Rebuttal to Sam Shamoun's Article, "Allah's Promise to Preserve of the Bible: A Reminder to One Muslim Dawagandist"


Bassam Zawadi


Shamoun's article could be located here



Shamoun is trying to respond to an article that I wrote over here and trying to show that Surah 15, Verse 9 could be interpreted to mean that Allah promised to preserve the previous scriptures.


Now Shamoun argues that since verse 10 talks about messengers of the past and does not say 'to you' to make it clearer that the dhikr was only referring to the one being sent to Muhammad (peace be upon him), it makes it more likely that Allah was speaking about previous revelations as well.


First of all the verse does not have to say 'oh you' to make it clear that dhikr is only referring to the Qur'an. For example, the following verse says: 

Surah 36:11


Thou warnest only him who followeth the Reminder and feareth the Beneficent in secret. To him bear tidings of forgiveness and a rich reward. 


Now, here, Allah is not saying that the Prophet (peace be upon him) should give good tidings to those who follow the reminder SENT TO YOU. However, it is clear that the reminder here only refers to the Qur'an.


Also, just because God may mention the word dhikr and then talk about people in the past does not necessarily imply that the word dhikr refers to previous revelations. (See, for example, Surah 38:1-3, 41:41-45, 43:5-7 and how all the scholars agreed that dhikr in these verses only refer to the Qur'an)


Shamoun's arguments are not solid enough. I have not seen Shamoun conclusively prove his point throughout his whole article. He attempted to show that his interpretation is possible but not definite. Well, if his interpretation is only possible and not definite, then he really hasn't provided us with convincing evidence that the verse suggests that Allah promised to preserve the previous scriptures.


Even if we were to assume that Allah did say that He was to protect and guard the previous scriptures, one can interpret it to mean different things. Maybe Allah intended to say that since the Qur'an has now come, it will confirm the Gospel and Torah (the true ones revealed to Jesus and Moses) that remain in the possession of the Christians and Jews since the Qur'an came as the criterion. Thus, the previous revelations' messages have been preserved this way. Or maybe Allah meant to say that the previous revelations are preserved with Him in heaven.


In both Islam and Christianity, we know that one can interpret any verse in a number of ways. However, in Islam, we know whose interpretation is reliable. That is the interpretation of the Salaf and the righteous/reliable scholars. They are not infallible individually, but collectively, they are.


As I have shown in my article, all the prominent scholars have understood Surah 15:9 to only be referring to the Qur'an. I also showed in my article here that the early Muslims did not believe that the Bible was textually pure, thus they couldn't have believed that the previous revelations were preserved textually, at least not the Bible.


This is not a matter of appealing to authority. For they are a source of religious authority (as I explain in my article here). Just as one cannot accuse a Muslim of appealing to authority if he appeals to the Qur'an or authentic prophetic traditions, one also cannot do the same if a Muslim appeals to the consensus of the Muslim scholars on an issue or the Salaf, for they are a source of religious authority in Islam.


I argued that since verse 6 shows that the Quraysh denied that the dhikr, which refers to Muhammad (peace be upon him), was from God and that he was crazy, verse 9 came as a response to their charge and an affirmation that the dhikr was from God. This seems like a more reasonable answer.


Shamoun then says... 

And just in case Zawadi thinks that we are making too much of a big deal because of the difference in the language note what his fellow colleague Jalal Abularub, the gentleman who runs the website where Zawadi is an administrator, wrote in response to Osama Abdallah concerning Q. 15:9:

1.      Here is a question to ask of Osama: Since Allah called the Torah 'Dhikr,' then, WHAT EVIDENCE DOES HE HAVE THAT AYAH 15:9 [Verily, We, it is We Who have sent down the Dhikr and surely, We will guard it], IS EVEN ABOUT THE QURAN RATHER THAN THE TORAH?

a.      Read Ayah 15:9 TO TRY AND FIND DIRECT EVIDENCE IN THAT IT IS ABOUT THE QURAN. (Jalal Abualrub, If You Love Allah, Then Follow Muhammad, p. 42; source; capital emphasis ours)

As Abualrub correctly noted, there is nothing in the immediate context which rules out that Reminder here may actually be referring to the Torah; and yet there is every indication that it does include a promise to preserve all of the Scriptures which God revealed through those whom he sent.

Abualrub provides additional support that Q. 15:9 isn't speaking only of the Quran since he uses this very reference to prove that Allah will also preserve the Sunna:

Thirty-Sixth: Allah promised to protect the Dhikr from corruption, by protecting every letter of the Quran in addition to its Bayan (meaning; explanation; implication).

Allah said.

{Verily, We, it is We Who have sent down the Dhikr (i.e., the Qur'an) and surely, We shall guard it (from corruption)(15:9).

Thirsty-Seventh: Dhikr compromises of the Qur'an and the Prophet's Sunnah, the Qur'an's practical Bayan. (Introduction to: Muhammad The Prophet of Mercy - Muhammad's Role in Islam, by Jalal Abualrub, edited by Alaa Mencke [Madinah Publishers and Distributors, First Edition: June 2007], p. 53; underline emphasis ours)

Even though Abualrub defines Dhikr in Q. 15:9 as the Quran he still feels that this passage also includes the promise to protect Muhammad's Sunna.

The problem with his assertion is that the Quran never explicitly mentions the Sunna of Muhammad (despite Abualrub's claims to the contrary), but only the Sunna of Allah:

(Such was Our) Sunna (Sunnata) in the case of those whom We sent before thee (to mankind), and thou wilt not find for Our Sunna (li-sunnatina) aught of power to change. S. 17:77

behaving proudly in the land and in planning evil; and the evil plans shall not beset any save the authors of it. Then should they wait for aught except the sunna of the former people? For you shall not find any alteration in the sunna of Allah (li-sunnati Allahi); and you shall not find any change in the sunna of Allah (li-sunnati Allahi). S. 35:43

And even claims that the Muslim scripture is the best and only hadith:

. Which Hadith, beside this, do they believe in? S. 7:185 Khalifa

Among the people, there are those who uphold baseless Hadith, and thus divert others from the path of GOD without knowledge, and take it in vain. These have incurred a shameful retribution. S. 31:6 Khalifa

GOD has revealed herein the best Hadith; a book that is consistent, and points out both ways (to Heaven and Hell). The skins of those who reverence their Lord cringe therefrom, then their skins and their hearts soften up for GOD's message. Such is GOD's guidance; He bestows it upon whoever wills (to be guided). As for those sent astray by GOD, nothing can guide them. S. 39:23 Khalifa

These are GOD's revelations that we recite to you truthfully. In which Hadith other than GOD and His revelations do they believe? S. 45:6 Khalifa

Let them produce a Hadith like this, if they are truthful. S. 52:34 Khalifa

Therefore, let Me deal with those who reject this Hadith; we will lead them on whence they never perceive. S. 68:44 Khalifa

Which Hadith, other than this, do they uphold? S. 77:50 Khalifa

Nor does the Muslim scripture ever identify Muhammad's Sunna as the Reminder, whereas it does apply this term to the Books of the Jews and Christians.

Thus, if Abualrub believes that Q. 15:9 includes a promise to preserve Muhammad's Sunna even though it is never mentioned anywhere in the Muslim scripture then how much more does this promise apply to the Judeo-Christian Scriptures which the Quran explicitly calls the Reminder? 

I agree with Sheikh Jalal that if we were to be "Qur'an only Muslims' and ignore all of the statements found in the hadith, statements of early Muslims and scholars, and then read the Qur'an on our own, then we would probably not know 95% of what we know about Islam today (in the sense of having the correct understanding and learning other things related to jurisprudence, theology, etc.).

Anyone can make any interpretation he feels like and get away with it if one only reads the Qur'an and ignores everything else. But unlike Christians whose only authority is the Bible, in Islam the Qur'an is not our only source of religious authority, therefore we cannot separate it from the authentic prophetic traditions and the understanding of the Salaf. This is what Sheikh Jalal was trying to point out to Osama, and I agree with him.


Shamoun can take up his challenge to a "Qur'an-only Muslim" if he wishes. I might cheer for Shamoun if he debates a hadeeth rejecter on this topic to show the poor hadeeth-rejecting ignoramus what a mess his belief is.


Shamoun argues:

Applying this analogy to Q. 15:9, is it the readers' fault or Muhammad's that the citation doesn't limit the promise of preserving the Reminder to the Muslim scripture itself? Is it our fault that the promise of protection is written in such a way as to include all the Books which Allah sent down as his Reminder?

Doesn't this simply provide another example of Zawadi wanting to read into his sources his a priori belief that the Quran doesn't confirm the authenticity and preservation of the previous Scriptures? Doesn't Zawadi's unwillingness to concede the possibility that Q. 15:9 includes the previous Scriptures indicate that he will pretty much distort and interpret any Islamic text which confirms the authority of the Holy Bible to agree with his erroneous and unsubstantiated presupposition that it doesn't? 

It is the reader's fault for not seeing a clear indication that verse 9 is a response to verse 6. It is also the stubborn ignoramus's fault (i.e., Shamoun's fault) for not remembering or accepting the fact that Muslims take the understanding of Qur'anic scripture by the Salaf and prominent scholars as religious authority. Thus, we see how they interpreted and understood these verses.


Shamoun states: 

Zawadi admits as much when he candidly writes:

". My position is that I accept ALL the narrations that speak about Bible corruption and harmonize those verses that are abused by missionaries, while they (missionaries) can't harmonize everything together." (Rebuttal to Sam Shamoun's Article "Did Muhammad Confirm the Torah?: Addressing the Smokescreens of a Muslim Polemicist"; source; bold and capital emphasis ours)


Thirdly, Ibn Abbaas's statement COULD BE REINTEPREPTED in order to be reconciled with the other statements that he has made. (Evidence That Islam Endorses Textual Corruption of The Christian and Jewish Scripturessource; bold and capital emphasis ours)

Hence, Zawadi's position in a nutshell is, "I have made up my mind already, so please don't confuse me with the facts." 

I don't get Shamoun's point here. Yes, I stated that my position is that I take ALL THE NARRATIONS that talk about Bible corruption and try to harmonize them to reach an understanding, while the Christian can't do the same thing. Christians can't harmonize all the narrations since some clearly state textual corruption, so Christians will get desperate by saying that the narrations are contradictory instead of trying to reconcile them.


How does this show that I am presuming a biased position from the start? Yes, I give the Qur'an the benefit of the doubt and try my best to harmonize the verses unless it would lead to desperate measures. Christians claim to take the same position regarding their Bible.


Yes, Ibn Abbaas's statement could be reinterpreted, and I quoted Ibn Abi Haatim and another Qur'anic verse to support my point. Near the end of my article here, I argued that Shamoun could not do the same with the evidence I presented for Ibn Abbas's view unless he wanted to get desperate. My position was more reasonable and compliant with the authentic narrations presented.


Plus, I already argued that the Ibn Abbaas narration was weak and unreliable, and that was my main argument, to which Shamoun had no answer. However, I further destroyed Shamoun's argument by showing that even if we were to assume that the narration was true, it still wouldn't prove Shamoun's point.


Shamoun then attempts to turn the tables on me and try to show that the Qur'an is textually corrupted (red herring of course).


He quotes Surah 15:91, which has been addressed here.


GF Haddad addresses the Ibn Umar narration midway through this article.


He touches on the Qur'anic variants aspect, which some parts have been addressed here, and for details, one can order Abu Ammar Yasir Qadhi's book "Introduction to the Sciences of the Qur'an" (order here)


Another excellent book on the subject is Dr. Azami's book "The History of the Qur'anic Text from Revelation to Compilation: A Comparative Study with the Old and New Testaments" (order from here)


Other links to visit: 


Inshallah, I will provide more detailed responses to Shamoun's arguments on the issue in the future since they are unrelated to the issue at hand.


Shamoun appeals to Surah 5:44 as an argument, but it has already been addressed here.


Ignoramus Shamoun then says... 


How amazing. Muslims implement a ruling derived from a corrupted Book! 


How amazing! Shamoun supposedly studied Islam for more than a decade and still doesn't know that Muslims believe that certain parts of the Bible contain the word of God and that this ruling is one of them, thus his argument means absolutely nothing.


Shamoun quotes Surah 5:46-47, 3:48-50, and 61:6, which speak about the Gospel confirming the Torah. However, Shamoun quotes Ibn Kathir, who explains what is meant by this: 


"'Isa said, 'The Tawrah conveyed the glad tidings of my coming, and my coming CONFIRMS THE TRUTH OF THE TAWRAH.'" (Tafsir Ibn Kathir, Abridged, Volume 9, Surat Al-Jathiyah to the end of Surat Al-Munafiqun [September 2000, first edition], p. 617; source; bold and capital emphasis ours) 


As I refuted the argument of the Qur'an confirming the Bible here, the same could be applied in this case as well.


As for Allah teaching Jesus (peace be upon him) the Torah and Jesus memorizing it, Ibn Abbaas makes an interesting comment:


(And He will teach him the Scripture) the Scriptures of [past] prophets; as it is said: writing (and wisdom) the lawful and the prohibited; as it said this means: the wisdom of the prophets who preceded him, (and the Torah) in the womb of his mother (and the Gospel) after he came out of his mother's womb(Ibn Abbaas, Tanwîr al-Miqbâs min Tafsîr Ibn 'Abbâs, Commentary on Surah 3:48, Source 


Imam Shawkani says in his commentary:


{ وَيُعَلّمُهُ ٱلْكِتَـٰبَ } قيل هو معطوف على { يُبَشّرُكِ }: أي: إن الله يبشرك وإنّ الله يعلمه،     


"and He will teach him the book". It is said that it is meant 'He will inform you". That is Allah will inform him and teach him. (Shawkani, Fathul Qadeer, Commentary on Surah 3:48, Source) 


Here we see that Jesus was taught the true Torah by revelation from God and not by him going to the allegedly textually pure Torah during his time. Also, why would God need to teach the Torah to Jesus if it was there for him to read and learn himself?


Even for the sake of argument, let us assume that the Qur'an teaches that the Old Testament during the time of Jesus was as Christians have today. Shamoun has no manuscript evidence to prove that the ENTIRE Old Testament in the possession of the Jews during the time of Jesus is the same as the ENTIRE Old Testament that Christians have today.


The Dead Sea Scrolls only contain fragments of the Old Testament's books, with the exception of the book of Isaiah. It also doesn't include the book of Esther. (See Douglas Burrows/Liaison International, Encarta Concise Encyclopedia, cited here)


So Christians are only assuming that just because those fragmentary parts have been preserved, the whole Old Testament must have been as well. This is the fallacy of hasty generalization.


Also, let's not forget that the Old Testament could be corrupted before Jesus. The book Genesis is estimated to have been written around 1400 B.C. Since the earliest copy that Christians have of Genesis (only fragments, too, not the full version) is around 100 B.C., then that still gives you more than a thousand-year gap in which Biblical manuscripts are not accounted for. Thus, it was very likely that the Bible could have been corrupted at this time.


Then Shamoun appeals to Surah 28:48-49, which Brother Sami Zaatari easily brushed aside near the end of his article here.


Shamoun launches a ridiculous argument:

Fifthly, Zawadi's position that Q. 15:9 refers to the preservation of Quran will come back to work against him and prove that the Bible cannot be corrupted if we are to believe what the Muslim scripture says. The reason being that the Quran claims that it is contained in the previous Books:

And indeed it is a revelation of the Lord of the worlds - brought down by the trustworthy spirit - upon your heart, so that you be one of the warners - [revealed] in a clear Arabic dialect - and indeed it IS [also] IN the scriptures (Arabic- Zubur) of old. Is it no evidence for them that the scholars of the Israelites know him [to be a true prophet]? 26:192-197 

How can the Psalms contain the Qur'an when the Qur'an is talking about current events during the lifetime of the Prophet (peace be upon him) and directly addressing him?


The verse means that the Qur'an's revelation to Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) is mentioned in the Psalms (Tafsir QurtubiTafsir TabariTafsir Ibn KathirTafsir JalalaynTafsir Ibn Abbaas). So, if Christians like Shamoun want to insist that it doesn't, then they are indirectly admitting that their Bible is corrupted according to the Qur'an. 


Shamoun presents the following hadith:


Narrated Abu Huraira:
The Prophet said, 'The recitation of the Quran was made light and easy for David that he used to have his riding animal be saddled while he would finish the recitation of the Quran before the servant had saddled it.' (Sahih al-Bukhari, Volume 6, Book 60, 
Number 237) 


Narrated Abu Huraira:
The Prophet said, 'The reciting of the Zabur (i.e. Psalms) was made easy for David. He used to order that his riding animals be saddled, and would finish reciting the Zabur before they were saddled. And he would never eat except from the earnings of his manual work." (Sahih al-Bukhari, Volume 4, Book 55, 
Number 628) 

First of all, the Qur'an makes it clear that Zabur was sent to David, not the Qur'an (4:163, 17:55)


Secondly, in the first narration, the Arabic word used is 'Qiraa'a' (Arabic version of hadith, Source), which means recitation, and in the second narration posted by Shamoun, the Arabic word used is Qur'an (Arabic version of hadith, Source), which is the plural of 'Qiraa'a'. The word Qur'an used here emphasizes Prophet David's recitation of the book that was revealed to him. (See Ibn Hajar Al Asqalani, Kitab: Ahaadeeth al Anbiyaa', Bab: Qawl Allah Ta'aala wa Aaatayna Dawud Zabura, hadith no. 3164, Source)


So, when we look at both narrations together and allow them to explain each other, we clearly see that the term Qur'an being applied to the Psalms describes their function, which is that they are meant to be read, and it's not simply another nickname for them.


The last revelation sent to Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) is called the Qur'an in terms of its function and name.


Shamoun then argues:

The foregoing examples indicate that the term Quran can be used in a broader sense to refer to any of the revealed Books which the People of the Book (i.e. Jews and Christians) read or recite since the term itself means "Reading/Recitation."

Thus, since the Quran is contained in the previous Scriptures, and since the previous Scriptures are also called the Quran, this means that Allah's promise to protect the Quran also includes the preservation of the Holy Bible. Otherwise, to claim that the Holy Bible has been tampered with implies that the Quran has also been changed and that Allah therefore failed to preserve it from corruption. 

First of all, I have already clarified what was meant by the Qur'an, which was mentioned in the previous scriptures.


Secondly, Shamoun, like with his argument regarding the term 'reminder,' is jumping to conclusions. By his own admission, he admits that it is only POSSIBLE that the Bible could also be called the Qur'an and that it falls under God's promise to preserve it. He is not proving anything.


Thirdly, we need to remember that the term Qur'an is most commonly used and does not include the Bible or previous scriptures, e.g., 2:185, 4:82, 5:101, 6:19, 9:111 (Qur'an being differentiated from the Gospel and Torah), 12:3, 15:87, etc. So why doesn't Shamoun remind the readers that when the term "Qur'an" is usually used throughout the Qur'an and hadith, it does not include previous scriptures but only the last revelation sent to Prophet Muhammad, peace be upon him? Why does Shamoun like to take one narration that describes the Psalms as a Qur'an for its function and not actual name and then like to generalize?


Shamoun then quotes Surah 18:27, which has already been addressed here.


Shamoun then says:

Zawadi next does what he slanderously accuses me of doing in some of his "rebuttals":

All major commentators of the Qur'an are in agreement that Surah 15:9 is referring to the Qur'an.

Tafsir Ibn Kathir
Tafsir Al Jalalayn
Tafsir Tabari
Tafsir Qurtubi
 (go the section of Qurtubi 
Tafsir Ibn Abbaas
Tafsir Zamakshari
 (he emphasizes the fact that the previous revelations were entrusted to scribes and not God)

Tafsir Al Tabarisi
Al Samarqandi

I am not going to waste my time going to the rest of the 20 other commentaries, since it is pretty obvious what it is that they say.

You would think that Zawadi would have learned by now to stop providing us with evidence for his blatant hypocrisy and inconsistency. Note what he says in the following "response":

Here comes Shamoun's second fallacy, which is that of appeal to authority and his second act of desperation. (Rebuttal to Sam Shamoun's Article "Did Muhammad Confirm the Torah?: Addressing the Smokescreens of a Muslim Polemicist"; source)

Not only does Zawadi have no clue what the fallacy of appealing to authority truly is, as I shall be demonstrating in my future response to his so called rebuttal, but here he actually does the very thing he falsely accuses me of doing!(2)

Ignoramus Shamoun is comparing apples with oranges. I accused him of appealing to authority in that situation because I already provided evidence for that narration that he was using to be weak. Yet, instead of providing evidence to rebut it, he quotes scholars without addressing my arguments. Thus, he has committed a fallacy.

When I appealed to the major commentators of the Qur'an, I did so because usually, Shamoun likes to quote Islamic scholars and the early Muslims to see what they thought about the Bible. So then I quoted all the major Qur'anic commentators to show him that none of them agreed with his interpretation. 


Shamoun, the poor ignoramus, shoots himself in the foot here:


Moreover, it doesn't surprise us that the bulk of Muslim scholars believe that Q. 15:9 refers to the Muslim book since these commentators were fully aware of the implications of admitting that this passage includes the promise to preserve the previous inspired Scriptures. If the former Books have been preserved then this means that the Holy Bible is the inspired, inerrant Word of God since this is the Scripture which the Jews and Christians have upheld as the Revelations which God gave through the prophets and apostles. Yet if the Bible is the preserved Word of God then the Quran is a false book and Muhammad is a false prophet since the Muslim scripture contradicts the core, essential, doctrines of the Holy Bible. Does it therefore come as a surprise that very few Muslims, if any, would want to admit that the promise to preserve the Reminder includes the Holy Bible?


Notice how Shamoun is arguing that the Muslim scholars that I quoted wouldn't agree with his interpretation of Surah 15:9 because that would mean that they would agree that the Bible has been preserved and that since they didn't believe that, they wouldn't interpret it that way. But notice that I quoted Ibn Abbaas and Imam Tabari as my references; thus, Shamoun has indirectly admitted that Ibn Abbaas and Imam Tabari did not believe that the Bible has been preserved while he tries to argue in his other articles that they do. Thus, Shamoun contradicts himself here and shoots himself in the foot.


Shamoun then says that there are very few Muslims willing to admit that the Bible has been preserved. That is interesting for him to say since in his articles and other articles on, it is stated that all the early Muslims believed that the Bible was preserved and that this belief that the Bible was textually corrupted came around 400 years after the Prophet's death. Well, all those early Muslims are not a 'very few' in number. So Shamoun needs to make up his mind about what he believes.


Shamoun, in his endnotes, goes on to say:

1) The assertion of the Quran that it is contained in the previous Scriptures throws another monkey wrench into Zawadi's position. We post the comments of Ibn Kathir since they will help explain what we mean:

The Qur'an was mentioned in the Previous Scriptures

Allah says: this Qur'an was mentioned and referred to in the previous Scriptures that were left behind by their Prophets who foretold it in ancient times and more recently. Allah took a covenant from them that they would follow it, and the last of them stood and addressed his people with the good news of Ahmad...

Zubur here refers to Books; Zubur is the plural of Az-Zabur, which is also the name used to refer to the Book given to Dawud...

meaning, is it not a sufficient witness to the truth for them that the scholars of the Children of Israel found this Qur'an mentioned in the Scriptures which THEY STUDY? The meaning is: the fair-minded among them admitted that the attributes of Muhammad and his mission and his Ummah were mentioned in their Books, as was stated by those among them who believed, such as 'Abdullah bin Salam, Salman Al-Farisi and others who met the Prophet. (Tafsir Ibn Kathir, Abridged, Volume 7, Surat An-Nur to Surat Al-Ahzab, Verse 50 [August 2000, first edition], pp. 276-277; source; bold italics and capital emphasis ours)

According to Ibn Kathir, the Scriptures of old containing the description of Muhammad and the Quran were available during the time of Muhammad, an assertion which poses serious problems for Zawadi's claims for at least two reasons. First, this refutes the assertion made by Zawadi and specific sources that he references which claim that the Jews expunged prophecies of Muhammad. This very passage testifies against this since it asserts that such alleged prophecies could still be found in the Bible that was extant during that time.

First, I would like to thank Shamoun for posting the Ibn Kathir commentary on the verse that clarifies what is meant by the Qur'an being in the Psalms. As I mentioned previously, it is basically the coming of the revelation of the Qur'an to Muhammad (peace be upon him) that is mentioned in the Psalms, not the actual Qur'an being in the Psalms, as Shamoun claimed earlier.


Secondly, ignoramus Shamoun doesn't realize or understand yet that Muslims believe that the Bible contains some truth in it. So yes, we believe that the Jews did erase descriptions of the Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) from their scriptures, but that doesn't mean that they erased ALL OF THEM.


Shamoun continues:


Second, seeing that there are no clear, unambiguous references to either Muhammad or the Quran this means that the author of the Muslim scripture was wrong and ignorant about the contents of the Holy Bible. S/he erroneously assumed that the Jewish-Christian Scriptures mentioned Muhammad and the Quran and thought that by appealing to such citations he could convince the Jews and Christians to become Muslims. Little did s/he realize that his/her appeal to the Bible would be his/her undoing since the Books of old which the Jews and Christians had in their possession at that time, which are virtually identical to what we possess today, are void of any mention of Muhammad and his book. In fact, the teachings found in these Books actually prove that Muhammad was a false prophet and the Quran a false book.


Shamoun says that there are no clear, unambiguous references to Muhammad or the Qur'an. Well, that depends on what he means. Does he want the exact words 'Muhammad' and 'Qur'an' to be there? If yes, we demand to see the name of Jesus in the Old Testament.


Shamoun claims that the Jews rejected Muhammad (peace be upon him) as a prophet and didn't believe that he was prophesied in their scripture. Doesn't Shamoun realize that he can shoot himself in the foot with this argument since the Jews rejected Jesus as well and didn't believe he was the one prophesied in their scripture? Plus, Shamoun is forgetting that Jews such as Abdullah ibn Salaam and Kab' ibn al Ahbar did recognize the fact that Muhammad (peace be upon him) was the one prophesied in their scripture.


Either way, I am definitely not going to shift the topic to debating the Bible's prophecy of Muhammad, peace be upon him.


Shamoun, the ignorant one, concludes:

(2) What makes this all the more amazing, as well as ironic, is that Zawadi goes on to commit this very same fallacy in the very next paragraph!

Here WE HAVE A BIG BUNCH OF SCHOLARS casting doubt on one of the narrators in the chain of transmission.

When there is a doubt like this, how can we simply ignore it, turn a blind eye and say it is authentic? (Emphasis ours)

Truly amazing. If the Lord Jesus permits, in our forthcoming rebuttals we will have more to say about Zawadi's logical fallacies and his gross misunderstanding of when a logical fallacy has actually been committed. 

This is not a fallacy. What were we arguing about in that article anyway? We were arguing about whether a certain person in the transmission chain was reliable. So, how do we find this out? We find out by seeing what the scholars have said about the person. Well, if we see that the majority of the scholars spoke negatively about him, then this is a good reason for doubt. I never stated that it is 100% clear that the narrator was weak, however I did state that since the majority did declare him weak and there is no way to be sure whether the majority or minority are correct then it is an area of doubt. We can't certainly say that the narrator is weak or reliable. Thus, if the issue is doubtful, then Shamoun's appeal to a narration containing that narrator is not a convincing argument. That is the point I was trying to make.

But apparently, ignoramus Shamoun, who thinks he knows about Islam, doesn't know how to identify when someone commits a fallacy but commits it himself. This is the very thing that he accuses me of. Truly, he is a hypocrite.




Return to Does Islam Endorse The Bible?


Return to Homepage

HomeWhat's new?ChristianityRefutations Contact Me