Just who were the real authors of the Bible?

"A Refutation to NIV claim of bible corruption"

Authored by Quennel Gale edited and enlarged by Sam Shamoun

Introduction

Here we will investigate Osama's theories about who the real authors of the Bible were. He claims that the NIV mentions about the Bible not being the true word of God. However after reading this and looking at his allegations, you will see just how false his arguments really are.

We will examine Osama's claim about the Bible being corrupt and whether the NIV actually says what he claims. We will look at these commentaries as well as expose his silly idea of Bible corruption. He says that we shouldn't take the Bible as the full word of God. However this is the same thing the NIV commentators also do. After reading this article you will see that all Muslim claims to biblical corruption, including those by Osama are very reliant on misquotes.

For one thing when you check out the name on Osama's page of his alleged Christian, you find out that you can't email him. We wonder why? Is Osama telling us that he isn't man enough to put a person's email to verify his claim along with allowing us to show both sides of the argument? It seems like this is the case. This information about Mark 16 is answered thoroughly in down in this paper.

That is fine, however the NIV commentary is the same throughout all NIV bibles. But we also appeal to both the NIV Study bible and the NIV Living Insights Bible, which came a year later.

Here we see that the NIV publishers and authors look at the Bible as God's own revelation and not corrupted as Osama says that they claim!!!

Not only is Osama a liar but he slanders the NIV committe by claiming that their version of the bible proves that God's word is corrupted!! The NIV committe continues by saying:

Again we see that the NIV takes the bible as God's revelation, despite the evil and satanic slander of Osama Abdallah. He is such a loser who has to resort to outright lies to prove his point to desperate Muslims. Now lets look at the NIV preface which is present in all their bibles, here are some excerpts which throughly refute Osama Abdallah:

Since Osama believes that the original name of God is Allah, and he appeals to the NIV to prove his points on bible corruption, lets let the NIV answer his bogus claims:

See!! LORD, not Allah. Now lets let NIV conclude with this:

That sums it all. Osama's lie about the NIV claiming that the Bible is corrupt is a utterly false and has nothing to stand on other than his usual misquotes. We presented this information to Osama over and over and he has avoided it everytime, not even given a response as to how can the bible be corrupt according to the NIV, when they claim in the preface that it is the wholly inspired word of God. In order to fool his reader, Osama must constantly use the fallacy of exclusion by quoting parts here and there and eliminating other important material.

Exposing Osama's intentional slander

In this section Osama begins his assault on the New Testament.

OSAMA'S FALLACY: IF THE BOOK WASN'T WRITTEN BY THE ORIGINAL AUTHOR ONLY IT'S NOT GOD'S WORD.

If you notice throughout his paper, Osama has established a logically flawed argument due to the fact that he believes that if the author doesn't give his name or if it isn't written by the author it isn't the word of God. However Osama has nothing to base this conclusion on since he is using his opinion as a final standard to build his argument. Therefore since he has not shown any Biblical reference to prove his point, his whole argument is based on "MY OWN OPINION".

We have asked Osama over and over to show us where it is a explict rule that all the authors of the names of the book should write it. He has yet to produce this proof. He knows the difficulty of his position therefore he must ignore our challenge and then proceed with his usual slander.

Osama attempts to interpolates his idea after posting part of the quote of the NIV. He then makes a unprovable accusation about the New testament not even being documented until 150 years later. Since he claims that the NIV proves this lets see what the NIV's Commentary on Mark says about these matters.

According to the NIV, the unanimous testimony to the authorship of this book was based on very important evidence from trusted traditions. Osama leaves this quotation out of his paper to give his reader the impression that the NIV agrees that Mark was corrupted. The NIV says that Mark preserved the material accurately, not corruptedly and hence the reason why Mark wouldn't write his name down as the author, but yet this gospel is attributed to him, is because of the fact that it comes from the preaching of Peter. Anybody who is able to view the entire quote will easily see that Mark was a scribe who documented the preaching of Peter muc like Muhammad's follwers did with the Quran. Documentation 150-300 years? NIV debunks this:

Osama has just ignored this part dealing with Mark. The NIV Living Insights Bible dates Mark's Gospel to 50 a.d.!!! Far from being 150-300 years after the events! The NIV Study Bible helps concur with this:

Osama is deriving his information about the Gospel's authorship from outdated sources from the late 1800's. Notice that the NIV says no such thing as he claim. Also look at his defense, "what ever Christian you talk too"? So he is basing his whole information on hearsay!! This is not only hilarious but is the fallacy of appealing to dubious and unknown authority. We wonder what Christian did he ask this question? A Muslim Christian? Hilarious!!!

Osama again is interpolating the NIV commentary verse by claiming that "John Mark was the Sole author of this Gospel" Then he rambles on about how Christian cults use posionous snakes in their worship. He is so desperate to prove his idea of Bible corruption until he has to resort to using christian cults which he sees on the X-Files to debunk Christianity!! Maybe we should relieve his folly and tell him that serpents in the Bible doesn't always refer to literal snakes, but devils also.

Again, more interpolation by Osama. He claims that Mark's ending proves that the Gospel wasn't written by its original authors. However that isn't what his quote says at all. It says

The NIV calls the writing Mark's Gospel!! It said it probably ended here, not that it is proven that it ended at 16:8. Osama is guilty of trying to make the NIV commentary apply to all the Gospels when it gives only a probability that Mark's Gospel ended. However, historical textual evidence illustrates that Mark’s Gospel is two-fold in ending with both an abridged and unabridged versions. Read:

History has shown that Mark has both a short as well as an unabrigdged ending. Most authorities have Mark 16:9-20. It is only "SOME" who mark it as doubtful. Most means more than Some. That is whay the NIV said that the ending:

They were aware that most MSS have this verse and it would be incorrect to claim that this verse was a later insertion! Osama's whole evidence was based on probable evidence. If he wanted to prove that Mark 16:9-20 was clearly a later addition, surely he could've furnished a NIV quote that explicitly says "THIS GOSPEL DEFINITELY ENDED AT VERSE 8 AND THE REST IS A LATER INSERTION". However his quote says nothing about this issue, aince it speaks of it only being probable. Why? Because it is historically known that there are two endings to Mark amongst the extant MSS, a long and short one. Mark is known as the Abridged Gospel, and the shorter ending is an abridgement of this abridged Gospel as we will see just a little later. Furthermore, the doctrines taught in these disputed passages are established in other undisputed passages of the Gospels. But let's see what the NIV says about Mark before dealing with Mark 16:9:

Hence, even before we reach the 16th chapter the NIV emphatically affirms that Jesus died and bore our sins, demonstrating that the NIV translators believe in the crucifixion of the Lord Jesus Christ and the authenticity of the Bible. We have just cited evidence that Mark 16:9-20 is found in most of thee MSS and exposed Osama's evidence as doubtful since it is based only on probability and not on hard core evidence. So we now turn to a range of scripture references that Scholars have shown to be related to Mark 16:9-20. These references from undisputed passages establish the teaching of Mark's longer ending:

There are tons of references that demonstrate the fact of Mark's Gospel being based on the authentic Gospel of Jesus Christ as shown in the other undisputed passages of the canonical Gospels. Notice that Osama didn't bother to even look at any scripture cross references.

Really Osama? Lets see what the NIV says concerning whether Mark is the Word of God:

According to the NIV Study bible, Mark gave the people in Rome "THE LIFE OF JESUS", whom the NIV calls "OUR LORD"!! If Mark was corrupted why would they say this? They would say that it wasn't the life of Jesus, nor woudl they call Jesus THEIR LORD if they didn't believe in the authenticity and inspiration of Bible!! Here is more information:

The NIV says exactly the opposite of what Osama is trying to convey to his reader!!! See it for yourself; Mark, according the NIV was not only inspired, but he was under the inspiration of the HOLY GHOST! So Much for Osama proving that the Gospel of Mark isn't the word of God according to the NIV!

Look at the quote closely, it says EVIDENCE IN AND OUTSIDE THE SCRIPTURE ITSELF LED TO THE CONCLUSION OF LUKE'S AUTHORSHIP. Osama then makes a weak argument saying that this was just a mere conclusion. He then asks if this isn't just a man-made Satanic book. Maybe he forgot to see that the EVIDENCE showed that it wasn't a man made book. As for his idea about the book not being inspired by God Almighty I challenge him to show us one reference where it says that God personally wrote the Quran. All he has is Muhammad’s claim that God spoke to him. Is this evidence Osama? Let’s expose him for misquoting the NIV again:

Notice that Osama has argued elsewhere that the Bible doesn't have extra biblical evidence to support it but yet when this evidence is shown, including evidence from within the text itself, Osama has to resort to a sudden case of forgetfulness along with misquotes to prove his case. This shows us that his stance from the NIV is so weak that it is simply pathetic. Here we furnish as evidence the comments of Sir William Ramsey. Ramsey, considered one of the world's greatest archaeologists, believed that the New Testament (particularly the books of Luke and Acts) were second-century forgeries. He spent thirty years digging in Asia Minor in order to produce evidence proving that Luke-Acts was nothing more than a lie. At the conclusion of his long journey however, he was compelled to admit that the New Testament was a first-century compilation and that the Holy Bible is historically reliable. This fact led to his conversion and embracing of the very faith he once believed to be a hoax. Dr. Ramsey stated:

Ramsey further said:

Osama shouldn't have a problem with Mr. Ramsey since he used him as a reference in his "History of Man's Corruption of the Bible". Again we see that he is only good at misquoting authors, making them say the exact opposite of what they really claim.

Again Osama misquotes the NIV since this is what it actually says:

How explicit can you get? Here are more quotes from the NIV:

We wonder what was Osama's excuse for eliminating the rest of this information on his site? Again where does the NIV explicitly say that this book wasn't God's word and that it is corrupted? Osama has yet to provide us with any detailed proof.

Osama seems confused since he thinks that Luke writing for Theophilus somehow entails a compromise on the part of Luke. Luke was writing with the purpose and intention of convincing Theophilus of the truth of the Gospel of the Lord Jesus Christ. Osama conveniently stops in the middle of a sentence, as seen in his citation of Luke 1:3. Now let us read this in context:

On his page about Bible corruption, OSAMA MAKES A SLIP AND ADMITS THAT LUKE WAS THE AUTHOR!! READ HIS COMMENTS:

Notice that here he claims that the reason why Luke's Gospel isn't inspired is BECAUSE IT WAS WRITTEN BY LUKE!!! Yet, in this article he claims that he doesn't even know who the real author is!! Does Osama suffer from amnesia or epilepsy? Even the NIV states clearly that Luke wrote the Gospel of Luke, basing their view on careful scholarly investigation of the evidences:

Osama also argues from silence when he claims that Luke never claimed that he was inspired. Luke never DENIED he was inspired either, sow hat does this prove? Absolutely nothing. When we look at how the first Christians viewed Luke’s Gospel, we discover that they both KNEW and AFFIRMED that it was an inspired revelation from God:

Paul quotes Deuteronomy 25:4 AND LUKE 10:7:

Here, Paul calls Luke’s Gospel Scripture and places it on the same level of Moses’ writings! Additional evidence that Paul is citing Luke's Gospel can be seen from a comparison of the Greek:

So much for Osama’s denial of Luke’s inspiration! Osama continues:

Since Osama agrees that the NIV focuses on historical information, we will turn to it for the dating of this Gospel, as opposed to basing our arguments on what some hypothetical Christian may say. (It is obvious that Osama is making things up again since he doesn’t even bother to name who these Christians are, which shows that he has never talked to them). Here is what the NIV commentary says:

It is clear that Osama simply picks and chooses what he likes from the NIV since he completely ignores what the NIV says about the dating of these gospels. No NIV quote claims that the gospels date some 150-300 years after Christ. Osama knows that the NIV statements do not support his case, and simply decides to invent claims to look good to his readers. Osama continues:

Osama thinks that he can debunk the Bible because there were persons named Theophilus that came some 200-400 years after Jesus. The Catholic Encyclopedia mentions a second century Bishop named Theophilus:

The other Theophilus was the Patriarch of Alexandria in 385-412 AD. (source- http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/14625a.htm)

You can even go here and see the entries for both these Theophiluses- http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/t.htm

Osama erroneously seeks to link the Theophilus of Luke’s Gospel with these two Christian figures of the second and fourth centuries solely because they have the same name! What Osama failed to tell his readers is that Theophilus is a common Greek name, just like Steve is a common name in English. My elementary school is named Theophilus. Osama obviously knows nothing about Christian history!

It should be noted that Osama originally sought to link Luke’s Theophilus with the fourth century Patriarch. After being informed of this mistake, Osama later changed his information and tried to link Luke’s Theophilus with the Theophilus of 177 A.D. This shows just how deceitful Osama truly is. Instead of simply acknowledging his mistake, he sought all the more harder to find any evidence which he thought would place Luke’s Gospel in the second century. However his own words contradict the fact that Theophilus of AD. 177 was the one Luke was writing to. Read what he says:

Osama claimed that Luke was writing to a president or leader named Theophilus, contradicting his assertion above that the Theophilus mentioned in the third Gospel is actually a second century Bishop!!! So who is Theophilus really? A leader in the first century, a second century Bishop or a fourth century Patriarch?

Again your quote DOESN'T SAY THAT HEBREWS IS CORRUPTED. Until you show me that this quote does then I care less about how you interpret it. This only exposes your silly neophyte knowledge of Christian history. We quote the NIV regarding the authorship of Hebrews in order to demonstrate that Osama's assertions that this translation claims that the Bible is corrupt is an outright lie:

Osama basically tries to use the NIV’s statement that they wished the author had written his name as propaganda against the Holy Scriptures! Note the following from the NIV Study Bible:

According to the NIV, Christ is God's Final revelation to humankind. This eliminates any need for the Quran. Since Osama is quoting the NIV with authority, he must accept the fact that according to this source Osama believes in a false book!! Read what the NIV Study Bible says in the footnotes dealing with Christ:

The NIV’s explicit testimony to the Deity of Christ exposes Islam as a fraud, as well as exposing Osama's misapplication of the NIV notes. To drive it home read what the NIV says about Hebrews 1:5-14:

Not only does the NIV state that this book is inspired by God and is protected by the Almighty himself through the ages, it affirm that Jesus is both God and is distinguished from God the Father!! Osama claims that Hebrews is doubtful even though his best piece of evidence, the NIV, says just the opposite!!! When I posed this same argument against Osama, he responded:

If it is irrelevant, then why does the Quran even bother to mention it? As for the Quran, Islamic history proves that it wasn't documented on the spot. I can show you tons of references to prove my point if you want. And as for educated Muslims, many were killed in the battlefields that resulted in a loss of great portions of the Quran. Want references I can post that too. So basically, we are to believe that the Quran was copied down because you said it was? Again no proof. Osama continues by saying:

The materials from which the Quran was compiled were scattered everywhere. It wasn't arranged in any order nor put into one book until after Muhammad died. Basically it was left to men's judgment to decide what went in and what went out. There were sharp disagreements as to what was supposed to be included. Yet, Muslims like to judge the Bible harshly based on a criteria that can so easily be used against the Quran with even greater force and weight. Notice that Osama doesn't provide any credible source to back up his claim. Do Muslims really expect us to simply accept their claims for the Quran without providing any evidence for us to examine, all the while demanding that we provide proofs galore for Christianity? I don’t think so.

Nonsense. No Hadiths exist to prove this assertion, and ignorant peasants don’t qualify as scholars. Memorization was common in Near Eastern cultures but none of this makes them scholars. Muhammad may have had a good memory (even though this is doubtful, see http://answering-islam.org/Green/forgot.htm), yet he was still basically ignorant and illiterate.

Again Osama furnishes nothing more than vain comments. When he finally ran out of answers he tried to refer me to his site, which we are attempting to systematically debunk, as this article exposing Osama’s misquotations of the NIV hopefully shows.

Osama seeks to undermine the NIV’s claim that the Apostle John wrote the fourth Gospel solely because John didn’t sign it! Do note what the NIV says regarding the omission of John’s name:

The NIV says that IT IS NATURAL FOR JOHN TO NOT MENTION HIS NAME IF HE DID WRITE THE GOSPEL!! Again, note what the NIV says:

Osama also overlooked the very first sentence in his own quote which explicitly says:

The evidence is as explicit as one can find verifying the authorship of the apostle John!! Osama's evidence of bible corruption is nothing more than the usual misquotation and intentional misrepresentation found among common Islamic propaganda against the bible. Both the NIV Study and Living Insights Bible mention the apostle John as the author of the beloved fourth gospel. We find it very unusual for Osama Abdallah to try and disprove the authenticity of the Bible for the sake of bringing people to Islam. The Quran and the Muslim traditions clearly affirm the purity and preservation of the Holy Bible.

Finally, note what the first Muslim biographer said regarding the authorship of the fourth Gospel:

The preceding Gospel citation is taken from John 15:23-16:1. Please notice that Ishaq doesn’t say that this particular Gospel is inauthentic or corrupt. Apparently, the first Muslims weren’t as sharp as Osama since they had no problem admitting that John authored the fourth Gospel, even though he never signed his name!

Osama is apparently blatantly ignorant of what Islamic history and Muhammad think about Paul. Read this from the earliest Islamic accounts:

Muhammad himself said that Jesus was commissioned by God to send the disciples into the world. And yet Paul happens to be one of those who assisted the Apostle Peter in carrying out Jesus’ great commission!! Notice that Ibn Ishaq predates the most credible Hadiths by over 125 years. According to Muhammad, Jesus said that this is a thing his followers must do. Interestingly, other Muslim sources confirm the above statement from Ishaq:

Amazingly, Bukhari, the most authentic Hadith collection in Islam, even quotes one of Paul's letters and attributes the saying to God!:

According to this Hadith, Muhammad purportedly claims that Allah uttered the above words. Compare what Allah is supposed to have revealed to Muhammad with what Paul says in his first letter to the Corinthians:

Paul paraphrases the following citation from Isaiah:

Hence, according to the Hadith the one that inspired Paul's saying, which Muhammad alludes to in virtually identical language, is none other than God! Notice that “Allah” has taken Paul's quote and slightly modified it, and both contexts refer to the rewards that God has in store for true believers. Since Osama considers Paul to be a deceiver, we must conclude that Muhammad and his god Allah are also deceivers since they quote Paul!!! Muslims hate this quote since it undermines their thinking about Paul.

This basically means that Muslims have no basis to object to Paul's writings since Muhammad, Ibn Ishaq and al-Bukhari attribute Paul's work to God, implying that Paul was a legitimate representative of Christ's teachings. The only way for Osama to avoid the significance of these early Islamic traditions is to deny the traditions completely, as well as intentionally ignore Muhammad. This would make him an apostate. Osama then goes on to post links about Paul being a liar based on the opinions of so-called Christian scholars. However, since when do theologians and so-called Christians hold greater authority for Osama than Muhammad, Allah, and the Islamic traditions? We will leave that for Osama to answer for us.

Notice how Osama claims that God isn't the author of confusion, but yet his own words seem to be utterly confused. He says that we see the author himself (whatever that means) but yet we see nothing but conclusions. Would he rather have assumptions instead of conclusions? Again he knows that the NIV is saying just the opposite of what his paper is saying and therefore when it comes to quotes that he can't copy out of context he must resort to intentionally misinterpreting them. Then and only then, in his twisted logic, is he able to prove that the Bible is corrupt. Remember that earlier he called into question the materials since Christians were basing their points on assumptions. And yet when they provide hard evidence to base their conclusions on, this is still not good enough! Hypocrisy is the word that comes to mind.

The reason why we take Paul's words as the very words of God is because Jesus, the Apostles, supernatural miracles and even Muhammad himself provide irrefutable evidence thatt Paul was commissioned to spread God’s truth. Lets look at the scriptures mentioned by Osama:

If Osama is agreeing with Peter then he is also agreeing with Peter’s racism and hypocrisy since Paul was correcting Peter for being hypocritical before both the Jews and Gentiles. We know that Allah loves to lie and mislead but that doesn't mean that followers of Yahweh God, such as Paul, have to do likewise!

Do you see anywhere in this passage which suggests that Paul’s and Barnabas’ dispute was theological solely because Barnabas left with John Mark and Paul with Silas? In what way does this passage undermine Paul’s credibility when the very passages prior to this one demonstrate that Paul had the approval of Christ’s true followers?

Oops!! Okay, now we see that Paul didn't perform miracles? Therefore he isn't a prophet? It is obvious that Osama has not read or understood the Bible since he commits several mistakes here. First, inspiration doesn’t apply to everything that Paul or the others said or did. It refers to the proclaiming of the God’s truths, i.e. the preaching and writing of the Gospel.

Second, Osama hasn’t read 1 Corinthians carefully since Paul wasn’t denying inspiration at all. Paul is addressing the question of whether virgins should remain unmarried, something that Christ never addressed while on earth. Being Christ's spokesperson Paul could speak on issues not addressed by the Lord Jesus during his earthly ministry. In this passage, Paul is giving a suggestion that a person can choose to follow, but was not required to do so.

This leads us to our second point, namely that Paul was clearly aware that both his preaching and his writings were given by inspiration of God:

These passages make it quite clear that Paul believed that his writings were the very revealed words of God. This can be further seen from what Paul writes elsewhere:

It becomes quite evident that Paul believed that he was speaking and writing God’s Word by divine inspiration. Third, the Holy Bible provides several examples of Paul performing miracles:

Paul even had power over demons and poison by God’s sovereign grace:

This again shows that Osama hasn’t read the Bible carefully. Finally and even more amazing is that Muhammad fails Osama’s own criteria since the former performed no miracles. Hence, if Osama’s logic were true then this would also make Muhammad a false apostle.

Muhammad and Miracles  

Say those without knowledge: “Why speaketh not Allah unto us? or why cometh not unto us a Sign?” So said the people before them words of similar import. Their hearts are alike. We have indeed made clear the Signs unto any people who hold firmly to Faith (in their hearts). S. 2:118  



Even IF thou wert to bring to the People of the Book all the Signs (together), they would not follow thy Qibla; nor art thou going to follow their Qibla; nor indeed will they follow each other's Qibla. If thou after the knowledge hath reached thee, Wert to follow their (vain) desires,- then wert thou Indeed (clearly) in the wrong. S. 2:145  

They say: “Why is not a Sign sent down to him from his Lord!” Say: “Allah hath certainly power to send down a Sign: but most of them understand not.” S. 6:37  



They swear their strongest oaths by Allah, that if a (special) sign came to them, by it they would believe. Say: “Certainly (all) Signs are in the power of Allah: but what will make you (Muslims) realize that (even) if (special) signs came, they will not believe.”? S. 6:109 

‘Abdallah ‘Abd al-Fadi comments: 

From the Quran:

They say: “Why is not a sign sent down to him from his Lord?” Say: “The Unseen is only for Allah (to know), then wait ye: I too will wait with you.” S. 10:20  



And the Unbelievers say: “Why is not a sign sent down to him from his Lord?” But thou art truly a warner, and to every people a guide. 13:7  



The Unbelievers say: “Why is not a Sign sent down to him from his Lord?” Say: “Truly Allah leaveth, to stray, whom He will; But He guideth to Himself those who turn to Him in penitence,-” S. 13:27 

And We refrain from sending the Signs, only because the men of former generations treated them as false: We sent the She-camel to the Thamüd - a visible Sign-, but they treated her wrongfully: We only send the Signs by way of frightening (and warning from evil). S. 17:59  

Muhammad Asad comments on S. 17:59: 

“… This highly elliptic sentence has a fundamental bearing on the purport of the Qur’an as a whole. In many places the Qur’an stresses the fact that the Prophet Muhammad, despite his being the last and greatest of God’s apostles, was not empowered to perform miracles similar to those with which the earlier prophets are said to have reinforced their verbal messages. His only miracle was and is the Qur’an itself- a message perfect in its lucidity and ethical comprehensiveness, destined for all times and all stages of human development, addressed not merely to the feelings but also to the minds of men, open to everyone, whatever his race or social environment, and bound to remain unchanged forever. Since the earlier prophets invariably appealed to their own community and their own time alone, their teachings were, of necessity, circumscribed by the social and intellectual conditions of that particular community and time; and since the people to whom they addressed themselves ha not yet reached the stage of independent thinking, those prophets stood in need of symbolic portents or miracles (see surah 6, note 94) in order to make the people concerned realize the inner truth of their mission. The message of the Qur’an, on the other hand, was revealed at a time when mankind (and, in particular, that pat of it which inhabited the regions marked by the earlier, Judeo-Christian religious development) had reached a degree of maturity which henceforth enabled it to grasp an ideology as such without the aid of those persuasive portents and miraculous demonstrations which in the past, as the above verse points out, only too often gave rise to new, grave misconceptions.” (Asad, The Meaning of the Qur’an, pp. 427-428, n. 71) 

That Asad’s explanation is rather forced is seen by the fact that it was the People of the Book and the pagans that demanded Muhammad to perform miracles to prove his prophethood. Hence, maturity had nothing to do with it since in every age man expects supernatural verification from one claiming to speak on God’s behalf.  

They say: “We shall not believe in thee, until thou cause a spring to gush forth for us from the earth, Or (until) thou have a garden of date trees and vines, and cause rivers to gush forth in their midst, carrying abundant water; Or thou cause the sky to fall in pieces, as thou sayest (will happen), against us; or thou bring Allah and the angels before (us) face to face: Or thou have a house adorned with gold, or thou mount a ladder right into the skies. No, we shall not even believe in thy mounting until thou send down to us a book that we could read.” Say: “Glory to my Lord! Am I aught but a man,- a messenger?” S. 17:90-93  

Asad on 17:93: 

“… A reply to this demand of believers is found in verse 7 of Al-An’am, revealed-according to Suyuti- shortly after the present surah. But the allusion to this and the preceding ‘conditions’ is not merely historical: it illustrates a widely prreviewent, psychologically contradictory attitude of the mind- a strange mixture of prima-facie scepticism and primitive credulity which makes belief in a prophetic message dependent on the prophet’s ‘performing miracles’ (cf. 6:37 and 109 and 7:203). Since the ONLY miracle granted by God to Muhammad is the Qur’an itself (see the first part of verse 59 of this surah, as well as note 71 above), he is bidden, in the next passage, to declare that these demands are irrelevant and, by implications, frivolous.” (Ibid., p. 433, n. 109 bold emphasis ours) 

But (now), when the Truth has come to them from Ourselves, they say, “Why are not (Signs) sent to him, like those which were sent to Moses?” Do they not then reject (the Signs) which were formerly sent to Moses? They say: “Two kinds of sorcery, each assisting the other!” And they say: “For us, we reject all (such things)!” S. 28:48  

Nay, here are Signs self-evident in the hearts of those endowed with knowledge: and none but the unjust reject Our Signs. Ye they say: “Why are not Signs sent down to him from his Lord?” Say: “The signs are indeed with Allah: and I am indeed a clear Warner.” And is it not enough for them that we have sent down to thee the Book which is rehearsed to them? Verily, in it is Mercy and a Reminder to those who believe. S. 29:49-51 

Al-Fadi quotes al-Baidawi’s commentary on the above passage: 

Al-Baidawi said: “‘Why have signs not been sent down upon him from his Lord?’ as [was the case with] the she-camel of Salih, the rod of Moses and the table of Christ Jesus. ‘Say: The signs are only with God,’ who sends them down to whomever he wills. I do not possess them, so as to be able to perform what you suggest. ‘I am only a plain warner’; I have nothing to do but to warn.” (Is the Qur’an Infallible?, p. 369 emphasis ours) 

Muslim Faruq Sherif notes: 

“Apart from its assertion of its inimitability and its reference to the Prophet’s ascension (if taken literally), the Qur’an does not attribute any miracles to the Prophet… Muhammad was often challenged by the pagans to produce miracles; his reply was that God makes miracles appear when he wills, but that the miracles which were performed by the prophets in the past were powerless to convince the people, who treated them as lies and sorcery. 

“The pagans’ persistent challenge embarrassed the Prophet who, reciting the Qur’an, always laid emphasis on the miracles bestowed by Allah not only on Moses and Jesus but also lesser figures such as Salih and Solomon. If, asked the pagans, Allah empowered Moses to dry the sea, and Jesus to bring the dead back to life, why did He not send down a miraculous sign to confirm Muhammad such as by enabling him to cause a spring to gush forth from a rock, by giving him a well-watered orchard, or a house adorned with gold, or a treasure, by sending angels to accompany him on earth, by exempting him from the necessity of eating and walking in the market, by permitting him to mount to heaven and bring back a written confirmation of his mission, or by causing a piece of the sky to fall upon the unbelievers and crush them? (XVII. 92-95, XX.133) 

“To all this the Prophet’s answer was: I am only a man and a warner; signs are in Allah’s hands, and those which were revealed to the former generations did not make them less intransigent… 

“Accordingly Muhammad declared that his unquestionable miracle was the revelation of the Qur’an. Nevertheless the pagans’ questions troubled his mind, and his bewilderment brought reproaches from Allah: ‘In case you are in doubt as to what We have revealed to you,’ says the Qur’an in X.94, ‘perhaps you feel inclined to suppress a part of what has been revealed to you, being distressed at heart lest they say why has not a treasure been sent down to him or why an angel has not come with him; but you are only a warner'’(XI.14). ‘If you find their aversion hard to bear, seek if you can a tunnel in the earth or a ladder to the sky by which you may bring them a sign’ (VI.35). (Sherif, A Guide to the Contents of the Qur’an [Garnet Publishing Limited; UK 1995], pp. 62, 63) 

Muslim Akbarally Meherally quotes Huston Smith with approval: 

“Huston Smith was a professor of Philosophy at Washington University. He writes in his book, The Religions of Man: 

In an age charged with supernaturalism, when miracles were accepted as the stock-in-trade of the most ordinary saint, Muhammed refused to traffic with human weakness and credulity. To miracle-hungry idolaters seeking signs and portents he cut the issue clean: ‘God has not sent me to work wonders; He has sent me to preach to you. My Lord be praised! Am I more than a man sent as an apostle? From the first to the last he resisted every impulse to glamorize his own person… ‘I am only a preacher of God’s words, the bringer of God’s message to mankind.’ If signs be sought, let them not be of Muhammed’s greatness but of God’s, and for these one need only open one’s eyes… Only one miracle is claimed, that of the Koran itself. That he by his own devices could have produced such truth-this was the one naturalistic hypothesis he could not accept.

(Meherally, Understanding the Bible through Koranic messages [A.M. Trust P.O. Box 82584, Burnaby, B.C. Canada, 1989], p. 99) 

What of the reports in the hadith where we are told that Muhammad actually performed many miracles? Norm Geisler and Abdul Saleeb respond: 

“There are many reasons for questioning the authenticity of these stories. Critics have observed the following. 

First, none of them are recorded in the Qur’an. In fact, they are in general contrary to the whole spirit of the Muhammad of the Qur’an, who repeatedly refused to do these very kinds of things for unbelievers who challenged him (3:181-84; 4:153; 6:8-9). 

Second, these alleged miracles follow the same pattern as the apocryphal miracles of Christ from a century or two after his death. They are a legendary embellishment of people removed from the original events. They do not come from contemporary eye-witnesses of the events. 

Osama continues:

For one thing, what does Benny Hinn have to do with Paul? Also how does Osama know that these miracles are fake? Has he inspected them himself? No. He just assumes and doesn't provide any evidence for his claims, like he says about Paul. Why should we accept what he says then? Paul did perform miracles. He healed a demoniac girl as well as knocked off a poisonous snake without being harmed. Muhammad himself said Jesus commissioned Paul. So what is his problem with Paul?

Basically this is just a repeat of the above argument. We've already shown that Osama’s arguments do nothing to undermine Paul’s credibility. In fact, after Paul’s dispute with Peter, the latter was humble enough to admit and write:

Noted Evangelical Scholar Douglas J. Moo comments:

It should be noted that this is also an "NIV" source which refutes the absurd idea of Paul's words as being uninspired. Osama is obviously running out of ideas and must result to "poisoning the well" against the beloved Apostle Paul.

We've already discussed verse this passage. But lets turn this same argument against Muhammad. He claimed to have met Gabriel as well as allegedly reporting what Jesus said to the Jews. Muhammad couldn't prove either one. He never met Jesus neither did he speak Hebrew nor Aramaic, so how could he know exactly what Jesus said?

The Quran claims:

For he appeared (in stately form) while he was in the highest part of the horizon; then he approached and came closer, and was at a distance of but two bow-lengths or (even) nearer; So did (God) convey the inspiration to His Servant - (Conveyed) what He (meant) to convey. The (Prophet's mind and) heart in no way falsified that which he saw. Will ye then dispute with him concerning what he saw? For indeed he saw him at a second descent, near the Lote-tree beyond which none may pass: near it is the Garden of Abode. Behold, the Lote-tree was shrouded (in mystery unspeakable!). (His) sight never swerved nor did it go wrongs! For truly did he see of the Signs of his Lord, the Greatest! Surah 53.6-18

In another passage the Qur'an again states explicitly that Muhammad had a definite vision:

Another verse states clearly that the vision was given by Allah himself:

The confident manner in which Muhammad claimed that he had at least two definite visions strongly suggests that he really did see a strange being on the horizon. He described the second vision in these words:

"Once while I was walking, all of a sudden I heard a voice from the sky. I looked up and saw to my surprise, the same Angel as had visited me in the cave of Hira. He was sitting on a chair between the sky and the earth. I got afraid of him and came back home and said, Wrap me! Wrap me!" (Sahih al-Bukhari, Vol. 6, p. 452).

Muslims vehemently claim that it was the angel Gabriel who came to Muhammad, yet the Qur'an only once refers to Jibril as the medium of the revelation (Surah 2.97) while stating elsewhere that it came down with the Ruhul-Amin, the Faithful Spirit (Surah 26.193). The identification of Gabriel as the Qur'anic messenger is significantly only made in a very late passage of the Qur'an after Muhammad had many dealings with Jews and Christians. This spirit never identified himself as Gabriel when Muhammad first met him. Nor do we find an explicit connection between the spirit and Gabriel. Also since the name Gabriel came in a very late passage of the Quran, this shows that Muhammad wasn’t at all certain about the identity of this spirit. He had to be around the Jews and Christians before finally deciding that Gabriel must have also been involved in the sending down of the “revelation.” A telling story indeed.

This explains why Muhammad thought he was demon possessed, or influenced by demons; the Quran in many places reads like typical Arabic poetry. Note also the following embarrassing hadith:

This is very important for the reader to recognize. Muhammad saw a spirit which nobody else saw. This again is precarious because in order to believe that Gabriel came we would have to accept only the testimony of Muhammad. It’s one thing to be visited by an angel and you are by yourself. But to claim that an angel entered a room without anybody else besides yourself seeing him is another story. Muhammad was hallucinating or he was bewitched into seeing things that weren’t there. In either case, why should we accept his testimony about Allah? You can’t even verify that Gabriel was present. Even Muhammad’s companions didn’t see him, which leaves him as a single witness. Ironically, this is the same thing that Osama says about Paul.

Other people recognize "Gabriel" as a person they knew.

Very strange indeed. If we take Muhammad’s testimony seriously, we are left with the conclusion that Muhammad’s Gabriel was none other than a man whom Um Salama said was “Dihya” and happened to be Muhammad’s companion!!! Why didn’t she recognize Gabriel? The 3 wise men recognized the angel and didn’t mistake his identity. However Muhammad thought that his own companion was Gabriel!!! Since nobody else thought it was Gabriel, but recognized him as a known friend, this shows us that Muhammad was bewitched into believing that Dihya was Gabriel, or that he was hallucinating like the little kid on the move "The Sixth Sense". Either way he should be given an Oscar for the best acting job ever, since he fooled millions of Muslims into following his claim, including Osama who demands proof for Paul!!

Osama has no qualms with the NIV here, and seemingly agrees that Paul wrote this book. The rest is just a repeat from the above.

The rest of Osama's argument is a repeat from above. Osama mistakenly claims that Paul didn’t stamp his name on this book. This is an amazing claim seeing that just earlier he quoted this book to cast doubt on Paul’s credibility due to his dispute with Peter! It is obvious that Osama hasn’t read the book since if he did he would have found:

All Osama can do here is appeal to some 19th century scholars, individuals he doesn’t even bother naming since he has obviously never read their works, in order to cast doubts the authenticity of this authorship.

Regarding Galatians 1:6, this exposes Osama’s naivete regarding biblical inspiration. But instead of educating him on the subject, we will simply apply his criteria to the Quran to see if it passes:

It doesn't take a genius to see that this truly can't be from Allah. Osama complains about says "Paul's greetings" etc, but says nothing about Surah 1! Will Osama be consistent and say that this Surah isn't from God? He would have to if he were honest and consistent.

Take another look at the highlighted parts. Since Muslims believe that the Quran is the speech of Allah, this means that Allah is worshipping either himself or is worshipping some other Allah and seeking the guidance of this other god to show him the straight path!

If Osama denies this then he must admit that the Quran isn't totally from Allah, and concde the fact that parts of it originate from men. Here are more examples showing that the Quran is not completely from Allah:

We must wonder whether if Allah is coming down because Muhammad’s Lord commanded him? And if so, is there another god that we don't know about? If Osama claims that this isn't Allah coming down at the command of another god, then to use his methodology consistently we must conclude that Allah didn’t author these parts but someone else did. These passages are either the words of men or angels, which would debunk the Islamic idea that the Quran is the speech of Allah alone. Again:

The question that has to be answered is if this is Allah who is speaking then who is the Lord that he serves? If it is the angels or Muhammad speaking, then the Quran cannot be considered 100% the word of God. Using Osama's method this is exactly what we find.

Other passages that are either nonsensical or have no value and practical application include:

Does this mean that entering backdoors is a sin? What about the following verses:

What does this have to do with people today and why even bother “revealing” these instructions? And these:

It seems that Allah really went out of his way to insure that Muhammad got rich! In the words of Osama, why take every single word of the Quran, especially regarding instances in Muhammad’s life which have no practical value for us today, as Words of GOD Almighty?!

We already presented evidence demonstrating that Paul was an inspired Apostle, so we won’t bother repeating ourselves. We would simply like to know why does Paul have to mention in every book that he is inspired? Is this some rule we don't know about Osama?

Since Osama demands such a statement from Ephesians, we issue the following challenge. Provide verses from the Quran that claims that ALL OF IT IS FROM ALLAH AND THAT ALL 114 SURAHS WERE SENT DOWN FROM ALLAH TO MUHAMMAD. I'll be waiting.

If the Book was sent to Paul, the author clearly would've said it. Paul identified himself as an apostle and said that the book WAS TO THE SAINTS IN EPHESUS NOT TO PAUL. Osama doesn't even understand the Greek usage which shows that Paul was sending this letter to someone else. He lies and claims that somebody else sent it to Paul. So who sent it to Paul Osama? Surely you know right? Or is this just another one of your bright ideas?

Osama erroneously assumes that since Paul writes in the third person this cannot really be the Apostle who is writing this. If this is the case that third person usage points to someone else, then Allah cannot be the author of the Quran since he too uses the third person!

Perhaps Osama can explain to us why he still believes in the Quran in light of these facts.

Furthermore, if Osama really knew anything he would have known that the Greek word for Greetings which is used in the Bible is Aspasmos, which isn't present here at all. Neither does the word Dear (Greek- Agapetos) appear in this passage. Therefore, his theory that Ephesians mentioning Paul in the third person after a greeting proves that Paul didn’t author it is blatantly false.

The rest is just a repeat about Benny Hinn.

Again Osama says the exact opposite of the NIV! It is the unanimous testimony of the earliest eyewitnesses, not just an assumption. Do you see assumption in the NIV quote? No.

We've already exposed Osama's lack of knowledge about Greek. There is no word for greetings or dear present in the text and is therefore not an example of 3rd person use.

Since Osama claims to follow the NIV why does he deny that Paul wrote this when the NIV claims that the early Church unanimously held to Pauline authorship? Did he promote himself to the NIV committee now? Surely not since he can't even get the simple Greek words of the greetings correct. The rest of Osama's argument is the same repetitious post dealing with Benny Hinn, etc. He uses the same arguments against Colossians and 1 and 2 Thessalonians, even though the NIV attributes Pauline authorship to all these books. Since he claims that the NIV is truthful, we must believe the NIV over his assertions.

Osama continues his fanciful argument by appealing to a dubious authority. Let us look at the quote closely to expose his gross misunderstanding:

At the beginning of his quote it EXPLICTEDLY SAYS THAT THE AUTHOR IDENTIFIES HIMSELF AS JOHN. So what does Osama's argument stem from? Read:

Anyone who reads this closely sees immediately that Osama bases his whole argument on what Dionysius claimed. So his whole theory about Revelation being corrupted is based on what Dionysius decided. This doesn't constitute as proof whatsoever, since this is just the opinion of one person. Who are we supposed to believe? John, who wrote his name 4 times or some bishop which came approximately 200 years after John? Its funny how Osama argues that the Bible isn't current and yet appeals to a bishop who lived in the 3rd century!

Again Osama continues his argument based on some little known African Bishop who lived nearly 2 centuries later. He must think they we are so stupid to believe that a human can only write in one style of writing for all his life. Maybe Osama didn't attend college. If he did he would know that writing styles are based upon the situation that is being addressed. For example, when you write a business proposal you would use a different language and style compared to writing a love letter. As for his quotes let us look at them closely:

Isn't it hilarious that he uses this as proof about John being corrupted when infact HIS EARLIEST IDENTIFICATION OF REVELATION NOT BEING CORRECT ALSO STEMS FROM A SO-CALLED CHURCH FATHER 200 YEARS LATER!! So, if he uses this method to prove John false, we can also prove his argument false by the same measure.

This is a mere assumption. Again, I challenged Osama to show us a single Bible verse where it is mandatory for the writer to give his name. He has yet to produce a single verse to prove this!! So basically he is assuming something he has yet to prove. .

A day is like unto a thousand years to God, so basically using God's timing we have only been waiting 2 days. How can Osama argue about the Bible when he doesn't even know anything about it? In fact the Book of Revelation never said those people who lived in that time would see it, Osama has invented a straw man and then proceeds on to refute it.

The fight of Ezekiel 38 and 39 occurs before the Tribulation. Gog and Mag still exist since this is the modern country of Russia! Russia didn't collapse from a war silly! This has yet to take place. As for Osama's idiocy regarding the shape of the earth, this is a dumb argument since the 4 corners of the earth means from all sides of the earth and has nothing to do with the shape of the earth. Since he claims that the size of the earth proves that the Bible is false, he must reject the Quran. Osama may claim that S. 31:29 and 39:5 indicate that the earth is spherical, a fact not known until over 400 years ago. What Osama forgets to mention is that both the Quran and early Muslim sources actually claim that the earth is flat!:

So since the Quran says that the earth was spread out like a carpet, we must ask Osama:

At first these verses would simply seem to be allegorical statements, not to be taken literally. Yet, upon reading the works of the earliest Muslim commentators, it becomes quite evident that Muhammad believed in a flat earth! Al-Jalalan, one of Islam's premiere commentators, in his Tafsir, p. 509, states:

Al-Tabari cites the following tradition on the authority of Wahb:

Wahb's claim that there are seven earths completely agrees with both the statement from al-Kisa'i, Tales of the Prophets-Qisas al-anbiya found above as well as with the following Quranic verse:

Al Baidawi comments:

In the book, Behind The Veil: Unmasking Islam, we are told:

Osama continues:

Really? If we believe your misinterpretations yeah right? However you have just proven that your own pagan prophet Muhammad copied from a big hoax. Read Rev. 13:11-2:

Here we see information about the Beast of the Earth. Now did the Quran copy this from a so-called big hoax? Yes:

Therefore using Osama's logic we must conclude that the Quran is a big hoax too!!!

Exposing Osama's intentional slander of the Old Testament

Actually the NIV doesn't say what Osama claims. It only says that th