agrippa, I did not disobey the vision I had from heaven. First in Damascus and in Jerusalem and then in the whole country of Israel and among the Gentiles, I preached that they must repent of their sins and turn to God and do the things that would show they had repented." (Acts 26.19)

Before leaving this topic we need to look at the author's comments about ignoring the verse of Jesus at the end of the Sermon on the Mount. That verse reads: "Not everyone who calls me 'Lord, Lord' will enter the Kingdom of heaven, but only those who do what my Father in heaven wants them to do." (Matthew 7:21)

What does this verse mean? What is it to do what my Father in heaven wants them to do? First, Jesus did not say "our" Father in heaven, but "my" Father. In the prayer Jesus taught his disciples they were to say, "our Father," but Jesus does not use that general term in regard to Himself. There is a special relationship that He claimed. Second, in the Gospels there is the word from the Father, This is my beloved Son in with whom I am well pleased. (Matthew 3:17) In the interest of numbers and repetition, this is reported in all three Gospels.

Third, what is it that we are to do? This is answered in the words of Jesus, "For what my Father wants is that all who see the Son and believe in him should have eternal life. And I will raise them to life on the last day." (John 6:40)

Fourth, it is evident that the rejection of the words of Jesus by Muslims makes it sound like easy forgiveness. The Muslim emphasis on works for gaining salvation is no different than the pagan ways of Hinduism in which the good karma outweighs the bad karma. Islam is a religion of works. Christianity is a relation based on grace and forgiveness.

He wrote: "The church accepted this doctrine of Atonement and original sin four centuries after Jesus. It contradicts the Bible itself as in Deuteronomy 24:16: "The father shall not put to death for the children, neither the children be put to death for their father: every man shall be put to death for his own sin." In Jeremiah 31:30: "... But every one shall die for his own iniquity..."

My reply: These verses have no relation to the idea of original sin. These verses are talking about crimes committed by people. If it involved original sin then "every man shall be put to death for his own sin" and there should be mass genocide. These rules set limitations on judgements. There is limited consequences so that wholesale mis-carriage of justice would not take place. The Muslim practice of killing and persecuting the families of people who have become Christians would be very limited in this law.

He wrote: "To prove that children are born without sin, Jesus asked not to let children suffer, (Matthew 19:14): "But Jesus said, suffer little children, and forbid them not, to come unto me: for of such is the kingdom of heaven.""

My reply: Before we talk about the passage above, let us look at a previous word about children in the presence of Jesus.

"At that time the disciples came to Jesus, asking, "Who is the greatest in the Kingdom of heaven?" So Jesus called a child to come and stand in front of them, and said, "I assure you that unless you change and become like children, you will never enter the Kingdom of heaven. The greatest in the Kingdom of heaven is the one who humbles himself and becomes like this child. And whoever welcomes in my name one such child as this, welcomes me. "If anyone should cause one of these little ones to lose his faith in me, it would be better for that person to have a large millstone tied around his neck and be drowned in the deep sea." (Matthew 18:1-6)

There are some strong words of Jesus here. First, people were to become like children. What does this mean? In children there is an acceptance of Jesus. Children are often humble and unpretentious. Second, Jesus does not say that children are sinless. What is said is that they are trusting, believing, and children will believe in Jesus readily if they know anything about Him. But there is a warning to Muslims who teach children to hate. There are videos of children about 3 years old who are mimicking the words of their teachers that Jews are pigs and infidels are to be hated. Jesus has a warning for Muslims in these jihadic times.

Third, the idea of changing is the idea of repenting. When one repents from sin there must be a change toward the opposite direction. Instead of running away from God, now there is a running to God in Christ.

He wrote: "In Hebrews 1:3, it sates (sic) that the death of Son of God, who is made of the same substance as that of God, had purged our sins. But that death was a death of a real man. How, then, did the substance of God die? Christian scholars take great pain in explaining this intellectual puzzle, which only adds to the confusion of anyone."

My reply: There are two parts to human existence, body and soul/spirit. The death of the body does not kill the soul or spirit. The Son of God took to Himself a body fully human and revealed the nature of God. His body died on the cross. It is a mistake to think that God without a body died. God cannot die. Only a body can die and Jesus' body died and was resurrected after the crucifixion. The Son of God entered into human existence in a body. The body died on the cross.

He wrote: "Religion is supposed to be simple, not only understood by the scholars but also by the average person or even the unlettered. How can anyone have faith in this doctrine that contradicts the Bible and is illogical? Faith should be accompanied by common sense. So, was Jesus crucified to save us from our original sin, and while being crucified asked God why did He abandon him?"

My reply: It is interesting that this issue is raised. If Islam is simple how is it that imams are so necessary to explain what Islam is? If the Qur'an is simple why is there the need of the Sunna, the hadiths, and the sharia to make sense out of it? If Islam is simple why have websites been created by Muslims so that "average persons" can ask whether it is right to do this or that practice?

Second, the author has only claimed that something contradicts the Bible and is illogical. He has not proven it.

He wrote: "But the Gospels did not say plainly that Jesus' suffering had been to save us from the sin of Adam!"

My reply: the following verses refute this comments.

Jesus began to show his disciples that he must go to Jerusalem and undergo great suffering. (Matthew 16:21)

The Son of Man came not to be served but to serve, and to give his life a ransom for many. (Matthew 20:28)

Then he said to them, "These are my words that I spoke to you while I was still with you - that everything written about me in the law of Moses, the prophets, and the psalms must be fulfilled". Then he opened their minds to understand the scriptures, and he said to them, "Thus it is written, that the Messiah is to suffer and to rise from the dead on the third day". (Luke 24:44-46)

"For the Son of man came to seek and to save the lost." Luke 19:10 Saving is something that only Jesus can do.

He wrote: About Adam and Eve, "They committed a sin, repented and were forgiven. This is the whole idea. People commit sins, and they repent to God, and He will forgive them."

My reply: So people commit sins. Why? He does not tell us. How can sinful parents give birth to innocent children? How come innocent children choose to sin?

7.4 The Crucifixion and the Resurrection

He wrote: "On the cross, Jesus asked God for help: "My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me." (Matthew 27:46). To believe that Jesus said that is to discredit his whole mission."

My reply: This man poses a radical conclusion without much investigation. The quote has been taken from a Messianic psalm. There are a number of details in the psalm relating to the suffering of the Messiah.. They took his clothes and gambled for them. The simplest explanation is that Jesus was repeating this psalm and mediating on it. "We know that pious Jews used it in times of adversity and gained encouragement from it, and certainly it does not suggest a loss of faith in God." (The Interpreters' Bible, New York, Abingdom-Cokesburg Press, 1951 Vol.VII, pp.607-608

The overwhelming evidence of the Gospels affirms that Jesus was the Messiah, the Son of God. It is repeatedly affirmed in the rest of the New Testament. How can you take a single statement without any context of Jesus' suffering on the cross and claim that it discredits his whole mission. Muslims would not say that Mohammed abandoned his role as a prophet when he contradicted his claim that Islam is a religion of peace by introducing Jihad after he gained power in Medina. In his case they should reflect on the logic of his claims.

He wrote: "In Luke 22:42, Jesus said: "Saying, Father, if thou be willing, remove this cup from me: nevertheless not my will, but thine, be done." (This cup is the cup of death). Most likely, Jesus' prayer not to die on the cross was accepted by God, according to Luke, Hebrews, and James. Then how could he still die on the cross? "And there appeared an angel unto him from heaven, strengthening him," (Luke 22:43). This Angel assured him that God would not leave him helpless. In Hebrews 5:7, "Who in the days of his flesh, when he (Jesus) had offered up prayers and supplications with strong crying and tears unto him that was able to save him from death, and was heard in that he feared." Jesus prayers were heard, which means answered in a positive way by God as in James 5:16 "...The effectual fervent prayer of a righteous man availeth much." Jesus himself said, Matthew 7:7-10, "Ask, and it shall be given you: seek, and ye shall find; knock, and it shall be opened unto you." After the alleged crucifixion, his legs were not broken by the Roman soldiers, (John 19:32-33) "Then came the soldiers, and brake the legs of the first, and of the other which was crucified with him. But when they came to Jesus, and saw that he was dead already, they brake not his legs." Can we rely on the soldiers for pronouncing the death, or did they want to save Jesus as they found him innocent? Thus there is a strong probability that Jesus did not die on the cross."

My reply: There are many unwarranted and crazy implications claimed in this paragraph. Let's examine the Scripture passages he quotes:

First, Luke 22:42-3. Jesus prayed that the suffering might be removed, and then an angel appeared to strengthen Him. Quoting this passage to begin a conclusion that Jesus was not crucified ignores the rest of the book of Luke. Chapter 22 closes with these words:

They said, "Tell us! Are you the Messiah?" Jesus replied, "If I said so, you wouldn't believe me. 8 And if I asked you a question, you wouldn't answer. But from now on, the Son of Man will be seated at the right side of God All-Powerful." Then they asked, "Are you the Son of God?" Jesus answered, "You say I am!" They replied, "Why do we need more witnesses? He said it himself!" ( Luke 22:67-71)

Then chapter 23 gives the story of the crucifixion.

"When the soldiers came to the place called "The Skull," they nailed Jesus to a cross. They also nailed the two criminals to crosses, one on each side of Jesus. " Jesus said, "Father, forgive these people! They don't know what they're doing." While the crowd stood there watching Jesus, the soldiers gambled for his clothes. The leaders insulted him by saying, "He saved others. Now he should save himself, if he really is God's chosen Messiah!" (Luke 22:33-34)

Is it not strange that one verse in Luke is interpreted to negate the whole story. Why is one verse so much more important that the many verses describing the crucifixion. This author is motivated by Mohammed who rejected the crucifixion and has no real basis for doing it historically. Muslims are forced to reject, bend, and deny a historical fact because of Mohammed.

Second, he wrote concerning the book of Hebrews, "In Hebrews 5:7, "Who in the days of his flesh, when he (Jesus) had offered up prayers and supplications with strong crying and tears unto him that was able to save him from death, and was heard in that he feared." Jesus prayers were heard, which means answered in a positive way by God..." He implies that God heard him and delivered Jesus from the crucifixion.

It is a Muslim polemic to quote some verse that appears to support Muslim ideas, but when the whole context is read it becomes apparent that they are deceiving people. The book of Hebrews says a lot about the death of Jesus. At the last supper Jesus established the New Covenant referring to his blood that would be poured out. The book of Hebrews talks about the New Covenant that Jesus established with his blood.

" But we do see Jesus, who for a little while was made lower than the angels, so that through God's grace he should die for everyone. We see him now crowned with glory and honor because of the death he suffered." Hebrews. 2:9

"Since the children, as he calls them, are people of flesh and blood, Jesus himself became like them and shared their human nature. He did this so that through his death he might destroy the Devil, who has the power over death," (Hebrews 2:14)

"He is not like other high priests; he does not need to offer sacrifices every day for his own sins first and then for the sins of the people. He offered one sacrifice, once and for all, when he offered himself." (Heb. 7:27)

"Since this is true, how much more is accomplished by the blood of Christ! Through the eternal Spirit he offered himself as a perfect sacrifice to God. His blood will purify our consciences from useless rituals, so that we may serve the living God." (Hebrews 9:14) This is a reference to the crucifixion.

"...now when all ages of time are nearing the end, he has appeared once and for all, to remove sin through the sacrifice of himself." (Hebrews 9:26)

" We have, then, my friends, complete freedom to go into the Most Holy Place by means of the death of Jesus. He opened for us a new way, a living way, through the curtain---that is, through his own body. We have a great priest in charge of the house of God. (Heb. 10:19-21)

"Let us keep our eyes fixed on Jesus, on whom our faith depends from beginning to end. He did not give up because of the cross! On the contrary, because of the joy that was waiting for him, he thought nothing of the disgrace of dying on the cross, and he is now seated at the right side of God's throne. Think of what he went through; how he put up with so much hatred from sinners! So do not let yourselves become discouraged and give up. (Hebrews 12:2-3)

"For this reason Jesus also died outside the city, in order to purify the people from sin with his own blood. Let us, then, go to him outside the camp and share his shame. (Hebrews 13:12-13)

" God has raised from death our Lord Jesus, who is the Great Shepherd of the sheep as the result of his blood, by which the eternal covenant is sealed. (Hebrews 13:20)

I have quoted a number of passages from the book of Hebrews and they permeate the book. These passages refute the Muslim claim of this author that Jesus was not crucified. There is a passage in the book which is a warning to Muslims long before they appeared on the scene.

"What, then, of those who despise the Son of God? who treat as a cheap thing the blood of God's covenant which purified them from sin? who insult the Spirit of grace? Just think how much worse is the punishment they will deserve!" (Hebrews. 10:29)

The next reference is a quote from James and we need to look at the complete passage.

"This prayer made in faith will heal the sick; the Lord will restore them to health, and the sins they have committed will be forgiven. So then, confess your sins to one another and pray for one another, so that you will be healed. The prayer of a good person has a powerful effect." ( James 5:15-16)

The author quotes James based on the fact that a good person's prayers had a powerful effect. Jesus was a good man and praying for escape from the cross must surely have been answered based on the line from James. This prayer has no reference to Jesus. It is about people who have sinned and need their sins forgiven because of what Jesus had done for them in the New Covenant he established by his death on the cross.

Let us now look at the conclusion of that paragraph: "After the alleged crucifixion, his legs were not broken by the Roman soldiers, (John 19:32-33) "Then came the soldiers, and brake the legs of the first, and of the other which was crucified with him. But when they came to Jesus, and saw that he was dead already, they brake not his legs." Can we rely on the soldiers for pronouncing the death, or did they want to save Jesus as they found him innocent? Thus there is a strong probability that Jesus did not die on the cross."

Why "the alleged crucifixion?" The Jewish sources of the time, the pagan histories of the time, and the Christian documents–all affirm the crucifixion of Jesus. The church has its beginning based upon the crucifixion and resurrection of Jesus. The author of this book sought the help of Arius in affirming the oneness of God, but even Arius did not reject the crucifixion.

There is no evidence of a resuscitated Jesus. There is no evidence that the soldiers were in sympathy with Jesus. The only strong probability that Jesus did not die on the cross is only in the minds of Muslims. The facts are otherwise. The influence of Mohammed's error imposed on succeeding generations of Muslims makes them appear irrational and dogmatic.

Mark describes the event after the death of Jesus. "It was toward evening when Joseph of Arimathaea arrived. He was a respected member of the Council, who was waiting for the coming of the Kingdom of God. It was Preparation day (that is, the day before the Sabbath), so Joseph went boldly into the presence of Pilate and asked him for the body of Jesus. Pilate was surprised to hear that Jesus was already dead. He called the army officer and asked him if Jesus had been dead a long time. After hearing the officer's report, Pilate told Joseph he could have the body. Joseph bought a linen sheet, took the body down, wrapped it in the sheet, and placed it in a tomb which had been dug out of solid rock. Then he rolled a large stone across the entrance to the tomb. (Mark 15:42-46)

He wrote: "When the Pharisees asked Jesus for a sign of his true mission, he answered: "For as Jonas was three days and three nights in the whale's belly, so shall the son of man be there three days and three nights in the heart of the earth" (Matthew 12:40). As was mentioned before, Luke has the same story, but Mark contradicts with Matthew and Luke with regards to the sign of Jonas."

Now if it was the time factor that Jesus was trying to emphasize in the prophecy, then this time does not add up to three nights and three days. The maximum that Jesus could have stayed in the tomb was two nights and one day. Therefore, the Christians have two problems arising from one prophecy:........1. The Christians allege that Jesus was unlike Jonah. Jonah was alive for three days and three nights, whereas Jesus was dead in the tomb. 2. Jesus said that he would be in the tomb for three days and three nights, whereas the Christians say that he was in the tomb for only one day and two nights."

My reply: If the Muslim polemicists were really interested in the facts they would check out the historical differences in telling time. John Gilchrist wrote this about Deedat who had the same argument as this author.

"He fails to make allowance for the fact that in those times, nearly two thousand years ago, the Jews counted any part of a day as a whole day when computing any consecutive periods of time. As Jesus was laid in the tomb on the Friday afternoon, was there throughout the Saturday, and only rose sometime before dawn on the Sunday (the Sunday having officially started at sunset on the Saturday according to the Jewish calendar), there can be no doubt that he was in the tomb for a period of three days." http://www.answering-islam.org/Gilchrist/jonah.html

He wrote: Not a single writer of the 27 Books was an eyewitness to this alleged resurrection. And the only one who could have told us about his resurrection was silent. It is possible that Joseph of Arimathea and Nicodemos, (John 18:38-39) had taken their Master soon after dark that very Friday evening to a friendly place for rest and recuperation. Could it be that these two apostles and the others were referring to some one that looked like Jesus. In II Cor. 11:14, Paul says: "And no marvel: for Satan himself is transformed into an angel of light (messenger of God)."

My reply: The story of the crucifixion seemed to be the end of the life of Jesus for all those who followed Him. None expected Him to come forth from the grave, so why demand that someone be there for the actual coming out of the tomb? The idea of fraud as this author proposes would not be refuted if someone saw Jesus come out of the tomb because fraud could be commited there. What we really find in the Scripture story is that Jesus gave credible evidence that he was alive. The disciples did see Him crucified where he died, and they saw him 3 days later–Jewish time keeping–alive and transformed. He was seen by all the disciples, and as many as 500 people at one time. What is most unusual is that the first person to see Jesus alive was a woman. If you were going to create a fraud you would not have used a woman to give evidence and this would be particularly irritating to a Muslim because women have little value as testimony. The story has greater credibility because the first appearance is to a woman.

The quotation from Paul is an interesting slur on the apostles. The whole story reads as follows:

" I will go on doing what I am doing now, in order to keep those other "apostles" from having any reason for boasting and saying that they work in the same way that we do. Those men are not true apostles---they are false apostles, who lie about their work and disguise themselves to look like real apostles of Christ. Well, no wonder! Even Satan can disguise himself to look like an angel of light! So it is no great thing if his servants disguise themselves to look like servants of righteousness. In the end they will get exactly what their actions deserve." (2 Corinthians.11:12-15)

The declaration that Satan can disguise himself to look like an angel of light refers to false apostles, false prophets. They disguise themselves as servants of righteousness. This may sound more like a reference to Mohammed than to the disciples of Jesus.

http://www.answering-islam.org/Andy/Resurrection/harmony.html

http://www.answering-islam.org/Gilchrist/Vol2/5d.html

http://www.answering-islam.org/Cross/

He wrote: "Early Sunday morning Mary Magdalene went to the sepulcher, which was empty. Why did she go there? "To anoint him", Mark 16:1. Anoint means to rub, or to massage bodies with spices. Do Jews massage dead bodies after three days? The answer is "No." It would, however, make sense if she were looking for a live wounded person."

My reply. This author is so desperate to disprove the death and the resurrection that he goes to any length to ignore customs that have been around for hundreds of years. What Mary was going to do is reflected in the practices related to the death of King Asa in the Old Testament. It says Asa "... was buried in the rock tomb which he had carved out for himself in David's City. They used spices and perfumed oils to prepare his body for burial, and they built a huge bonfire to mourn his death.( 2 Chronicles 16.14)

He wrote: "Jesus said (John 20:17): "Touch me not, for I am not yet ascended to my Father." Why did Jesus not want her to touch him? Was it because his fresh wounds still hurt him? If he did not yet ascend to his Father, does this mean that he is still alive, not dead yet? This is the strongest proof admitted by the only reliable witness, by Jesus himself."

My reply: John Calvin comments about this question. "The meaning of the words therefore is, that his state of resurrection would not be full and complete, until he should sit down in heaven at the right hand of the Father; and, therefore, that the women did wrong in satisfying themselves with having nothing more than the half of his resurrection, and desiring to enjoy his presence in the world." (Commentary on John, 20.17)

He wrote: "To believe in his death on the cross is to totally discredit his prophethood. In Deuteronomy 13:5 "And that prophet, or that dreamer of dreams, shall be put to death." The Jews maintain their belief in having killed Jesus on the cross and consequently portrayed him to be a false prophet. Christians believe in the crucifixion necessary for their salvation and redemption of sin, and therefore have to accept the accursedness of Jesus,"

My reply: The Messiah must suffer as Isaiah the prophet declared in chapter 53. After Peter confessed that Jesus was the Messiah, the Son of God, the Bible says, "From that time on Jesus began to say plainly to his disciples, "I must go to Jerusalem and suffer much from the elders, the chief priests, and the teachers of the Law. I will be put to death, but three days later I will be raised to life." Peter took him aside and began to rebuke him. "God forbid it, Lord!" he said. "That must never happen to you!" Jesus turned around and said to Peter, "Get away from me, Satan! You are an obstacle in my way, because these thoughts of yours don't come from God, but from human nature." (Matthew 16:21-23) Later we have these words: "When the disciples all came together in Galilee, Jesus said to them, "The Son of Man is about to be handed over to those who will kill him; but three days later he will be raised to life." The disciples became very sad."(Matthew 17.22-23)

Again we have the warning. :As Jesus was going up to Jerusalem, he took the twelve disciples aside and spoke to them privately, as they walked along. "Listen," he told them, "we are going up to Jerusalem, where the Son of Man will be handed over to the chief priests and the teachers of the Law. They will condemn him to death and then hand him over to the Gentiles, who will make fun of him, whip him, and crucify him; but three days later he will be raised to life." (Matthew 20:17-19)

Luke also speaks of suffering: "But first he must suffer much and be rejected by the people of this day." Luke 17:25

Jesus was rejected by the Jews and he was crucified on a cross. His crucifixion does not mean that he was a false prophet. The works that he did were an expression of who he was–the Son of God. As a prophet he foretold what was going to happen before it came about. He also fulfilled the prophecy of Isaiah 53.

Perhaps the author of these pages has never read what the prophet said. As you read it you can see the details of what was prophesied and what came to pass.

"We despised him and rejected him; he endured suffering and pain. No one would even look at him--- we ignored him as if he were nothing. "But he endured the suffering that should have been ours, the pain that we should have borne. All the while we thought that his suffering was punishment sent by God. But because of our sins he was wounded, beaten because of the evil we did. We are healed by the punishment he suffered, made whole by the blows he received. All of us were like sheep that were lost, each of us going his own way. But the LORD made the punishment fall on him, the punishment all of us deserved. "He was treated harshly, but endured it humbly; he never said a word. Like a lamb about to be slaughtered, like a sheep about to be sheared, he never said a word. He was arrested and sentenced and led off to die, and no one cared about his fate. He was put to death for the sins of our people. He was placed in a grave with those who are evil, he was buried with the rich, even though he had never committed a crime or ever told a lie." The LORD says, "It was my will that he should suffer; his death was a sacrifice to bring forgiveness. And so he will see his descendants; he will live a long life, and through him my purpose will succeed. After a life of suffering, he will again have joy; he will know that he did not suffer in vain. My devoted servant, with whom I am pleased, will bear the punishment of many and for his sake I will forgive them. And so I will give him a place of honor, a place among the great and powerful. He willingly gave his life and shared the fate of evil men. He took the place of many sinners and prayed that they might be forgiven. (Isaiah 53:3-12)

He wrote: "It was Paul who taught the resurrection (Acts 17:18): "... And some (Jews) said, What will this babbler say? Other some, he (Paul) seemeth to be a setter forth of strange gods: because he preached unto them Jesus, and the resurrection." Paul, who never saw Jesus, also admitted that the resurrection was his gospel (II Timothy 2:8): "Remember that Jesus Christ of the seed of David was raised from the dead according to my gospel." As for Mark (16:19), when he mentioned that Jesus rose up to heaven and sat on the right hand of God, it was already mentioned that Mark 16:9-20, were expunged from certain Bibles, and it was originally added to fill in the spaces."

My reply: There are three items that are wrong or misleading in this paragraph. First, the claim is made that Paul was the one who taught the resurrection. In Matthew we have these words, "The angel spoke to the women. "You must not be afraid," he said. "I know you are looking for Jesus, who was crucified. He is not here; he has been raised, just as he said. Come here and see the place where he was lying. Go quickly now, and tell his disciples, 'He has been raised from death, and now he is going to Galilee ahead of you; there you will see him!' Remember what I have told you." So they left the tomb in a hurry, afraid and yet filled with joy, and ran to tell his disciples." (Matthew 28.5-8) In this case it was an angel that declared the resurrection to the women. In case one wonders about the awareness of the writer, being raised is the same as the resurrection.

"Very early on Sunday morning the women went to the tomb, carrying the spices they had prepared. They found the stone rolled away from the entrance to the tomb, so they went in; but they did not find the body of the Lord Jesus. They stood there puzzled about this, when suddenly two men in bright shining clothes stood by them. Full of fear, the women bowed down to the ground, as the men said to them, "Why are you looking among the dead for one who is alive? He is not here; he has been raised. Remember what he said to you while he was in Galilee: 'The Son of Man must be handed over to sinners, be crucified, and three days later rise to life.' " (Luke 24:1-7)

Luke verifies the story of the angels who proclaimed that Jesus was crucified, died, and was raised to live. There is more in the concluding chapter of Luke about two disciples on the road to Emmaus. Jesus met up with them and "Then Jesus said to them, "How foolish you are, how slow you are to believe everything the prophets said! Was it not necessary for the Messiah to suffer these things and then to enter his glory?" And Jesus explained to them what was said about himself in all the Scriptures, beginning with the books of Moses and the writings of all the prophets." ( Luke 24:25-26.) Later Jesus appeared to the group as Luke describes, "They were terrified, thinking that they were seeing a ghost. But he said to them, "Why are you alarmed? Why are these doubts coming up in your minds? Look at my hands and my feet, and see that it is I myself. Feel me, and you will know, for a ghost doesn't have flesh and bones, as you can see I have." He said this and showed them his hands and his feet. (Luke 24:37-40)

Then Jesus repeated the words of the prophecy, "Then he opened their minds to understand the Scriptures, and said to them, "This is what is written: the Messiah must suffer and must rise from death three days later, and in his name the message about repentance and the forgiveness of sins must be preached to all nations, beginning in Jerusalem" . ( Luke 24:45-47)

Mark 16 also affirms the crucifixion and resurrection. "So they entered the tomb, where they saw a young man sitting at the right, wearing a white robe---and they were alarmed. "Don't be alarmed," he said. "I know you are looking for Jesus of Nazareth, who was crucified. He is not here---he has been raised! Look, here is the place where he was placed. Now go and give this message to his disciples, including Peter: 'He is going to Galilee ahead of you; there you will see him, just as he told you.' " (Mark 16:5-7)

John also records the event. "A week later the disciples were together again indoors, and Thomas was with them. The doors were locked, but Jesus came and stood among them and said, "Peace be with you." Then he said to Thomas, "Put your finger here, and look at my hands; then reach out your hand and put it in my side. Stop your doubting, and believe!" Thomas answered him, "My Lord and my God!"" (John 20:26-28)

In the book of Acts it is actually Peter who declares the crucifixion and resurrection, "Listen to these words, fellow Israelites! Jesus of Nazareth was a man whose divine authority was clearly proven to you by all the miracles and wonders which God performed through him. You yourselves know this, for it happened here among you. In accordance with his own plan God had already decided that Jesus would be handed over to you; and you killed him by letting sinful men crucify him. But God raised him from death, setting him free from its power, because it was impossible that death should hold him prisoner." (Acts 2:22-24)

So much for the erroneous information that this writer seeks to use and mislead people.

The second misleading claim is II Timothy 2:8): "Remember that Jesus Christ of the seed of David was raised from the dead according to my gospel. It is unfortunate that this author does not explore the full story of Paul's learning the Gospel. He is interpreting the "my" as possessive and Paul clearly claims that he did not invest it, he only declares the Gospel about the crucifixion and resurrection of Jesus.

The author claims that Paul never saw Jesus. This implies that the conversion story of Paul on the road to Damascus is bogus.

" As Saul was coming near the city of Damascus, suddenly a light from the sky flashed around him. He fell to the ground and heard a voice saying to him, "Saul, Saul! Why do you persecute me?" "Who are you, Lord?" he asked. "I am Jesus, whom you persecute," the voice said. "But get up and go into the city, where you will be told what you must do." (Acts 9:3-6) After meeting Ananias these words were recorded, "So Ananias went, entered the house where Saul was, and placed his hands on him. "Brother Saul," he said, "the Lord has sent me---Jesus himself, who appeared to you on the road as you were coming here. He sent me so that you might see again and be filled with the Holy Spirit." At once something like fish scales fell from Saul's eyes, and he was able to see again. He stood up and was baptized; and after he had eaten, his strength came back. Saul stayed for a few days with the believers in Damascus. He went straight to the synagogues and began to preach that Jesus was the Son of God." (Acts. 9:17-20)

It is more difficult to claim that Paul never saw Jesus than to say that Mohammed never saw Gabriel. The fact is that no one except Mohammed claimed to have seen Gabriel. Why should one accept Mohammed's claim for revelation. The proof is in the events that followed. Paul had a sudden conversion in which he quit persecuting the Christians and began to preach that Jesus was the Son of God.

( Moreover, Paul was given the power to do some healing of people. He changed from a person of hate to an apostle of love. Mohammed claimed a revelation from Allah and he changed from a well-liked person into an enemy of all those who did not accept his message. At Mecca he preached that Islam is a religion of peace, but at Medina he changed into a warrior, calling for jihad, raiding caravans, towns, and people in general.)

This is the same message declared by the angels at the tomb, the same message preached by Peter, and the same message given by Jesus to his followers. Paul wrote in many places:

Rom 1:16 I have complete confidence in the gospel; it is God's power to save all who believe, first the Jews and also the Gentiles.

Rom 1:17 For the gospel reveals how God puts people right with himself: it is through faith from beginning to end. As the scripture says, "The person who is put right with God through faith shall live."

1Co 9:16 I have no right to boast just because I preach the gospel. After all, I am under orders to do so. And how terrible it would be for me if I did not preach the gospel!

Gal 1:11 Let me tell you, my friends, that the gospel I preach is not of human origin.

Eph 3:7 I was made a servant of the gospel by God's special gift, which he gave me through the working of his power.

Col 1:23 You must, of course, continue faithful on a firm and sure foundation, and must not allow yourselves to be shaken from the hope you gained when you heard the gospel It is of this gospel that I, Paul, became a servant---this gospel which has been preached to everybody in the world.

1Tim 1:11 That teaching is found in the gospel that was entrusted to me to announce, the Good News from the glorious and blessed God.

The third misleading issue concerns Mark where he wrote: "As for Mark (16:19), when he mentioned that Jesus rose up to heaven and sat on the right hand of God, it was already mentioned that Mark 16:9-20, were expunged from certain Bibles, and it was originally added to fill in the spaces."

Two things can be said. First, because two ancient manuscripts in Greek do not have these verses, some scholars reject them as additions. Virtually all other Greek manuscripts have them and many church fathers have them. Second, the issue of the resurrection does not depend on this ending. It is already affirmed in the first 8 verses. Verse 6 agrees with the other gospels. Moreover, the other Gospels including John and the witness of the apostles in the book of Acts affirm the crucifixion and resurrection. The author is seeking to build doubt in the reader–he is intentionally ignoring the objective data that he claimed in the beginning.

He wrote: "The Holy Quran states that Jesus did not die on the cross: Surah 4, Ayah 157: "That they (Jews) said (in boast), "We killed Christ Jesus the son of Mary, the Messenger of Allah"; - but they killed him not, nor crucified him, but so it was made to appear to them""

My reply: This is the reason so much effort is spent on trying to deny the crucifixion and resurrection of Jesus. History is against this view of Islam. The most reliable documents we have about the life of Jesus are found in the New Testament and they not only affirm the death and resurrection of Jesus, but they also show–as did Jesus while he was yet alive–that the death of the Messiah was foretold centuries before the event. Why would anyone make up a story about the crucifixion if it never existed? It is incredible that one would think it so. The Jews affirmed the death of Jesus, the pagan histories affirm the death of Jesus, and the Christian literature affirms it. Only the words of a false prophet would claim it never happened.

7.5 Jesus Christ (Pbuh)

He wrote: "Muslims believe that Jesus was one of the mightiest messengers of Allah; that he was the Christ, that he was born miraculously - without male intervention; that he gave life to the dead with God's permission, that he healed those born blind and with leprosy with God's permission, and that he did not die on the cross. In fact no Muslim is a Muslim if he does not believe in Jesus! Yet many Christians have no basic concept of Islam. Many are skeptical because they have been so brain washed for centuries."

My reply: The portrait of Jesus in the Qur'an is a partial picture of the real Jesus. Yes, Jesus did miracles on the one hand, but on the other hand, He did it with God's permission, but not in his own right and power. Oh, yes, he did not die on the cross they say. We have covered that in the last chapter. If Muslims are required to believe in Jesus it is only as a historical person. It really does not make any difference whether they believe in Him or not. They accept his historical existence, but not who He really is–the Son of God.

The author has a number of contrasting statements about Jesus designed to ask which Jesus is the real one. One example is the following:

"The one who said bless them that curse you, Matthew 5:44, or the one who said he who curses father or mother, let him be put to death, Matthew 15:4?"

The author is deceiving in the use of quotes frequently. Let's look at the whole quote.

" Jesus answered, "And why do you disobey God's command and follow your own teaching? For God said, 'Respect your father and your mother,' and 'If you curse your father or your mother, you are to be put to death.' But you teach that if people have something they could use to help their father or mother, but say, 'This belongs to God,' they do not need to honor their father. In this way you disregard God's command, in order to follow your own teaching. You hypocrites! How right Isaiah was when he prophesied about you! 'These people, says God, honor me with their words, but their heart is really far away from me. It is no use for them to worship me, because they teach human rules as though they were my laws!' " (Matthew 15:3-9)

The issue then is hypocrisy of the teachers of the Law, not Jesus advocating putting a son to death. There are a number of these kinds of statement giving the impression of a false dichotomy.

The statement about Christians being brain-washed for centuries is more interesting when the question is raised about Muslims being brainwashed. They have been brain washed to believe facts are fictions and fictions are facts.

He wrote: "The Bible is so abundant with the anointed ones. Not only were prophets, priests, and kings anointed (christos-ed) but horns, cherubs, and lamp-posts also: Genesis 31:13 "I am the God of Bethel, where you anointed as a pillar""

My reply: The intention of referring to all kinds of things and persons being "anointed" is to downplay the significance of The Messiah. There is a history of waiting for the Messiah to come, and the Jewish people were people looking to the future when the Messiah would come. The question raised by John the Baptist concerning Jesus was "Tell us," they asked Jesus, "are you the one John said was going to come, or should we expect someone else?" Jesus answered, "Go back and tell John what you are hearing and seeing: the blind can see, the lame can walk, those who suffer from dreaded skin diseases are made clean, the deaf hear, the dead are brought back to life, and the Good News is preached to the poor. How happy are those who have no doubts about me!" (Matthew 11:3-6)

This question was asked by Jesus of his disciples: "Jesus went to the territory near the town of Caesarea Philippi, where he asked his disciples, "Who do people say the Son of Man is?" "Some say John the Baptist," they answered. "Others say Elijah, while others say Jeremiah or some other prophet." "What about you?" he asked them. "Who do you say I am?" Simon Peter answered, "You are the Messiah, the Son of the living God." "Good for you, Simon son of John!" answered Jesus. "For this truth did not come to you from any human being, but it was given to you directly by my Father in heaven." (Matthew 16:13-17)

He wrote: "As a matter of fact, the Qur'an lists many of the miracles in the bible that Jesus performed, with the permission of God, and more!"

My reply: bogus miracles stories more later;;;;

He Wrote: This is the Word of God: "Be And he was." The logic is that, if being born without male parent entitles Jesus to being equated with God, then, Adam and Melchisedec would have a greater right to such an honor, and this no Christian would readily concede. Thus, Muslims reject this Christian doctrine that exists only in writing of John and only in the King James Version.

My reply We have already refuted this in 7.2 The Doctrine of the Son of God above. I would also refer the reader to an extended article dealing with the question of Who is the Real Jesus? at www.answering- The claim that it is only in the King James Version is also bogus.

He wrote: "As was mentioned before, anyone who does not believe in miracles, can go to Mecca in Saudi Arabia and examine the physical miracle of the well of Zamzam that has been pumping pure water for thousands of years with no sign of drying up. Or anyone can read the Qur'an and see the real spiritual and scientific miracles in this Book. It is not a coincidence that the only two miracles that exist on this Earth belong to Islam, while all the miracles that Jesus or Moses performed are only recorded in the Holy Books."

My reply: What is so miraculous about a well still giving water? The claim of miracles in the Qur'an is quite contrary to the admission of Mohammed that he was only a "warner" and had no miracles. The claim that the Qur'an is his only miracle precludes other miracles. There is nothing miraculous about the Qur'an. Many people have written books that make more sense than the Qur'an. There are miracles going on the Christian community, people are being forgiven, lives are being changed, and physical illness are being healed.

He wrote: "The story of Mary is spread into many chapters in the Quran. Mary's mother, Hannah, was barren. She poured out her heart to God: If only God would grant her a son, she would surely dedicate such a son for the service of God in the temple. God granted her prayer, not a son but instead delivered a daughter called Mary. She was disappointed, because in no way is the female like the male, for what she had in mind. She had made a vow to God. She waited for Mary to grow up to fend for herself. When the time came, Hannah took her daughter to the temple, to hand her over for temple services. Every priest was clamoring to be the godfather of this child. They cast lots with arrows for her to see who would achieve this honor. Eventually she fell in the lots of Zakariya, the father of John the Baptist (Prophet Yahya in Quran), but not without a dispute. Every time Zakariya visited Mary to check on her needs, he found her surrounded by light and food. When he asked Mary where does she get this food, she answered from Allah. This inspired Zakariya to ask God for a son knowing that his wife was barren. So God granted him John the Baptist. Mary's mother asked for a son, but Allah gave her much more. He gave her a daughter and then made this daughter the holiest woman ever. Such generosity from the Almighty!"

My reply: The author has seemingly borrow the information from one of his sources, Deedat. The problem are immense in this claim. Gilchrist has written about this issue.

"Deedat has much to say, not only about the Qur'anic teaching about Jesus, but also its teaching about his mother Mary. Under the heading "Mary's birth" he says:

"The story is that the maternal grandmother of Jesus, Hannah, had hitherto been barren. She poured out her heart to God: if only God will grant her a child, she would surely dedicate such a child for the service of God in the temple. (Deedat, Christ in Islam, p.9)

"Every Christian child who has attended Sunday school knows about the story of Hannah and how she prayed earnestly to God for a son and promised to deliver him to the service of the Lord all his days if her prayer was answered. The only problem is that the child that was born to her was Samuel who became a prophet and anointed David to be king over Israel about a thousand years before the time of Mary and Jesus! Her prayer is recorded in 1 Samuel 1:11 and later in the same chapter we read:

"In due time Hannah conceived and bore a son, and she called his name Samuel, for she said, "I have asked him of the Lord." (1 Samuel 1:20)

"How, then, did Mr. Deedat, a supposed "Muslim scholar of the Bible" as he describes himself, come to make such a blunder as to confuse the mother of Samuel with the mother of Mary? The reason is that the Qur'an itself confuses the two women and, although it does not name Hannah, nevertheless records the anachronism which confounds the two women (Sura Al Imran 3:35-36). (Some of the works of Hadith openly say that the name of Mary's mother was indeed Hannah and both ancient and modern commentators of the Qur'an accept that this was her real name.)

"On the next page of his booklet Deedat says, "This was the story. But where did Muhammad (pbuh) get this knowledge from? He was an Ummi (unlettered). He did not know how to read or write" (Christ in Islam, p.10). As an obvious mistake has been made this is a very good question indeed! Deedat refers to the fact that Muhammad was unlettered as a back-up to the claim that the Qur'an is the Word of God. But, as he has clearly mixed up the two women, surely it is obvious that the fact that Muhammad was unlettered is all the more proof that he was the real composer of the book. If he had been well-read in the Jewish Scriptures he would never have made such mistakes.

"In fact the whole story of Mary's birth and dedication in the Qur'an is a strange confusion of various passages of the Bible. Mary herself is clearly confused with Elijah, for a start, for he was the prophet confined to solitude who was fed by ravens that brought him food from above (1 Kings 17:6 - the Qur'an states that Mary, too, was fed from heaven in Sura Al Imran 3:37). Nevertheless it is the name given to Mary's mother, namely Hannah, that really gives us the clue as to where the composers of this story obtained their material. We should perhaps at this stage mention that the original story is first found in an apocryphal work entitled "Proto-evangelium of James the Less" and that it was simply taken over by Muhammad into the Qur'an without him being aware of its mystical origin."

"It is strange that Muslims accept as revelation a story that is filled with inaccuracies and was circulating long before Mohammed. For more information go to

http://www.answering-islam.org/Gilchrist/christ.html

He wrote: "The Bible says the first miracle of Jesus, occurred when he was over thirty years old. In John 2:1-10, this first miracle when wine flowed like water. Jesus made this potent wine that the men have "well drunk." This was not grape juice. It was the same wine that, according to the Bible, enabled the daughters of Lot to seduce their father, Genesis 19:32-33. It was the same wine that the Christian is advised to avoid in Ephesians 5:18 "And be not drunk with wine". The Quran does not mention this alleged miracle to Jesus.

On the other hand, in Islam, Jesus' first miracle occurred when he was a baby. He spoke as an infant. He talked to defend his mother from any devious judgment from her people. Now ask yourself, which version of the first miracle would you choose for Jesus? The Islamic version or the Biblical version?"

My reply: He supposes a contraction between the miracle of changing the water to wine and the passage in Ephesians. Being drunk is different than drinking wine. But the real issue is the miracle of Jesus. What about the story of Jesus as a baby? Common sense would go for the Bible story. The story of Mohammed is not revelation but revised story telling borrowed from the Gospel of the Infancy.

Tisdall has written: "The origin of this legend is not far to seek. We have already seen that one of the apocryphal Gospels represents Christ, when on His journey to Egypt in His infancy, as addressing the palm-tree and bidding it bow down and permit His Mother to pluck its fruit. But probably the source from which Muhammad borrowed the incident is Injilu't Tufuliyyah, better known as the Arabic Gospel of the Infancy. In the first chapter of that work we read:—

"We have found it recorded in the book of Josephus the Chief Priest, who was in the time of Christ (and men say that he was Caiaphas), that this man said that Jesus spake when He was in the cradle, and said to Mary His Mother, 'Verily I am Jesus, the Son of God, the Word which thou hast borne, according as the angel Gabriel gave thee the good news; and My Father hath sent Me for the salvation of the world.'"

Of course Muhammad could not represent Christ as using the words which this apocryphal Gospel attributes to Him, for in the Qur'an the Divine Sonship of Christ is everywhere denied. Therefore, while believing and stating that Jesus spoke when an infant in the cradle, Muhammad in his account has put into His mouth words which seemed to him more suitable and more consonant with Islam. Otherwise the story is the same. " (http://www.answering-islam.org/Books/Tisdall/Sources/chap4.htm)

Again the question is raised–what is revelation? Direct information from God or rewriting of old stories?

He wrote: "The Quran calls the Jews and Christians: "People of the book." This is a very respected title that they are addressed as in the Quran. The Quran asks both the Jews and Christians to say only the truth of Allah. Muslims are commanded to invite People of the Book to a common platform that we worship none but God."

My reply: What does a respected title mean, People of the book, when those same people are killed, persecuted, reduced to dhimmitude? The respect for people of the book did not keep Mohammed from driving Christians out of Arabia. It did not keep him from killing the Jews in Arabia. Moreover, there is no common platform because the concept of Allah is not the same as the concept of Yahweh.

7.6 Muhammad (Pbuh) in the Bible

He wrote: "It is a fact that Muhammad, like all the Arabs, came from Ismael, the son of Abraham. Just like the Jews discredit Jesus, both the Jews and the Christians claim that Ismael was an illegitimate son of Abraham. Another insult added to the prophets of God. They are talking about Abraham, the father of all the prophets, the prophet that God honored in the three religions of Judaism, Christianity, and Islam. They maintain that Isaac was superior to Ismael, but that is not what the Bible states:

Genesis 16:10 "And the angel of the Lord said unto her (Hagar), I will multiply thy seed exceedingly, that it shall not be numbered for multitude."

Genesis 17:20 "And as for Ismael, I have heard thee: Behold, I have blessed him, and will make him fruitful, and will multiply him exceedingly: twelve princes shall he beget, and I will make him a great nation."

"We still see some verses in the Bible that escaped all the alterations and adaptations. The above verse states clearly that God blessed Ismael. Is it possible that God blessed an illegitimate child? Can God promise a mother that her illegitimate child would make a great nation? The Jewish and the Christian rebuttal would be as such: Yes, it is the will of God! Is it possible that the mighty prophet Abraham would have an illegal wife and a son out of wedlock? The Bible says:

Genesis 16:3 "...And (Sarah) gave her (Hagar) to her husband to be his wife."

"Genesis 20:12 "And yet indeed she (Sarah) is my sister; she is the daughter of my father, but not the daughter of my mother, and she became my wife."

"For the sake of honesty, the above two verses conclude that Hagar was a legitimate wife, while Sarah was not, because she was his "half sister"!"

My reply: First, we need to examine his sentence, "It is a fact that Muhammad, like all the Arabs, came from Ismael, the son of Abraham." There is no evidence for this. There is much evidence against it. An important rebuttal can be seen at here http://www.answering-islam.org/Shamoun/ishmael.htm

http://www.google.com/search?q=ishmael&sa=Start+%91Google+Search%92&sitesearch=answ
ering-islam.org

Also, http://www.answering-islam.org/BibleCom/gen16-3.html

These articles cover the issues raised in his claim. If Muslims would really read the Bible in the context it would put a stop to their revisionism. It is a terrible practice to read one verse and create a complete false story based on mis-use of a verse. In the case above, verse 17.20 is used to claim for Ishmael what verse 21- rejects. (-Gen 17:21) "But your son Isaac will be born about this time next year, and the promise I am making to you and your family will be for him and his descendants forever."

He wrote :What an honor to be named by God himself! Different versions of the Bible began adapting the story of Ismael. The RSV Bible added that Ismael would be a wild man; the Easy To Read Bible added that Ismael would be wild "like a wild donkey"! HOW SAD! Where is the reference to a wild donkey? This is a clear example of the adulteration and alteration of the "Holy Bible." Any Christian who reads this statement about Ismael, should research the origin of the wild donkey! Do you think that this is Easy to Read Bible, or Easy to Manipulate Bible! Please recall the above Genesis 17:20.

My reply: What really should be said by this man is that the Qur'an began adapting and revising the Bible. The ASV, CEV,Darby, GNB, NET, NIV, RSV,and YLT all have the word wild ass or wild donkey. This is a matter of translation, not revision. Does the history claimed by the Muslims not vindicate the wildness that the Scripture declares? Why would the people of the Old Testament re-write something about Ishamel when nothing about Mohammed appeared until the sixth century AD? This is a conspiracy theory in reverse.

He wrote: Criterion of the Prophet

"A criterion of the prophet is given by Jeremiah 28:9: "The prophet which prophesieth of peace, when the word of the prophet shall come to pass, then shall the prophet be known, that the Lord hath truly sent him." The word Islam also signifies peace. Peace between the Creator and his creatures. This prophecy of Jeremiah cannot be applied to Jesus, as he himself stated that he did not come for peace:

"Luke 12:51 "Do you suppose that I came to give peace on earth? I tell you, not at all, but rather division." Why then during Christmas, is the slogan of "peace on Earth" related to Jesus if he said: Nay to peace on Earth! Muslims believe that Jesus came for "peace on Earth", unlike Luke!

My reply: The claims of this author are off the wall and out of context. If you will read chapter 28 there is an alleged prophet, Hananiah, who claimed that Babylon's power has been broken and in two years time the captured king of Judah would be returned along with the Temple vessels, as well as people. Jeremiah's response was "But a prophet who predicts peace can only be recognized as a prophet whom the LORD has truly sent when that prophet's predictions come true." Jeremiah 28:9) So Jeremiah's words came true because none of that happened and Babylon conquered Jerusalem and carried off the rest of the people. This has no reference to anything historical beyond what occured in Jeremiah's time.

As for the statement of Jesus, it has nothing to do with peace on earth. "Do you suppose that I came to bring peace to the world? No, not peace, but division. From now on a family of five will be divided, three against two and two against three. Fathers will be against their sons, and sons against their fathers; mothers will be against their daughters, and daughters against their mothers; mothers-in-law will be against their daughters-in-law, and daughters-in-law against their mothers-in-law." (Luke 12:51-53) It has to do with family divisions. There were also divisions when Mohammed began to preach. Some accepted him in families and others did not.

In the contemporary setting, the author of this work should remember that there were two girls killed in the Dallas area because they rejected the father's cultural bondage and wanted to be accepted in America. In a current situation in Ohio there is young girl who has become a Christian from a Muslim family and she does not want to go home because she believes she will be a victim of honor killing. Becoming a Christian will divide the family unless all become Christians. But in many countries where this has happened the family has been persecuted by Muslims, or Hindus and many have been driven out of their homes and villages.

Ah, but Jesus did give peace on earth–to those who trust Him as Savior have people. "Therefore, being justified by faith we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ...." (Rom. 5:1)

He wrote: "The message of Jacob to his sons before he died as in Genesis 49:10:

"The scepter shall not depart from Judah, nor a lawgiver from between his feet, until Shiloh come; and unto him shall the gathering of the people be."

Shiloh is also a name of a town, but its real meaning is peace, i.e. Islam. It could never refer to a town here. It is referred to a person. It could be an alteration of the word "Shaluah", which means a messenger of God. So the Israelite Prophethood in the lineage of Isaac would stop as soon as Shiloh comes. This corresponds with the Quran:

Surah 2, Ayah 133: "Were ye witnesses when death appeared before Jacob? Behold, he said to his sons: "What will ye worship after me?" They said: "We shall worship Thy God and the God of thy fathers, of Abraham, Ismael and Isaac, - the One (True) God; To Him do we submit."

My reply: Another wild interpretation. This is related to the tribe of Judah through whom the Messiah was to come. Mohammed was not Jewish. The alteration theory for the word gets a old after reading it so many times. This is like saying that the Qur'an once had a prophecy of automobiles in it but no one knew what they were and so the words were deleted or changed. The idea that the descendants of Judah would always reign was not abrogated. It is still in effect in the claims of Jesus reigning in the Kingdom of God. For more information, go here

http://www.answering-islam.org/BibleCom/gen49-10.html

He wrote: " The shift of the prophethood to another nation was threatened in Jeremiah 31:36:

"If those ordinances depart from before me, saith the Lord, then the seed of Israel also shall cease from being a nation before me for ever."

Also Jesus hinted about the same threat in Matthew 21:45:

"Therefore say I unto you, the kingdom of God shall be taken from you, and given to a nation bringing forth the fruits thereof."

My reply: I am amazed at the brazenness of this author to mis-use Scripture. If one mis-used the Qur'an this way he would be up in arms. The verse gives a great reference to God's faithfulness to Israel even when it has sinned. Even being sent into captivity the promise was made the they would return and be back in the homeland. That happened. The verses following describe the return and rebuilding of the city. These verses come after Jeremiah 31:31-ff in which God declares the He will make a new covenant with Israel, not like the old one. So the chapter affirms God's new hope for Israel and has nothing to do with the claim that a new prophethood was coming in Mohammed.

The reference to Jesus concerns the rejection by the Pharisees. "The kingdom of God will be given to a nation bringing forth the fruits thereof." Various translations use nation, or people, and the immediate effect was the Gentiles–non-Jews–who readily accepted the Gospel about the death and resurrection of Jesus and their lives were transformed. It is silly to think that Jesus is talking about an unknown character from Arabia who lived 500 years later. This is not a prophecy but a statement of fact about what happened in that generation.

He wrote: "According to the Islamic tradition, Abraham took Ismael and Hagar, and made a new settlement in Mecca, called Paran (Arabia) in the Bible (Genesis 21:21), because of divine instruction given to him as part of God's plan. When Abraham left, Hagar ran seven times between two hills, Safa and Marwa, looking for water."

My reply: "According to Islamic tradition" is a way of talking about things that are not historical and have no historical basis. There is no evidence that Abraham was in Mecca, no evidence that Abraham and Ishmael built the Ka'ba.

http://www.answering-islam.org/Shamoun/incomplete_mecca.htm

http://www.answering-islam.org/authors/toler/abraham_kaaba.html

http://www.answering-islam.org/BibleCom/gen37-25.html

The Prophet Like Unto Moses

He wrote: "God addresses Moses in Deuteronomy 18:18: "I will raise them up a prophet from among their brethren, like unto thee (Moses), and will put my words in his mouth, and he shall speak unto them all that I shall command him."

Brethren of the Israelites (descendant of Abraham through Isaac) are the Ishmaelite (descendant of Abraham through Ismael). Jesus should be excluded, as he is an Israelite; otherwise the above verse should say: "Prophet from among yourself."

My reply: David Wood has written, "First, the passage says that God will raise up a prophet like Moses, because the Israelites didn't want to speak directly with God. The Israelites said, "Let me not hear again the voice of the LORD my God ... that I die not," and God replied, "They have well spoken that which they have spoken." Hence, when verse 18:15 is taken in context, we see that the Jews were asking for a mediator, someone to stand between them and God just as Moses did. The ultimate fulfillment of this passage would be someone who stands as a permanent mediator between God and man. While Muhammad could certainly be viewed as an intermediary of some sort, the passage seems to fit more comfortably if the Prophet is Jesus. At best, one could argue that Muhammad was a link in the chain of transmission from the Qur'an, from Allah, to Gabriel, to Muhammad, to mankind. But this doesn't fulfill the prophecy. Muslims don't believe in the sort of mediator required by Deuteronomy 18. In Christianity, however, Jesus is a permanent mediator: "For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus; who gave himself a ransom for all, to be testified in due time" (1 Timothy 2:5-6)

"Next, Moses says that God will raise up a prophet "from the midst of thee." Since he is talking to Israelites, it sounds as if God is telling them that he will raise up a prophet from the midst of Israel. In any case, Muhammad surely wasn't raised up from the midst of Jews. Jesus, on the other hand, was born and raised in Israel, so the context again fits more comfortably if Moses is referring to Jesus." ( http://www.answering-islam.org/Authors/Wood/muhammad_in_bible.htm)

Other articles are here http://www.answering-islam.org/Gilchrist/muhammad.html

and here http://www.answering-islam.org/Nehls/Answer/biblemhd.html

He wrote: Jesus said that Elias came, and it was understood that he was John the Baptist. But John the Baptist denied that. I will leave this discrepancy between John the Baptist and Jesus for the Christian scholars to solve!

My reply: One wonders what discrepancy he is trying to read into the account. John was a prophet sent to prepare the way for the Messiah, the Son of God. Jesus as the Son of God knew what was happening far beyond what John knew. John knew what he was to do and did it. Jesus knew who John was and who he symbolized and declared it so.

He wrote: "Does the above descriptions fit the Holy Ghost, spirit, or a person? The comforter is described as to be able to hear and speak; does this fit a spirit or a person? Did a deliberate adaptation of the Bible add a few words here and there to alter the intended meanings that predicted the advent of a prophet after Jesus?"

My reply: There is such a desperate attempt to find in the Bible what is not there that accusations are made that changes have been made. The implication made here is that a spirit cannot speak, only a bodied person can do that. How would this do applied to the Qur'an. How can a spirit speak to Mohammed? Whether you are talking about Gabriel or Allah they are not really bodied, so how can they speak? For that matter how can Yahweh speak to Moses which the Qur'an admits. For material on the Holy Spirit, the Comforter referred to by Jesus, go here http://www.answering-islam.org/Index/P/paraclete_and_periklutos.html and here http://www.answering-islam.org/Silas/comforter.htm

http://answering-islam.org/Responses/Al-Kadhi/r06.03a.html

8.1 Islamic Sources The Quran

He wrote: " Both Islamic and non-Islamic scholars agree on the essential integrity of the text of the Quran throughout its history. Because of the distortion of all previous Books by humans, God kept his promise that He Himself will protect the Quran. The Quran is complete and authentic. Nothing of it is missing and no more of it is expected. Its authenticity is beyond any doubt, and no serious scholar or thinker has ventured to question its genuineness. God made it incumbent upon Himself to protect it against distortion of any kind. Thus it is given to mankind as the standard or the criterion by which all other books are judged. Consequently, whatever agrees with the Quran is accepted as divine truth, and whatever differs from the Quran is rejected. God says:

Surah 15, Ayah 9 "We have, without doubt, sent down the Message; and We will assuredly guard it (from corruption)."

My reply: First, only Muslim scholars agree on the essential integrity of the text of the Qur'an. There is a history of the Qur'an that Muslim scholars seek to ignore or explain away. Mohammed did not put the Qur'an together and it was only put together some 18 years after he was gone. There were a variety of collections circulating by various groups. When Uthman was made aware of the different collections and the diversity in them, he commissioned a project to have one authentic Qur'an and ordered all variants to be burned. What a waste of treasure for the Muslim historian. For a detailed, scholarly history of the attempts to put the Quran together see the article by John Gilchrist here http://www.answering-islam.org/Gilchrist/Jam/index.html

One might raise the question: if God could not keep the Torah from being corrupted as the Muslims claim, and if God could not keep the Gospels from being corrupted as they claim, what evidence is there that God kept the Qur'an from being corrupted?

He wrote: This memorization of the Quran provides a considerable advantage because of the double-checking that occurred when the definitive text was compiled.

My reply: The memory test is not all that good. Even Mohammed forgot some verses that he heard being recited by a Muslim. The project to put the definitive text together involved some suras that were known by only one person and all the others memorizers had forgotten them. The admission that a "definitive text was compiled" implies that there were texts that were circulating and were not "definitive." The compilation of the text was not done by divine inspiration.

He wrote: The unbelievers treated him as an impostor, and they spread rumors that the established Jewish and Christian communities in Arabia dictated the stories to him! This is in spite of the fact that during many divine revelations he was with his family or his companions, and those fictitious sources never revealed themselves.

My reply: If you read the biography of Mohammed by Ibn Ishaq it becomes apparent that Mohammed had lots of influences in his life. Mary the Copt was familiar with lots of stories she brought with her, some Christians came to question Mohammed, as well as pagans. The point is that many of the stories in the Qur'an were not revelation at all. They were circulating in Jewish sources, or Christian apocryphal sources and Mohammed used the stories and gave them a different ending especially the stories that affirmed that Jesus was the Son of God. The claim that "those fictitious sources never revealed themselves" is a meaningless statement. Does he expect a story that was hundreds of years older than Mohammed to come alive and confess something? There are many stories that were used like the baby Jesus talking to Mary, or the youth in the cave who slept for 300 years.

He wrote: "Another famous tradition tells how every year in the month of Ramadan, the Prophet would recite all the revealed Quran to Gabriel.Also in the month of Ramadan preceding the Prophet's death, Gabriel had made him recite the Quran twice."

My reply: How do we gain credibility for this claim. Did anyone see Gabriel in making Mohammed recite the story. Stories in the hadith collection were manufactered and were collected many years after Mohammed's time. There are so many of them–around 600,000–and it is difficult to know which are true and which are false. No two collections agree on the exact same ones. The author is so intent on discrediting the Gospels that he has ignored the problems in his own camp.

He wrote: According to the instruction of Abu Bakr, a verse could be accepted only if it was presented at least in two manuscripts and should conform to the memorized version of the commission headed by Zaid Ibn Thabit. A parallel to this conscientious performance does not exist in the case of any other scripture in the history of the world.

My reply: This seems like a reasonable approach. But is it really? Gilchrist observed, "Uthman's action was drastic, to say the least. Not one of the other codices was exempted from the order that they be destroyed. It can only be assumed that the differences in reading between the various texts was so vast that the Caliph saw no alternative to an order for the standardising of one of the texts and the annihilation of the rest. The fact that none of the other texts was spared shows that none of the codices, Zaid's included, agreed with any of the others in its entirety. There must have been serious textual variants between the texts to warrant such action. One cannot assume that Zaid's text, hidden from public view, just happened to be the perfect text and that, wherever it differed from the others, they must have been in error." http://www.answering-islam.org/Gilchrist/Jam/chap2.html

He wrote: " The third Caliph Othman, who held the Caliphate from 644 to 655, realized that copies of the Quran from the original text at Hafsah had to be available to different Islamic countries. Othman entrusted it once again to Zaid Ibn Thabit with the request that its copies should be prepared, compared and corrected for spelling mistakes. The commission consulted Muslims that knew the Quran by heart."

My reply: This is the attempt to put a good face on the diversity that existed. " The Muslim general Hudhayfah ibn al-Yaman led an expedition into northern Syria, drawing his troops partly from Syria and partly from Iraq. It was not long before disputes arose between them as to the correct reading of the Qur'an. They had come from Damascus and Hems, from Kufa and Basra, and in each centre the local Muslims had their own codex of the Qur'an. The codex of Abdullah ibn Mas'ud became the standard text for the Muslims at Kufa in Iraq while the codex of Ubayy ibn Ka'b became revered in Syria." (http://www.answering-islam.org/Gilchrist/Jam/chap2.html

He wrote: The Sunnah "The second authoritative source of Islam is the Sunnah, or examples of the Prophet's way of life and his genuine statements known as "Hadith". It represents a body of traditions based on what the Prophet said or did regarding various issues."

My reply: If the Qur'an is a revelation, what is the Sunnah? Why is there the need of Sunnah? Is the Qur'an incomplete for divine guidance? What authority is there for Sunnah? Did it come about because of the incompleteness of the Qur'an? Can one trust the thousands of stories about Mohammed as being trustworthy since they were written so long after Mohammed's death? Is the author aware of hadiths that affirm the Torah and Gospels were authentic, uncorrupted, and unchanged during the events in Mohammed's life. See here http://www.answering-islam.org/Campbell/s2c2.html

He wrote: "The Quran orders the Muslims to pray but does not detail the method and number of prayers. Then the prophet said: "Pray like you see me praying." Thus, all Muslims during the last fourteen centuries pray the same way Muhammad did."

My reply: There are a couple of observations about this: First, it leads to legalism in which a person may feel that not following Mohammed's example negates the validity of the prayer. Doing it his way is the only way. Second, it comes close to a magic view of prayer that if one prays as Mohammed did the prayer is effective, if not, the prayer is not. Saying the right ways in the prescribed way is magic.

He wrote: "The authentic traditions are recorded in two main references collected by Albukhary and Muslim among others. Each contains about four thousands authentic saying of the prophet. These four thousands authentic saying were chosen from a total of sixty thousands saying"

My reply: There are various collections of hadiths, so who decides which are the best. The author says that there were a total of sixty thousands sayings. This is not true. There are around 600,000 sayings. If so many of them are not authentic how can one be sure that any are authentic since they were composed long after Mohammed died?

Islamic Law

He wrote: "For the same reason, not all Islamic law can be stated as formal legal rule or enforced by the courts. Much of it depends on conscience alone."

My reply: The last phrase is not explained. What role does conscience really have? Do two young girls in Dallas have the privilege of conscience in their decision to live in the US accepting western culture? For that they were killed by their father in an honor killing? Why would the father go against his conscience in obeying a custom or law that warrants honor killings? I rather suspect that conscience is overridden by the Qur'an in doing jihad against one's own family if they do not obey. The massacre at Ft. Hood, Tx. by a Muslim was probably more on the basis of his conscience bothering him living in a culture where jihad was not practiced and he felt on the basis of his conscience to reject our laws and obey the command to kill the infidels.

He wrote: " Islamic law is based on four sources, or "roots of law." The first two are the Quran and the Sunnah, or Hadith. The third source is called ijtihad ("responsible individual opinion"). It has been used when an issue is not covered by passages in the Quran or Sunnah. A Muslim jurist may then resolve the issue by using analogical reasoning (qiyas). Such reasoning was first employed when Islamic theologians and jurists, during the fast spread of Islam, were confronted with the need to integrate local customs and laws with the Quran and Sunnah.....The fourth source is the consensus (ijma) of the community, which is reached by gradually discarding some opinions and accepting others. Because Islam has no official dogmatic authority, this is an informal process that often requires a long period of time." ....Five main schools of law developed in Islam, four Sunnite and one Shiite."

My reply: There are four Sunni schools and they disagree with one another. For practical purposes a person can consult all four schools and then choose the answer one wants. All four schools are regarded as orthodox even though they disagree with one another. How can four schools all be right when they are in disagreement? Does this not raise questions about the validity of the whole idea?

8.2 The Five Pillars of Islam

He wrote: Shahadah - Declaration of Faith "In accordance with Islam's absolute commitment to monotheism, the first duty is the declaration of faith (the Shahadah): "I declare that is no Deity but Allah and Muhammad is Messenger of Allah."

My reply: If one is affirming monotheism, one wonders why Mohammed must be affirmed as a prophet of Allah? In other words, the Jews affirmed the shema, "Hear, O, Israel, the Lord thy God is one." (Dt. 6:4) There is no mention that Moses be affirmed as a prophet. No other prophet in the Old Testament required that his name to be related to the prophet's message.

Salah – Prayer He wrote: "In prayers, all Muslims face the Kaabah (a small, cube-shaped structure) in the courtyard of al-Haram (the "inviolate place"), the great mosque of Mecca. Kaabah is the first house of worship built on earth for the worship of Allah, the One True God. It was re-built (raised from the existing foundation) by Prophets Abraham and Ismael."

My reply: Since the claim is repeated here about Abraham being in Mecca with Ishmael I would remind the reader that this is a claim without historical evidence. It belongs to "what Muslims believe, or Muslim tradition" which is not historical. I would refer the reader again to the sources that deal with this false claim. http://www.answering-islam.org/Shamoun/incomplete_mecca.htm

http://www.answering-islam.org/authors/toler/abraham_kaaba.html

http://www.answering-islam.org/BibleCom/gen37-25.html

Zakat – Almsgiving He wrote: "The third duty of a Muslim is to pay Zakat, primarily to help the poor....Zakat requires a minimum rate of two and half percent of Muslims' wealth above the value of 'Nisab.'"

My reply: The law of Moses involved the tithe (one tenth) on all that one had in the year. The Christians were also involved in tithing and sacrificial giving beyond the tithe. How is this an improvement over the commands of the Old and New Testament. It certainly is cheaper to be a Muslim, but cheapness is not the goal of the Christian life. In practice some give nothing, but the command for generosity has never been abrogated in the Biblical tradition.

He wrote: "Fasting is a religious method of self-purification....Throughout the month one must abstain from all sinful thoughts and actions."

My reply: Why does not this admonition relate to the rest of the year? If you refrain from thinking about killing infidels for one month why can't it be the same for the whole year? Is it really a good thing to refrain from evil thoughts in one month when you can entertain them the rest of the year?

Hajj – Pilgrimage He wrote: "The fifth duty is the pilgrimage to the Kaabah at Mecca. Every adult Muslim who is physically and economically able to do so must make this pilgrimage at least once in his or her lifetime......Thus there remains nothing to differentiate the high from the low, the rich from the poor, the peasant from the king. The fact is: no religion in the world can show a parallel to what Islam has done towards the establishment of the principle of international unity and human brotherhood on such universal foundations."

My reply: Mohammed had no idea how this would eventually work out. Think of the millions through the centuries who went to Mecca. Mecca would not probably have survived as anything without the command of Mohammed. What a self-serving command especially when much of the practice of doing the Hajj is based on a fabrication of history in claiming that Abraham and Ishmael built the building and performed rituals there.

The sense of unity when one leaves Mecca is lost when the rich go back to their life and the poor go back to theirs. Human brotherhood or Muslim brotherhood. If it is human brotherhood then persecution of Jews and Christians is to be rejected. But maybe it is only Muslim brotherhood where men are men and women are women to be taken advantage of. How much better if it were human brotherhood without exception.

8.3 Articles of Faith in Islam

God

He wrote: "Islam rejects the human attributes that the Jews and the Christians added to their doctrines such as God's wrestling with his prophet or the incarnation of God."

My reply: It is awesome to think we know what God can and cannot do. The God of the Old Testament was a God of being involved with his chosen people. He rescued them from slavery, he gave them a promised land, He promised them a Messiah, he promised the Kingdom of God. He was involved in history. In contrast, Allah is remote. What does Allah do? In the New Testament, Jesus, the Son of God is involved in the lives of his people even to the present time. He is alive, He gives His Spirit to believers. While on earth He healed, raised the dead, gave sight to the blind, new limbs to the lame. What has Allah done in comparison?

Messengers of God

He wrote: "A Muslim has to believe in all the messengers of God without any distinction among them. Every known nation has at least one messenger from God." .... The message of all prophets was basically the same because it came from One God. ...the Quran describes Muhammad as the "Seal of all Prophets."...The Quran acknowledges the miracles of earlier prophets (Noah, Abraham, Moses, Jesus, and others...Muhammad's eternal miracle is the Quran, the like of which no human can reproduce. ...Adam was the first prophet;...Religions are, therefore, basically one. They all call for worshiping One God."

My reply: It is interesting that no mention is made of the messengers of "every known nation." For example, there is the great nation of India that has existed for centuries and no "prophet" has arisen there that taught the people of one God. Who in China? Who in Japan? Who in America to the Indian nations?

If the message is all the same in all the nations how is it that polytheism exists in India, in Mahayana Buddhism in China and elsewhere, in Shinto in Japan, to name a few? What can be said about the Confucian influence in China which was brought about the humanist Confucius? The message of these great people, Buddha, Confucius, Lao-tzu, Hindu intellectuals are certainly not the same.

It is interesting that Muslims affirm that Mohammed was the seal of all prophets because he told the people he was. At the same time Jesus is rejected as the Son of God in spite of the fact that Jesus told people he was. Why believe Mohammed when they don't believe Jesus. Jesus certainly did greater things than Mohammed.

The earliest records about Noah, Abraham,etc. are in the Bible. There are no recorded miracles of Noah or Abraham. Stories about such miracles in the Qur'an have no historical foundation. Even stories in Talmudic literature is not Scripture. Traditions arise, like hadiths, that have no foundation in fact or history.

The claim that the qur'an is so unique that no one can reproduce it. This is an a priori statement that people accept without exception for no other basis than Mohammed declared. This unquestioning acceptance automatically means everything else will be rejected without serious consideration. There have been suras produced that are more beautiful than suras in the Qur'an but they are rejected before hand by Muslims who believe this statement made by Mohammed.

The last statement about religions being basically one is false as much of the other. If all religions are basically one why is Islam trying to destroy all the others and be supreme? If all religions are basically one, why did Muslims invade India and kill so many people who were regarded as infidels? If all religions are basically one why do Muslims in Iran want to wipe Israel off the face of the earth? The same issue relates to Christians?

The Holy Books

He wrote: "As a result of believing in all the messengers of God, Muslims also have to believe in all the scriptures and revelations of God. In the Quran, a special reference is made to the books of Abraham, Moses, David and Jesus. But long before the revelation of the Quran to Muhammad, all the holy books had been lost or altered. The Quran stands untainted for the past 14 centuries."

My reply: This is simple propaganda. We have dealt with some of this above. There are hadiths in which Jews read from the Torah about the stoning of adulterers and the reader covered over the part about stoning, but when his hand was removed the word was there. Mohammed did not question the authenticity of the Torah. What was at issue was deception, not corruption. The text was there, the reader was the problem. Check out the issue here.http://www.answering-islam.org/Quran/Bible/mhd_torah.html

http://www.answering-islam.org/Bible/gospelhist.html

http://www.answering-islam.org/Quran/Contra/grave.html

http://www.answering-islam.org/Campbell/contents.html

One cannot help wondering about the diversity in the Qur'an before the various different copies were burned by Uthman. I don't think this author is aware of them, nor the verses left out.

The Day of Judgment

He wrote: "On the Day of Judgment, all humanity will be gathered, and individuals will be judged solely according to their deeds. The "successful ones" will go to the Garden (heaven), and the "losers," or the evil will go to hell. Because God is merciful, He will forgive those who deserve forgiveness. Only God knows the real nature of heaven and hell, and their exact descriptions."

My reply: Islam is a religion of works. Even trying to do good all one's life leaves one in a situation of not knowing whether you have done enough to please

Allah. One lives in fear of never knowing whether it is hell or not. It may seem ironic but his statement that "he will forgive those who deserve forgiveness" could lead to the conclusion that the bigger sinners are the ones who need it the most. His last sentence is a welcome comment but did not Mohammed know more about hell than anyone else. The largest number of people he saw was women in hell.

There seems to be more in the Qur'an about the details of hell than the author is allowing.

The wicked will burn in Hell (82:14). The fire is kindled by Allah and will be chest high, vaulted above them and surrounding them in columns (104:6-9). On the Day of Judgment, people will be shoved into the fire of Hell as they are told that it is the fire they denied existed and they will burn there as a result of their deeds (52:11-16). Check out here for other details.http://www.answering-islam.org/Authors/Fisher/Topical/ch10.htm

The day of judgement is terrible to think about. Jesus came to tell us about the Kingdom of God, a Kingdom that began in his day and will be fulfilled when He returns. This is a kingdom of forgiven people who have confessed their sins and are depending on the grace of God now. Jesus promised his followers eternal life now. (John 10:10) The follower of Jesus does not have to wait in fear of Judgement because Jesus established the New Covenant which is a covenant of forgiveness and the gift of the Holy Spirit. (Matthew 26:26) " While they were eating, Jesus took a piece of bread, gave a prayer of thanks, broke it, and gave it to his disciples. "Take and eat it," he said; "this is my body." Then he took a cup, gave thanks to God, and gave it to them. "Drink it, all of you," he said; "this is my blood, which seals God's covenant, my blood poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins. I tell you, I will never again drink this wine until the day I drink the new wine with you in my Father's Kingdom." (Matthew 26:26-29)

The Ultimate Plan

He wrote: Muslims are to plan and think and work but in the final line he wrote:

"The important point is to try, and then leave the results to God. The Muslims call this article of faith: the belief in "Qadaa" and "Qadar", which simply means, in other words, that the Timeless knowledge of God anticipates events, and that events take place according to the exact knowledge of God."

My reply: It is not spelled out but it appears that the Muslim idea of predestination is hidden in these words. If events take place according to the exact knowledge of God would there be any room for planning. If plans are made and nothing comes of them, is this because God planned otherwise? Does not predestination make good works meaningless?

8.4 The Prophet (Pbuh)

He wrote: Muhammad was a descendant of Prophet Ismael, son of Abraham, through the lineage of his second son Kedar

My reply: This claim has been treated above, but for here we will repeat. There is no evidence that Mohammed was a descendant of Ishmael. See here http://www.answering-islam.org/Shamoun/ishmael.htm

http://www.answering-islam.org/BibleCom/gen16-3.html

He wrote: "By the time of his death, Muhammad had spread Islam on most of Arabia. His followers carried the message of Islam after the Prophet, and within 100 years the light of Islam reached Spain, North Africa, the Caucasus, northwest China and India, and Islam embraced more territory than did the Roman Empire. In no event, Islam was imposed by force on any population. This is evident because Muslims never attempted to convert anyone according to the instruction of the Quran 2:256. Muslims ruled Spain and India and their people were never converted to Islam. Also the existence of non-Muslims in many Islamic countries attests to the fact that Islam did not spread by the sword.."

My reply: Maybe that verse(2:256) was not in the Qur'an when the conquest of other countries began. Maybe they did not understand that verse. Probably what they understood was this:

" Fight in the way of Allah against those who fight against you, but begin not hostilities. Lo! Allah loveth not aggressors". (2:190) Or,

"Warfare is ordained for you, though it is hateful unto you; but it may happen that ye hate a thing which is good for you, and it may happen that ye love a thing which is bad for you. Allah knoweth, ye know not." (2:216) Or one more

"So, when you meet (in fight Jihad in Allah's Cause), those who disbelieve smite at their necks till when you have killed and wounded many of them, then bind a bond firmly (on them, i.e. take them as captives). Thereafter (is the time) either for generosity (i.e. free them without ransom), or ransom (according to what benefits Islam), until the war lays down its burden. Thus [you are ordered by Allah to continue in carrying out Jihad against the disbelievers till they embrace Islam (i.e. are saved from the punishment in the Hell-fire) or at least come under your protection], but if it had been Allah's Will, He Himself could certainly have punished them (without you). But (He lets you fight), in order to test you, some with others. But those who are killed in the Way of Allah, He will never let their deeds be lost," (47.4)(Hilali-Khan)

The author's claims about a friendly missionary trip to Spain, India, North Africa, China, etc is a huge white wash to history. We have already written about the thousands of people who died in the conquests of India, and other countries. This claim is bogus and if the author does not know it, he should learn it. Millions of people have died because of Islamic jihad. It is true that the Qur'an says there is no compulsion in religion. That was said at Mecca. Jihad is a product of the Medina period and it contradicts the Meccan period. You can't have it both ways. If Islam is a religion of peace it should reject its history of war. It has not and will not. Jihad or holy war against non-Muslims is THE word from Medina and Mohammed.

If people in Spain or India never converted to Islam, what kind of rights did they have? Not all people in India or Spain became Muslims. The non-Muslims were dhimmis and had to pay extra taxes and their rights were limited. These limitations still exist in Muslim countries. Even though the whole country did not convert to Islam, the invasion killed thousands, and in the case of India over 100,000 men were killed in one day because they did not know what to do with such a large number of people

He wrote: "However, "half the truth" Evangelists claim that, in contrast to Moses and Jesus, Muhammad was a man of war. They ignore the fact that Muhammad fought only a handful of battles in his lifetime, resulting in barely 1,000 casualties on all sides. This might be compared to Moses, who chastises his army for sparing the women and children of the defeated Midianites, Numbers 31:15. Moses then commands his army to go back and slaughter the women and the boys. This also might be compared to David, who is praised in I Samuel 18 for killing his "tens of thousands," famously earning the murderous jealousy of Saul who only killed his "thousands.""

My reply: There are a number of problems in the claims above. First, Mohammed was a man of war different from Moses. The mandate of Yahweh was to conquer the land of Canaan only. The boundaries were described to Abraham in Genesis. "When the sun had set and it was dark, a smoking fire pot and a flaming torch suddenly appeared and passed between the pieces of the animals. Then and there the LORD made a covenant with Abram. He said, "I promise to give your descendants all this land from the border of Egypt to the Euphrates River, including the lands of the Kenites, the Kenizzites, the Kadmonites, the Hittites, the Perizzites, the Rephaim, the Amorites, the Canaanites, the Girgashites, and the Jebusites." (Genesis 15:17-21) The judgement of Yahweh was on these people and they were to be annihilated because of their sin. The wars of David against the Philistines were basically defensive wars. Second, the wars Mohammed fought described as a handful amounted to about 18 and he planned another 18 or so. That is a very small amount of casualties–1000–in all sides but it is overlooking the killing of the Jewish tribe that had been slaughtered, B.Qurayza, "some 600 or 700 in all, though some put the figure as high as 800 or 900." ( The Life of Muhamad, by Ibn Ishaq, p. 464.) But the real problem with Mohammed is that he declared jihad in the name of Allah and his followers began wars of conquest. The result is that through the centuries around 270 million people have been killed because of jihad. See here http://www.politicalislam.com/tears/pages/tears-of-jihad/

Third, in comparing David and Saul there is no relationship to Mohammed. David was a better warrior than Saul and this line came after God had rejected Saul as king. (1 Samuel 18:7) Neither of these men were expansionist in seeking to rule the world as Islam does.

He wrote: "To compare Muhammad to Moses or Jesus, or against some contemporary standard, is meaningless and obsolete. The world that Moses, Jesus and Muhammad lived in was lawless and violent, different from even the Roman dominated world in which Jesus lived. Strong vested interests opposed the monotheism each preached, genocide was commonplace, and slavery was taken for granted. Women had few rights, and might was the only law."

My reply: The author lumps too much together. First, he rejects the contrast between Mohammed to Moses or Jesus, and there is considerable time and cultural differences but then he declares that they lived in a lawless and violent age. But the age in which Jesus lived was an age of peace throughout the Roman empire. Moreover, Roman law was in effect. The author does not distinguish between voluntary and involuntary slavery, the latter being what was involved in the time of Jesus, in vast contrast to the slavery instituted by Islam, capturing millions of blacks and whites selling them in slave markets. Women had more rights in the time of Jesus than Islam has ever given women.

He wrote: "a great man should be judged by three tests:

1. Did his contemporaries find him to be truthful?

2. Was he great enough to rise above the standards of his age?

3. Did he leave anything as permanent legacy to the world at large?"

Authentic historical records show that all the contemporaries of Muhammad, both friends and foes before and after revelation, acknowledged his spotless honesty, noble virtues, absolute sincerity, and absolute trustworthiness of the apostle of Islam."

My reply: What does it mean to be truthful? There was a Jewish poet, Ka'b who wrote verses of poetry insulting Muslim women. Mohammed was incensed and asked "Who is willing to kill Ka'b bin Al-Ashraf who has hurt Allah and His Apostle?" Mohammed bin Maslama voluteered and asked if he could tell a lie to deceived Ka'b. Mohammed gave him permission, "Say what you like for you are free in the matter."(Ishaq, p. 367) Conclusion: lying is permitted when you need to lie.

A second episode involves the treaty of Hudaybiyya which it was agreed by Mohammed and the Quraysh that "if anyone comes to Mohammed without the permission of his guardian he will return him to them." (P. 504 Life) This treaty was tested when a woman, Umm Kulthum, joined the Muslims and her two brothers came asking that she be returned according to the agreement. Mohammed refused with a new revelation–"O ye who believe! When there come to you believing women refugees, examine and test them: Allah knows best as to their faith: if ye ascertain that they are believers, then send them not back to the unbelieving." (60.10) Does a prophet break agreements? Did Allah agree to what Mohammed agreed on? The principle that arises out of this episode is that Muslims may do anything that gives them an advantage.

Was Mohammed great enough to rise above the standards of his age? In what ways can this be answered? Was he a great warrior? Absolutely! But this contradicts "Islam is a religion of peace." Did he raise the status of women? The answer has to be no. Did he do away with slavery? No, Islam has been involved in slavery for 1400 years. Did he mount an economic program for Muslims? No, without attacking caravans, raiding villages and towns, there would have been no economic survival. One of the most lasting values for Mecca was the commanded pilgrimage which has kept Mecca alive for centuries.

Did he leave a legacy? Yes, he divided the world into Muslims and Non-Muslims. Non-
Muslims are to be dhimmis, subjugated to Muslim rule, paying extra taxes, living a humiliating life in the midst of the Muslim majority.

He wrote: The author stresses the loyalty of various people to Mohammed. One such example was Bilal, an innocent man was thrown on the hot sands with a huge stone on his chest. He was asked to denounce Muhammad and Islam. Instead he kept repeating, "God is One."

My reply: While Bilal was a courageous man, it does not speak to what Mohammed did. The Jews were rich in Khaybar and Mohammed captured it for its wealth. Here is the story of what he did to get the treasure.

Kinana b. al-Rabi`, who had the custody of the treasure (of Kaybar), ... was brought to the apostle who asked him about it. He denied that he knew where it was. A Jew came ... to the apostle and said that he had seen Kinana going round a certain ruin every morning early. When the apostle said to Kinana, "Do you know that if we find you have it I shall kill you?" he said Yes. The apostle gave orders that the ruin was to be excavated and some of the treasure was found. When he asked him about the rest he refused to produce it, so the apostle gave orders to al-Zubayr b. al-`Awwam, "Torture him until you extract what he has," so he kindled a fire with flint and steel on his chest until he was nearly dead. (Ibn Ishaq, Sirat Rasul Allah, p. 515)

He wrote: His supposed weakness (being unlettered) was his greatest miracle.

My reply: What miracle is there in being unlettered? Homer, the Greek poet, was blind and could not read or write, but he composed one of the great classics of literature. That does not make him a prophet. An intelligent man can speak, think, and compose ideas without being able to read or write.

But this is not really the issue in the words relating to being unlettered. "In the original the relevant words are uwtul kitaaba wal ummiyyin, clearly the "scriptured" and the "unscriptured". In another verse we read of ummiyyuuna laa yaalamuunal kitaab, unlettered people in that they know not the Scripture (Surah 2.78). It is quite clear from a contextual study of the Qur'anic usage of the word ummi in its relevant forms that it does not mean "illiterate" or "Gentile" but rather "unscriptured". Richard Bell confirms this conclusion:

If the verse is carefully read, however, without a preconceived idea of its meaning, the most natural way to take it is of people without written scriptures. (Watt, Bell's Introduction to the Qur'an, p. 34)." http://www.answering-islam.org/Gilchrist/Vol1/3a.html

8.5 Islam and Community The Family

He wrote: "The historic role of the Islamic community is to be the embodiment of the virtuous, the wholesome, and the noble. A truly Islamic community is the alert guardian of virtue and the bitter enemy of evil. What is required from the community at large is likewise required from every individual member."

My reply: These words sound like noble words but one must ask what is virtuous, what is wholesome, and noble? Is it virtuous to accept female mutilation in circumcision? Is it wholesome to follow the model of Mohammed in allowing child brides as many have done in the Muslim world? Is it wholesome to allow slavery–the practice of capturing men, women, boys, and girls, and selling them into a life of subjugation? Are Muslims really the bitter enemy of evil when they practice jihad on non-Muslims? There is a line in Milton's Paradise Lost in which Satan says, evil, by thou my good! When we talk about virtue, wholesome, and noble are we talking the same language?

He wrote: "There have been many definitions and descriptions of the family. For our purpose, I shall adopt the following simplified definition. The family is a human social group whose members are bound together by the bond of blood ties and/or marital relationship. This family bond entails mutual expectations of rights and obligations that are prescribed by religion, enforced by law, and observed by the group members."

My reply: I do have questions about the "bond of blood ties and/or marital relationship." This reflects more of a tribal approach to the family than a more civilized approach. In a Muslim culture blood ties are strong but they are forced. Blood ties mean nothing when one is rebellious and revengeful. The really significant family ties that are related to love of one another. Moreover, there are relations based on love in non-family members who are closer than blood ties.

One other question relates to the blood ties–what kind of freedom does one have? The family control means that one must obey parents even when they are wrong. This issue is crucial when a young person decides that Islam is not for them. If they are not observant in Islam they may survive but if they decide to convert to being a follower of Jesus they will be killed. Or, if they become an atheist they will be killed. Muslims seem to accept the idea that one can be forced into Allah's paradise by parents. Forced commitment is no commitment at all. It is a sham. You cannot force a person to be a Christian either. Forced conversion may be something Allah would approve of, but it is not something that Yahweh would approve. The real issue is what is in the heart, not outward ceremonies.

He wrote: "Marriage in Islam is regarded first and foremost as a righteous act. Sexual control is a moral triumph. The moral values and purposes of marriage would take on a special meaning and be reinforced if they are intertwined with the belief in God. And this is the focal point of marriage in Islam."

My reply: The idea that sexual control is a moral triumph is very interesting since there have been many publicized events lately about Muslims raping non-Muslim girls who are dressing differently than Muslim women. The stories range from Sweden to Australia in which Muslim males think that it is their duty to rape girls who do not wear the hijab. One wonders what it is to have sexual control.

He wrote: "It is noteworthy that the Islamic provisions of marriage apply to men and women equally, "except that men are a degree higher" because they are charged with the household expenditure. Women are not required to contribute in the house finances, even if they are wealthy. Sexual fidelity is sternly demanded, and proven adultery is punishable in some Islamic countries. The Qur'an also advocates measures that were intended to improve the conditions of women."

My reply: Equality is given by the left hand and taken away by the right hand. Men are a degree higher. It sounds like women do nothing and men do everything. In reality married women work harder than men, they work longer than men, and when retirement comes for a man, if such exists in the Muslim culture, the women can never retire. Yet, they are declared to be second class citizens. It remains to be seen how the Qur'an improved the condition of women. Stopping the infanticide of girls may be seen as a self-serving move.

He wrote: "Parents have the right to expect obedience from children if only in partial return for what the parents do for them. But if parents demand the wrong or ask the improper, such as forcing children to paganism, disobedience become not only justifiable, but also imperative."

My reply: What happens if the parents are wrong about Islam and the offspring sees the truth of Jesus and decides to follow Him instead? Must the parents engage in honor killing for the sake of the family name? Is there no sin in honor killing? Does it seem rational to follow the advice of Mohammed in regard to killing your offspring?

8.6 The Divine Standard Criminal Law, Economic Systems, Inheritance, Success in Life

He wrote: Divine Standard: these are the set of laws, behaviors, and actions that are prescribed by God upon all humans regardless or race, color, wealth or gender. These laws are pathways to piety and absolute justice.

My reply: But the question comes–which claim to Divine Standard is correct? There is a world of difference between Islam and Christianity. We have rejected many of the comments about Islam above and will do more in going through this work. Islam is established on force. Christianity cannot be established by force since the beginning is that God loves, we must love, and love cannot be enforced on anyone. It can only be received. There are two great commandments: Love God with all your heart, and love your neighbor as yourself. Jesus answered the question concerning who the neighbor is in the story of the good Samaritan. Luke 10.

He wrote: "One of the functions of a religion is to teach humans a set of rules and standards that are universally beneficial at all times. . .Someone may condemn the Islamic laws of flogging or amputation of hands of criminals without entertaining the idea that these laws can protect the whole society."

My reply: A set of rules leads to legalism. This is very much like the Pharisees in the oral law created by the scribes. Following rules may very well lead to self-righteous neglect of people's needs. The good Samaritan story told by Jesus illustrates the point of following a set of rules and the needs of the man were neglected. What was needed was compassion borne out of love.

He wrote: "However, Moses could not speak clearly, he used to stutter."

My reply: The NIV says, Exo 4:10 Moses said to the LORD, "O Lord, I have never been eloquent, neither in the past nor since you have spoken to your servant. I am slow of speech and tongue." The CEV says, Exo 4:10 "Moses replied, "I have never been a good speaker. I wasn't one before you spoke to me, and I'm not one now. I am slow at speaking, and I can never think of what to say." The RSV says, " But Moses said to the LORD, "Oh, my Lord, I am not eloquent, either heretofore or since thou hast spoken to thy servant; but I am slow of speech and of tongue."

There is no implication of stuttering. Being in the desert for a long time without much conversation could lead to hesitation. However, what is more important is that Moses did not want to go and used this excuse. To say that Moses stuttered is an imposition on the text.

On criminal law the author compares crime in the USA and Saudi Arabic. Concerning punishment, he wrote "A life sentence equates to merely a 33 years prison term, but the murderer may be set free after serving just one third of the sentence, or 11 years for good behavior."

My reply: While this may be true in the USA, what can be said about "honor killings" and justice. Families who do honor killings may get a year at the most, and nothing at the least.

He wrote: There is a box text for "All Crimes" committed in Los Angeles and Saudi Arabic. There were 499,499 crimes in LA and 14,200 crimes in SA. In addition 3124 crimes in the total were for use of alcohol.

My reply: The comparison looks good in a box, but it does not deal with many different issues relating to crimes. How much freedom is there in SA? How many illegal immigrants do they have in LA? How many homeless people in LA do they have because of the mild climate? How many people in LA do they have on welfare?

He wrote: "we should perhaps first examine the criminal Islamic laws. It is appropriate to explain the basics of the overall features concerning these laws:1. First, all crimes that injure or inflict wounds on other individuals are oppressive to humans and offensive to the Creator."

My reply: This comment sounds good but it is deceiving. It applies only to Muslim, not non-
Muslims. In reality crimes against non-Muslims are not oppressive to humans and offensive to the Creator. If this principle were true in Muslim societies there would be no burning of churches or synagogues, there would be no killing of Christians or Jews, there would be no mutilation of young girls, etc.

He wrote: "Now, among the inalienable rights of every member of the Islamic society - Muslim as well as non-Muslim - is the right to protection (in every sense of the word) by the community as a whole. As is evident in many Quranic verses as well as the Prophetic authentic teachings, every citizen is entitled to a share in the community's resources and, thus to the enjoyment of social security."

My reply: I don't know how the author deals with inconsistency and contradiction in this claim. He includes non-Mulims in this right of protection. What comes to mind quickly is the fact that Mohammed expelled all non-Muslims from Arabia. Next comes to mind the fact that Muslim policemen do not protect Christians in Pakistan, Malaysia, and other places. How is it that this man can write like and when the Muslim world does not abide by these ideas?

He wrote: "In addition to this exception, the majority of Islamic jurists hold that petty thefts are exempt from this punishment. The general opinion from the Bible is:

Matthew 18:8 "If your hand or your foot causes you to sin, cut them off, and cast it from you: it is better for you to enter into life halt or maimed, rather than having two hands or two feet to be cast into everlasting fire"

My reply: There is a bit of twisting of application in the use of this passage. Jesus is addressing people not laying down laws for the state. He is telling them that temptation must be dealt with severely by themselves. Moreover, there is hyperbole in these statements that a Muslim should understand since they are doing it all the time. A hyperbole is an exaggerated statement for emphasis, not to be taken literally. There is a similar statement in Matt. 5 "You have heard that it was said, 'You shall not commit adultery.' But I say to you that every one who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart. If your right eye causes you to sin, pluck it out and throw it away; it is better that you lose one of your members than that your whole body be thrown into hell." Matthew 5:27-29 If you think about it, plucking out your eyes will not keep you from lusting. Cutting off a hand will not keep one from stealing. The point Jesus is making is that sin is a severe issue that needs to be dealt with inwardly, not outwardly. Out of the heart. "For from your heart come the evil ideas which lead you to kill, commit adultery, and do other immoral things; to rob, lie, and slander others." (Matthew 15.19)

He wrote: "The above discussion makes it clear that those who accuse Islam of being uncivilized or barbaric dot not know the full story behind this severe punishment and certainly they do not know the Bible as well. They do not know that Jesus decreed a much harder punishment than the Islamic law, because Islam adopts hand cutting only for stealing, while Jesus made it general for any sin caused by hand or foot. This verse of Matthew 18:8 is never mentioned by half the truth TV Evangelists, while the softer Quranic verse of hand cutting is always publicized."

My reply: Perhaps the author does not know the Bible as he claims. Jesus did not legislate. Mohammed did. Most people know that the statement is a hyperbole and therefore do not cut off the hand themselves, which is what is meant here, not the state. I wonder if the author has ever heard of a "TV Evangelist" who even mentioned the verse, because they also know that it is a hyperbole, not to be taken literally.

He wrote: The author seeks to defend the practice of the Muslim world in dealing with illegal sexual relations. One of the points is this: "To prove an illegal intercourse, there should be at least four reliable eyewitnesses to prove the guilt."

My reply: This requirement makes it quite easy to rape a woman and get away with it. She has to have 4 eyewitnesses to prove her claim. If she can't bring 4 witnesses she is confessing to fornication or adultery which can get her killed. There are lots of women who are in prison because they tried to find justice and their confession only led them to jail.

The author turns to slander and regards the media as a source of degeneration in the USA. Slander in the Muslim world is more serious and then he applies this to a marriage issue. A man is suspicious of his wife and seeks Mohammed advice.

He wrote: Surah 24, Ayah 6-9 "And for those who launch a charge against their wives, and have no evidence but their own, let one of them testify four times by Allah that he is of those who speak the truth. And the fifth oath (should be) that he solemnly invokes the curse of Allah on himself if he tells a lie. But it would avert the punishment from the wife, if she bears witness four times (with an oath) by Allah, that (her husband) is telling a lie. And the fifth oath should be that she solemnly invokes the wrath of Allah on herself if (her accuser) is telling the truth."

Who could ever come up with a solution like that? The divine solution is if the man's word is against his wife's word, each of them swears by Allah four times, and the fifth oath they accept the curse and wrath of Allah if they are telling a lie."

My reply: Is this really a solution? A desperate person would swear 4 times and 5 or more since the alternative is death right now. There is a story in Numbers about a suspicious husband (5:19ff)in which the answer comes from God, not from swearing.

Economic Systems

The author sketches a paragraph about capitalism, socialism, and communism. He seems to lean toward the capitalists system with the exception of charging interest for borrowing money. It seems important to note that interest on money loaned –not usury–which is excessive–led to the rise of modern capitalism. This led to the higher standard of living than had ever been known. If interest is so bad why are there so many Muslims and others who seek to come to the West for its higher standard of living? Why do they not shun living in the West because of "usury?"

8.7 The Fastest Growing Religion

He wrote: "Could a false man be the founder of a religion? Could a false man have over one billion followers? Could a false man establish spiritual, social, and economic systems?"

My reply: Yes, yes, yes, to all three questions. Numbers do not establish truth. It is alleged that lots of people believed that the earth was flat for a long time. Some Muslims still do. That does not make it so. There have been false ideas around for hundreds of years.

He wrote: "The Muslims ruled Spain for 736 years. However, after eight centuries in Spain, the Muslims were totally eliminated from that country. If the Muslims had used force, military or economic, there would not have been any Christian left in Spain to fight the Muslims out. One cannot charge the Muslims of converting the Spaniards to Islam by the sword. Also, the Muslims ruled the subcontinent of India from 1001 to 1858 A.D. They did not convert the Hindus or the Sikhs to Islam by force. This same argument is true for many countries like Egypt, Iran, and Indonesia. Muslims converted by choice."

My reply: "In April 711, the Arab governor of Tangiers, Tariq ibn-Ziyad, crossed the strait between what are now Morocco and Spain with an army of nine or ten thousand Berbers (the place where they landed was soon to have a new name, the rock of Tariq, Jabal Tariq — Gibraltar). Goth King Roderick hastily took an army south, but Táreq and his Berber troops defeated it in a battle near the River Guadalete, and the king himself was never seen again except in legend. Tariq ordered that a group of prisoners be cut into pieces and their flesh boiled in cauldrons, then released the rest, telling them to spread the word about Moorish practices." http://spainforvisitors.com/archive/features/moorishinvasion.htm

What the writer does not tell is the practice of dhimmitude which involves heavy taxes on people who do not convert. There were people who converted to avoid the taxes, but it was a better business arrangement for the Muslims to gain the money rather than kill the people who did not want to convert.

The soft sell the author has about invading Muslims is misleading and dis-arming. It is not like the Muslims were send weaponless missionaries to the Spanish or elsewhere. The Muslims went on to France and met defeat at the Battle of Tours, one of the most important battles in history.

October 10, 732 AD marks the conclusion of the Battle of Tours, arguably one of the most decisive battles in all of history.

"A Muslim army, in a crusading search for land and the end of Christianity, after the conquest of Syria, Egypt, and North Africa, began to invade Western Europe under the leadership of Abd-er Rahman, governor of Spain. Abd-er Rahman led an infantry of 60,000 to 400,000 soldiers across the Western Pyrenees and toward the Loire River, but they were met just outside the city of Tours by Charles Martel, known as the Hammer, and the Frankish Army....The battle ended when the French captured and killed Abd-er Rahman. The Muslim army withdrew peacefully overnight and even though Martel expected a surprise retaliation, there was none. For the Muslims, the death of their leader caused a sharp setback and they had no choice but to retreat back across the Pyrenees, never to return again." http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/History/Tours.html

"Those who say that the Islamic wars were always defensive do not understand Islam and have not read sufficient history. It should be evident that offensive wars to spread Islam are the heart of the entire religion of Islam. They embody the meaning of "Striving for the cause of God"—holy war to make the Word of God supreme over the whole world. Our study will be filled with objective quotes from the statements of scholars, along with a throng of true stories."

http://www.answering-islam.org/BehindVeil/btv2.html

http://www.answering-islam.org/Terrorism/by_the_sword.html

"The invasion of India by the Muslims saw a fierce Hindu-Muslim warfare for 600 years, from the year 715 C.E. up to 1326 C.E., during which period the Muslim invaders gradually occupied parts of India. The next 400 years from 1326 C.E. up to 1720 C.E., saw the relentless struggle for independence by Hindus against Muslim tyranny." http://www.hindutva.org/landrajput.html

He wrote: "The destiny of Islam is spelt out here in the clearest terms. Submission to Allah will prevail, overcome, and supersede every other faith, whether it is Hinduism, Buddhism, Judaism, or any other "ism.""

My reply: The author does not mention Christianity except in the vague term "ism" which does not really fit Christian faith. The claim here is based on "Surah 48, Ayah 28 "It is He Who has sent His Messenger with Guidance and the Religion of Truth, to proclaim it over all religion: and enough is Allah for a Witness."" This claim must be weighed by the words of Jesus in which he claimed, "And so I tell you, Peter: you are a rock, and on this rock foundation I will build my church, and not even death will ever be able to overcome it." (Matthew 16:18) Jesus promised that he would return at the end of the age and judgement would take place. (Matthew 24-25) Who is right? Jesus or the Qur'an? We have ever reason to believe what Jesus said.

8.8 The Process of Elimination

He wrote: "Christianity: universal religion that started as a monotheistic faith then reversed its direction through a human process of distortion and edition. Its main ideology promoter (Paul) is not the original founder of the faith, and he compromised with the religion to attract more converts. The sources of the New Testament are unknown. The writers of the Gospels are unknown. Greek philosophy and the different Myths in the Middle East affected the fathers of the Church who shaped the doctrines of Christianity. These doctrines were formalized in human Ecumenical Councils that were affected by politics.

I proved all of the above. Using the process of elimination, Judaism and Christianity are excluded, and Islam is the only universal and authentic religion."

My reply: It is interesting that he claims to have proven all this. I am now on page 77 to indicate the lack of proof, lack of logic, and lack of evidence. Having rested his case he turns now to talk about scientific miracles in the Qur'an.

9. The Scientific Miracle The need to bring forth miracles to prove the Qur'an and Mohammed message contradict the Qur'an. The Qur'an is regarded by its statements that it is sufficient in itself. Mohammed disclaimed miracles, he was a warner. A great exposition of this issue can be found at http://www.answering-islam.org/Responses/Azmy/mhd_miracles.htm

and here http://www.answering-islam.org/Quran/Contra/messenger_miracles.htm

and here http://www.answering-islam.org/Nehls/Ask/proofs.html

9.1 The Divine Big Bang Ideas related to the claims of the big bang in the Qur'an can be found here,

http://www.answering-islam.org/Quran/Contra/i010.html

http://www.answering-islam.org/Shamoun/creationdays.htm

http://www.answering-islam.org/Responses/Menj/creationdays-1.htm

http://www.answering-islam.org/authors/katz/quran/science/subatomic.html

http://www.answering-islam.org/authors/katz/rebuttals/ac/water_life.html

9.2 The Existing Universe in the Quran

9.3 The End of the Universe in the Quran

9.4 Solar System in the Quran

9.5 The Earth in the Quran

9.6 Life and Death in the Quran

9.7 Embryology in the Quran

http://www.answering-islam.org/Campbell/s4c2b.html

http://www.answering-islam.org/Quran/Science/embryo.html

http://www.answering-islam.org/Index/E/embryology.html

9.8 Physics in the Quran

http://www.answering-islam.org/Quran/Science/index.htm

10 Conclusions

The author seeks to summarize what he has been thinking. The original claim of objectivity has been long dropped and now in the conclusion he repeats the same tired Islamic distortions of history and religion.

He claims "in the name of religion injustice has been inflicted upon humanity with the result that religion itself has suffered many losses."

My reply: There is no admission of the terrible evils done by Islam. As for as the writer is concerned Islam is the teflon religion, nothing in the history of Islam counts as evil act against non-Muslim people.

Further he claims "There is only one true religion revealed from the One and the Same God. This religion is ISLAM.."

My reply: The problem with such a statement is that what Yahweh revealed in the Old Testament, and what Yahweh revealed in the person of Jesus cannot be reconciled with the concepts of Allah in the Qur'an. If Allah is the same being, he is rather forgetful, or incompetent in keeping his books authentic, forgetful in what he told Moses, and Jesus, and Mohammed.

The author also claims that all the prophets going back to Abraham were Muslims, including Jesus.

My reply: "This is like saying at all honest people of the past were Republicans because they believed in God. The term Muslim is a localized termed in the life of Mohammed and Arabia and has no historical context for people before that time.

The author notes: "True religion educates man and trains him in hope and patience, in truthfulness and honesty, in love for the right and good, in courage and endurance, all of which are required for the mastery of the great art of living."

My reply: These are high sounding words and aspirations, but they must be seen in the context of a Muslim goal of the true religion. The intended goal of all of this is seen in the concluding sentence: "Muslims should exert much effort to establish one nation, worshiping One God, following one Book, following one last Messenger, praying towards one Kaabah for the true peace on earth."

So the educated man in the author's mind will be a Muslim pursuing the goal of one world of Islam. The right and good then is a Muslim right and good.. That may not really be the right and good that is really right and good.

Concerning critics of Islam, he wrote, "The critics of Islam strive to publicize half the truth about all religions. Most of those who attack Islam never read anything about it from Islamic sources, or read one complete verse from the Quran for that matter."

My reply: This is so funny because it is a criticism about Muslim writers who mis-quote, mis-
use, and distort verses from the Bible. One wonders if they ever read the New Testament. We have seen some of these examples along the way. In fact the author does this very thing in his use of the Qur'an. He selected the verses about Islam being a peaceful religion relating to the Mecca period and ignores the jihad verses that occur in Medina. In calling the Jews and Christians people of the book a term of respect, that may be so but it did not keep the Muslims from killing, capturing, and enslaving Christian nations during the expansion of Islam.

He lumps various historical events in the same fashion. " Evangelists claim that Muhammad was a man of war in contrast to Moses or Jesus. They conveniently ignore history books and their Bible too. This is a part of their long history of unjustified anti-Islamic bias."

My reply: There is a big difference between the wars that were fought in the Old Testament to gain the land promised to Abraham by his descendants and the wars fought by Muslims to conquer the world. We have dealt with this above. Jesus never commanded anyone to go to war to make disciples.

He developed a defense of Islam by pointing to various people who converted to Islam. He mentioned the Mongols, Mohammed Ali, Cat Stevens, and others.

My reply: What does this prove? The real issue in the question of truth, not personalities. Who has the truth of God? Only God can reveal God and this is affirmed in the New Testament in Jesus fulfilling the Old Testament prophecies about his coming. Yahweh is faithful. If one wants to talk about conversions, it is interesting that a large number of Muslims who leave Islam become atheists. (http://www.faithfreedom.org/oped/testimonials)

One of the big differences between Islam and Christianity is found in the following statement by the Muslim author. "God does not show Himself to us because we are limited creatures and cannot comprehend the Unlimited Being. But, because of His mercy, He shows us His signs everywhere, if we care to look. He shows us what we need to see, and what we can comprehend."

My reply: Christians also believe in natural theology concerning the world about us, but that is inadequate to know whether God loves me and you. Christians affirm that we can know the Infinite God because He has come in the person of Jesus, the Son of God. We don't wait in fear of judgement because we have everlasting life now, the gift of the Holy Spirit, and God's revelation of Himself in Jesus.

There is a question concerning freedom. He wrote: "In USA, where freedom of speech and expression is protected by the constitution, some have concluded that their freedom should not have any limits. They can voice their atheistic views." As a result he said that there are a large number of churches in the USA, but it is also the country with the greatest number of prisons.

He then wrote, "So, God exists and his name is not father, son, Holy Ghost, Buddha, Yahweh, or Jehovah. His name in Arabic is Allah. This Name still exists in the Arabic Bibles, and was taken away from the non-Arabic Bibles."

My reply: The author is off the wall here. To reject the name of Yahweh in the Old Testament is to reject the only Divine Being there is. The name of Yahweh is the original, regardless of what a later translation says. It is good to know that he regards the Arabic Bible as a real Bible. That is progress.

In a paragraph designed to contrast Muslim and Christian views, he wrote: "There is no original sin. God forgave Adam's mistake that drove him out of heavens. Adam achieved forgiveness by imploring God for few short words of repentance."

My reply: There are yet some problems that the author is overlooking. If there is no original sin, why do people still die? Adam died because of his sin. Adam was not driven out of heavens. There is no word of repentance described in the Bible. There is only blame of one another. Whatever Islamic tradition or the Qur'an declares has no basis in fact. The oldest story is in the Bible and there are no words of repentance.

In the attempt to show inadequacy of the Christian position, he wrote, "God alone is not enough for happiness and salvation. He needed Jesus to die on the cross to save humanity from the original sin. He needed the Holy Ghost to provide humanity with faith."

My reply: This writer deliberately distorts the Christian view of one God. Christians are monotheists in the strict sense. The view of God is richer and relational in a way that Allah is not. God did not need Jesus to die on the cross, it was God Himself in the person of the Son who voluntarily died on the Cross, and the prayer of Jesus in the garden was not answered the way Muslims seek to think about it. The Holy Spirit is the continuing presence of God in the life of the Christian something that Muslims cannot and do not understand.

His view about atheists is distorted as well. He wrote about their belief: "They believe that God is in everything and everywhere. God is in the trees, in the cows, in the rocks, and in the computers! They believe in many gods that may represent one deity, who may be male and female!"

My reply This is weird–atheists don't believe in God at all. Nada, nothing.

Again in the interests of his objectivity he concluded: "As has been demonstrated, the whole Bible is full of contradictions, politics, tribal feud, and human perceptions."

My reply: The question of whether it has been demonstrated one must read–it has been propagandized by Muslim writers who distort, slander, and contradict the words of Mohammed in the Qur'an that the Bible was authentic in his day.

The author claims that Muslims really honor Jesus. "Outside the Christian Church, no other religious community has given Jesus so much honor, respect, esteem and love as Muslims have."

My reply: What kind of honor is it when one rejects the very nature of a person? The New Testament is very clear about who Jesus is–the Son of God–and this most decisive truth is rejected. Mohammed sought to remake the image of Jesus after his own person–just another prophet. When one rejects the real nature of a person that is not honor. Not only do Muslim reject the person of Jesus they reject objective history about the nature of his death and resurrection.

The concluding remarks are a call for the return to the basics of Islam. "They are entrusted by the most significant sentence in this Universe: "No God but Allah." Muslims should exert much effort to establish one nation, worshiping One God, following one Book, following one last Messenger, praying towards one Kaabah for the true peace on earth."

My reply: "How are Muslims to do this? What does the effort to establish one nation mean? Is it the way of the Taliban who claim they are the true Muslims? It is interesting that no Muslim group will denounce terrorism. Muslims want to impose Sharia law on nations that are not Muslim. What is the peace of the Muslim world? Muslims are fighting Muslims, Muslims are killing Muslims, Muslims are raping Muslims, Muslims are mutilating Muslim girls, Muslims are killing those who are suspected of not submitting fully to the parents, or the husband. Is this peace?

Jesus indicated that peace was something only He could give. "Peace is what I leave with you; it is my own peace that I give you. I do not give it as the world does. Do not be worried and upset; do not be afraid." (John 14:27) Peace! Shalom!

.