Is Allah Almighty the GOD of the Bible?

Rebuttal to Sam Shamoun’s article

A Series of Answers to Common Questions

Shamoun has come up with an article in which he tries to show whether the God of Islam is indeed the God of the Bible. As a Christian Shamoun definitely believes that the God of Islam is a totally and different God than the one he worships and believes in. That is fair enough, so one would expect to find some reasonable points by Shamoun in this article to show why he as a Christian does not believe that Allah is the God of the Bible. However so Shamoun's real intention is quite clear. His main goal in this article is to attack Islam, Allah, and the Quran. As we go through the article you will see it for yourself, and realize that Shamoun simply wanted to attack Islam in this article. One would ask Shamoun why put such a deceptive title name for an article, when the main purpose is the exact opposite? Sure Shamoun can say he was not trying to attack Islam or Allah but show the differences between his God and my God. However so, once again, as we go through the article you will see for yourself that Shamoun's article is nothing but an attack on Islam. However so that is not a problem. I will be more than happy to refute his arguments and objections. I will be basically posting his arguments against Islam one by one, what he has to say concerning the Bible will be disregarded and not posted. To read his entire article click on the link I posted under the title. The aim of this rebuttal is to basically present his arguments and refute them.

ARGUMENT: 1

AUTHOR OF EVIL

The Holy Bible teaches that God cannot be tempted by evil and neither tempts anyone with evil; evil being understood as referring to immorality and sin. James 1:13 (c.f. Psalm 5:4-5; Habakkuk 1:13)

Yet, the Quran teaches that Allah is the author of evil:

And (the unbelievers) schemed and planned, and Allah schemed also, and the best of schemers is Allah. S. 3:54

Remember how the unbelievers schemed against thee, to keep thee in bonds, or to slay thee, or get thee out (of thy home). They scheme and plot, but the best of schemers is Allah. S. 8:30

The term for scheme in Arabic is makara which denotes one who is a deceiver, one who is conniving, a schemer. It is always used in a negative sense. Allah is thus seen as the best of deceivers, the premiere schemer and conniving one.

This is not simply a Christian perspective but one thoroughly endorsed by Muslim theologians as well.

For example Dr. Mahmoud M. Ayoub in his book, The Quran and Its Interpreters, Vol. II The House of Imran, brings up the question of "how the word makr (scheming or plotting), which implies deceitfulness or dishonesty, could be attributed to God." (Ibid. [1992 State University of New York Press, Albany], p. 165)

After listing several Muslim sources he quotes ar-Razi as arguing that "scheming (makr) is actually an act of deception aiming at causing evil. It is not possible to attribute deception to God. Thus the word is one of the muttashabihat [multivalent words of the Quran]." (Ibid., p. 166)

In fact the Quran furnishes plenty of examples on some of the methods Allah adopts in devising evil:

Remember in thy dream Allah showed them as a few: if he had showed them to thee as many, ye would surely have been discouraged, and ye would surely have disputed in your decision: but Allah saved you: for He knoweth well the (secrets) of (all) hearts. S. 8:43

Allah is said to have shown the opposing fighting forces as few to Muhammad since if he had shown them as they actually were, the Muslims would have been afraid to fight. Hence, Allah had to use deception in order to encourage the Muslims to fight in his cause.

And when We desire to destroy a city, We command its men who live at ease, and they commit ungodliness therein, then the Word is realized against it, and We destroy it utterly. S. 17:16

Allah commands men to sin in order to destroy them completely.

They (Jinns- demon spirits) worked for him (Solomon) as he desired ... then when We decreed death upon him, nothing showed them his death except a little creeping creature of the earth, which gnawed away at his staff. And when he fell the Jinns saw clearly how, if they had known the unseen, they would not have continued in the humiliating penalty (of work). S. 34:13-14

Allah deceived the Jinns into working for Solomon by preventing the latter's death from being disclosed to them, otherwise they would have stopped their work.

Allah also deceived both Christians and Jews into thinking that Jesus was crucified when in fact

"it was so made to appear unto them", seeing that he never was crucified or killed. S. 4:157

According to S. 9:51, nothing befalls Muslims except what Allah has ordained. And in S. 14:4, we are told,

"Allah leads astray whomsoever He will and guides whomsoever he will."

And,

"Whomsoever Allah guides, he is the one who follows the right way; and whomsoever He causes to err, these are the losers. And certainly We have created for hell many of the jinn and the men; ... Whomsoever Allah causes to err, there is no guide for him; and He leaves them alone in their inordinacy, blindly wandering on." S. 7:178-

179, 186

"If thy Lord had so willed, He could have made mankind one People: but they will not cease to differ. Except those on whom thy Lord hath bestowed His Mercy: and for this did He create them: and the Word of thy Lord shall be fulfilled: ‘I will fill Hell with Jinns and men all together.’" S. 11:118-119

Not only does Allah guide people astray, but also has created men specifically for hell. To make matters worse, he even ordains the evil one commits as we have already seen in S. 17:16 and further clarified by this Muslim tradition:

Abu Huraira reported Allah's Apostle as saying:

Verily Allah has fixed the very portion of adultery which a man will indulge in, and which he of necessity must commit (or there would be no escape from it)." Sahih Muslim #6421, 6422

To even imagine that Allah causes adultery is not only horrendous but disqualifies him from being the God of Moses.

My response:

Shamoun's main argument is that Allah deceives or schemes on his enemies. I for one see no evil in that, there is difference when you deceive some one good who has done no harm to you, or when you deceive some one to cause them harm, such as Satan. However when you read the verses Shamoun posted, in which Allah deceived his ENEMIES, and the ENEMIES of the prophets. It was to derail their plans, their evil plans. I see no evil in that, Allah is helping out his prophets, the good people by getting one over the bad guys who are trying to do something bad. Allah does not deceive good people to harm them as Satan does. Allah just plots and plans on his enemies when they plan and plot against him, such as to kill his prophet or harm the Muslims.

Now let us quote the verses Shamoun posted on which Allah supposedly deceived Muslims:

I find it funny that Shamoun is going for whatever he can get. To start off, Shamoun claims that Allah is deceiving Muslims and so on. However so, Shamoun is making up an argument as if to say that Allah deceived the Muslims so harm could come to them, when in fact you read the verse and you get no sense of that at all. The verse is clear, the enemies were much more than the Muslims, so if the Muslims saw that, they would have been discouraged, many would flee, and many with argue with one another on what to do. This would cause a lot of deaths to the Muslim side, however so, Allah comforted them, and made it appear to the Muslims that they were not that many, and that the Muslims were indeed the stronger side.

Allah was simply helping the Muslims out. Allah simply wanted his believers to triumph over his enemies. So he comforted them and as a result the Muslims were victorious. Had Allah not comforted them something terrible would have happened, and the Muslims would have lost, and the enemies of God would have prevailed, is that what Shamoun wants? The fact is, the only true deceiver here is Shamoun, he makes arguments out of nothing and tries to make a situation seem very bad. He tries to show that Allah deceived the Muslims and misguided them as if to cause them harm and evil. However Shamoun forgets, Shamoun tries to show that this thing is evil, when in fact you look at it and you see no evil in it. Allah did not make the enemies number seem less to CAUSE HARM AND DEATH AMONG MUSLIMS, Shamoun is trying to liken Allah to Satan, which he completely fails to do. Satan deceives to cause harm and send people to hell, I would like Shamoun to show me the evil that Allah caused when he actually comforted the Muslims and lead them to victory, I want Shamoun to show me the evil Allah intended to do on the Muslims. Shamoun has yet to show the evil, the verse shows anything but evil, it shows God helping the Muslims. The same goes with his previous verses in which Allah deceived HIS ENEMIES. I want to know the evil in that, God deceived his enemies who were plotting to kill his believers and prophets, where is the evil in that? I would like Shamoun to show it to me. Shamoun forgets, Satan deceives to cause harm and sin, Allah does not.

The next verse he posts:

And when We desire to destroy a city, We command its men who live at ease, and they commit ungodliness therein, then the Word is realized against it, and We destroy it utterly. S. 17:16

The verse has no evil in it, in fact you are a true deceiver in abusing the text. No where in the verse does Allah command the men to do evil and then destroy it.

17.016
YUSUFALI: When We decide to destroy a population, We (first) send a definite order to those among them who are given the good things of this life and yet transgress; so that the word is proved true against them: then (it is) We destroy them utterly.

PICKTHAL: And when We would destroy a township We send commandment to its folk who live at ease, and afterward they commit abomination therein, and so the Word (of doom) hath effect for it, and we annihilate it with complete annihilation.

SHAKIR: And when We wish to destroy a town, We send Our commandment to the people of it who lead easy lives, but they transgress therein; thus the word proves true against it, so We destroy it with utter destruction.

As you can see the main three translations say nothing of what Shamoun is talking about!

The verses DONT SAY that Allah commands the men to live at ease and

transgress so he destroys them, the verses say that when he destroys a town, or plans on destroying a town, he sends a command to the people who are living at ease and committing sins. HE SENDS A COMMAND TO THEM, meaning a prophet or a messenger or something to warn them, however they continue to commit sins, so then the command of destruction against them is allowed for they listened not and continued to sin.

The next verse Shamoun posts:

Shamoun once again tries to build a case which he does not have. Allah was simply showing the arrogant jinn that they are nothing, and that it took a small worm to let them find out that Solomon had been dead. The jinn thought themselves to be powerful, and were arrogant, and deceived a lot of men into taking them as Gods, so Allah was simply teaching the jinn of Solomon a lesson that they are like everyone else and are not smarter than God. Jinn are not demon spirits, there are devils among jinn, but not all jinn are devils.

Shamoun then states: Allah also deceived both Christians and Jews into thinking that Jesus was crucified when in fact "it was so made to appear unto them", seeing that he never was crucified or killed. S. 4:157

Allah deceived his enemies into thinking they killed Jesus. Allah once again showed that he is all powerful and is always one step ahead of them. The true deception is that of Christians and Paul who later went and made up stories that Jesus rose from the dead, and died for our sins. That is the true deception. There would have been no sin on Christians at the time who mourned for Jesus and believed he had died. The sin is when they started making things up. So in fact Shamoun is still being deceived by his own book in which it states that Jesus died and rose, when in fact he did neither.

According to S. 9:51, nothing befalls Muslims except what Allah has ordained. And in S. 14:4, we are told,

"Allah leads astray whomsoever He will and guides whomsoever he will."

There is nothing wrong in that. It is Allah's will if we convert or not. Every one knows this. Allah is the one in command of all things. By the end of argument one I will show that even Shamoun admits that his God guides whom he will and misguides whom he wills, and is indeed the author of evil, in Shamoun's own words. Shamoun then posts:

Whomsoever Allah guides, he is the one who follows the right way; and whomsoever He causes to err, these are the losers. And certainly We have created for hell many of the jinn and the men; ... Whomsoever Allah causes to err, there is no guide for him; and He leaves them alone in their inordinacy, blindly wandering on." S. 7:178-179, 186

There is no deception in that, whatever God wills is done, if he wills it not then that is how it is. Do you disagree with that Shamoun? If you have a problem with those verses then this means several things happening in this world are not controlled by your God but outside his control and will, hence your God is not all powerful. That is the consequence of disagreeing with those verses he posted. Everything is indeed God's will. If he chooses mercy for us, then it will happen, if not, then it will not. God is in control of everything which Shamoun obviously does not believe!

Abu Huraira reported Allah's Apostle as saying:

Verily Allah has fixed the very portion of adultery which a man will indulge in, and which he of necessity must commit (or there would be no escape from it)." Sahih Muslim #6421, 6422

In other words the verses are claiming Allah is in control of all things. I will expose Shamoun that he even believes that. You will see for yourself that he believes that his God causes adultery and all evil. Quoting what Shamoun himself said in a previous article:

There is no difficulty at all with these passages, since God allowed Satan to incite David to number Israel, something which displeased the Lord.

The reason why this angered the Lord is that rather than trusting God, David was evidently placing his trust in the number of his people. Even David's commander-in-chief, Joab, was not totally pleased with the king's decision:

"But Joab said to the king, `May the LORD your God increase the number of the people a hundred fold, while the eyes of my lord king can still see it! But why does my lord the king want to do this? But the king's word prevailed against Joab and the commanders of the army..." 2 Sam. 24:3-4a NRSV

Evidently, David had purposed within his heart to number Israel, something which the Lord was aware of. Realizing this, the Lord in his anger moved David through the agency of the Devil to act upon his heart's desire.

Hence, although Satan was the direct cause, God was also indirectly responsible since the Devil can only do that which God allows him to do.

Hilarious indeed! So Shamoun attacks something which he himself believes in, which is God is in control of all things! Note Shamoun admits that the devil cannot do anything that God does not allow him to do, meaning it is God who is indirectly involved when the devil convinces you into having illegal sex which means God is the one doing it. So every evil thing the devil does, it is in fact God doing it, as Shamoun admitted. This also means that everything we do is only if God wills it or allows it, meaning he is in charge and whatever we do it is in fact by his grace or his allowance, so hence why does Shamoun have a problem with God guiding some and not guiding some others? It his own will, something you perfectly agree with! This shows how ignorant Shamoun truly is, and how inconsistent he is and how he lies and deceives. So hence as you can see for yourself, Shamoun believes God is in-directly or directly in control of EVERYTHING, meaning Shamoun admits God is the author of evil and all bad things because he allows it to be and happen, so hence Shamoun's argument falls flat on his face, and Shamoun must now abandon Christianity because the argument he uses against Islam to discredit it can be applied to his own religion, as he himself showed, so hence he must leave Christianity! If he does not then every one is a witness to what a hypocrite he is. Thank you Shamoun for exposing yourself yet AGAIN.

That is the end of argument one, as you saw Shamoun's arguments were made of nothing. He tried to make something seem bad when it wasn’t. You all also saw how inconsistent Sam is, and what a liar he is, as the arguments he uses against Islam are in fact also against Christianity as he himself admitted it in a previous article. So much for Allah being evil and deceiving. It is just another argument followed up by another rebuttal.

He wrote:

ARGUMENT: 2

AUTHOR OF ABROGATION

According to the Quran Allah reveals a verse only to have it canceled out a short time later:

None of Our revelations do We abrogate or cause to be forgotten but We substitute something better or similar- Knowest thou not that Allah has power over all things? S. 2:106

When We substitute one revelation for another- and Allah knowest best what He reveals (in stages)- They say, "Thou art but a forger"; But most of them understand not. S. 16:101

This leaves us with the difficulty of having a God who does not remain consistent and often changes his revealed purpose. This being the case, how is one to know that the promises of such a Being in regards to eternal security can be trusted? Just as he changes his mind in relation to the revelation, he can also decide to change his mind in regards to the believer's ultimate destiny without anything stopping him from doing so.

My Response:

Shamoun has once again lied, and he has even gone as far as lie to his Christians and his own book. The Bible does indeed contain abrogation, or God changing his mind. Here is the proof, from a previous rebuttal of mine to Shamoun:

This will be the easiest argument to respond to. Let me quote something very interesting from Shamoun: It must be stated that the scriptures clearly teach that God's decree of judgement is not always final since God often allows time for repentance to occur since his desire is for none to perish. He also stated: In relation to God reversing a decision he has made due to man's actions we read in Jeremiah 18:7-10:

Not only is that a lie that is a contradiction within the very Bible. As we can see Shamoun is claiming that God can reverse his decision and his decision is not always final, meaning he changes his mind. Shamoun also post some verses to show this:

Ezekiel 33:11

Jeremiah 18:7-10:

However so that is simply not true, and it also leaves us with a contradiction in the Bible, let us look at the contradicting verses:

KJB 1 Sam 15:29: And also the Strength of Israel will not lie nor repent: for he [is] not a man, that he should repent.

Num 23:19 God [is] not a man, that he should lie; neither the son of man, that he should repent: hath he said, and shall he not do [it]? or hath he spoken, and shall he not make it good?

So as we see God does not repent, he does not change his mind, however so Shamoun claims God does change his mind and reverse his decision leaving us with a plain contradiction, let us quote the contradicting verses:

Jer 18:8 If that nation, against whom I have pronounced, turn from their evil, I will repent of the evil that I thought to do unto them.

Jer 18:10 If it do evil in my sight, that it obey not my voice, then I will repent of the good, wherewith I said I would benefit them.

Jer 26:3 If so be they will hearken, and turn every man from his evil way, that I may repent me of the evil, which I purpose to do unto them because of the evil of their doings.

To repent or not to repent that is the question. (End of rebuttal)

So as you can see, I have already dealt with the issue of God changing his mind in the Bible, and you can all see it for yourself that God in fact did change his mind. For further proof that the Bible contains abrogation let us post Bible verses which have abrogated the other:

Genesis 20:11-12: 11 And Abraham said, Because I thought, Surely the fear of God is not in this place; and they will slay me for my wife's sake. 12 And yet indeed she is my sister; she is the daughter of my father, but not the daughter of my mother; and she became my wife.

This verse was an allowance of marrying your sister which is the daughter of your father but no mother was abrogated by:

Deuteronamy 27:22: 22 Cursed be he that lieth with his sister, the daughter of his father, or the daughter of his mother. And all the people shall say, Amen

So as you can see for yourself, there is indeed abrogation in the Bible. So Shamoun's argument falls flat on his face and can be used against him. Now since he believes abrogation cannot be from God, and we have seen abrogation in his book then he must leave Christianity. If he does not then we all bear witness that he is a hypocrite. There is more to write on abrogation in the Bible but that is enough for now. However for more detailed information on abrogation in the Bible please visit these links:

https://www.answering-christianity.com/abrogation_in_bible.htm

http://www.bismikaallahuma.org/Bible/abrogate.htm

Now as for abrogation in the Quran. Shamoun obviously does not understand what it means, and goes on to start inventing lies by claiming God is inconsistent yet it is Shamoun who is the inconsistent one all along.

Abrogation in Arabic means Naskh, which means obliteration. The cases of abrogation occur only in laws, and not beliefs or change of beliefs. For example God will not abrogate the belief of worshiping one God by coming up with something new such as to worship two Gods. Christians have always used abrogation against the Quran, an obvious misunderstanding by them and lack of understanding on the Islamic view point of abrogation. The Quran was revealed in a period of 23 years, it was revealed in stages as the

Quran says:

017.106
YUSUFALI: (It is) a Qur'an which We have divided (into parts from time to time), in order that thou mightest recite it to men at intervals: We have revealed it by stages.

025.032
YUSUFALI: Those who reject Faith say: "Why is not the Qur'an revealed to him all at once? Thus (is it revealed), that We may strengthen thy heart thereby, and We have rehearsed it to thee in slow, well-arranged stages, gradually.

076.023
YUSUFALI: It is We Who have sent down the Qur'an to thee by stages.

So as you can see, the Quran was revealed in stages, and not sent at once, which even the unbelievers got mad at because they wanted to know why the Quran was not sent at once. However so the Quran was not sent at once because it would have been too much to take in at once. It would have been to hard to follow and just leave your ways and the way you lived and change in an instance. That is human nature and God knows best. Such as the case of alcohol. The Quran says that in alcohol there is a benefit and a harm, and the harm is greater:

002.219
YUSUFALI: They ask thee concerning wine and gambling. Say: "In them is great sin, and some profit, for men; but the sin is greater than the profit." They ask thee how much they are to spend; Say: "What is beyond your needs." Thus doth Allah Make clear to you His Signs: In order that ye may consider-

That would gradually make the Muslims at the time that were drinking stop and think, and start drinking less and maybe even stop. The Quran then forbid Muslims to come to their prayers while in a drunken state:

PICKTHAL: O ye who believe! Draw not near unto prayer when ye are drunken, till ye know that which ye utter, nor when ye are polluted, save when journeying upon the road, till ye have bathed. And if ye be ill, or on a journey, or one of you cometh from the closet, or ye have touched women, and ye find not water, then go to high clean soil and rub your faces and your hands (therewith). Lo! Allah is Benign, Forgiving.

So now it has become clear to Muslims not to approach their prayers while they were drunk, and their are 5 prayers, in the early morning, in the early afternoon, in mid afternoon, and in the evening, and one at night. So basically that in itself would have made it very difficult for the Muslims to drink, and if they did it would have to be very minimum as to prevent drunkenness, so this would eventually lead to several Muslims stop drinking as to the inconvenience and difficulty it presented. Then finally the Quran revealed that alcohol is completely forbidden to drink once the Muslims had gotten used to drinking little of it or completely abstaining from it:

005.090
YUSUFALI: O ye who believe! Intoxicants and gambling, (dedication of) stones, and (divination by) arrows, are an abomination,- of Satan's handwork: eschew such (abomination), that ye may prosper.

005.091
YUSUFALI: Satan's plan is (but) to excite enmity and hatred between you, with intoxicants and gambling, and hinder you from the remembrance of Allah, and from prayer: will ye not then abstain?

So that is a basic way of how abrogation works. It is not that God did not know, or the first rule failed. The fact is Allah revealed things in stages. It would have been to hard for the people to give up their alcohol ways at once unless you weren’t that into it, and the people back then were very into drinking alcohol. So hence a failing rule would be if God would reveal that alcohol is forbidden at once rather than in stages. You cannot abandon something you like or addicted to at once, it takes time. So that just shows how simple abrogation is, nothing like what Shamoun makes it to be.

He wrote:

ARGUMENT: 3

AUTHOR OF HISTORICAL ERRORS

The Quran contains historical errors which implies that Allah is not an Omniscient Being, since an all-knowing Being would be able to accurately recall historical events. Below is a list of just some of the many problems we find in the Quran.

· · In S. 17:1 we are told that Muhammad was taken to the farthest Mosque, Masjid al-Aqsa. The problem with this is that the Aqsa Mosque had not been erected since Abd al-Malik only built it in AD 691. It cannot be referring to the Temple in Jerusalem since that was destroyed by the armies of the Roman general Titus in AD 70.

S. 18:9-26 alludes to several men and their dog who slept for approximately 309 years only to be awakened in perfect condition.

According to S. 18:83-98, Alexander the Great called Zhul Qarnain, "the Two Horned One," was a Muslim who traveled till he found the Sun literally setting in a muddy spring. When we keep in mind that the title "the Two Horned One" was a title given to Alexander in pre-Islamic times, the Muslim attempts of trying to deny this fact utterly fails.

According to S. 4:157 the unbelieving Jews boasted by saying, "We killed the Messiah Jesus the son of Mary, the apostle of Allah." The only problem with this is that the unbelieving Jews never admitted that Jesus was Messiah and would not have killed him if they had believed that he was their long-awaited Messianic Deliverer. The unbelieving Jews had Jesus killed because they believed he was a false Messiah:

'And they began to accuse him, saying, ‘We have found this man subverting our nation. He opposes payment of taxes to Caesar and CLAIMS to be Christ a king.’" Luke 23:2 NIV

Christians are accused of worshiping Mary and Jesus as two gods apart from the true God:

And behold! Allah will say: "O Jesus the son of Mary! Didst thou say unto men, Worship me and my mother ... " S. 5:116

Christ the son of Mary was no more than an apostle- many were the apostles that passed away before him. His mother was a woman of truth. They had both to eat their (daily) food. See how Allah doth make His Signs clear to them ... S. 5:75

In blasphemy indeed are those that say that Allah is Christ the son of Mary. Say: "Who then hath the least power against Allah, if His Will were to destroy Christ the son of Mary, his mother, and all - every one that is on the earth..." S. 5:17

This presumes that since Mary ate food and could be destroyed by Allah she could not possibly be divine. This gives the misleading impression that Christians believe that she is more than simply human.

In fact

the Quran proceeds to accuse Christians of worshiping three gods:

"They do blaspheme who say: Allah is the third of three (inallaaha thaalithu thalaatha)" S. 5:73

"... so believe in Allah and His apostles. Say not three (thalaatha): desist: It will be better for you: for Allah is one Allah ..." S. 4:171

Mary the Mother of Jesus is confused with Mary the sister of Aaron and Moses, the daughter of Amram:

Behold! The wife of Imran (i.e. Amram) said, "O my Lord! I do dedicate unto thee what is in my womb"... When she was delivered, she said: "O my Lord! Behold! I am delivered of a female child ... I have named her Mary... " S. 3:35, 36

"And Mary the daughter of Imran, who guarded her chastity.." S. 66:12.

"... They said: O Mary! Truly an amazing thing hast thou brought! O sister of Aaron! Thy father was not a man of evil, nor thy mother a woman unchaste." S. 19:27-28

"Then Mary (Heb. Mariam), the prophetess, the sister of Aaron, took the timbrel in her hand ..." Exodus 15:20

"The name of Amram's wife was Jochebed, the daughter of Levi, who was born to Levi in Egypt; and to Amram she bore Aaron and Moses and their sister Miriam." Numbers 27:59

My Response:

Shamoun has to come up with what he believes are several historical errors in the Quran, so let us see if this is indeed the case starting with his first post:

Shamoun's mistake is seen right from the start when he claims that the Mosque had not been erected until AD 691. Shamoun believes that if something is a Mosque, it must have look like all the modern day Mosques or something similar, however so, a Mosque or masjid can be any place, as Muhammad said, the whole earth has been made a Mosque for him. So hence that argument falls short. He then says it cannot be the temple in Jerusalem since it was destroyed. He says this without bringing any references, in a debate or discussion, when you make a claim you must put forth your proof, Shamoun claims the Mosque Muhammad visited and prayed in is a temple which was destroyed. He does not show any of his references of this claim he makes, therefore it is disregarded until he brings forth the reference and source he is using. Once he does so I will gladly refute him again. Until then we shall wait, I do not deal with claims being made without providing any references at all.

· · S. 18:9-26 alludes to several men and their dog who slept for approximately 309 years only to be awakened in perfect condition.

I would like to see the historical problem with that. Is your objection that men cannot be asleep for 309 years and then be awakened in perfect condition? Are you denying what God can do?

According to Surah 18:83-98 there is nothing to indicate that Zhul-Qarnain is Alexander the great. Shamoun makes another claim that the two horned one was a title given to Alexander the great pre-Islamic times without showing any proof or references. He does not show his source yet again. Secondly for argument's sake, let us assume that the two horned one was a title given to Alexander the great, this does not mean if the Quran calls some one else the two horned one that he has to be Alexander. It could still be someone else. Let us see what tafsir Ibn kathir said:

The Story of Dhul-Qarnayn Allah says to His Prophet ,

[æóíóÓúÜóáõæäóßó]

(And they ask you) O Muhammad ,

[Úóä Ðöì ÇáúÞóÑúäóíúäö]

(about Dhul-Qarnayn.) i.e., about his story. We have already mentioned how the disbelievers of Makkah sent word to the People of the Book and asked them for some information with which they could test the Prophet . They (the People of the Book) said, `Ask him about a man who traveled extensively throughout the earth, and about some young men who nobody knows what they did, and about the Ruh (the soul),' then Surat Al-Kahf was revealed. Dhul-Qarnayn had great Power

[ÅöäøóÇ ãóßøóäøóÇ áóåõ Ýöì ÇáÇøñÑúÖö]

(Verily, We established him in the earth,) means, `We have given him great power, so that he had all that kings could have of might, armies, war equipment and siege machinery.' So he had dominion over the east and the west, all countries and their kings submitted to him, and all the nations, Arab and non-Arab, served him. Some of them said he was called Dhul-Qarnayn (the one with two horns) because he reached the two "Horns" of the sun, east and west, where it rises and where it sets.

[æóÂÊóíúäóÜåõ ãöä ßõáøö ÔóìúÁò ÓóÈóÈÇð]

(and We gave him the means of everything.) Ibn `Abbas, Mujahid, Sa`id bin Jubayr, `Ikrimah, As-Suddi, Qatadah, Ad-Dahhak and others said, "This means knowledge.'' Qatadah also said,

[æóÂÊóíúäóÜåõ ãöä ßõáøö ÔóìúÁò ÓóÈóÈÇð]

(and We gave him the means of everything.) "The different parts and features of the earth.'' Concerning Bilqis, Allah said,

[æóÃõæÊöíóÊú ãöä ßõáøö ÔóìúÁò]

(she has been given all things) [27:23], meaning all things that monarchs like her are given. Thus too was Dhul-Qarnayn: Allah gave him the means of all things, meaning the means and power to conquer all areas, regions and countries, to defeat enemies, suppress the kings of the earth and humiliate the people of Shirk. He was given all that a man like him would need. And Allah knows best.

[ÝóÃóÊúÈóÚó ÓóÈóÈÇð - ÍóÊøóì ÅöÐóÇ ÈóáóÛó ãóÛúÑöÈó ÇáÔøóãúÓö æóÌóÏóåóÇ ÊóÛúÑõÈõ Ýöì Úóíúäò ÍóãöÆóÉò æóæóÌóÏó ÚöäÏóåóÇ ÞóæúãÇð ÞõáúäóÇ íÐóÇ ÇáúÞóÑúäóíúäö ÅöãøóÂ Ãóä ÊõÚóÐøöÈó æóÅöãøóÂ Ãóä ÊóÊøóÎöÐó Ýöíåöãú ÍõÓúäÇð - ÞóÇáó ÃóãøóÇ ãóä Ùóáóãó ÝóÓóæúÝó äõÚóÐøöÈõåõ Ëõãøó íõÑóÏøõ Åöáóì ÑóÈøöåö ÝóíõÚóÐøöÈõåõ ÚóÐóÇÈÇð äøõßúÑÇð - æóÃóãøóÇ ãóäú Âãóäó æóÚóãöáó ÕóÜáöÍÇð Ýóáóåõ ÌóÒóÂÁð ÇáúÍõÓúäóì æóÓóäóÞõæáõ áóåõ ãöäú ÃóãúÑöäóÇ íõÓúÑÇð ]

(85. So he followed a way.) (86. Until, when he reached the setting place of the sun, he found it setting in a spring of Hami'ah. And he found near it a people. We said: "O Dhul-Qarnayn! Either you punish them or treat them with kindness.'') (87. He said: "As for him who does wrong, we shall punish him, and then he will be brought back unto his Lord, Who will punish him with a terrible torment (Hell).'') (88. "But as for him who believes and works righteousness, he shall have the best reward, and we shall speak unto him mild words.'')

We don’t see anything about any Alexander. Visit this interesting link:

http://debate.domini.org/newton/alex.r.html

· · According to S. 4:157 the unbelieving Jews boasted by saying, "We killed the Messiah Jesus the son of Mary, the apostle of Allah." The only problem with this is that the unbelieving Jews never admitted that Jesus was Messiah and would not have killed him if they had believed that he was their long-awaited Messianic Deliverer. The unbelieving Jews had Jesus killed because they believed he was a false Messiah:

That is very easy to respond to. Shamoun's objection is that the Jews said they killed the messiah. Shamoun says that they would say no such thing had they believed he was indeed the messiah. Shamoun once again is going for anything. The Jews were simply mocking him. The Jews were simply making fun and playing around when they were calling him the messiah. Shamoun knows this yet tries to make an argument out of it. As the verse says: the unbelieving Jews boasted

They boasted, meaning showed off and started going around showing off as if they did something great. When you boast and so on you tend to mock and make fun of some one at the same time, as these Jews did, going around saying we killed the messiah in an act to make fun of Jesus for claiming to be the messiah. This happens everyday, when people mock each other or make fun of some one when he claims to be something, such as if some one claimed to be a king in the middle of the street, people would laugh around and say ‘ohhh kinggg pleasee clean the streets for us etc.’ Just because they call him king doesn’t mean they believe he is a king, but it is just play and making fun.

· · Christians are accused of worshiping Mary and Jesus as two gods apart from the true God:

And behold! Allah will say: "O Jesus the son of Mary! Didst thou say unto men, Worship me and my mother ... " S. 5:116

The verses don’t imply ALL Christians worship Mary. The fact of the matter is that many Christians have made Mary into God status and something more than she really is. Such as the Catholics do. Here are some links that do show that many Christians have in fact worshiped Mary and put her into a God status position:

https://www.answering-christianity.com/worship_mary.htm

http://www.islamic-awareness.org/Quran/Contrad/External/marytrin.html

"They do blaspheme who say: Allah is the third of three (inallaaha thaalithu thalaatha)" S. 5:73

"... so believe in Allah and His apostles. Say not three (thalaatha): desist: It will be better for you: for Allah is one Allah ..." S. 4:171

You could also refer to a book by Neil Robinson entitled “Christ in Islam and Christianity” where he discusses this verse and says that there indeed was a sect known as the Marimites that used to worship Mary.

These verses describe your trinity and what you say, that God is the third of three, there is no problem with that, the third of three is the same thing of what you claim. You claim the Holy Spirit is God, hence the Holy Spirit is the third of three; hence you do indeed say God is the third of three. As for the next verse, indeed say not THREE, for Allah is one, not three. Allah is not a trinity; I wonder how Shamoun missed that? The verse is making it clear Allah is ONE, not made up of three persons, and God is one, not three different persons who you call God hence ending up with three Gods!

Mary the Mother of Jesus is confused with Mary the sister of Aaron and Moses, the daughter of Amram:

"And Mary the daughter of Imran, who guarded her chastity.." S. 66:12.

"... They said: O Mary! Truly an amazing thing hast thou brought! O sister of Aaron! Thy father was not a man of evil, nor thy mother a woman unchaste." S. 19:27-28

"Then Mary (Heb. Mariam), the prophetess, the sister of Aaron, took the timbrel in her hand ..." Exodus 15:20

"The name of Amram's wife was Jochebed, the daughter of Levi, who was born to Levi in Egypt; and to Amram she bore Aaron and Moses and their sister Miriam." Numbers 27:59

This is an old argument that has been refuted countless of times; it is just you who cannot stand to accept the answer so you keep ranting over an old argument. Here are links that have already dealt with this supposed mistake of the Quran:

http://www.islamic-awareness.org/Quran/Contrad/External/mary.html

https://www.answering-christianity.com/quran/qbhc06.htm

https://www.answering-christianity.com/quran/qbhc06_1.htm

http://www.bismikaallahuma.org/Quran/Contra/External/sister_of_aaron.htm

http://www.drzakirnaik.com/pages/qanda/40.php

Of course Shamoun will claim that he has already refuted the arguments and responses by Muslims and that the responses by Muslims just don’t cut it. I would expect nothing more from him, but however so the Muslims have refuted his argument made up by Christians and it is in fact Christians who can’t provide a good response to the Muslim response but respond by giving their initial argument which the Muslims have already refuted!

The verse is clear, when it says sister of Aaron it did not mean literally as the prophet himself cleared it up, visit the links and you will see it for yourself. The Christians will no doubt keep bringing it up, but let them be.

He wrote:

ARGUMENT: 4

AUTHOR OF CARNAL PLEASURES

The Quranic paradise is totally different from the biblical portrait of heaven. In Allah's paradise, we find sexual and carnal pleasures for believers to engage in throughout eternity:

But give glad tidings to those who believe and work righteousness, that their portions is Gardens, beneath which rivers flow, every time they are fed with fruits therefrom, they say: "Why, this is what we were fed with before," for they are giving things in similitude; And they have therein damsels (Arabic - Houris ) pure (and holy); and they abide therein (forever)." S. 2:25

But to those who believe and do deeds of righteousness, We shall soon admit to Gardens, with rivers flowing beneath, their eternal home. Therein they have damsels pure and holy; We shall admit them to shades, cool and ever deepening. S. 4:57

Of a rare creation have We created the Houris, and We have made them ever virgins, dear to their spouses, of equal age with them for the people of the right hand. S. 56:35-38

But for those who fear Allah is a blissful abode, enclosed gardens and vineyards, and damsels with swelling breasts (Arabic - Kawa'eb), their peers in age, and a full cup. S. 78:31-34 (Arberry and Rodwell translate this part correctly, see also this overview page <../Quran/Versions/078.033.html>)

My Response:

Well as we already saw with the links I provided. The God of the Bible does indeed change his mind, so maybe he changed his mind on how he would want to make heaven. ;)

Now I believe Shamoun wants to make an argument that to have sex in heaven is something evil and perverted as many Christians like to say. However so this can be easily refuted.

1- It is heaven, heaven is the supreme success and pleasure, so this would be totally something different, it is not like Muslims are told to go and have sex and all the pleasure of the world in this life. It is the after life which is heaven which is again the supreme success.

2- The Christians make it seem to have beautiful women in heaven to have sex with is a crime and something evil and perverted. If so, then why would their God create sex in the first place? Why would their God create beautiful women in the first place? Why do you Christians have sex? Why do you Christians enjoy looking at beautiful women? Why do you beautiful Christian women enjoy being beautiful and make sure you look beautiful? Christians complain and make an argument about something in which they have no trouble in taking part in. So hence it seems Christians believe sex is evil and perverted, then this makes their God a pervert for making sex. It makes their God a pervert for making beautiful women and makes every Christian who has sex and who is beautiful or likes or wants to be beautiful a sick perverted human! So the fact is, their God allowed sex on earth. They complain about sex in heaven as if sex is evil, hence what makes sex on earth more pure than sex in heaven? The fact is nothing. The Christians argument is not that having sex in heaven is bad because its heaven, their argument is because sex is bad! Their argument is that being rewarded with the option of having sex is something evil! Hence their God is a pervert and so is every Christian who has sex, and every Christian must now leave Christianity since they too have sex which they believe is evil! Hilarious indeed! It amazes me to see such ridiculous arguments.

He wrote:

ARGUMENT: 4

AUTHOR OF FOREIGN WORDS

The Quran claims to be in pure Arabic speech:

We have sent it down as an Arabic Quran, in order that ye may learn wisdom. S. 12:2

"An Arabic Quran, wherein there is no crookedness..." S. 9:28

And We know very well that they say, "Only a mortal is teaching him." The speech of him at whom they hint is barbarous- and this is Arabic, pure and clear. S. 16:103

But according to Arabic scholars the Quran is not in pure Arabic, containing dozens of foreign

words:

Abariq, S. 56:18, Persian

Adam, S. 2:34, Akkadian

Araik, S. 18:31, Persian

Firdaus, S. 18:107, Pahlavi

Fir'awn, S. 73:15, Syriac

Habr, S. 9:31, Hebrew (Haver)

Istabraq, S. 18:31, Persian (Istabar)

Sakina, S. 2:248, Hebrew

Sijjil (baked clay), S. 105:4, Persian

Taghut (idols), S. 2:257, Syriac (Teghutha)

Zakat, S. 2:110, Syriac (Zkhutha)

Zanjabil (ginger), S. 76:17, Pahlavi

My Response:

RESPONSE

This shows that Shamoun's main goal of this article was to attack the Quran and Islam.

To begin with, let us post the verses he posted:

We have sent it down as an Arabic Quran, in order that ye may learn wisdom. S. 12:2

"An Arabic Quran, wherein there is no crookedness..." S. 9:28

And We know very well that they say, "Only a mortal is teaching him." The speech of him at whom they hint is barbarous- and this is Arabic, pure and clear. S. 16:103

Something PURE means without any corruption. When the Quran says PURE Arabic it means Arabic containing no falsehood or lies. Pure meaning clean and truthful. An Arabic without any crookedness meaning no corruption or lies like the Bible. The fact is words are taken from cultures and adapted and eventually become part of that language. Such as alcohol and sugar is now recognized as English words when in fact their origin is Arabic, but no one goes and says that they are not English words. Shamoun's main response to this is that this answer cannot stand because the Quran is the eternal speech of God and existed before any human language was here. However so, this is also easy to respond to. The fact is that Allah simply chose to take and use such words. This in fact shows Allah’s knowledge. That he knew all languages before time and how some words would adapt to other languages. Shamoun once again plays the game of why would God do this? Rather than keep questioning why God would do this or that just stick to what he did rather than keep making rubbish arguments.

He wrote:

ARGUMENT: 5

AUTHOR OF GRAMMATICAL ERRORS

Not only does the Quran contain foreign words, but according to Arabic grammarians it also contains grammatical mistakes:

The Qor'an contains sentences which are incomplete and not fully intelligible without the aid of commentaries; foreign words, unfamiliar Arabic words, and words used with other than the normal meaning, adjectives and verbs inflected without observance of the concords of gender and number- illogically and ungrammatically applied pronouns which sometimes have no referent- and predicates which in rhymed passages are often remote from the subjects ... To sum up, more than one hundred Qor'anic aberrations from the normal rules and structures have been noted... ( Ali Dashti, 23 Years: A Study of the Prophetic Career of Muhammad [Costa Mesa, Ca. 1994; Mazda Publishers], pp. 48, 50)

few examples include the following passages:

· · S. 7:56 - "The mercy of Allah is near"

Arabic - "inna rahmata Allahi qaribun min al-mohseneen."

The word qaribun is the predicate of rahmata Allahi, and as such should match in gender. Since rahmata is feminine the word qaribun (which is masculine ) should be qaribah, its feminine form.

· · S. 7:160 - "We divided them in twelve tribes"

Arabic - "wa qata'nahom 'ethnata 'ashrata asbatan."

In Arabic, any noun which is counted by a number above ten should be singular, as is the case in S. 7:142; 2:60; 5:12; 9:36; 12:4. As such the Arabic asbatan should be sebtan.

· · S. 5:69 - "Surely they that believe, and those of Jewry, and the Sabians, and the Christians, whosoever believes in Allah and the Last Day, and works righteousness- no fear shall be on them, neither shall they sorrow."

Arabic- "Innal-laziina 'aamanuu wal-laziina haaduu was-Saabi'uuna wan-Nasaara man'amaana bilaahi wal-Yawmil Aakhiri wa 'amila saali-hanfalaa khaw-fun 'alay-him wa laa hum yah-zanuun."

According to scholars, the Arabic Saabi'uuna has been wrongly declined. Compare the same grammatical structure found in the following suras:

S. 2:62- "Innal-laziina 'aamanuu wal-laziina haaduu wan-Nasaara was-Saabi'iina..."

S. 22:17- "Innal-laziina 'aamanuu wal-laziina haaduu was-Saabi'iina wan-Nasaara..."

In the last two suras the term was declined correctly, Saabi'iina, as opposed to Saabi'uuna. This is due to the word inna found in the beginning of the sentence causing a form of declension called "nasb" (as in the cases of accusative or subjunctive) with the "yeh" being the "sign of nasb". But the word Saabi'uuna is given the case of 'uu, a sign of "rafa" ( as in cases of nominative and indicative ). Accordingly, the verse in 5:69 is wrong.

· · S. 91:5 - "By the heaven and that which built it."

Arabic- "was-samaaa-i wa maa ba-naahaa."

The word ma is impersonal in Arabic. Yet, the subject of the verse is Allah, heaven's Creator. As such the word man, meaning "him who", should have been used instead of the impersonal ma.

The Muslim scholar Ibn al-Khatib in his book al Furqan quotes Muhammad's wife Aisha as saying:

"There are three grammatical errors in the Book of Allah, they are the fault of the scribe: In 20:63 ... And in 5:69 ... And in 4:162." (Muhammad M. abd al-Latif Ibn al-Khatib, Al-Furqan [Dar al-Kutub al-Elmiyah, Beirut], p. 91)

After seeing the first standard copy of the Quran, Islam's third Caliph Uthman proclaimed, "I see grammatical errors in it, and the Arabs will read it correctly with their tongues." (Ibid., p.90)

My Response:

RESPONSE

As for Aisha saying there are grammatical errors in the Quran, and the same with Uthman, Shamoun always seems to get more desperate! The grammatical errors mentioned by both Aisha and Uthman were that of SCRIBES. They miswrote a few words and so on, nothing bad, this happens when you copy or write a lot. Shamoun very well knows the same criteria can be used against his own book with the mistakes of scribes and so on, so why use an argument that can be used against him? As for the rest of what Shamoun said on mistakes in grammar and wrong sentences and so on. I for one am not an Arabic scholar and I’m not very good in Arabic, neither is Shamoun. However so I am sure that any good Arabic speaking Muslim will easily correct you and refute you on what you have said as many Arabic speaking Muslims have done to many Christians who claim that there are grammatical mistakes in the Quran. Here are some links to show Muslim's refuting arguments of grammatical errors in the Quran:

http://www.islamic-awareness.org/Quran/Text/Grammar/gramrefut.html

http://www.islamic-awareness.org/Quran/Text/Grammar/iltifaat.html

http://www.islamic-awareness.org/Quran/Text/Grammar/robinson.html

http://www.islamic-awareness.org/Polemics/poetry.html

http://www.islamic-awareness.org/Quran/Miracle/ijaz1.html#2

http://www.islamic-awareness.org/Quran/Text/Scribal/scribal.html

http://www.islamic-awareness.org/Quran/Text/Scribal/haleem.html

http://www.islamic-awareness.org/Quran/Text/luxreview1.html

http://www.bismikaallahuma.org/Quran/Q_Studies/ahruf.htm

http://www.bismikaallahuma.org/Quran/Q_Studies/qiraat.htm

http://members.aol.com/AlHaqq4u/khalid.html

http://www.understanding-islam.org/related/text.asp?type=article&aid=18

https://www.answering-christianity.com/quran/grammar2.htm

He wrote:

ARGUMENT: 6

ALLAH AND OATHS

My Response:

RESPONSE

Shamoun has written a more detailed article on Allah and his oaths, therefore I shall be writing my response to this argument in a rebuttal against his long article Allah and oaths.

He wrote:

ARGUMENT: 7

ALLAH IS NOT TRIUNE

The final proof that Allah is not Yahweh Elohim of the Holy Bible is that Allah is not a trinity. According to the Holy Bible, there is only One true God (Deuteronomy 6:4; Galatians 3:20).

Yet, at the same time Scripture affirms that this One God eternally exists in three Persons:

The Father

"...elect according to the foreknowledge of God the Father..." 1 Peter 1:2

The Son

"... looking for that blessed hope and glorious appearing of our Great God and Savior Jesus Christ..." Titus 2:13

The Holy Spirit

"But Peter said, 'Ananias, why has Satan filled your heart to lie to the Holy Spirit... you have not lied to men but to God." Acts 5:3-4

Three in One

"... baptizing them in the Nam e(singular- implying unity) of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit..." Matthew 28:19

My Response:

RESPONSE

Indeed Allah is not triune, not a belief shared by Muslims only but by many Christians as well:

https://www.answering-christianity.com/early_christians.htm

Jehovah's witnesses don’t believe in the trinity.

And Unitarian Christians.

So that ends this rebuttal to Shamoun’s article. As you can see for yourself, all his arguments were baseless and did not discredit Islam at all.

Secondly many of the arguments he uses can be based against him and are applied to him, hence he should leave Christianity. You all saw for yourself that Shamoun believes his God is the author of evil and EVERYTHING. Shamoun used such an argument against Allah forgetting that he himself believed in it; hence he must leave Christianity since he believes this is something evil. Another article another rebuttal!