A response to 16


According to Al-Kadhi: "In this book we have seen the evidence for the following" (with my responses):

1) The very first Christians were Unitarians and not "Trinitarians."

No they were not! What historical proof exists to support this statement? The early Christians believed in the Triune nature of God.

2) The apostles had never heard of a "Trinity" and abided strictly by a continuation of the law of Moses which Jesus himself had also abided by during his lifetime and continued to do so until the crucifixion.

No, Mr. Al Kadhi! You are deliberately mixing terms and concepts. They did not know of the term "Trinity", but they most certainly knew of the concept. Please refer to the numerous verses that I mentioned in another section and read them! The Apostles and early Christians were very familiar with these verses and the ideas that they conveyed.

3) St. Paul persecuted the followers of Jesus (pbuh) and even presided over the death of some Christians such as Stephen.

True, but the love and truth of God rescued Paul.

4) Suddenly, St. Paul claimed that he was singled out by Jesus' ghost to receive a divine revelation which was deprived the apostles. He then considered himself more knowledgeable than the apostles and considered them to be "hypocrites" and even quite lazy misguided ones at that.

Muhammad made a similar claim and you believe him! The difference is that Paul's teachings did not contradict the teachings of Jesus which did not contradict the teachings of all of the Prophets who came before Jesus. The same cannot be said for Muhammad and his teachings.

5) Even such fundamental verses as those describing Paul's "salvation" and his heavenly "vision" contain very serious discrepancies and even a sworn affidavit by Paul himself that they were a fabrication.

Once again, Al-Kadhi attempts to distort the message of Paul.

6) St. Paul was responsible for changing almost every single aspect of the religion of Jesus (pbuh) imaginable. He began by relaxing specific laws of the religion of Jesus but in the end discarded them all. He is the author of the majority of the books of the New Testament available today.

No he did not. Paul preached to the Gentiles (non-Jews). These people were not bound by the Law of Moses..

7) Paul's church later went on to persecute and kill any and all Christians who did not adopt their views.

Those who did this disobeyed the teachings of Jesus as well as Paul. Muhammad's followers went on to commit many horrendous acts also, but they did these things in obedience to the teachings of Muhammad and the Koran.

8) The Trinitarian Church was a direct result of the attempt to convert the Gentiles "by all means" and which involved a gradual compromise in the founding doctrines of Jesus' message. In the end this system of compromise became so extensive that Pagan philosophy and theology began to find its way into its doctrines. The concept of the "Trinity" was borrowed from the pagan Romans and Greeks in order to be able to finally validate their doctrine of "Son of the Almighty." This was done roughly two hundred years after the departure of Jesus (pbuh). They then went about inserting "inspired" verses into the Bible to validate their views, such as 1 John 5:7. Christian scholars tell us that these "inspired" additions and "corrections" were continuing at least until the fifteenth century.

The issue of Pagan influences on Christianity, as well as on Islam, is discussed in Chapter 3.

9) Paul's church chose four Gospels which they themselves approved of and then burned over three hundred other "unacceptable" Gospels. Some of which were written by the apostles themselves and which are recorded even to this day to have been accepted as authentic back at a time when our present Gospels were considered apocryphal. Their church also felt it necessary to destroy all Hebrew manuscripts of the Bible and suffice with Greek and Latin manuscripts.

When were the present Gospels considered apocryphal? I do not believe that Mr. Al-Kadhi can find any source, even one that he can quote out of context, to support this claim! Some Church leaders did burn some documents, however, there is a very large collection of apocryphal works which survives to this day. Also, once again, Al-Kadhi notices the splinter in someone else eye while he ignore the beam in his own. Caliph Uthman, who compiled the Koran and decided what verses would included, burned all of the variant texts - even those of Muhammad's companions.

10) God Almighty sent down the Qur'an upon Muhammad teaching him Islam and informing him that the message of Jesus (pbuh) had been tampered with and changed by mankind.

The Koran DOES NOT claim that anyone tampered with the Bible. In fact, the Koran upholds the integrity of the Bible. Also, on what evidence do you base your claims concerning the Koran? Can you prove that the Koran is from God or are your practicing blind faith?

11) Unitarian Christians from North Africa and other regions who had not yet been totally eradicated by the Pauline church recognized the similarity between Islam and the religion they had received from Jesus through the apostles (and not through Paul). They became Muslims.

A few accepted Islam willingly, many accepted it under duress. Those who did not accept Islam suffered greatly and many paid with their lives.

12) Copies of The Gospel of Barnabas began to be discovered in the Vatican and other places but had a tendency to "disappear" mysteriously. The official viewpoint of the Pauline church was that the Gospel of Barnabas was a Muslim forgery. The Gospel of Barnabas not only confirmed virtually everything the Qur'an had been saying for fourteen hundred years now, but also mentions Muhammad (pbuh) by name. It contains an eye and ear witness account of Jesus' ministry by one of the foremost apostles of Jesus (Barnabas) and not a hearsay account from a "vision" by someone who never met Jesus (Paul).

The Gospel of Barnabas has not disappeared. This "Gospel" is a Medieval forgery that contradicts the Koran as well as the Bible.

13) The Dead Sea Scrolls were discovered in the twentieth century and countless similarities of content and doctrine were observed between them and the Qur'an. They specifically mention that there will be not one but TWO messiahs. They also confirm the fact that the first messiah (Jesus, pbuh) will not be killed on the cross but will be saved by God.

I suggest you read what the Dead Sea Scrolls say before you make such absurd statements!

14) Today countless examples of very serious and obvious contradictions can be found between the verses of Bible. These contradictions are well known and documented and even such eminent conservative Trinitarian Christians as Tischendorf found no recourse but to acknowledge them. Only one singe ancient copy of the Bible was found to contain over 14,800 "variant readings" and even our own modern Bibles are estimated to contain around 50,000 errors and contradictions. Once again proving the affirmations of the Qur'an. 15) Even such scholars as the majority of today's Anglican Bishops now reject the divinity of Jesus (pbuh), and thus, the "Trinity," but recognize Jesus (pbuh) to be what Islam says he was: An very elect (but mortal) messenger of God.

Unable to come up with any good Islamic arguments, Al-Kadhi has adopts the Jehovah's Witness argument! Where are these Bible contradictions? Also, what did the Anglican Bishops really say?

16) The scholars of the Old Testament are now agreed that even the "five books of Moses," as we have them today, were not written by Moses but were the result of a very expert splicing of four different accounts of Moses's ministry each written by a different tribe of the Jews.

Who are these scholars? Mr. Al-Kadhi calls anyone whose words he can quote out of context, a scholar. To be "an eminent" scholar in Al-Kadhi's book, one only needs to not believe in the Bible!

17) When faced with all of this evidence the official standpoint of most of the evangelists has now become a combination of "Blind faith" and the application of abstraction to all verses which do not sit well with them in a desperate attempt to cling on to that which their own scholars have now recognized as human tampering with the Gospel of Jesus (pbuh) and the previous prophets.

Who are the scholars that claim "tampering" and what is their proof? Also, is something true because a man with a degree says that it is true? It is not difficult to find an "authority" to support or refute any position. There are scholars who claim that the Koran is a complete fabrication!

18) Even science has now come to endorse the affirmation of the Qur'an that it is from God. Many examples of scientific statements have been critically studied by unbiased non-Muslim scientists and have been shown to be completely accurate even though mankind did not discover these facts until many centuries after the death of Muhammad (pbuh). In fact, many of these matters were not proven true until this century.

It amazes me that Muslims "find" these "scientific statements" in the Koran only after on the "scientific discoveries" are made by Western scientists. If the "science" in the Koran is so self evident, why did Muslims not know these things before they were discovered in the West?

Here is some information on the "Science" of the Koran.

Mr. Al-Kadhi concludes by saying : "I encourage all readers to objectively think about what they have read and let their faith and mind join one-another in order to arrive at the truth of God, the truth of Islam."

I also ask that the readers think about what they have read and what they believe. On what foundations do you base your faith? I base my faith on the Old Testament prophecies about the Messiah and the fulfillment of these by Jesus. I believe that Jesus Christ died for my sins, for Mr. Al-Kadhi's sins, and for your sins. I do not place my eternal salvation on blind faith. The 300 prophecies in the Old Testament, everyone of which was fulfilled by Jesus, gives me a firm and rational foundation for my beliefs.

For me to accept the Koran as God's word, I would be forced to believe that Jesus did not die on the cross. For this to be true, I would have to believe that all of the predictions of God's prophets were wrong. I would also be required to accept that the testimonies of the Apostles and disciples of Jesus were false, and that the history written by the non-Christian historians of the era such as Tacitus, Porphyry, Celsus, Josephus, Suetonius, and Pliny were also incorrect. The historical evidence, along with archaeological evidence prevents my rational mind from rejecting the truth of the Bible.

Why do I reject the teachings of Muhammad? When I look at Muhammad, I see a man who claimed to be a Prophet. However, Muhammad (unlike Jesus) was not prophesied in the earlier scriptures, he performed no miracles, he gave no prophecies (at least none that came true), and contradicted the teachings of most of the Prophets before him. I also see a man who often conveniently "received" revelations which allowed him to have his way with money (Sura 58:12), women (Sura 66:3-5), and power (Sura 5:33). Also, when I look at Muhammad, I see a man who compromised his message to appeal to the Pagans of Mecca.

I pray that everyone, Muslim and Christian, will objectively look at the evidence. Please read the Bible and honestly compare its message to that of Muhammad and the Koran.

The Rebuttal to "What Did Jesus Really Say?"
Answering Islam Home Page