 |
| [original cartoon pending] |
CITATION
Rasheed, Muhammad. "Discerning the Assurances of God." Cartoon. The Official Website of Cartoonist M. Rasheed 00 Date 20XX. Pen & ink w/Adobe Photoshop color.
CLICK & SUBSCRIBE below for the Artist's Description of this #MRasheedCartoons image:
M. Rasheed on YouTube!
M. Rasheed on BitChute!
**************************
Matt - You lie through your teeth, and do the very thing you accuse Christians of doing. Have you no shame? Your Quran confirms that the Scriptures that Jews and Christians had at the time of Mohammed were uncorrupted revelations from God to be consulted if there should be any doubt about Mohammed’s revelations. These Scriptures, unlike your Quran have been accurately preserved to this day and we have undeniable proof of that fact.
The Quran, on the other hand, was a total and complete mess from the beginning. We have undeniable proof that it was never preserved with accuracy, despite the perfect preservation claims.
The Quran also says that his word cannot be corrupted, and since the Quran identifies the Jewish and Christian scriptures as the word of Allah, then it should have been impossible for any corruption to take place. Your argument is that Christian purposefully corrupted it, but we know this to be false for reasons already stated above.
Other Muslims will submit that the Bible hasn’t been corrupted, but that Jews and Christian corrupt its interpretations. Thankfully, since we have these texts we can judge based on what the Bible says, and not about what liars like you say about it. The truth will always win because it never changes. The Quran changes it’s mind about the rules all the time, conveniently giving Mohammed license to break the rules laid down by previous revelation.
Your god the Great Deceiver has taught you well. Keep lying like your father the devil.
Muhammad Rasheed - Matt wrote: “You lie through your teeth”
According to what? Your biases and emotions? Why would I care what you think?
Matt wrote: “and do the very thing you accuse Christians of doing”
Muslims have a preserved scripture while Christians infamously don’t, so that’s not true.
Matt wrote: “Have you no shame?”
Why would I be ashamed to be in the company of the people of truth? Aren’t you ashamed to be a pagan-polytheist?
Matt wrote: “Your Quran confirms”
You’re adorable. You have NO IDEA what’s in the Qur’an because we both know you’ve never read it. Your entire shtick is to blindly spreading the hate propaganda you copy/paste from Shamoun & Co.
Matt wrote: “that the Scriptures that Jews and Christians had at the time of Mohammed were uncorrupted revelations from God to be consulted if there should be any doubt about Mohammed’s revelations.”
That’s not what the Qur’an says at all. You all just invented your own twisted interpretation of the verses that you pass along as a faux-truth.
Matt wrote: “These Scriptures, unlike your Quran have been accurately preserved to this day and we have undeniable proof of that fact.”
Your own biblical scholarship fiercely disagrees with you.
Matt wrote: “The Quran, on the other hand, was a total and complete mess from the beginning.”
You’re lying, and projecting onto the Qur’an everything bible scholars admit about the bible. Shame on you.
Matt wrote: “We have undeniable proof that it was never preserved with accuracy, despite the perfect preservation claims.”
Again, you’re a shameless liar.
Matt wrote: “The Quran also says that his word cannot be corrupted”
It hasn’t been. That’s literally WHY the Qur’an is on earth, to preserve the message God revealed to the prophets of olde—the Qur’an confirms, fulfills and corrects the previous scriptures, and is in fact a fuller explanation of the Book of Moses. That means, the previous scriptures are abrogated with the Qur’an.
Matt wrote: “and since the Quran identifies the Jewish and Christian scriptures as the word of Allah”
lol No, it identifies the revelation that the prophets of olde preached to the people as the Word of Allah. The bible can never pretend to be those works according to biblical scholarship. “Grave defects” is the literal opposite of inerrant Word of God, innit?
Matt wrote: “then it should have been impossible for any corruption to take place”
God’s normal method for dealing with the corruption of the people of the book was to merely anoint a new prophet to bring you back to the Path, but since there will be no more prophets after Muhammadﷺ, Allah said HE would preserve it directly Himself.
Matt wrote: “Your argument is that Christian purposefully corrupted it”
Both the Jews and the Christians purposely corrupted your book because you’d rather be secular-thirsty pagans that be submitted to the Lord thy God. Shame on you.
Matt wrote: “Other Muslims will submit that the Bible hasn’t been corrupted”
You’re speaking on behalf of hypocrites, too, huh?
Matt wrote: “Thankfully, since we have these texts we can judge based on what the Bible says”
The very same bible that bible scholars admit is corrupt, mind you. smh
Matt wrote: “and not about what liars like you say about it.”
You’re the liar here. And you are weak-minded.
Matt wrote: “The truth will always win”
Sure does.
Matt wrote: “because it never changes.”
True. That’s why deliberately violating the first & greatest Commandment by worshiping the Hebrew prophet, son of Mary as a ‘2nd-person in a triune idol’ is a hellbound offense. I suggest you repent.
Matt wrote: “The Quran changes it’s mind about the rules all the time”
Said the guy who has never read the Qur’an before. 🙄
Matt wrote: “conveniently giving Mohammed license to break the rules laid down by previous revelation.”
lol What rules were broken from your bible that Christians claim isn’t revelation at all, but “divinely inspired writings?”
Matt wrote: “Your god”
There is only One God, pagan.
Matt wrote: “the Great Deceiver has taught you well.”
Matt wrote: “Keep lying like your father the devil.”
According to the bible, it would not be possible for Islam to be tied to the devil, since in the Qur’an, Allah instructs the believers to seek refuge with Him from the devil.
I've noticed that Christians frequently ignore what their own book says to instead conjure brand new doctrine based on their xenophobic hatred.
Matt - First, let me acknowledge that I allowed my emotions to lead in my previous reply. That was a mistake, and I’ll do better here.
That said, I won’t let personal attacks, misrepresentations of my faith, or historical revisionism go unchallenged. You’ve made bold assertions about my religion, Christianity, while defending your own faith by grossly distorting both the historical record and Islamic scholarship. Let’s clarify a few things, with sources—not slogans.
1. The Quran Confirms the Authority of the Torah and Gospel
You claimed:
“The Quran doesn’t identify the Bible as the Word of God.”
That’s simply false. The Quran explicitly refers to the Torah and Gospel as divine revelation:
• Surah Al-Ma’idah (5:44): “Indeed, We sent down the Torah, in which was guidance and light.”
• Surah Al-Ma’idah (5:46): “And We sent… Jesus… and We gave him the Gospel, in which was guidance and light.”
• Surah Al-Ma’idah (5:47): “Let the People of the Gospel judge by what Allah has revealed therein.”
If the Torah and Gospel had already been hopelessly corrupted, it’s irrational for the Quran to instruct Christians to judge by them in their present form during Muhammad’s time. Muslim scholars have wrestled with this for centuries, because the Quran both affirms and critiques earlier scriptures. That tension is real and unresolved—not something that can be hand-waved away.
2. The Claim that Jews and Christians Deliberately Corrupted Scripture
You argue:
“They purposely corrupted your book.”
First, no Christian has ever believed the Bible was dictated like the Qur’an. We’ve always believed it was inspired and preserved through the community of faith. The idea that Jews and Christians collaborated across time and geography to consciously corrupt their own scriptures—while leaving no trace of the “uncorrupted” versions—is not supported by evidence.
Moreover, many classical Muslim scholars (like al-Tabari and Fakhr al-Din al-Razi) believed that the earlier scriptures were corrupted primarily in meaning, not text. The Quran itself criticizes some people for “twisting their tongues” (3:78), or hiding truth, not for rewriting entire books.
3. The Quran’s Preservation Problem
You claimed the Quran has been perfectly preserved. But this is not only contradicted by Western scholars—it’s now being admitted by Muslim scholars.
• Sheikh Yasir Qadhi (2020): In a widely circulated interview, he admitted, “We do not have one qira’at, we have many. There’s the issue of Ahruf, and this is a very difficult topic… Most Muslims have not been taught this… and that’s why you’re asking me these questions. This is not something you just give to the masses.”
(Video: YouTube - Yasir Qadhi interview with Muhammad Hijab)
• Ibn Umar (companion of Muhammad): “Let none of you say, ‘I have acquired the whole of the Qur’an.’ How does he know what all of it is when much of the Qur’an has disappeared?”
(Suyuti, al-Itqan fi Ulum al-Qur’an, Vol. 3, p. 72)
• Aisha (Prophet’s wife) mentioned verses that were once part of the Quran—like the verse of stoning and breastfeeding—being lost or eaten by an animal.
(Sunan Ibn Majah, 1944)
Furthermore, Uthman’s recension was a political move that destroyed variant Qurans compiled by early companions like Ibn Mas’ud and Ubayy ibn Ka’b. Even today, the Hafs and Warsh Qurans differ by over 1,300 documented variants.
Perfect preservation? The evidence says otherwise.
4. Rules Being Changed in the Quran
You dismissed my point about the Quran changing its rules as if I had never read it. Let’s look at the Quran itself:
• Surah Al-Baqarah (2:106): “We do not abrogate a verse or cause it to be forgotten except that We bring forth one better than it or similar to it.”
That is, by definition, a change in rules. The idea of abrogation (naskh) is well known and taught in tafsir and usul al-fiqh.
Moreover, Muhammad was given exceptions from his own laws:
• He was allowed more than four wives (33:50).
• Rules about inheritance and fasting changed multiple times.
By biblical standards, that is not the mark of a consistent divine lawgiver.
5. The Accusation of Xenophobic Hate
You accused me of being part of some wave of xenophobic hatred. That’s unfair and untrue. Criticizing Islam—just as you criticize Christianity—does not make someone a bigot. If we’re exchanging ideas, they must be open to scrutiny. I have not slandered your ethnicity, race, or person. I’ve responded to your claims. If there’s anything xenophobic about that, then every Muslim who critiques Christian doctrine would be guilty too—which I’m sure you’d deny.
Conclusion
You’ve claimed the high ground while twisting facts, falsely accusing others of hatred, and repeating common apologetic slogans without engaging honestly with your own sources. If you’d like to have a genuine, respectful, intellectually honest conversation, I welcome it. But if you continue with personal attacks, appeals to smug superiority, and theological baiting, I’ll disengage.
Until then, I’ll let the evidence speak for itself.
Muhammad Rasheed - Matt wrote: “misrepresentations of my faith”
You misrepresent my faith, yet here I find you accusing me of doing it to you. Is this not the very definition of hypocrisy?
Matt wrote: “You’ve made bold assertions about my religion, Christianity, while defending your own faith by grossly distorting both the historical record and Islamic scholarship”
I’m not convinced you know Christianity’s role in history, since you lot tend to be satisfied with what you are carefully spoonfed by your pastor and you ignore anything that makes you uncomfortable. I certainly don’t believe you know anything about Islam as your original emotion-based tantrum demonstrated.
Matt wrote: “Let’s clarify a few things, with sources—not slogans”
I literally used the preface from the bible, a scholarly white paper, and verses from both the bible (Matthew 12:26) and the Qur’an (Q23:97) as my sources, but you called all of them “slogans.” I can already tell this duel isn’t going to go your way. lol
Matt wrote: “The Quran explicitly refers to the Torah and Gospel as divine revelation”
No, it does not. Allah says that the message He sent to Moses was the Torah, and the message He sent to the Christ, son of Mary was the Gospel. The modern Old and New Testaments cannot pretend to be those works the prophets preached during their lifetimes. Jewish scholars admit the first five books of their book are not the same as what Moses preached, and the Christian scholars admit the 4-gospels of the New Testament were written by an army of often contradictory anonymous randoms. Just because you arrogantly label the sloppily corrupt books “Torah” and “Gospel” doesn’t fool anyone.
Matt wrote: “If the Torah and Gospel had already been hopelessly corrupted, it’s irrational for the Quran to instruct Christians to judge by them in their present form during Muhammad’s time”
Agreed. It means that it would be best for them to convert to Islam and accept the pure revelation from the prophet who was still among them, instead of risk their souls to eternal torment relying upon a corrupted scripture. The message God gave to Jesus was preserved in the Qur’an.
Matt wrote: “the Quran both affirms and critiques earlier scriptures”
The Qur’an confirms those parts of the previous scriptures that are miraculously still true and abrogates them, fulfills prophecy, and corrects the “grave defects” within it as biblical scholars admit to it having.
Matt wrote: “First, no Christian has ever believed the Bible was dictated like the Qur’an”
Okay, but why would I care what the gullible sheep-of-the-pews uncritically believed about their corrupted religion? I only care what your learned biblical scholars have found and admit to. That’s where the actual interesting information is, not in the posts of triggered true believers. What possible value would listening to you spout your unsupported (by anything!) ideological beliefs at me have?
Matt wrote: “The idea that Jews and Christians collaborated across time and geography to”
🙄 The reason your book is corrupt is because neither of you made any effort whatsoever to seriously preserve the teachings of the prophets which came from God. When you did decide to make some serious effort to preserve the old tales and philosophies, it was already far too late and most of it was forgotten. Worse, it was the infamously corrupt cliques like the Pharisees, Sadducees (the same goons who schemed to have the messiah killed, mind you) and the monarchs of Old Europe, who were in charge of developing the book for posterity, hence all the mistakes, errors, “grave defects” and humiliating contradictions throughout.
Matt wrote: “while leaving no trace of the ‘uncorrupted’ versions”
The original uncorrupted message was no less than the oral version preached by the prophets during their lifetimes—the very same that you admitted no one tried to dictate as if it were actually important. lol Too bad your spiritual ancestors didn’t take that material as seriously as the Muslims did. It makes you all look extremely irresponsible.
Matt wrote: “not for rewriting entire books.”
You waste your time. From the very beginning, your book was corrupted, because at no point as you admitted did the early believers think to verbatim copy down the teachings of the prophets. For some reason, they never thought it was necessary. The Jews were probably just lazy and expected a new prophet to always show up preaching the refreshed Word, at least until they reached the stage of killing all the new prophets that showed up, signaling the end of their YHWH-anointed rule in the land and the destruction of their Temple for their blasphemies & rebellion.
Matt wrote: “You claimed the Quran has been perfectly preserved”
This is true. I noticed you completely ignored my post referencing the Leiden University Centre for Linguistics research findings revealed the Muslim claims were actually true after a formal scholarly deep dive.
Matt wrote: “he admitted, ‘We do not have one qira’at, we have many’”
lol You have NO IDEA what that guy is actually saying, and you’re trying to use the quote to score a ‘gotcha.’ Prophet Muhammadﷺ revealed seven variant Arabic dialects of the Qur’an that are spoken by the people in the regions of Arabia just outside of where the early Muslims of Mecca/Medina lived. Those variants are only varied dialects of the same Arabic message, and the presence of the many “qira’ats” represent nothing more than specialized, high-level insider knowledge for Arabic speaking connoisseurs, that’s why the average Muslim doesn’t know this stuff. It’s certainly not info for one such as you to go around pretending you have something over the people of truth. Even bringing it up like this makes you look like a clown, because you are blindly copy/pasting info without understanding it AT ALL.
Matt wrote: “• Ibn Umar (companion of Muhammad): ‘Let none of you say, ‘I have acquired’”
This isn’t a quote from a companion of the prophet, but from the Islamic scholar as-Suyuti (d. 1500sAD). He isn’t saying what you think he’s saying, which is the danger of blindly copying something without any understanding and somehow thinking you’re scoring a ‘gotcha.’ This performance makes you untrustworthy and an anti-intellectual.
Matt wrote: “• Aisha (Prophet’s wife) mentioned verses that were once part of the Quran—like the verse of stoning and breastfeeding—being lost or eaten by an animal.”
This is from a long debunked false hadith. The problem with you trying to use this foolishness to prove the Qur’an isn’t preserved is the fact that the written pages of the Qur’an were always the backup copies, never the primary. The primary version of the Qur’an is the memorized recitations of the faithful. Any written pages that were lost would quickly be re-scribed because of all the faithful who immediately committed the revelation to memory. If you bothered to actually study Islam, you wouldn’t make these silly, kindergarten-level mistakes.
Matt wrote: “Furthermore, Uthman’s recension was a political move that destroyed variant Qurans”
Again, the seven variant recitations concept was always part of the religion and were actually provided by the prophet himself—they are not corrupt deviations of the source text. When the caliph and his advisors decided there needed to be an official written copy to use for global proselytizing of the faith, Uthman wanted only copies in the prophet’s original hejazi dialect for the standardization project, so he got rid of all the random variant copies the Muslims had so there would be no confusion. The imagined grand conspiracy of a wholly new Qur’an that the fools among the disbelievers conjured is a complete fictional tale.
Matt wrote: “You dismissed my point about the Quran changing its rules”
I sure did.
Matt wrote: “as if I had never read it”
Reading cherry-picked verses compiled on Shamoun’s website is not the same thing as reading the Qur’an in its entirety for yourself. smh
Matt wrote: “Let’s look at the Quran itself:”
You mean, “Let’s look at my goofy, twisted interpretation of what I want the Qur’an to say, and somehow expect this Muslim to blindly go along with what I say about his Book!” lol
Matt wrote: “• Surah Al-Baqarah (2:106): ’We do not abrogate a verse or cause it to be forgotten except that We bring forth one better than it or similar to it.’”
God isn’t talking about abrogating the Qur’an, He’s talking about the new scriptures abrogate previous scriptures. The Qur’an abrogates the Torah and the Gospel. In fact, Allah calls the Qur’an a fuller explanation of the Book of Moses for that purpose. And didn’t Jesus prophesy that a fuller version of his Gospel was to come after him? Preached by the comforting spirit of truth (John 14:26; John 16:12-14)?
Matt wrote: “Moreover, Muhammad was given exceptions from his own laws:”
So? The office he held came with certain perks/benefits that the average believer didn’t get. What about it? Do you rate all the earthly-level perks that the Pope (or whoever) enjoys? Of COURSE you don’t. Who the heck are you that you should deserve those things?
Matt wrote: “He was allowed more than four wives (33:50).”
So? Didn’t Solomon? Who cares?
Matt wrote: “Rules about inheritance and fasting changed multiple times.”
No, they didn’t.
Matt wrote: “By biblical standards”
Per your own biblical scholars, the bible was corrupt from the very beginning and has no standards, so you can quit with all of that.
Matt wrote: “You accused me of being part of some wave of xenophobic hatred”
You’re literally blindly spreading lies/misinformation you copy/pasted from some anti-Islam hate website about a religion you have never personally studied. That’s a clear demonstration of xenophobic hatred.
Matt wrote: “Until then, I’ll let the evidence speak for itself.”
Ironic, considering you ignored all the evidence I posted because you fear engaging facts & truth head-on.
Matt - I appreciate the dialog—let’s keep it focused on the facts, not insults or misdirection.
“You misrepresent my faith… That’s hypocrisy?”
Hypocrisy means saying one thing and doing another. I’ve been consistent: I’ve focused on textual evidence, not stereotypes. You accused me of misunderstanding Islam, yet repeatedly mischaracterize Christian beliefs and scholarship without citing any sources. That’s not hypocrisy—it’s misrepresentation—by definition.
“You called my sources slogans?”
You mentioned the Bible’s preface, a scholarly white paper, and verses from Matthew 12:26 and Qur’an 23:97. That’s stronger than slogans. What I meant was dismissing primary texts as slogans—without engagement. Let’s actually analyze those. I’m ready when you are.
“The Quran doesn’t refer to the modern Bible—it refers to messages given to Moses and Jesus.”
True—but the Quran also mandates that people judge by the existing Torah and Gospel (e.g. 5:44–47). If those texts were fully corrupted or lost, that instruction would be irrational. Islamic commentators on verses like 5:44–47 debate whether the Quran refers to original revelations or existing scriptures—a central, unresolved tension in Muslim scholarship.
“The Quran preserves the pure revelation—even if the original Bible was corrupt.”
Yes—but for that to be meaningful, some living continuity to the original scriptures must exist. You’ve argued Jews/Christians failed to preserve the entire revelation. If that’s the case, how can the Quran command adherents to judge by those scriptures if they weren’t available at that time? It’s a contradiction.
“Christianity never claimed the Bible is dictated word for word.”
Correct—but the Bible’s textual tradition is strong. We have thousands of manuscripts: the Dead Sea Scrolls show remarkable stability, and over 5,800 Greek New Testament manuscripts allow scholars to reconstruct the original with high confidence. The Qur’an’s textual history shows variation in readings and script (e.g. rasm variants, palimpsests, qiraʾāt)—not perfectly uniform.
“The Quran is perfectly preserved—Leiden research proves it.”
Leiden University is indeed studying the canonization of qiraʾāt, which confirms that multiple recitations existed until standardization. These dialectal differences (qiraʾāt and aḥruf) are taught by Muslim scholars themselves as historically complex and difficult—Yasir Qadhi himself described them as “the most difficult topics” that “have holes in the standard narrative”. That same roots data shows variant letters even in early rasm.
If these variants are divine, why does Uthmān later burn variant codices? Why standardize one dialect? This isn’t about dialectal accent—it’s textual choice.
“You misquote Yasir Qadhi; he clarifies that variants aren’t about preservation.”
Yasir Qadhi did clarify some statements publicly—but private emails and recorded interviews still reveal internal doubts about claims of perfect, letter for letter, dot for dot preservation. Yes, he later reaffirmed belief in preservation to lay audiences—but that underscores my point: the full academic history involves nuance and acknowledged variation.
“Abrogation isn’t the Quran changing—it’s replacing previous scripture.”
The Quran explicitly says in 2:106 that it (the Quran) can abrogate verses. If those verses are in the Quran, that’s a change within the Quran. You can argue it = theological replacement, but the text says it’s divine abrogation and prima fascia is straightforward.
“Perks like multiple wives? That’s irrelevant.”
It’s not irrelevant. Permitting things later (e.g. more wives), allows for breaking prior rules (e.g. monogamy), presenting a moral inconsistency that is unusual in divine texts—more common would be timeless ethical standards. Again, you can explain, but it’s not a trivial matter to Christians engaging in text-based debate.
Final Thoughts
• My critique is evidence-based, not hateful.
• You dismiss Christian scholarship as “gullible” and your own as infallible—without evidence.
• The textual history of the Quran is complex and well-documented—even by Muslims.
• If you disagree, show specific manuscripts that have no variants, verify Uthmān didn’t destroy anything meaningful, and identify where abrogation doesn’t show change in divine law.
If you can’t or won’t, your defense—insults and slogans—won’t hold up. I welcome real scholarship, mutual respect, and actual dialogue.
Muhammad Rasheed - Matt wrote: “let’s keep it focused on the facts”
I’ve only posted facts thus far, needed to counter your twisted version of what you incorrectly think Islam is about as a biased outsider.
Matt wrote: “not insults or misdirection.”
Matt also wrote: “Your god the Great Deceiver has taught you well. Keep lying like your father the devil. [...] You lie through your teeth, and do the very thing you accuse Christians of doing”
All you know is hypocrisy, huh?
Matt wrote: “Hypocrisy means saying one thing and doing another”
It also means you’re accusing someone else of the very thing you do.
Matt wrote: “I’ve been consistent”
That’s for sure.
Matt wrote: “I’ve focused on textual evidence”
Literally all you’ve done is blindly copy/paste prepackaged arguments you found on Shamoun’s site without even understanding them.
Matt wrote: “You accused me of misunderstanding Islam”
I sure did. Naturally, I expect you to keep doing it since you appear committed.
Matt wrote: “yet repeatedly mischaracterize Christian beliefs”
Not once.
Matt wrote: “and scholarship without citing any sources”
Let the record show that you ignored the first source I posted and referred to it as a “slogan” without even trying to respond. This performance represented a low level of intellectual capacity that is a waste of my time. When I do post other sources, it will be for the sake of my reading audience as I transfer this dialog over to my blog, not for you since you’ve proved unappreciative and not skilled in debate. #PearlsBeforeSwine
Matt wrote: “Let’s actually analyze those. I’m ready when you are.”
Go back to the previous posts and actually read them and respond to them instead of blindly copy/pasting anti-Islamic hate troll propaganda like it’s supposed to be a mic drop. I already did my part. I’m not repeating myself just because a low-level opponent is ill-equipped to THINK.
Matt wrote: “True—but the Quran also mandates that people judge by the existing Torah and Gospel (e.g. 5:44–47)”
WHICH YOU DO NOT HAVE. The only actual Torah and Gospel currently on earth is in the Qur’an—which Allah calls a “fuller explanation of the Book of Moses” which is miraculously still preserved from the time of the holy prophet who preached it. In order to judge by what God has revealed, you MUST go to the Qur’an since the bible DOES NOT POSSESS THIS INFO.
Matt wrote: “a central, unresolved tension in Muslim scholarship”
lol Islam consists of the Qur’an and the way of the prophet Muhammadﷺ. The arguments between the scholars is not part of the faith. That’s what Christians have as the sole source of that religion.
Matt wrote: “but for that to be meaningful”
You don’t think it’s meaningful that God promised He would preserve the Final Revelation, and modern secular scholarship discovered in an official deep-dive that the Islamic claims about their scripture are actually true after 1400-years? How is that not meaningful as an objective miracle? lol
Matt wrote: “some living continuity to the original scriptures must exist”
That living continuity is all what the All-Knowing One God revealed and confirmed. Significant because God is the Source of All Truth and when He says it, it is so. God confirmed that He did indeed reveal the message to all the prophets from Adamﷺ to Muhammadﷺ, and that the previous people of the book did a poor job in their guardianship. Knowing this fact, the early Muslims resolved not to be counted among you as those who corrupted their own Book, and unlike your spiritual ancestors, uniquely took the material seriously at the very beginning of the prophet’s mission, devoutly memorizing it, and scribing it down verbatim. The result is that now humanity actually has the inerrant Word of God among us. #PraiseGod.
Matt wrote: “You’ve argued Jews/Christians failed to preserve the entire revelation. If that’s the case”
I’m actually just passing along the message from what the bible scholars admit to, which includes that “grave defects” bible preface you dismissed like a coward.
Matt wrote: “how can the Quran command adherents to judge by those scriptures if they weren’t available at that time? It’s a contradiction.”
Allah said to judge by what He revealed to Moses and Jesus, messages that He repeated in the Qur’an for posterity. Since you certainly do NOT have the Gospel that Jesus preached (wouldn’t even recognize it if you saw it since your religion’s entire salvation ideology is based on a concept that the Christ never even taught), and He calls the Qur’an a “fuller explanation of the Book of Moses” then obviously what Allah is telling you to do is to accept Islam and the Qur’an.
Matt wrote: “but the Bible’s textual tradition is strong”
That claim directly contradicts the findings of your own learned scholars, who admit the bible wasn’t written by the people whose names the books bear, but was instead cobbled together by armies of anonymous randoms, who often contradicted one another. In short, the bible is an interpretation of the narratives of the prophets lives that occasionally reference the message the prophets taught. In no way can the bible reasonably be considered the “Word of God” in such a sloppy and tacky form. The fact that the Jews rarely reference it and prefer to quote from the Talmud, while the Christians rarely reference it, and hinge your salvation upon the conjurings of the so-called “church fathers,” demonstrates your own casual low opinion of your book.
Matt wrote: “We have thousands of manuscripts”
lol So? Without the original message of the Lord thy God, who cares what you have? You may have a billion-trillion copies of even more corrupt, pagan nonsense and it will never equal the majesty of these here 114 chapters of the inerrant Word of Allah. #QualityOverQuantity
Matt wrote: “the Dead Sea Scrolls show remarkable stability”
The DSS consists in its entirety of one almost complete book, and a bunch of postage stamp sized fragments of copies. Copies. Christianity conspicuously lacks even a single text from the first century. “Remarkable stability” is what a fool says who’s just repeating nonsense he heard without knowing the actual history of his own religion’s book.
Matt wrote: “and over 5,800 Greek New Testament manuscripts allow scholars to reconstruct the original with high confidence.”
More foolishness. Without any original source texts, all you are able to do is play puzzle games with pieces of COPIES. How would even know if these copies are accurate if you don’t have an original ANYTHING to compare them to? #ArchaeologicalScience
Matt wrote: “The Qur’an’s textual history shows variation in readings and script (e.g. rasm variants, palimpsests, qiraʾāt)—not perfectly uniform.”
The Qur’an has a single message in seven variant recitations, all coming from the prophet himself. The biased ignorant outsider foolishly embarrasses himself by interpreting that as “different versions of the Qur’an,” when this is not the case.
 |
Muhammad Rasheed - Matt wrote: “You asked me to engage your initial claims”
Right. Because you keep saying that I’ve never provided any
evidence from credible works, even while the first one I provided remains
unaddressed by you, other than you oddly referring to it as a “slogan” in your
dismissal.
After that, there was clearly no reason to take you seriously as a debate opponent. You’re not that guy.
Matt wrote: “but because I believe in honest, respectful dialogue.”
Really? So, in Christianity, what part of referring to God as “the Great Deceiver” and “your father the devil” is considered honest and respectful again? I forgot. #TaintedWitness
Matt wrote: “Let’s be clear: a claim isn’t a fact just because you assert it”
Ah. Let’s be doubly clear: I provided the evidence that supported my claim and you dismissed it (“slogan”), even while you pretend you want to see evidence. After a half-dozen chances, you’ve failed to man-up and fix the problem. It’s this very behavior that prevents me from taking you seriously.
Matt wrote: “It becomes fact when supported by credible evidence — like peer-reviewed scholarship, primary sources, or manuscript analysis. If you think you’ve posted such evidence”
lol You don’t think the scholars who wrote the preface to the bible meet such criteria, hm? You may as well tap-out, since your cowardice is on full display here. The bible is corrupt and unreliable, per your own Judao-Christian literature scholarship library. I had more to show you, but you can’t even get pass that first hurdle—it’s a BIG DEAL for your own scholars to admit the bible is corrupt in the preface of the bible itself, don’t you think? I know I would be embarrassed if this was actually the source text of my religion. It means, no less, that everything your pastor told you was a lie. If the bible isn’t the Word of God, then what is it? 🤔 It’s a loosely written work based on the narratives about the prophets’ lives that sometimes references the Word of God that they preached in their lifetimes. But that’s not the same thing as the Word of God though, innit?
Matt wrote: “You called me a hypocrite”
Telling me not to insult you and then claiming I was “lying through my teeth,” and calling God “the Great Deceiver” and “the father the devil” is hypocrisy, son. You are uncouth and barbaric in your engagement, even as you cry foul.
Matt wrote: “and accused me of mindless parroting”
Do you somehow believe I haven’t seen these same arguments before from people who act exactly like you? Do you somehow believe I can’t tell from your discourse whether you’ve actually read the Qur’an before or not?
Matt wrote: “But I have provided Qur’anic verses, hadith citations”
Prepackaged arguments you copy/pasted from someone else, the same stuff you guys always post. 🙄 Do you think this is my first week on the Internet?
Matt wrote: “If you think any of my arguments are inaccurate, feel free to identify a specific point and source, and I’ll address it head-on.”
That’s literally what I’ve been doing the whole time. Notice that after you post someone else’s prepackaged argument that you didn’t really understand, after I responded to it you failed to provide a serious counter-response. This is a tell-tale sign of intellectual incompetence, of the very sort I accused you of in the beginning. Will you man-up and recover, or continue to whine?
Matt wrote: “• 5:44–47: ‘Let the People of the Gospel judge by what Allah has revealed therein.’”
Allah did not reveal the 4-gospels of the New Testament, so I don’t even know why you are trying to play that game. He revealed the Gospel that Jesus preached in his lifetime, the message that is repeated in the Qur’anic revelation. Therefore, in order for the people of the Gospel to judge by what Allah hath revealed in His scripture, you can’t use your New Testament, but are obviously advised to accept the Arab prophet as your prophet, his message as your message. It’s pretty logical, yet logic & reason eludes one such as you.
Matt wrote: “• 3:3: “He sent down the Torah and the Gospel as guidance for mankind.”
He sure did, and you molested it and if it weren’t for the Mercy of Allah in revealing the Qur’an, both would now be lost.
Matt wrote: “commanding people to ‘judge by what is revealed therein’ would be senseless”
Again, the message God told to Moses and Jesus is found in the Qur’an. For the tenth time, Allah calls the Qur’an “a fuller explanation of the Book of Moses,” a fact that either clearly goes over your head unprocessed, or you are too much of a coward to address the implication, since you are fighting so hard for it to mean what Shamoun falsely claims it means.
Matt wrote: “but the Qur’an treats them as accessible in Muhammad’s time”
In the Qur’an itself, the only Book on earth that God revealed. Take the hint. lol
Matt wrote: “You dismissed scholarly debate as irrelevant to faith: [‘Islam consists of the Qur’an and the way of the prophet … arguments between scholars aren’t part of the faith.’] That’s incorrect.”
At the end of the prophet’s mission, his Lord revealed this scripture:
Get a signed copy of M. Rasheed's first novel!
