TRUE SHAHADA INDEED

PURPOSE:
This paper will serve (Inshallah) as an utter debunk to the lies, misconceptions, misunderstandings and outright abuses which Anthony Roger tried to knit at: (http://www.answering-islam.org/authors/rogers/true_shahada.html). I would discourage readers to read his article rigged with mordant remarks and filthy invectives on Allah and Mohammad, peace be upon him.

PRELUDE:
His paper specifically tries to establish deity of Jesus, peace be upon him, through:
(i) A comparative study of John 17:3 with Islamic shahada
(ii) Flimsy attempts to refute Muslim arguments on John 17:3 through:
(a) “The conjoining of Father and Son”
(b) “Father and Son are Coordinate sources of Eternal life”
(c) “Contextually Relevant Considerations”In the few passages to follow any unbiased reader would, Inshallah, witness truth. So, unbiased, I leave it at your objective perusal.

OUR STAND:
In the house of Islam there are no clouds of conjectures and doubts hovering above the head of this mighty “Son of Man” named Jesus, peace be upon him. For we read in Quran:
“…Christ Jesus the son of Mary was (no more than) An apostle of God…” (THE HOLY QURAN 4:171)

AND
“The similitude of Jesus before God is as that of Adam; He created him from dust, then said to him: “Be”: And he was.” (THE HOLY QURAN 3:59)
But the Christolator says, NO – “Jesus is God” discrediting the Last Testament. So, we show to them from their so called ‘Word of God’. (Reader would soon read my upcoming article proving logically that Bible, as a whole cannot be an inspired word of God)

LEFT OVER PROOF TEXT:

At this point of time let me make it absolutely clear that when I witness Biblical verses to Christians I do so because they mistake it to be the Word of God. I do not. I do not consider Biblical verses, I use, to be any type of “Left over Islamic proof text.” As Anthony wrote:
“…many Muslims believe that John 17:3 is a left over Islamic proof-text found in otherwise corrupted book.” (Emphasis mine)
Our proof text is Quran – Quran is our “Alpha and Omega”; the final authority. We only use Biblical verse because it helps us extricate millions of Christians carrying heavy yokes of associating partners to God – Almighty; POLYTHEISM.

WHAT IS IN THE BOX:
“And eternal life means knowing you, the only true God, and knowing Jesus Christ, whom you sent.” (HOLY BIBLE, JOHN 17:3, TEV)
Roger writes in his paper that Muslims use the aforementioned verse to prove two points:
“1) a Unitarian – Islamic version of monotheism.., The first claim is immediately undermined by the fact that the one whom Jesus calls “the only true God” is the Father (John 17:1-2)”
The Refutation:
To begin with, Muslims do not try to prove “Unitarian – Islamic version of monotheism”. They but strive to prove “Tawheed”. There is a difference of chalk and cheese between the two. The difference between these two concepts are beyond the scope of this refutation.
Then, this witty fabrication of a misconception to score cheap points over Muslims can be debunked by the fact that Muslims do not abhor the word “Father” per say given the knowledge of Jewish parlance and vernacular, that is, the way the Israelites used the word “Father.” Consider these verses for instance:

“Do you thus deal with the LORD, O foolish and unwise people? Is He not your Father, who bought you?” (THE OPEN BIBLE, DEUTERONOMY 32:6, NKJV). Emphasis mine.
“Doubtless You are out Father,..” (THE OPEN BIBLE, ISAIAH 63:16, NKJV). Emphasis mine.
“Have we not all one Father? Has not one God created us?”(THE OPEN BIBLE, MALACHI 2:10, NKJV). Emphasis mine.

Conclusively then, the Jews never used the word “Father” with its literal import whenever referring to God. It was just a part of their living language that for some out of other reason they preferred calling God as “Father”. In this sense Muslims have no problems at all with the word – “Father”. However what a Muslim seriously repels is the LITERAL understanding and usage of this blasphemous word “Father” when used for ALLAH (John 3:16 abuses ALLAH with the same. Kindly read John 3:16 in conjunction with Quran 19:88). This kind of rendering is anathematized in Islam and we will continue to eschew it.
Furthermore, because many may not be acquainted with Jewish colloquism added with the problem of variations of connotations of words with generations; Muslims play safe not to use the word “Father” to refer to ALLAH. Anyway, it does not make sense for a Muslim to use a vulnerable word when 099 attributive names are readily available in Quran. Let us take an example to close this argument. Now – a - days people generally call Nature as “Mother Nature”. Now if, somebody, Anthony Roger in particular, starts to understand it literally (!) then, I think, he should immediately consult a psychologist.

He wrote that Muslims use John 17:3 to:
“and 2) a denial of the deity of Christ.” He argued in this fashion to defend deity of Christ:
“As for the second claim, that Jesus is not God, it rests on a logical fallacy. The reasoning goes something like this: The Father is the only true God, Jesus is not the Father; therefore, Jesus is not God. When stated more formally, the argument takes the following form : A is B; C is not A; therefore, C is not B.
Even someone untrained in logic should be able to immediately see that this is fallacious. It is no different than arguing the following: Plato (A) is mortal (B); Socrates(C) is not Plato (A); therefore, Socrates(C) is not mortal (B). Both argument – the one against Christ’s deity and the one against Socrates mortality – take the same form; hence, both are fallacious.”. (Emphasis mine.)
The Refutation:

What the ‘trained Logician’ did was he used another construction of PLATO (A), MORTAL(B) AND SOCRATES (C) to logically break the construction and interpretation of FATHER (A), ONLY TRUE GOD(B), JESUS(C) as used in John 17:3. A meticulous perusal of the 2 constructions will undoubtedly establish that the 2 constructions does not “take the same form”. The first argument was mischievously tailored to look “no different” than the second.

Where is the catch:

Let us arrange the above constructions one after the other:
“As for the second claim, that Jesus is not God, it rests on a logical fallacy. The reasoning goes something like this: The Father is the only true God, Jesus is not the Father; therefore, Jesus is not God. When stated more formally, the argument takes the following form : A is B; C is not A; therefore, C is not B.”
So, we have:
A(1) = The Father
B(1) = Only True God
C(1) = Jesus
AND:
“It is no different than arguing the following: Plato (A) is mortal (B); Socrates(C) is not Plato (A); therefore, Socrates(C) is not mortal (B).”
So, here we have:
A(2) = Plato
B(2) = Mortal
C(2) = Socrates

So, were you alert enough while reading the above 2 breakups and constructions, if not, then re – read breakup numbered B(1) and B(2). When once adjective “ONLY” was used in B(1) (as used in John 17:3); logic and sincerity then demanded Anthony Roger to be consistent with it in B(2). But the insincere Logician was inconsistent for he is a sincere Christolator.
Then, a ‘sincere’ Construction will be:
A(2) = Plato
B(2) = Only Mortal
C(2) = Socrates
In a sentence, subsequently, it would read:
“Plato(A(2)) is ONLY Mortal(B(2)); Socrates (C(2)) is not Plato(A(2)); therefore, Socrates is not Mortal(B(2).
Well now, the argument and logic of Plato and Socrates is holding good; if Plato is ONLY Mortal then Socrates cannot be Mortal. On the same lines if Father is ONLY true God then Jesus, peace be upon him, cannot be God – Almighty. Therefore, stop the blasphemy right here right now.

Roger admitted that Jesus is not God – Almighty:

Next, he wrote that Muslim claim on John 17:3 would have held if the text would have read that only the Father is God. Here are his own confessions:
““Things would be different if the text said “only Father is God”, or “the Father alone is the only true God”, but it does not.”
Ironically, Anthony Roger has himself admitted that the only true God is Father (!). To prove it, all I would do is to re – produce for you his own words:
““…. The first claim is immediately undermined by the fact that the one whom Jesus calls “the only true God” is the Father (John 17:1-2)”

What say? Who is the ONLY TRUE GOD?, according to Bible, Muslim exegesis AND Anthony Roger’s own words – The Only True God is Father.

Now, that it has been established that the Only True God is Father and consequently Jesus, peace be upon him, is not God; I need not write a word any more to his childish ‘article’.
Nevertheless, let me further clean his misconceptions so that he may be extricated from the mire or “Shirk” – associating god to God – Almighty.
To prove the deity of Jesus, peace be upon him, he wrote under various sub – headings (I would deal with each of them, Inshallah). First of them were :
1. “The Conjoining of Father and Son”: Inside this sub - heading he adduced 2 Biblical verses to establish the impossible, namely, the divinity of Christ, peace be upon him. First of the 2 was:

A. “Whoever denies the Son does not have the Father; the one who confesses the Son has the Father also (1 John 2:23)”

The Refutation:
Well, there can be at least two fold refutations. They are as follows:-
A1. Biblical context of 1 John 2:23.
Kindly read the verse preceding 1 John 2:23, i.e., verse 22, to know that anybody denying the “Messiah ship” of Jesus, peace be upon him is to be considered as an enemy of Messiah (Christ), peace be upon him, “Who, then is the liar? It is anyone who says that Jesus is not the Messiah. Such a person is the enemy of Christ – he rejects both the Father and Son.”(TEV) Various points needs to be immediately noted here. Firstly, denying Messiah ship of Son is the rejection of Father. Secondly, why is the denial of Messiah ship of Son tantamount to gainsaying Father! Why? It is because it was God’s (Father) eternal plan to crown Jesus, peace be upon him, with the exclusive title of Messiah and to send him in the world. Remember Messiah (Jesus), peace be upon him, was send in this world by Father
“… I do not seek My own will but the will of the Father who sent me” (John 5:30, NKJV)(Emphasis Added)
And again,
“Then I heard a loud voice in heaven saying, “Now God’s salvation has come! Now God has shown his power as King! Now his Messiah has shown his authority!” (REVELATION 12:10)(Emphasis Mine)
Conclusively denying Jesus, peace be upon him, got to be denial of Father who dispatched Jesus, peace be upon him, on this earth. OR, if this is not the explanation for the combined denial of Father and Son, then, you would have to agree with me that Father was also Messiah!
B1. The Conjoining of Allah and Mohammad, peace be upon him.
As we have just seen how ignorantly and misconceptually Anthony Roger had tried to conjoin Father and Son using 1 John 2:23 out of context. Similarly, I may ignorantly conjoin Allah and Mohammad, peace be upon him, there by deifying Mohammad, peace be upon him. Let me (mis) use, The Holy Quran 4:80, which states:
“He who obey The Apostle, obeys God” (Emphasis Mine)
And,
“The desert Arabs say, “We believe.” Say, “Ye have no faith; but ye(only) say, ‘We have submitted Out wills to God, For not yet has Faith entered your hearts.’ But if ye obey God and His Apostle…” (The Holy Quran 49:14)(Emphasis Mine)
Now read this, have your ever heard a Muslim using the aforementioned Quranic verses to conjoin Mohammad, peace be upon him, and Allah. Obeying Apostle is obeying Allah not because Apostle is Allah but because the Apostle does nothing but what is commissioned to him by God – Almighty, similarly, rejecting Son is in effect rejecting Father because the Son, also, does not seek his will but the will of his Father who send him. Make sense?
He provided yet another Biblical verse to prove the deity of Christ , peace be upon him, under the same sub – heading, “The Conjoining of Father and Son”.
““…even as they honor the Father. He who does not honor the Son does not honor the Father who sent Him.”(John 5:23)”
There can again be atleast 2 easy refutation for this gibberish argument, which are as follows:-
A2. ‘G’od was send by God: If read carefully then the author of John 5:23 conceded to end of verse with “…Father who sent Him.” So, Jesus, peace be upon him, was an ambassador, a chosen man. So, by disgracing Jesus – the sent man one would be discrediting the one who has sent Jesus, namely, Father! It does not prove that Father and Son are the same; but it does prove the contrary that Father and Son are not the same. Let me explain with one practicle day to day example. Suppose, George Bush (who does not know him!) has sent Condolezza Rice (now who does not know her) on a delegation to my country. And if suppose my countrymen and / or chieftains dishonor her; then it would certainly be an insult to George Bush himself. OR, agree insanely that Mr. Bush and Ms. Rice are one and the same. Will you dare to “conjoin” Mr. Bush and Ms. Rice!
B2. In this version of refutation let us read verse 22 along with verse 23:
“For the Father judges no one but has committed all judgement to the Son, that all should honor the Son just as they honor the Father. He who does not honor the Son does not honor the Father who sent Him” (JOHN 5:22-23, NKJV)
To paraphrase the above 2 verses, it says:
God has authorized (does someone “co-equal” needs an authorization!?!) or has commissioned Jesus, peace be upon him, with all judgments so that people may respect him for his lofty judgments – the judgments which he ultimately receives from God – Almighty. THEN, verse 23 comes and states that dishonoring Jesus, peace be upon him, is in turn dishonoring Father; Does this prove to be equal to God? Certainly, not in the remotest sense of it. But it does elicit the impotency of Jesus, peace be upon him, to take divine judgments.
Next to come in the support of Christ’s, peace be upon him, divinity was sub – heading No. 2, namely, Father and Son are coordinate Sources of Eternal life.
2. Father and Son are Coordinate Sources of Eternal Life

He wrote:
“The fact that eternal life consists in a saving knowledge of both the Father and the Son, not one without the other, also bespeaks the closest possible relation between them.”

My Explanation:
Muslims agree that there can be no salvation without Jesus, peace be upon him. One will have to recognize Jesus as well as other prophets along with him to achieve salvation; as is written in the Word of God:

“To those who believe in God and His Apostles and make no distinction between any of the apostles, We shall soon give their (due) rewards…”(The holy Quran 4:152)(Emphasis Mine)

“And Zakariya and John, and Jesus and Elias All in the ranks of righteous.” (The Holy Quran 6:85)
Furthermore, if we analyze Quran then we would learn that there can be no salvation without Mohammad, peace be upon him. Similarly a denial of Mohammad, peace be upon him, would be headlong acceptance of hell-fire. Consider a couple of verse:

“Those are limits set by God: those who obey God and His Apostle will be admitted to Gardens with rivers flowing beneath, To abide therein (forever)And that will be the Supreme achievement. But those who disobey God and His Apostle And transgress His limits will be admitted to a Fire, to abide therein: And they shall have a humiliating punishment.” (The Holy Quran 4:13-14)

Now, the pith of the argument is, Can I deify Mohammad, peace be upon him, just there is salvation is accepting him, peace be upon him, and doom in rejection? Can I, horrendously write a passage appelling “Allah and Mohammad are Coordinate Sources of Eternal Life!” Understand the status of each of these 2 ‘sources of eternal life ‘ and recognize the capacity in which they can provide you “Eternal Life”.

He named his last argument to prove the deity of Christ, peace be upon him, as:

3. Contextually Relevant Considerations

In the very first he wrote:
“Although the Muslim creed does not have a context to safeguard it from misinterpretation, Christ’s statement in John 17:3 is a part of larger context.”

Ironically, if HUNDRED AND FOURTEEN chapters of Quran does not build a context to natural and innate Shahada (Testification) then nothing does.

Then he argued that in John 17:3, if read in context proves deity of Christ, peace be upon him. So let us study the context of John 17:3.

“Jesus spoke these things; and lifting up His eyes to heaven, He said, “Father, the hour has come; glorify Your Son, that the Son may glorify You, even as You gave Him authority over all flesh, that to all whom You have given Him, He may give eternal life. This is eternal life, that they may know You, the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom you have sent. I glorified You on earth, having accomplished the work which You have given Me to do. Now, Father, glorify Me together with Yourself, with the glory which I had with You before the world.”

Anthony Roger’s ‘visionary’ eyes saw three arguments in the “context” of John 17:3(Cited above) to support divinity of Christ, peace be upon him.

[i] Pre-existence:
He wrote, “And the context very clearly teaches that Christ pre-existed his incarnation…but he pre-existed from eternity…”

Easy Refutation:
If pre-existence and presence before the beginning of world is one the criterion to prove divinity then prophet Solomon, peace be upon him, Jeremiah, and prophet Job, peace be upon him were all deities! Consider the following verses:
“The LORD created me first of all, the first of his works, long ago. I was made in the very beginnings, at the first, before the world began.” (HOLY BIBLE, PROVERBS 8:22-23, TEV)
“The LORD said to me, “I chose you before I gave you life, and before you were born I selected you to be a prophet to be nations.” (HOLY BIBLE, JEREMIAH 1:4-5, TEV)
“I am sure you can, because you’re so old and wee there when the world was made!”(HOLY BIBLE, JOB 38:21, TEV)
[ii]Authority:
“He was given authority to wield, words to speak, a work to do, and people to save..”
In the first place, wielding, speaking words (as Jesus, peace be upon him, was speaking), working (as Jesus, peace be upon him, was working) and trying to save people (as Jesus, peace be upon him, was trying) are characteristics or prophets not to be attributed to God.. But even if he insists in proving the deity of Jesus, peace be upon him, through these points then he should pay care, firstly, almost all the Biblical prophets wielded, spoke, worked and tried to save people. Secondly, the fact that Jesus, peace be upon him, was “given authority” so there is nothing special, nothing divine in the exercise of second hand granted authority. It is against the majesty of true God to tarry to receive authority over his own creation; His erroneous creation(Genesis 6:6)-Humans. Or, put in other words, if he had to receive authority to exercise on his creation then that authority is not his own but of a ‘greater’ Power and thus, the receiver (of Authority) cannot be true God. As Jesus says in John 5:30, “I can of my own self do nothing.” Smell the impotency here.

[iii] Same Glory:-
He wrote:
“and in same glory that the Father has.”

To begin with, nowhere in the Biblical verse does it states Jesus having same glory as that of Father. If you do not believe me then re-read the verse he produced:
“…Now, Father, glorify Me together with Yourself, with the glory which I had with You before the world was.”
Kindly realize very carefully that all the verse says is, firstly, the ‘request’ made by Jesus, peace be upon him, (By the way is it befitting for a ‘God’ to make requests!?!) to glorify him together with Father. Now the point to understand is that there can be 2 different levels of glorifications for 2 different ‘persons’ even if glorified at the same time. Secondly, what needs to be understood, is the beseech, request, wail of Jesus, peace be upon him, to return back the previous glorify which he possessed when he was with Father. The glory might still be different. But if at this stage the christolator Anthony Roger is contemplating to refute me then he should turn his face to ROMANS 8: 16-17, 26
“The Spirit Himself bears witness with our spirit that we are children of God, and if children, then heirs – heirs of God and joint heirs with Christ, if indeed we suffer with Him, that we may also be glorified together.” (THE OPEN BIBLE, NKJV)(Emphasis mine)
“… we will also share his glory” (HOLY BIBLE, TEV)(Emphasis mine)

Cleaning the filth:

In the last part of this paper I would draw your attention to one of Jesus’s, peace be upon him, teaching (Biblical) which can also be taken as a litmus paper test to filter out false prophets from a true one, he said:

“Be on your guard against false prophets; they come to you looking life sheep on the outside, but inside they are really like wolves. You will know them by what they do. Thorn bushes do not bear grapes, and briars do not bear figs. A healthy tree bears good fruit, but a poor tree bears bad fruit. A healthy tree cannot bear bad fruit, and any tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown in fire. So then, you will know the false prophets by what they do.” (HOLY BIBLE, MATTHEW 7:15-81, TEV)
So, let us put Paul and Mohammad, peace be upon him, to the above test. Let us check how does the “fruits” of each fair the test. On one hand, we have, Anthony Roger, a sincere follower of Paul’s teachings (mind you we are testing Paul’s candidacy for prophet hood) address ALLAH and Mohammad, peace be upon him with most gutter like words, he wrote:
“In the end, Allah turns out to be an idol and Muhammad a worthless prophet,…”
Nonetheless, we have Mohammad, peace be upon him, a veritable prophet, as gentle as dew drops, teach in Quran 6:108 to the world:
“Revile not ye those whom they call upon besides God, lest they out of spite Revile God In their ignorance.” (THE HOLY QURAN)
Conclusively, the difference between Mohammad, peace be upon him, and Paul is glaring to a meticulous eye. Finally, does not Paul fit into the category of false prophet? And should not he be “cut down and thrown in fire.”?

By:- Question Mark

PAUL: CAN HE BE A PROPHET OF GOD?

In this paper we will analyze Paul’s candidacy of prophet hood. The analysis will be simple and based on two Biblical criterions. We would not use any extra Biblical material so that those who (mis) take Bible to be the “Word of God” may not fuss. We would quote from both the Testaments. Then, we will put Paul to the test of both the verses and check whether he qualified for prophet hood or was he, at best, a “self – appointed” apostle.

1.NEW ONE FIRST:
1. JOHN 7:16-18, this is where we find our first argument. We read:
“Jesus answered, “What I teach is not my own teaching, but it comes from God, who sent me. Whoever is willing to do what God wants will know whether what I teach comes from God or whether I speak on my own authority. A person who speaks on his own authority is trying to gain glory for himself. But he who wants glory for the one who sent him is honest, and there is nothing false in him.” (HOLY BIBLE, TEV)(Emphasis mine)

We read in the commentary of Matthew Henry, one of Christianity’s widely read commentaries.

[3.] That hereby it appeared that Christ, as a teacher, did not speak of himself, because he did not seek himself, v. 18. First, See here the character of a deceiver: he seeketh his own glory, which is a sign that he speaks of himself, as the false Christs and false prophets did. Here is the description of the cheat: they speak of themselves,

and have no commission nor instructions from God;

no warrant but their own will, no inspiration but their own imagination, their own policy and artifice.

Ambassadors speak not of themselves;

those ministers disclaim that character who glory in this that they speak of themselves. But see the discovery of the cheat; by this their pretensions are disproved, they consult purely their own glory; self-seekers are self-speakers. Those who speak from God will speak for God, and for his glory; those who aim at their own preferment and interest make it to appear that they had no commission form God. (Emphasis mine)
(Source: http://bible.crosswalk.com/Commentaries/MatthewHenryComplete/mhc-com.cgi?book=joh&chapter=007)

Furthermore, we read a similar exegesis in the commentary named as “The Fourfold Gospel”:
7:18 He that speaketh from himself seeketh his own glory1: but he that seeketh the glory of him that sent him, the same is true, and no unrighteousness is in him.
He that speaketh from himself seeketh his own glory. Those who bear their own message seek their own glory. Those who bear God’s message seek God’s glory, and such seeking destroys egotism. (Source: http://bible.crosswalk.com/Commentaries/TheFourfoldGospel/tfg.cgi?book=joh&chapter=007)

Points which need to be highlighted from the above cited verse and commentaries are:-

i. A humble and trustworthy person, let alone a claimant of prophet hood, should not speak on his own authority without any genuine commission or instruction from God-Almighty. But if he does then he is seeking worldly glory and he ought to be false person, let alone prophet. So, to sum up this point, a true prophet should not speak on his own authority

ii. Anybody purporting his own, personal message seeks his own glory. Therefore, a genuine person should not tout his personal message.

iii. On the same corollary, a true prophet of God will wait to receive revelations (if he does not has it on any particular spiritual/ religious matter) rather than passing his own whimsical judgments. Then, if he does so; he could not be a true prophet of God.
For now just hold up these deductions in your mind as we move on to our next biblical verse. After that I would finally apply both the biblical yardsticks to Paul.
2.OLD IS GOLD:

Deuteronomy 18:18-20, builds our second test for Paul’s candidacy for prophet hood. We read:
“I will raise up for them a Prophet like you from among their brethren, and will put My words in his mouth, and He shall speak to them all that I command Him. And it shall be that whoever will not hear My words, which He speaks in My name, I will require it of him. ‘But the prophet who presumes to speak a word in My name, which I have not commanded him to speak

or who speaks in the name of other gods, that prophet shall die.’(THE OPEN BIBLE, NKJV)
Although the deduction from the above cited verse is very plain that the a genuine prophet should not speak any thing(spiritual) from the vicissitudes of his mind but should rather wait for a revelation to be revealed, nevertheless, if he does so then he is an imposter. But my deduction may not carry as much weight as would of any Christian Scholar’s. So let us check what they say about it.

WHAT DO THE CHRISTIAN SCHOLARS DEDUCE:

Christian apologist David Wood comments on the above cited verse. Here are his words for a fair analysis for truth seeking minds:
“”But the prophet who speaks a word presumptuously in My name which I have not commanded him to speak, or which he speaks in the name of other gods, that prophet shall die.” (Deuteronomy 18:20)

Here we have two criteria for spotting a false prophet: (1) delivering a revelation which God has not “commanded him to speak,”

(Emphasis Mine)
He again repeated the implications of Deuteronomy 18:20, for a second time, but with a different English constructions.

“That is, it seems clear that if a person speaks in the names of false gods or delivers revelations that don’t come from God, the person cannot be a true prophet. (Emphasis Mine)
He (David Wood) again repeated the same inference of Deuteronomy 18:20, however, this time to attack the veracity of Prophet Mohammad’s, peace be upon him, prophet hood. He wrote:
“B1. If a person delivers a revelation that doesn’t come from God, that person is a false prophet. (Emphasis Mine)

B2. Muhammad delivered a revelation that didn’t come from God.
——————————————————
B3. Therefore, Muhammad was a false prophet.”
(Source: http://www.answering-islam.org/Authors/Wood/deuteronomy_deductions.htm)
[Side remark: Let me point out here that this paper is not meant to defend David’s attack on Mohammad’s prophet hood, peace be upon him. David Wood has been refuted ad nauseum for his attacks in “Deuteronomy Dissection: Two short, Sound, Simple proofs that Muhammad was God’s prophet” (Refer it in my blog)].The point which needs to be emphasized from the above citation is the basic premise to check any candidates claim of prophet hood. And the premise is again the same; the candidate should not deliver a revelation which does not come from God.

PAUL: FAIR JUDGMENT BE UPON HIM

I hope that by now you have not forgotten the above 2 criterions for recognizing a true prophet from a scum. If you have, then kindly refresh your memory by re-reading above but if you have not forgotten then lets us put Paul into the test of the above criterions.

It is reported of Paul as saying: “I speak not by commandment, but I am testing the sincerity of your love by the diligence of others.”(The Open Bible: 2 Corinthians 8:8, NKJV)

Here, Paul did not had any specific “command” from Almighty, nevertheless, embarrassingly, he was currying people’s love and respect to him to transmute his personal opinions as spiritual decrees.

FURTHERMORE

“Now, concerning what you wrote about unmarried people: I do not have a command from the Lord, but I give my opinion …” (Holy Bible: 1 Corinthians 7:25, TEV)

“Now concerning virgins: I have no commandment from the Lord; yet I give judgment …”(The Open Bible: 1 Corinthians 7:25, NKJV)

It does not require any stodgy exegesis here that Paul was using his own whims; he admittedly, did not had any command from Higher authority, contrary to that, he was presumptuously basing his judgments upon his own personal feelings. Therefore, violating the aforementioned premises that if he (purported candidate) delivers a revelation which does not come from God, such a candidate would be spurious prophet.

POSSIBLE RESPONSES:

The most obvious fuss which a Christian might commit to defend the untenable position of Paul is by saying something like: “Paul was not promulgating any ‘personal’ revelations OR that Paul was not attributing any of his words to God.”OR a Christian may respond with something like, “Paul was sincere to declare that the words are not God’s words but his own.” Under all these circumstances the Christian is basing his flimsy arguments (to defend Paul) obviating the fact that the full Bible is purported to be the “Word of God”. No Christian ever says that the Bible is “Word of God” but 2 Corinthians 8:8, 1 Corinthians 7:25 which are Pauline, that these verses were not inspired to Paul (as Paul himself accepts it). While basing the response on the aforementioned arguments a Christian accepts the contradiction that 2 Corinthians 8:8, 1 Corinthians 7:25 is not the “Word of God” but “Word of Paul”. The above contradiction can only be reconciled when the Christian accedes that Bible is at the most partially “Word of God”. To put simply, 2 Corinthians 8:8, 1 Corinthians 7:25 were not revealed to Paul neither was it inspired to Paul then how did 2 Corinthians 8:8, 1 Corinthians 7:25 enter into the so thumped “Word of God”.

CONCLUSION

When we read John 7:16-18 , Deuteronomy 18:18-20 corroborated with biblical commentaries in conjunction with 2 Corinthians 8:8, 1 Corinthians 7:25 then it turns out that Paul in 2 Corinthians 8:8, 1 Corinthians 7:25 was violating the ethics set by Jesus and Moses, peace be on them at John 7:16-18 and Deuteronomy 18:18-20 respectively. And therefore, he was only trying to seek his personal glory while bluffing many. And sadly many are still deluded even when proof is right under their nose. It is verifiably established, from biblical sources, that Paul was not a true apostle, however, he used his own mind to cull decrees of spiritual import. Not only that, he shamelessly, used the love and favor of the multitudes to impress on them decrees of spiritual relevance. These facts only elicit the selfish nature of the man to rule over multitudes.

IN THE END

To close, I should provide you with the final verdict from the man who vicariously possess that authority (kindly, do not misinterpret) Prophet Mohammad, peace be upon him, where he said:
I heard Allah’s Apostle saying, “I am the nearest of all the people to the son of Mary, and all the prophets are paternal brothers, and there has been no prophet between me and him (i.e. Jesus).” Narrated Abu Huraira, in Al-Bukhari, Volume 4, Hadith Number 651. (Emphasis mine)

By:- Question Mark

CHEAP EVANGELISTIC DECEPTIONS AND THEIR MUSLIM REPLIES
Christian missionaries have savored using a few Qur’anic verses to “win souls” i.e. to pervert innocent ‘sleeping’ Muslims into Christolatory. Through some overused verses of Quran they try to establish the pristine preservation of Bible. This paper will, inshallah, debunk all such subterfuges. This paper is, in reality, a product of personal dialogue which I had with an American Evangel. I would keep him anonymous for I do not want his publicity. As I am writing this article, he has already claimed a few innocent souls into polytheism. He has an ‘experience’ of working for at least 3 decades amongst Muslims, on Muslim soils, to “witness” them. He has bluffed many with these less understood verses of Quran. His arguments are trivial yet baffling for lay Muslims and thus needs full exposure than a scholarly work. So, seeking Allah’s help in the process let us give a fair chance to him and his arguments.

WHAT WAS THE CRUX OF THE DIALOGUE?

Our dialogue got a kick off with the purported ‘word of God’- Bible. I read him out Allah’s revelation for the actual status of Bible:

“Then woe to those who write the Book with their own hands and then say: “This is from Allah” to traffic with it for a miserable price! Woe to them for what their hands do write and for the gain they make thereby.” (The Holy Quran 2:79)

Corroborated it with myriad of scholarly proofs to only manage a bleak nod of denial from this mighty Evangelist. When he lost all the weapons in his arsenal he used his ultimate nuke. He quoted me Qur’anic verses to prove the infallibility of the Bible. Miserably ironic, isn’t it Muslims! Mind you he has not hesitated to use these Quranic verse to decapitate lay Muslims for at least 30 years in Muslim countries.

WHICH VERSES DID HE QUOTE ME?

1)His first attack came in the form of Quran 5:48, he quoted, “To you [Muhammad] We [Allah] sent the Scripture [Qur’an] in truth, confirming the Scripture [Bible] that came before it and guarding it in safety.”
(Side remark:- Firstly, he did not provide me whose translation he was quoting, but I will not carp for that. Secondly, it is absolutely FOOLISH and ignorance to consider Scripture to mean ‘Bible’. Scripture, as used in Quran, simply means the revelations given to earlier prophets, peace be upon them all.)
On the surface he was very confident to have nailed my coffin. To refute this misquotation one do not have to be a Shaikh Jalal Abualrub or Shaikh Deedat or Brother Zawadi or Zaatari etc. All we need to do is to read Asad’s comment to the above verse. He writes, “The participle muhaymin is derived from the quadrilateral verb haymana, “he watched [over a thing]” or “controlled [it]”, and is used here to describe the Qur’an as the determinant factor in deciding what is genuine and what is false in the earlier scriptures (see Manar VI, 410ff.). Why should not I ask here: “Will not that be a guard?”
Furthermore, Yusuf Ali commentary provides a very good aid to the correct interpretation of the above verse, “After the corruption of the older revelations, the Qur’an comes with a twofold purpose: (1) to confirm the true and original Message, and (2) to guard it, or act as a check to its interpretation. The Arabic word Muhaimin is very comprehensive in meaning. It means one who safeguards, watches over, stands witness, preserves, and upholds. The Qur’an safeguards “the Book”, for it has preserved within it the teachings of all the former Books. It watches over these Books in the sense that it will not let their true teachings to be lost. It supports and upholds these Books in the sense that it corroborates the Word of Allah which has remained intact in them. It stands a witness because it bears testimony to the Word of Allah contained in these Books and helps to sort it out from the interpretations and commentaries of the people which were mixed with it: what is confirmed by the Qur’an is the Word of Allah and what is against it is that of the people.
Although, I personally feel that this is a satisfactory explanation to the Christian misuse of Quran 5:48 but we can further bolster our response by pondering into what the scholars of Classical “Tafseers” have to say.
Ibn Abbas (RAA) explains that one of the main implications of Quran 5:48 acting as a safeguard to (some rulings of) earlier Scriptures were to the divine injunction of stoning to sexual perpetrators. In particular, the Jews digressed from the godly ruling of stoning to charcoaling (the face) and whipping the (sexual) perpetrators. Although the ruling of stoning was present in the Torah (then in the hands of Jews) but to the wickedness of their learned elite; they use to hide it from the commons (Jews) and from prophet Mohammad, peace be upon him, when called for a cross check. All these subterfuges of the Jews are exposed from authentic hadith records and, of course, through the implied meanings of Quran 5:48. Thus, the Qur’anic confirmation of stoning the perpetrators does, indeed, act as guard to the earlier scriptures. I produce you, chronologically, the commentary of Ibn Abbas followed with Hadithes which exposes the “tahreef” which the Jews committed to the holy injunction of stoning thus requiring a safeguard to Torah laws through Quran 5:48.

Tafseer Ibn Abbas: (And unto thee have We revealed the Scripture) We have sent you Gabriel with the Qur’an (with the Truth) to make plain the Truth and falsehood, (confirming) the statement of Allah’s divine Oneness and some laws (whatever Scripture was before it) whatever Scriptures were before it, (and a watcher over it) a witness upon all the Scriptures before it; it is also said: a witness upon the ruling of stoning; and it is also said: a watcher over all previous Scriptures. (So judge between them) between the Banu Qurayzah and the Banu’l-Nadir and the people of Khaybar (by that which Allah hath revealed) by that which Allah has exposited to you in the Qur’an, (and follow not their desires) regarding the application of whipping and discarding stoning (away from the Truth which hath come unto thee) after the exposition that has come to you. (For each We have appointed a divine law) for each prophet among you We have exposited a divine law (and a traced out way) obligations and practices. (Had Allah willed He could have made you one community) He has made you follow one divine law. (But that He may try you) test you (by that which He hath given you) of Scripture, obligations and practices, such that He says: I have prescribed all this for you, so let not delusion creep into your minds. (So vie one with another in good works) so vie, O Community of Muhammad (pbuh) with other nations, in obligations, practices and righteous works; it is also said that this means: hasten, O Community of Muhammad (pbuh) to perform acts of obedience. (Unto Allah ye will all) all nations (return, and He will then inform you of that wherein ye differ) where you contravene in relation to religion and divine laws. (www.altafseer.com)
[ Thus it becomes absolutely clear that one reason for the revelation of Quran 5:48 may would have been to expose the Jewish “tehreef” (changes) to the holy decree of stoning, thus by reviving it (through exposure) in Quran 5:48; Qur’an actually did worked as a guard to this particular injunction (of stoning) in earlier scriptures, thereby guarding the earlier scripture for the divine injunction of “stoning”. Kindly mark the difference that Quran 5:48 is specific for ruling of stoning and not for every “tommy, dicky, harry” stuff of Bible.]

Hadith exposing the ‘tahreef’ committed by Jews to the decree of Stoning:

The people passed by the Apostle of Allah (peace be upon him) with a Jew who was blackened with charcoal and who was being flogged. He called them and said: Is this the prescribed punishment for a fornicator? They said: Yes. He then called on a learned man among them and asked him: I adjure you by Allah Who revealed the Torah to Moses, do you find this prescribed punishment for a fornicator in your divine Book? He said: By Allah, no. If you had not adjured me about this, I should not have informed you. We find stoning to be prescribed punishment for a fornicator in our Divine Book. But it (fornication) became frequent in our people of rank; so when we seized a person of rank, we left him alone, and when we seized a weak person, we inflicted the prescribed punishment on him. So we said: Come, let us agree on something which may be enforced equally on people of higher and lower rank. So we agreed to blacken the face of a criminal with charcoal, and flog him, and we abandoned stoning. The Apostle of Allah (peace be upon him) then said: O Allah, I am the first to give life to Thy command which they have killed. So he commanded regarding him (the Jew) and he was stoned to death. Allah Most High then sent down: “O Apostle, let not those who race one another into unbelief, make thee grieve…” up to “They say: If you are given this, take it, but if not, beware!….” up to “And if any do fail to judge by (the light of) what Allah hath revealed, they are (no better than) unbelievers,” about Jews, up to “And if any do fail to judge by (the right of) what Allah hath revealed, they are no better than) wrong-doers” about Jews: and revealed the verses up to “And if any do fail to judge by (the light of) what Allah hath revealed, they are (no better than) those who rebel.” About this he said: This whole verse was revealed about the infidels.(Abu Dawood, 2091, Narrated Al-Bara’ ibn Azib)

Hadith exposing how the Jews tried to hide the injunction of stoning from prophet Mohammad, peace be upon him:

The Jews brought to the Prophet a man and a woman from among them who had committed illegal sexual intercourse. The Prophet said to them, “How do you usually punish the one amongst you who has committed illegal sexual intercourse?” They replied, “We blacken their faces with coal and beat them.” He said, “Don’t you find the order of Ar-Rajm (i.e. stoning to death) in the Torah?” They replied, “We do not find anything in it.” ‘Abdullah bin Salam (after hearing this conversation) said to them, “You have told a lie! Bring here the Torah and recite it if you are truthful.” (So the Jews brought the Torah). And the religious teacher who was teaching it to them, put his hand over the Verse of Ar-Rajm and started reading what was written above and below the place hidden with his hand, but he did not read the Verse of Ar-Rajm. ‘Abdullah bin Salam removed his (i.e. the teacher’s) hand from the Verse of Ar-Rajm and said, “What is this?” So when the Jews saw that Verse, they said, “This is the Verse of Ar-Rajm.” So the Prophet ordered the two adulterers to be stoned to death, and they were stoned to death near the place where biers used to be placed near the Mosque. I saw her companion (i.e. the adulterer) bowing over her so as to protect her from the stones. (Sahih Al-Bukhari, 6.79, narrated Abdullah bin Umar)
At this instance, a question might pop up into the minds of the readers:
“Why would Qur’an guard the injunction of Stoning?”
According to my understanding of the scriptures, because the ruling of stoning the adulterers happened to be universal (as it was also incorporated into the laws given to Mohammad, the final prophet until Judgment day, peace be upon him) therefore, there was one good reason to testify, protect and appeal its presence in earlier scriptures also. The ruling of stoning the adulterers was not to be confined to only one community and for a particular time period but it was to be made to exist until Judgment Day.
To sum up the entire argument in simple words, then would be, Qur’an 5:48, speaks specifically about a particular injunction – injunction of stoning, besides other similar imports which had a need to be guarded till Hour. The Jews were in no mood to preserve the divine writ of Stoning so there was a definite requisite that Qur’an being the final revelation on the face of earth to revive it in itself thereby safeguarding an injunction of the “earlier revelation” - Torah. This by no means, thus, prove that, Qur’an 5:48 is safeguarding the Bible which also covers stories of whoring sisters and incestuous fathers.
2) Next we would consider his second argument. He used Qur’an 21:7. So let us check what is contained in Qur’an 21:7:
“Before thee also the apostles we sent were but men to whom We granted inspiration: if ye realize this not ask of those who possess the Message.”
Well his point of argument needs not exegesis. All he wanted to prove me through Quran 21:7 was that because the “possessors of the message” are questioned so they must be truthful. He was trying to paint the picture in which we would see that because the Christians (and the Jews) are enquired so they have to be veritable and their witness – The Bible got to be believed in. Or, in other words their Bible is preserved. However, unfortunately, the Evangelist messed up completely (or was it deliberate!) the context of the verse. If one only reads Qur’an 21:7 in conjunction with Qur’an 16:43 then he would come to realize that the pagans often taunted Prophet, peace be upon him, by carping on a futile question as to why is not an Angel sent to them (as a prophet). Then Allah revealed Quran 21:7 specifically to answer the pagans. The pagans were instructed in Quran 21:7 to ask the Jews (and the Christians) whether the earlier prophets were angels or mere men! Here is a quotation from Abdallah Yusuf Ali’s commentary:
“If the Pagan Arabs, who were ignorant of religious and other history, wondered how a man from among themselves could receive inspiration and bring a Message from Allah, let them ask the Jews, who had also received Allah’s Message earlier through Moses, whether Moses was a man, or an angel, or a god. They would learn that Moses was a man like themselves, but inspired by Allah. “Those who possess the Message “may also mean any men of Wisdom, who were qualified to have an opinion in such matters.”
(Mark carefully that any other “men of Wisdom”, not necessarily a Jew or a Christian, were also qualified to opine and sooth the pagans off their confusion of angles, mere mortals and revelations.)

After refuting his futile argument on Qur’an 21:7 let us turn towards his third Qur’anic verse. He quoted me Qur’an 40:70-72. In the first place, I thought this man to be deceptive and cunning but when he quoted me Qur’an 40:70-72 it was then when I realized that not only is this man con but he also is abysmally ignorant of Qur’anic teachings. So, let us check what does Qur’an 40:70-72 has in it:
“Those who reject the Book and the (revelations) with which We Sent Our apostles: But soon shall they know When the yokes (shall be) round their necks and the chains; they shall be dragged along.”
He made the point very clear to me by quoting this Qur’anic verse is that he thinks we reject earlier revelations – revelations which were given to Moses, Jesus, David etc., peace be upon them all. However, this is not the case to be. No Muslim is a Muslim if he does not acknowledges the revelations given to earlier prophets. Nevertheless, what a Muslim do claim is that no earlier revelation has preserved itself owing to the treatment meted out by the people to/for whom those were revealed. Consider this Qur’anic verse as an eye opener:
“It is not righteousness that ye turn your faces toward East or West; but it is righteousness to believe in Allah and the Last Day and the Angels and the Book and the Messengers; to spend of your substance out of love for Him for your kin for orphans for the needy for the wayfarer for those who ask and for the ransom slaves; to be steadfast in prayer and practice regular charity; to fulfill the contracts which ye have made; and to be firm and patient in pain (or suffering) and adversity and throughout all periods of panic. Such are the people of truth the Allah-fearing.”
Thus, we believe in all the past Messenger’s’(and of course to the revelations inspired to them), however, we are not ready to believe that Prophet Solomon, peace be upon him, started defiling his faith with idolatry in the later parts of his life. Consider this humanly inspired Biblical insult of one of the mightiest messenger of Allah, namely, prophet Solomon, peace be upon him:

“For it was so, when Solomon was old, that his wives turned his heart after other gods; and his heart was not loyal to the LORD his God, as was the heart of his father David.
For Solomon went after Ashtoreth the goddess of the Sidonians, and after Milcom the abomination of the Ammonites.
Solomon did evil in the sight of the LORD and did not fully follow the LORD, as did his father David.
Then Solomon built a high place for Chemosh the abomination of Moab, on the hill that is east of Jerusalem, and for Molech the abomination of the people of Ammon.
And he did likewise for all his foreign wives, who burned incense and sacrificed to their gods.” (The Open Bible, 1 Kings 11: 4-8)

Let us now move on to his fourth argument. He quoted me Qur’an 5:46-47. This verse and its exposition is the spirit of this paper for this particular verse was most convincing to this Evangelist. So, let us ponder into what is contained in Qur’an 5:47 and how these cheap Evangelists misuse them. It reads:

“Let the people of the Gospel Judge by what Allah hath revealed therein. If any do fail to judge by (the light of) what Allah hath revealed they are (no better than) those who rebel.”
His proposition was: because there is an appeal to Gospel in the above cited verse therefore Gospel cannot be corrupt. In the first place kindly take not that in the Arabic Qur’an the word Gospel is not used but “Injeel”. We should not and we cannot substitute “Injeel” with something Greek; Gospel. Secondly, I would urge readers to pay special care and time while reading this section of the article because this is the most commonly used verse and it took me the longest in our debate to refute him this point or in other words he argued me the most on this particular verse. Seems Christolator Evangelists love this verse (only to misuse it). But I challenge readers here that any reader with an open, unbiased mind will realize that I have, inshallah, refuted him on Qur’an 5:47.
Before visiting 5:47 let us first try to understand what Allah said in 45 and 46 because these are all related verses. Verses read:

We ordained therein for them: “Life for life eye for eye nose for nose ear for ear tooth for tooth and wounds equal for equal.” But if anyone remits the retaliation by way of charity it is an act of atonement for himself. And if any fail to judge by (the light of) what Allah hath revealed they are (no better than) wrong-doers.
And in their footsteps We sent Jesus the son of Mary confirming the law that had come before him: We sent him the Gospel: therein was guidance and light and confirmation of the law that had come before him: a guidance and an admonition to those who fear Allah.
Now… comes verse 47

“Let the people of the Gospel Judge by what Allah hath revealed therein. If any do fail to judge by (the light of) what Allah hath revealed they are (no better than) those who rebel.”

There are at least twofold deductions from the above adduced verses which are as follows:

1. It is being informed to the readers about the divine writ pertaining to “retaliation” given to Moses, peace be upon him.

2. According to classical scholars of “Tafseers”: here is also an allusion to the spiritual injunction of “stoning” prescribed in earlier revealations.

To sum up then, the above verses are specifically speaking about the concept of “retaliation” and “stoning” as was given to earlier generations, specifically, to the community of Moses and Jesus, peace be upon them. As I just said that the above verse(s) are specific for two divine concepts and should not be generalized to prove that incorruptibility of Bible. I would, of course, inshallah, prove that the above verse is strictly applicable only for two cases of “retaliation” and “stoning” and not for entire Bible and its absurdities.
Let me first prove from Islamic sources how the above cited verse [“Let the people of the Gospel judge by what Allah has revealed therein.”] is strict for the divine writ of stoning of the earlier revelations and is not, therefore, accountable for anything everything written in the Bible.
In the commentary of Ibn Abbas (for verse 46 and 47) recorded in Tanwir al-Miqbas min Tafsir Ibn Abbas, it is written:

v.46: “(And We caused Jesus, son of Mary, to follow in their footsteps, confirming that which was (revealed) before him in the Torah) as regards the declaration of Allah’s divine Oneness and some laws, (And We bestowed on him the Gospel wherein is guidance) from error (and a light) an exposition on stoning, (confirming that which was (revealed) from error (and a light) an exposition on stoning, (confirming that which was (revealed) before it in the Torah) regarding Allah’s divine Oneness and the legal ruling of stoning (a guidance) from error (and an admonition unto) and a caution for (those who ward off (evil)) those who ward off disbelief, idolatry and indecencies.

v.47: (Let the People of the Gospel judge) such that the people of the Gospel elucidate (by that which Allah hath revealed therein) that which Allah has elucidated in the Gospel regarding the traits and description of Muhammad (pbuh) and the legal ruling of stoning. (Whoso judgeth not by that which Allah hath revealed) He says: whoever does not show that which Allah has elucidated in the Gospel; (such are evil-doers) transgressing disbelievers.
Subsequently then, when Qur’an speaks, “Let the people of the Gospel judge by what Allah has revealed therein.” it specifically appeals to the “Injeel” ruling on stoning. [Be careful to realize that Qur’an 5:47 is not appealing the people of the Gospel, to Judge, for instance, matter of crucifixion of Jesus, peace be upon him, as an Evangelist would like to show from this verse.] And it should not come as a surprise that even in today’s Gospel, which is of course is not the “Injeel” revealed to Isa, peace be upon him, traces of stoning injunction is present. Mind you that Christians claim that Today’s Bible is the same as was inspired to the prophet and apostles, Muslims do not; I am only appealing to biblical verses because the Christians (mis)take it. Jesus supported the injunction of stoning. Consider these biblical verses:

“they said to Him, “Teacher, this woman was caught in adultery, in the very act. “Now Moses, in the law, commanded us that such should be stoned…”” (The Open Bible, John 8:4-5, NKJV)(See also cross references to Deuteronomy 22:22)

And Jesus had this to say for all earlier laws including the injunction of stoning.

“Do not think that I came to destroy the Law or the Prophets. I did not come to destroy but to fulfill. “For assuredly, I say to you, till heaven and earth pass away, one jot or one tittle will by no means pass from the law till all is fulfilled.””(The Open Bible, Matthew 5:17, NKJV)
Now let us consider if the appeal of verse 47 is to “retaliation”. What this would establish is that if the appeal of verse 47 is to the concept of “retaliation” then verse 47 is not, and cannot, be held responsible anything written in the Bible; in other words one should not prove Bible’s incorruptibility from this verse.

Let me quickly summarize each verse, namely, verse number 45, 46 and 47.
Verse 45 states the rulings for a just “retaliation”: Life for Life, Eye for Eye etc
Verse 46 informs Jesus’s, peace be upon him, stand for the law given in verse 45 (Life for Life, Eye for Eye etc): Jesus came on the “footsteps” of earlier prophets to “confirm” what had already came before him. Now before him came many books revealed to different prophets, but here it seems to appeal to Torah revealed to Moses, peace be upon all prophets of Allah. Furthermore, Torah contained exactly similar decrees of “retaliation” as stated in verse 45 (above) and Jesus was “confirming” them.
Verse47 instructs the ‘Gospellers’ to abide by what has been decreed in the revelation to Jesus, peace be upon him: “Let the people of the Gospel Judge by what Allah hath revealed therein”. What is says is: The people of the Gospel should Judge IN THE MATTER OF RETALIATION according to what was revealed to Jesus for the topic of “retaliation”.
Although as Muslims we fully believe that the divine writ for “retaliation” given to the “Children of Israel” through Moses and Jesus, peace be upon both, was exactly the same as Allah described in verse 45, however, if a Christian fusses then he should consider Exodus, Leviticus and Deuteronomy in conjunction with Gospel of Matthew. In spirit of Qur’anic verse number 45 these biblical verses can be considered as the similar, if not, exactly same. Remind you once again that, we as Muslims, do not consider the aforementioned books of Bible to be the revelation given to Moses and Jesus, peace be upon both. I appeal to it because Christians (mis)take them to be the same. Here are the verses consider them.

1. “But if any lasting harm follows, then you shall give life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, burn for burn, wound for wound, stripe for stripe.” (The Open Bible, Exodus 21:23-25, NKJV)

2. “Fracture for fracture, eye for eye, tooth for tooth; as he has caused disfigurement of a man, so shall it be done for him.” (The Open Bible, Leviticus 24:20, NKJV)

3. “Your eye shall not pity; but life shall be for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot.” (The Open Bible, Deuteronomy 19:21, NKJV)
These Old Testament verses should be read and understood in conjunction with a New Testament verse, which reads:

“Do not think that I came to destroy the Law or the Prophets. I did not come to destroy but to fulfill. For assuredly, I say to you, till heaven and earth pass away, one jot or one tittle will by no means pass from the law till all is fulfilled.”(The Open Bible, Matthew 5:17, NKJV)

Kindly keep in mind that even if traces of “retaliation” and “stoning” were not to be found in the present day Bible even then the Muslim argument would have held. We can and should safely believe that when Mohammad, peace be upon him, would have appealed to the “People of the Book” for “retaliation” and “stoning” then these must have been present there (even so in traces). I, personally, would suggest that every Muslim should believe that if certain issues of earlier scripture is appealed to in Qur’an or Authentic Hadith then it should be believed with both eyes closed that that issue was, then, present in earlier scripture regardless of whether it is found in the Bible or not. You should not forget that the Jews and Christians have played fast and loose with divine scriptures all throughout the ages.

So next time if a missionary knocks your door with a Bible under his arms ‘witnessing’ you Qur’an 5:47, thereby, trying to dupe you into believing Bible to be God’s word, then, reason him/her that Qur’an 5:47 is specific about “retaliation” and/or “stoning” traces of which are still to be found in your purported ‘Word of God’ near your arm pit.

By now you would have understood the flimsy arguments which this sincere Evangelist was putting forth; I destroyed him completely and will expose him further. He next came up with Qur’an 10:64:
“For them are Glad Tidings in the life of the Present and in the Hereafter: no change can there be in the Words of Allah. This is indeed the supreme Felicity.”
By quoting this verse he tried to give me a wrong impression that because Injeel and Torah and other books were Words of Allah therefore they cannot be changed or corrupted. But the fallaciousness of his argument can be easily exposed by only reading the context of Qur’an 10:64:

“Those who believe and (constantly) guard against evil For them are Glad Tidings in the life of the Present and in the Hereafter: no change can there be in the Words of Allah. This is indeed the supreme Felicity.”

It is glaringly deductable from the above verses that “no change can there be in the Words of Allah” applies to Allah’s promise of felicity in the life of present and hereafter for those who believe and constantly guard against evil is unchangeable; it will come to pass. I do not know how he tried to impress this verse upon me proving his point of Bible. Even an amateur would refrain using this verse to prove Bible incorruptibility.

When he was utterly destroyed in the above argument he quoted me then a ‘better’ verse to serve his cause. So, let us look at it. Qur’an 10:94:

“If thou wert in doubt as to what We have revealed unto thee then ask those who have been reading the Book from before thee: the Truth hath indeed come to thee from thy Lord: so be in nowise of those in doubt.”

Again, the same old story of quoting God’s Word out of context. Why and How can I say that? Well the answer is pretty simple; just ponder in to the verse a little close to observe that Allah metaphorically asks readers (of this verse) to ask the people of the Book regarding what Allah has revealed to/ for Muslims. So, what were the Muslims going to ask the “readers of earlier Book”. Pertaining what will the Muslims enquire those who have been reading the Book? The answer could easily be found if we only read the context of this verse. In verse number 92-93 we read:

“This day shall We save thee in thy body that thou mayest be a Sign to those who come after thee! But verily many among mankind are heedless of Our Signs!”
“We settled the Children of Israel in a beautiful dwelling-place and provided for them sustenance of the best: it was after knowledge had been granted to them that they fell into schisms. Verily Allah will judge between them as to the schisms amongst them on the Day of Judgment.”

[It is not far-fetched to realize that in context Moses, Pharaoh, their struggle against each other (kindly include verse 90 onwards. I have not included them for the sake of size of this paper), Pharaoh being drowned into the sea etc is alluded to.]
NOW COMES VERSE NUMBER 94:

“If thou wert in doubt as to what We have revealed unto thee then ask those who have been reading the Book from before thee: the Truth hath indeed come to thee from thy Lord: so be in nowise of those in doubt.”

Sincere Jews like Abdullah Ibn Salam and truthful Christians like Waraqa did testified to each and every thing contained in Quran. Moreover, even today if any lay Muslim picks up Bible and reads it he would certainly find striking similarities when it comes to the story of Moses Vs Pharaoh with of course some differences. The differences owe to age long corruption which has crept and defiled the so purported ‘Word of God’. Be careful once again to mark that Qur’an 10:94 is not appealing, for instance, to the deity of Jesus, for instance, “Ask those who have been reading the Book from before thee whether Jesus was God or not”. It does not say that. But this is what an Evangelist would try to show a Muslims through verses such as these. It appeals to ask something else; something related to Moses and Pharaoh. And coincidentally traces of these stories are still extant in the most misunderstood ‘biblical’ “Tawraat”. Biblical “Tawraat” is of course not the “Tawraat” revealed to Moses.

His final argument was:
“Say: “Bring ye the Law and study it if ye be men of truth.” (3:93)
Yet another instance of out- of- context- quotation. From the very sense of the construction of the above quoted verse it can be smelt that there is some serious matter being discussed in the back drop; may be the prophet was debating the Jews and thus as a proof he (Actually Allah) was made to demand Torah from them. Therefore, lets us read the verse in context.
“All food was lawful to the children of Israel except what Israel made unlawful for itself before the law (of Moses) was revealed. Say: “Bring ye the Law and study it if ye be men of truth.”
At once it becomes clear that Prophet, peace be upon him, was debating/discussing food and issues related to it against the Jews. When one reads the Tafseers of this particular verse then he realizes that the Jews alleged the Prophet for not following the faith of Ibraheem (Abraham), peace be upon him! They contended that Mohammad, peace be upon him, on one hand claims to be following the Ibraheem’s creed, nevertheless, camel’s meat is lawful for consumption in his (Mohammad’s, peace be upon him) laws. Of course the Jews held that camel’s meat was forbidden for them since Ibraheem’s ministry, peace be upon him. Therefore, to answer this charge of the Jews the prophet demanded (or more fittingly was made to demand by Allah) the Jews to bring their Book of authority and analyze it (for forbiddance of Camel’s meat) if they (the Jews) were truthful. That is to say: analyze the Torah (then in the hands of the Jews) and check whether in Ibraheem’s ministry camel’s meat was made unlawful or not? The truth was rather different, as it has to be; Israel or Yacob (Jacob), peace be upon him, made an oath to Allah that if his disease of “sciatica (‘irq al-nasā)” was cured then he would never again consume camel’s meat. Chronologically, Yacob, peace be upon him, came after Ibraheem, peace be upon him, consequently, consumption of Camel’s meat was not made unlawful during or in the ministry of Ibraheem, peace be upon him, as the Jews claimed. Consider the Tafseer below:
When the Jews said to the Prophet, ‘You claim that you follow the creed of Abraham, but Abraham did not eat camel’s meat nor drink its milk’, the following was revealed: All food was lawful to the Children of Israel save what Israel, Jacob, forbade for himself, namely, camels: when he was afflicted with sciatica (‘irq al-nasā), he made a vow that if he were cured he would not eat of it again, and so it was forbidden him; before the Torah was revealed, which was after the time of Abraham, as it was not unlawful in his time, as they claimed. Say, to them: ‘Bring the Torah now, and recite it, so that the truth of what you say may become clear, if you are truthful’, in what you say; they were stupified and did not bring it [the Torah]. God, exalted be He, then said:

(All food was lawful unto the Children of Israel) all food that is lawful for Muhammad and his community today was lawful for the Children of Israel, the sons of Jacob, (save that which Israel) Jacob (forbade himself) by the way of vows, ((in days) before the Torah was revealed) before the revelation of the Torah to Moses, Jacob forbade himself the meat and milk of camels. When this verse was revealed, the Prophet (pbuh) asked the Jews: “What did Jacob forbid himself of food?” They said: “he did not forbid himself any type of food, and whatever is forbidden for us today, such as the meat of camels and other things, was already forbidden on all prophets, from Adam to Moses (pbut). It is only you who make such things lawful”. And they claimed those things were also forbidden in the Torah. Hence Allah said to Muhammad (pbuh): (Say) to them: (Produce the Torah and read it (unto us)) where they are made forbidden (if ye are truthful) in your claim. But they failed to produce the Torah and knew they were liars since there was nothing in the Torah to substantiate their claim. (Tafsir Al-Jalalyn)

Again the legerdemain (of words) which an Evangelist is playing with this verse is that , “see your Quran is appealing to read Law (generally accepted as alluding to Tawraat) therefore believe what the Torah (of the Bible) says; believe about the deity of Jesus, his crucifixion etc. Now, my dear Muslim brothers and sisters you know the reason and purpose this verse was serving so just paste the answer on these Evangandistic faces.Tell them that according to Qur’an 3:93 “Law” is not to be studied for , say, crucifixion of Christ.
Moreover, even if today any one picks up Bible (which is not the “Tawraat” revealed to Moses, peace be upon him) in his hand and searches for forbiddance of Camel’s meat in the ministry of Ibraheem – he would not find that; at least I have not seen it yet. But he would in fact find such a prohibition in the so called “Jewish law of Moses (Musa)” (not Ibraheem mind you), we find such a prohibition in Leviticus 11:4,“You may eat any land animal that has divided hoofs and that also chews the cud, but you must not eat camels, rock – badgers or rabbits.” (Holy Bible, TEV)

Let me enquire whether “Leviticus” was revealed to Abraham (Ibraheem), peace be upon him?
Would an emotional Evangelist still cling to Qur’an 3:93to appeal to Bible’s incorruptibility?

The common disease:

At the end of the day when somebody analyzes Christian arguments (Qur’anic Verses) used to untenably establish the Bible incorruptibility will realize that there seems to be a trend following in all Christian arguments: The Christian polemists use the Qur’anic verses, firstly, out of context and secondly (or a corollary), they ignorantly or viciously generalize one particular Qur’anic verse which was revealed for a particular and specific reason to a apply to everything which the Bible contains. They commit one more deceit or mistake by appealing to Bible when what the Qur’anic verse speak about “Injeel” and “Tawraat”; which does not even remotely sound like “Bible”. Therefore, exploit these three points and you would refute each of their arguments, inshallah.

Cure for the disease:

“Thus have We appointed unto every Prophet an adversary—devils of humankind and jinn who inspire in one another plausible discourse through guile. If thy Lord willed, they would not do so; so leave them alone with their devising;”
(Qur’an 6:112, Pickthall)

Note: Emphasis where ever found is mine.
All Qur’anic Tafseers taken from www.altafseer.com

I am only a mortal liable to err, indeed, all truth lies with Allah alone.

:- By
Question Mark