Islamic Double Standards, Misconceptions, and Myths

Responses to Islamic Double Standards, Misconceptions, and Myths About Jesus, the Trinity, the Bible, etc...



Claim: Show me where Jesus said in the Bible "I am God, worship me."


Response: Jesus never said in the exact words in the Bible "I am only a prophet, don't worship me" either, so according to the "exact words" criterion used here, Jesus must not be only a prophet either since he didn't say those exact words. So this argument fails to pass its own test (plus Jesus did in fact make claims to be God and He accepted worship as God. See Chapter 25: Jesus: More Than a Prophet). This is a double standard.

Claim: How can God, who is omnipresent, be Jesus, who is a man in a particular finite location? How can God be finite and infinite at the same time?


Response: In Surah 27:7-9 and Surah 28:29-30 it says Allah spoke out from a burning tree to Moses. So why and how can Allah manifest himself in creation in a fire in a tree, which is a finite location, but he can't manifest himself in creation through a man? Why and how can Allah enter into creation and speak out of a fire in a tree, but he can't enter into creation and speak out of human flesh? That's a double standard.




Claim: How can God die? If Jesus is God, and Jesus was Crucified, how can God die?


Response: Muslims believe that the Quran is the eternal word of Allah (Surah 85:21-22), yet it can be physically destroyed (the physical ink and paper can be destroyed by fire, etc...). So why and how can the Quran be eternal and yet have it's physical nature (the ink and paper) destroyed, yet Jesus who is eternal can't have His physical nature (His body) destroyed? Muslims believe that the Quran has two natures: the eternal nature and the physical nature. So even though the Quran is believed to be the eternal word of Allah (Surah 85:21-22) it can still be physically destroyed (the physical ink and paper can be destroyed by fire, etc...). The eternal nature isn't destroyed, but just the physical nature. So why and how can the Quran be eternal and yet have a physical nature that is capable of being destroyed, but it's so unreasonable to accept that Jesus has an eternal nature with a physical nature that is capable of being destroyed? That's a double standard.




Claim: The word "Trinity" is not in the Bible. It's a later Christian invention.


Response: First, the word "Trinity" isn't in the Bible, but the word "Tawhid" isn't in the Quran either; it's found in the Hadith. So if one is going to be consistent then the Islamic doctrine of "Tawhid" must also be discarded. However, the components of the Trinity are found in the Bible, so this doesn't pose any problems. The word "Trinity" is simply a word used to encapsulate the doctrine of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, which is clearly found in the Bible. Second, the shahada is not found in the Quran either. You have components of the shahada in the Quran but you don't have the shahada in the Quran in the exact order it is recited. So should the shahada be discarded along with the doctrine of "Tawhid"? Third, the word "Trinity" appears closer to the times of Jesus and the writings of the New Testament than the word "Tawhid" does to the times of Muhammad and the Quran. So the word "Trinity" is closer to the Bible than "Tawhid" is to the Quran.




Claim: Jihad is no different than what happened in the Old Testament.


Response: There are major differences between Islam's call to violence and the events in the Old Testament. The Old Testament wars were for a specific people (the children of Israel) to conquer a specific group of evil people (the Canaanites) living in a specific location (the eastern Mediterranean region) for a specific purpose (to attain the promise land and judge the evil Canaanites) at a specific time (when the iniquity of the Amorites were complete (Genesis 15:16)). God used Israel to judge the extremely wicked people of the land of Canaan after having mercy on them for 400 years (Genesis 15:12-16). So not only were these battles confined to a specific set of people, to a specific geographical location, for a specific purpose, and at a specific time, but they were also the way God judged the extremely wicked Canaanites.


So the Old Testament commands were specific commands, for a specific people, at a specific time, in a specific location, for a specific purpose, that also served as a way for God to judge specific nations that were so evil and vile that the closest thing we have to compare them with today would be Islamic terrorists. So the nations that God judged in the Old Testament were so bad, so vile, so evil, and so cruel that the best example we have today of what they were like would be people like ISIS, who follow the teachings of the Quran. So the Bible is clear that these commands are not general commands for all believers for all time, but they were specific commands for a specific time for specific reasons concerning specific nations in a specific location, which is obvious in the text. The general commands that are for Christians today are from Jesus and His Apostles in the New Testament.


In Jeremiah chapter 31, the Lord (Yahweh) said, "I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and the house of Judah" (Jeremiah 31:31 ESV). In Matthew 26:28, Mark 14:24, Luke 22:20, and 1 Corinthians 11:25 Jesus introduced this New Covenant. (Side note: Jesus put Himself in the place of God (Yahweh) by introducing the New Covenant). So Christians are under the guidance of the New Covenant, not the Old Covenant. The Old Covenant is over.


However, the commands for Jihad in the Quran are general commands for all Muslims today, and this is due to the Doctrine of Abrogation. The Doctrine of Abrogation (found in Surah 2:106 and Surah 16:101) teaches that if verses in the Quran are in conflict with each other, then the verse that was revealed at the later date supersedes the verse that was revealed at the earlier date. So if a peaceful verse was revealed and then later on a violent verse was revealed, the later violent verse would supersede the earlier peaceful verse. Well, it just so happens that Muhammad's later "revelations" are more violent that his earlier ones. So due to the Doctrine of Abrogation (Surah 2:106 and Surah 16:101) and the fact that Surah 9 is the second to last chapter supposedly revealed to Muhammad, with Surah 110 being the last, this means Surah 110 is the only chapter in the Quran that can abrogate the violent and intolerant verses of Surah 9. Well, Surah 110 only consists of 3 verses, and none of those 3 verses are in conflict with Surah 9, therefore abrogating none of the verses in Surah 9. So this means the violent and intolerant commands in Surah 9 are still valid and are what Muslims are to live by today, as opposed to the time specific, people specific commands found in the Old Testament for the Israelites to judge specific evil nations. Whereas the Old Testament commands were a form of judgment on specific evil nations to be carried out by the Israelites, jihad is a general command for all Muslims to obey for all time in order to dominate all nations throughout the world. The Old Testament commands were a form of judgment on evil people to stop them from doing wicked acts, but jihad is a wicked act being done by evil people. The Old Testament commands and jihad are literally the opposite of each other.




Claim: Why attack Islam for jihad and terrorism but not attack Christianity for the Crusades? What's the difference?


Response: First, if a Christian murders unbelievers they are disobeying Jesus, but if a Muslim murders unbelievers they are actually obeying Muhammad (Surah 2:216, 244, 8:39, 9:5, 29). Second, it was actually the Muslims who caused the Crusades. The Crusades are not like jihad and terrorism. The crusades where in response to Islamic attacks and assaults on Europe. Muslims had been attacking and destroying Europe for hundreds of years before the more Christianized Europe responded to the attacks. Much of Europe had been attacked by Muslims before Europe responded with attacks of their own. The Crusades were in response to Muslims conquering two thirds of the ancient Christian world by the end of the 11th century. So the Crusades were actually in response to Islamic attacks.




Claim: Muslims only attack Jews in retaliation of Israel.


Response: First, Muhammad himself led an attack on unarmed Jews (Sahih Al-Bukhari 11:584) beheaded hundreds of Jews (Ibn Ishaq's Sirat Rasul Allah, page 464), cursed Jews on his deathbed (Sahih Al-Bukhari 56:660; Hadith Malik 511:1588) and said Jews are the worst of all creatures (Surah 98:6). Second, the state of Israel was founded in 1948, yet Islamic violence toward Jews has been happening since well before then. There was the violence toward Jews from Muhammad in the 7th century (as shown above), and there were bloody anti-Jewish pogroms in Palestine in 1929, Iraq in 1941, and Libya in 1945. So Muslims have been attacking Jews long before the modern state of Israel was formed.




Claim: Muslims only attack the West and commit jihad in retaliation of past events.


Response: First, this is simply not true. Muhammad commands violence. He himself said he said he was made victorious with terror (Sahih Al-Bukhari 52:220), led an attack on unarmed people (Sahih Al-Bukhari 11:584), commanded his followers to fight and kill the unbelievers (Surah 2:191, 216, 244, 8:39, 9:5, 29, 73, 66:9; Sahih Al-Bukhari 2:24), praised jihad (Surah 47:4-6; Sahih Muslim 1:149; 20:4645), said jihad is the best deed (Sahih Muslim 1:149), said jihad would elevate one's position in paradise (Sahih Muslim 20:4645), commanded Muslims to fight against people until they believed in Allah (Surah 8:39), and said he was ordered by Allah to fight against people until they worshipped only allah and believed he was an apostle (Sahih Al-Bukhari 2:24; Sahih Muslim 1:33). Second, even if it was true (which it isn't), that's still not an excuse. Nazi Germany murdered millions of Jews and treated them horrifically, yet we don't see Jews retaliating by starting terrorist organizations that target Germans. This is simply an excuse by some Muslims to justify the large amounts of violence committed in the name of Islam.




Claim: The Bible has been corrupted and isn't reliable.


Response: The New Testament is the best attested book in ancient history. It was originally written in Greek, and there are over 5,800 Greek manuscripts that have been found. There's also over 18,000 manuscripts in other languages (Coptic, Latin, Syriac, etc.) that have been discovered as well, with some manuscripts dated extremely early (like the John Rylands fragment). The number of pages of Greek New Testament manuscripts are over 2.6 million, and if someone were to stack the New Testament manuscripts on top of each other they would be over one mile high, which absolutely dwarfs the approximate four feet high stack of manuscripts that the average classical writer would have. [1]


Influential Biblical scholar F. F. Bruce has written: "There is no body of ancient literature in the world which enjoys such a wealth of good textual attestation as the New Testament." [2]


Also, from just seven of the early church fathers the New Testament was quoted over 36,000 times (Justin Martyr, A.D. 100-165; Irenaeus of Lyons, A.D. 130-200; Clement of Alexandria, A.D. 150-215; Tertullian, A.D. 160-225; Hippolytus, A.D. c.170-c.235; Origen, A.D. 185-254; Eusebius, A.D. c.260-c.339). Almost the entire New Testament can be constructed just from the quotes of the early church fathers. [3]


So not only does the incredible manuscript evidence confirm the reliability of the Bible, but the Bible's contents are also confirmed by the thousands of quotes from the early believers & early church fathers.


Dr. William Lane Craig nicely sums up the reliability of the New Testament in his book A Reasonable Response: Answers to Tough Questions on God, Christianity, and the Bible:


“The New Testament is the best attested book in ancient history, both in terms of the number of manuscripts and the nearness of those manuscripts to the date of the original. What that goes to prove is that the text of the New Testament that we have today is almost exactly the same as the text as it was originally written. Of the approximately 138,000 words in the New Testament only about 1,400 remain in doubt. The text of the New Testament is thus about 99% established. That means that when you pick up a (Greek) New Testament today, you can be confident that you are reading the text as it was originally written. Moreover, that 1% that remains uncertain has to do with trivial words on which nothing of importance hangs. This conclusion is important because it explodes the claims of Muslims, Mormons, and others that the text of the New Testament has been corrupted, so that we can no longer read the original text. It’s awe-inspiring to think that we can know with confidence that when we pick Paul’s letter to the church in Rome, for example, we are reading the very words he wrote almost 2,000 years ago." [4]


Furthermore, over 30 different individuals mentioned in the New Testament have been confirmed to exist by ancient non-Christian sources and over 70 people in the Old Testament have been confirmed to exist by archaeology, further confirming the reliability of the Scriptures. [5]


Adding to the evidence of the reliability of the Bible, classical scholar and historian Colin Hemer also identified 84 facts in the last 16 chapters of the book of Acts that have been confirmed by historical and archaeological research. [6] The accuracy of Luke (who is the author of the book of Acts, along with the Gospel of Luke) is truly amazing and further confirms that the Bible is true and reliable.


There is no doubt about the preservation and reliability of the Bible. The manuscript evidence overwhelmingly confirms that the Bible can be trusted. The message and doctrines found in the Bible have been faithfully transmitted and preserved throughout history and anyone who says otherwise is blatantly incorrect.


So of the approximately 24,000 Biblical manuscripts that have been found, early Bibles like Codex Vaticanus, Codex Sinaiticus, etc… and the over 36,000 quotes of the New Testament by the early believers, guess how many of these manuscripts, Bibles, and quotes support the claim that the Bible has been corrupted and is untrustworthy? Zero.



[1] Josh McDowell and Sean McDowell, Evidence that Demands a Verdict: Life-Changing Truth for a Skeptical World (Nashville, TN: Thomas Nelson, 2017), 52-53.


[2] Ibid, 52.


[3] Ibid, 63-64.


[4] William Lane Craig and Joseph E. Gorra, A Reasonable Response: Answers to Tough Questions on God, Christianity, and the Bible (Chicago, IL: Moody Publishers, 2013)


[5] Joseph M. Holden and Norman Geisler, The Popular Handbook of Archaeology and the Bible (Eugene, OR: Harvest House Publishers, 2013), 283-289, 303-305.


[6] Norman L. Geisler and Frank Turek, I Don't Have Enough Faith to be an Atheist (Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 2004), 256-259.




Claim: The books of the Bible were determined at the council of Nicaea.


Response: There has never been a council in church history that determined which books should be in the Bible. The council of Nicaea (AD 325) was convened by the Roman emperor Constantine I to address the heresy of Arianism, which was first proposed by Arius of Alexandria and which falsely claimed that Jesus was a created being and not Divine. The council condemned Arius, and Arius was exiled by emperor Constantine I. The council of Nicaea had nothing to do with choosing which books should, and shouldn't, be in the Bible.


Not only is it true that the books of the Bible were never chosen at any church council, but the New Testament books were also considered authoritative Scripture very early in church history, even as far back as the 1st century when the original Apostles were still alive.


Below is a list of writings/writers who regarded the New Testament books as authoritative and/or Scripture very early in the history of the church, well before the council of Nicaea in AD 325:



1st Century:


• Paul (Martyred in the mid AD 60s. In 1 Timothy 5:18 Paul referenced the Gospel of Luke as Scripture.)


• Peter (Martyred in the mid AD 60s. In 2 Peter 3:15-16 Peter referenced Paul's writings as Scripture.)


• Clement of Rome (A.D. c.30-101. Clement of Rome referenced Paul's letter of 1 Corinthians as being written "under the inspiration of the Spirit" in chapter 47 of his letter called 1 Clement. He also quoted Jesus from the Gospels.)



2nd Century:


• Ignatius of Antioch (A.D. 35-110. Ignatius wrote seven letters on his way to Rome to be executed, four from Smyrna and three from Troas. In his letters he referenced many books of the New Testament.)

• Aristides of Athens (Flourished in the early part of the 2nd century. In The Apology of Aristides the Philosopher, which was a letter written to the Roman emperor Hadrian (reigned 117–138) or to his successor Antoninus Pius (reigned 138–161), Aristides referred the emperor to read a Gospel in order to "perceive the power which belongs to it." He also used phrases that seemed borrowed from several of Paul's epistles)


• Polycarp of Smyrna (A.D. c.69-c.155. In Polycarp's Epistle to the Philippians he referenced the book of Ephesians as Scripture in chapter 12. He also quoted from many other books in the New Testament.)


• The Epistle of Barnabas (This letter is dated to the late 1st or early 2nd century. It refers to the Gospel of Matthew as Scripture in chapter 4.)


• Justin Martyr (A.D. 100-165. In chapter 67 of the First Apology he said on Sundays "the memoirs of the apostles or the writings of the prophets are read." So on Sundays the early Christians would read either from the Gospels or from the Old Testament prophets, thus indicating that the Gospels were viewed as Scripture and on the same level as the Old Testament.)


• Tatian (A.D. 120-173. He wrote the Diatessaron, which was a version of the four Gospels arranged as a single narrative. This shows that all four Gospels were regarded as authoritative. In his other works he also alluded to the books of Romans, 1 and 2 Corinthians, Galatians, Ephesians, Philippians, Colossians, and Hebrews.)


• Athenagoras (A.D 133-190. He referenced the Gospels of Matthew, Mark, and Luke and several of Paul's epistles.)


• Theophilus of Antioch (A.D. 120-190. In chapter 12 of Book III of Theophilus to Autolycus he said "confirmatory utterances are found both with the prophets and in the Gospels, because they all spoke inspired by one Spirit of God." In chapter 13 of Book III he also called the Gospel of Matthew a "holy word." In chapter 14 of Book III he refers to Paul's writings as "the divine words.")


• Irenaeus of Lyon (A.D. 130-200. In his work Against Heresies he quoted 1,075 passages from almost all of the books of New Testament, with 626 of those quotes being from the Gospels, and said it was not possible that the Gospels be more or fewer than four.)


• Clement of Alexandria (A.D. 150-215. In chapter 1 of Exhortation to the Heathen he referenced the book of Titus, which was written by Paul, as scripture, and he referenced the Gospel of John as scripture in chapter 9. In The Instructor he referenced the Gospel of Matthew as scripture in book 1, chapter 5. He quoted from the Gospels about 1,575 times and from Paul's Epistles about 1,375. He viewed most of the books of the New Testament, at least 22 of them, as authoritative scripture.)


• The Muratorian fragment (This fragment from the 2nd century is the earliest canonical list and affirms approximately 22 of the 27 New Testament books.)

3rd Century:


• Tertullian (A.D. 160-225. He cited 23 books of the New Testament. Only the small books of 2 Peter, James, and 2 and 3 John were not cited.)


• Hippolytus (A.D. c.170-c.235. He affirmed 22 books of the New Testament as Scripture, which were the four Gospels, the book of Acts, the thirteen Epistles of Paul, 1 Peter, 1 and 2 John, and the book of Revelation.)


• Origen (A.D. 185-254. He affirmed all 27 books of the New Testament. In his commentary on the Gospel of Matthew, which was quoted by Eusebius, he said the Gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John, "are the only indisputable ones in the Church of God under heaven." In his Homilies on Luke he said the authors of other gospels "rushed into writing gospels without having the grace of the Holy Spirit" but that Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John "wrote their Gospels when they were filled with the Holy Spirit." He also said "the church as four Gospels. Heretics have very many" (Homilies on Luke, i. Translation by Joseph T. Lienhard, S.J.). In book 4 of De Principiis he also said the writings of the evangelists and apostle were Scriptures and proceeded from one God (the God of the Old Testament). In his Homilies on Joshua. vii. 1, he also has a list that includes all 27 books of the New Testament. There is a chance the Book of Revelation is not original to this list, but he affirmed this book in other places, so this doesn't create any problems.)


• Cyprian of Carthage (A.D. 200-258. He cited 886 verses and referenced 20 books of the New Testament. Many times he introduced a New Testament quote with "It is written.")


• Etc...



4th Century:


• Eusebius of Caesarea (A.D. c.260-c.339. Bishop and historian who is referred to as the "father of church history." He wrote Ecclesiastical History between 312-324 which recorded the first few centuries of Christianity. In Ecclesiastical History 3.25.1-7, Eusebius recorded how early Christians categorized books into four categories: 1) Recognized, 2) Disputed, 3) Rejected, and 4) Heretical. Eusebius wrote that 22 books of the New Testament were in the recognized category (the four Gospels, the Epistles of Paul (including Hebrews), 1 John, 1 Peter, and Revelation. He acknowledged that the book of Revelation had some detractors, but nevertheless is part of the accepted recognized books. So Eusebius informs us that in the early church there was an accepted core of 22 books (out of 27) in the New Testament that were virtually undisputed. So there was a core canon that consisted of almost all of the New Testament books that were recognized and accepted early in the history of the church. The second category of disputed books consisted of smaller books like James, Jude, 2 Peter, 2 John and 3 John. These books were disputed but Eusebius said they "are nevertheless known to most" (3.25.3). So only these five small books were in the disputed category of the early church. The third category of rejected books consisted of works like the Acts of Paul, the Shepherd of Hermas, the Apocalypse of Peter, the Epistle of Barnabas, the Teachings of the Apostles (the Didache), and the Gospel of the Hebrews. These books weren't viewed as heretical, but they didn't have the authority of Scripture. The fourth category is heretical books, which consisted of what Eusebius called "forgeries of heretics" that should be "shunned as altogether wicked and impious" (3.25.7). These books included the Gospel of Peter, the Gospel of Thomas, the Gospel of Matthias, the Acts of Andrew, and the Acts of John. New Testament scholar Michael J. Kruger summed up Eusebius' four categories nicely in a past article when he wrote: "(1) there was a core canon from a very early time, (2) there was dispute about some of the smaller books that took some time to resolve, (3) Christians continued to find some non-canonical books to be orthodox and helpful, though not Scripture, and (4) some books were so theologically off the mark that they were regarded as altogether heretical." [1]


(Much of the information and statistics above about the canon of the New Testament in the 2nd and 3rd centuries are from Dr. Bruce Metzger's book The Canon of the New Testament. It's Origin, Development, and Significance. [2] The late Princeton University professor was one of the most influential New Testament scholars of the 20th century)


Almost the entire New Testament was known and acknowledged as authoritative by the end of the 1st century / beginning of the 2nd century. According to Dr. Paul Barnett, between AD 95-110 three early church fathers (Clement of Rome, Ignatius, and Polycarp) quoted from 25 of the 27 New Testament Books. Only the short books of 2 John & Jude were not quoted. [3]

The core of the New Testament was established very early in church history. The core canon arose very early in the history of the church and enjoyed quick and widespread acceptance as authoritative sources, with only a few of the small letters being disputed. The major doctrines of Christianity are firmly established in the core books that were virtually undisputed. Even if someone wanted to ignore and throw out the small letters that were disputed by some, then that would have virtually no impact on Christianity and the person of Jesus Christ.


As shown above, the New Testament was regarded as authoritative Scripture very early in church history and well before the council of Nicaea in the 4th century. So not only did the council of Nicaea have nothing to do with deciding which books should be in the Bible, but the New Testament was also regarded as authoritative Scripture well before the council of Nicaea ever took place. The books of the Bible have never been decided at any church council ever, including the council of Nicaea in AD 325, and if someone says differently they are simply spreading a myth.


[1] Michael J. Kruger, An Essential Key to Understanding the Development of the NT Canon (Written August 9, 2016. Accessed October 19, 2019). Retrieved from


[2] Bruce M. Metzger, The Canon of the New Testament. It's Origin, Development, and Significance (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1987)


[3] Paul Barnett, Is the New Testament Reliable? (Downers Grove, Ill: InterVarsity Press, 2004), 38-40.





Claim: The Quran was revealed because the Bible had been corrupted.


Response: This is a lie, even according to the Quran. First, the Quran affirms the inspiration and reliability of the Christian Scriptures (Surah 3:3-4, 5:47, 5:66, 5:68, 7:157, 10:94), and never once does it say that the Christian scriptures were corrupted. (Side note: the manuscript evidence shows that the Bible we have today is also the same Bible that Muhammad had in the 7th century when he made those claims. There are actually Biblical manuscripts/Bibles that predate the time of Muhammad, like Codex Vaticanus, Codex Sinaiticus, etc… This means even today Muslims must believe the Gospels to be true and reliable). So, Muslims cannot say that the Quran was revealed because the Bible had been changed and corrupted because even in the Quran itself Muhammad affirmed the inspiration and reliability of the Christian Scriptures.


Second, the Quran affirms man’s inability to corrupt God’s Word (Surah 6:114-115, 18:27), and since the Quran also affirms the inspiration and reliability of the Christian Scriptures (Surah 3:3-4, 5:47, 5:66, 5:68, 7:157, 10:94) this means it would not have been possible for man to corrupt it. Now some Muslims may try to say that when the Quran affirmed man’s inability to corrupt God’s Word it was only talking about the Quran. However, it doesn't say that this only applies to the Quran and not to the previously revealed scriptures. Also, if this claim that it only applies to the Quran were true, then why would Allah not preserve the scriptures he previously revealed but then decide to preserve the Quran? Why let humans corrupt his previous revelations but then later decide to protect it when he supposedly reveals it to Muhammad? Why not simply protect it from the beginning?


Third, the Quran actually says why it was revealed, and the reason it gives has absolutely nothing to do with the Bible being corrupt. The reason the Quran says it was revealed is so that the people in Mecca and the surrounding areas would have a book in their own language (Arabic), because the Bible was originally written in other languages (Surah 6:155-157, 42:7). The Quran never once says it was revealed because the Bible had been corrupted. So, according to the Quran, it was revealed so the people in Arabia would have their own book from God in their own language (Arabic), not because of the corruption of the Bible.


Therefore, the claim that the Quran was revealed because the Bible had been corrupted is a lie demonstrated by not only the Biblical manuscript evidence but also by the Quran itself.




Claim: The Quran has been perfectly preserved.


Response: The claim that the Quran has been perfectly preserved is a blatant lie. The Quran says in Surah 15:9 that Allah will guard and protect the Quran from corruption, but this is far from the truth. According to the Hadith, which is a collection of the most sacred writings of Islam behind only the Quran, at least two Surahs (chapters) of the Quran were forgotten and lost, at least two verses of the Quran about breastfeeding adults have been lost (at least one was eaten by a sheep), the Quran was revealed in seven different ways, there were different ways Muhammad's companions recited the Quran, Muslims were confused about what should and shouldn't be in the Quran, Muhammad forget on at least one occasion what was in the Quran, and one of the early caliphs actually had Quranic manuscripts burned in an attempt to make only one version of the Quran because of the discrepancies in the way early Muslims were reciting it.


Below is a point by point list of everything listed above with the respective Hadith references:


• A verse about stoning and breastfeeding adults that was part of the Quran went missing because a sheep ate it: Sunan Ibn Majah 1944 (Dar-us-Salam reference).


• Caliph Uthman confirmed that the verse about stoning and adult breastfeeding that Muhammad received went missing from the Quran: Sahih Muslim 17:4194.


• At least two verses revealed in the Quran (both about breastfeeding adult men) are missing from today's Quran (Sahih Muslim 8:3421-3422; Muwatta Malik 30:17). At least one of these verses was eaten by a sheep after Muhammad died: Sunan Ibn Majah 1944 (Dar-us-Salam reference).


• Abu Musa al-Ash'ari, a companion of Muhammad and an early authority on the Quran, said he forgot two Surahs (chapters) of the Quran: Sahih Muslim 5:2286.


• Ibn Abbas, Muhammad's cousin, said he didn't know whether something Muhammad said was part of the Quran or not: Sahih Al-Bukhari 76:445.


• People considered a saying from Muhammad as part of the Quran until Surah 102 was revealed: Sahih Al-Bukhari 76:446.


• During the caliphate of Uthman (who was a companion of Muhammad and the 3rd caliph) Muslims used to recite the Quran differently, so Uthman had a copy made, distributed one copy to all of the Muslim provinces, and had all the other Quranic materials burned: Sahih Al-Bukhari 61:510.


• A blind man changed one of the "revelations" that Muhammad received by asking him a question. So now in Surah 4:95 it makes an exception for disabled people: Sahih Al-Bukhari 61:512.


• Muhammad said he asked Gabriel to recite the Quran in different ways, until Gabriel recited it seven different ways: Sahih Al-Bukhari 61:513.


• When two Muslims (Hisham and Umar) recited the same Surah in different ways, Muhammad said the Quran was revealed in seven different ways and told them to recite it in whichever way was easier: Sahih Al-Bukhari 41:601, 61:514, 93:640; Sahih Muslim 4:1782.


• Muhammad thanked a man for reciting verses in the Quran that he had forgotten: Sahih Al-Bukhari 61:556, 61:558; Sahih Muslim 4:1720.


Not only does the Hadith, the most scared writings in Islam behind only the Quran, show that the Quran has not been perfectly preserved, but an analysis of the early Quranic manuscripts will also reveal thousands of textual variants. In fact, as of December 2019, there has been 2,364 scribal changes and errors recorded in early Quranic manuscripts on "Qur'an Gateway" (, a website created to offer advanced research tools for the study of the Quran for Quranic scholars and independent researchers. This website assembled and worked with a team of international scholars and specialists in Islam and the text of the Quran to advise and counsel them on accuracy. So not only does the Hadith show that the Quran has been corrupted, but the early manuscripts of the Quran also show thousands of textual errors and changes to the Quran.


So has the Quran been perfectly preserved as it said it would be in Surah 15:9 and as Muslims so often claim? According to the Hadith and the manuscript evidence, absolutely not.

Claim: The Bible teaches that Jesus was created because in John 3:16 it says that Jesus was "begotten."


Response: The New Testament was originally written in Greek, so one needs to go back to the original language to find the answer. The Greek word translated “only begotten” in John 3:16 is "monogenes." Ancient writers often used this adjective to describe a unique relationship. So this word isn’t about procreation or about Jesus being brought into existence, but rather it’s about a unique relationship between the Father and the Son.


Also, this Greek word happens to be the same Greek word used in Hebrews 11:17 when it talks about Abraham and Isaac. We know that Isaac wasn't the only begotten of Abraham because Abraham had Ishmael, but Isaac was the only son he had with Sarah and the only son of the covenant. So, it was the uniqueness of Isaac that allowed for the use of "monogenes" in the context of Hebrews 11:17.


So the Greek word "monogenes" is about Jesus having a unique, one-of-a-kind relationship with the Father. It is not to be understood as the Father creating the Son.


According to A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature (BAGD, 3rd Edition) the word "monogenes" has two primary definitions: The first definition is "pertaining to being the only one of its kind within a specific relationship." The second definition is "pertaining to being the only one of its kind or class, unique in kind."


It's unfortunate that some English versions translated it as "only begotten." Some modern translations will actually translate it as "only" or "one and only" instead of "only begotten" in order to try to avoid confusion.


Furthermore, the Bible actually teaches that Jesus preexisted Abraham (John 8:58) and the world (John 17:5), that His origins are from eternity (Micah 5:2), and that He was God (John 1:1-3, 8:58, 20:28; Romans 9:5; Colossians 1:15-20; Titus 2:13; 2 Peter 1:1). Thus, the Bible teaches that Jesus is eternal and had no beginning.

Claim: The "Son of Man" is not a reference to Divinity because in Numbers 23:19 God said He is not a son of man. So, Jesus didn't claim to be Divine. If Jesus wanted people to believe He was Divine then He wouldn't have called Himself the "Son of Man."


Response: When Jesus claimed to be the "Son of Man" He wasn't denying His Divinity. In fact, the opposite is true. When read in context, this verse in the book of Numbers isn't a problem at all in regard to Jesus' Divinity. As with everything, context matters. When read in context, this passage is referring to lying. Balaam is saying that God cannot lie and doesn't change His mind like man does. The verse says, "God is not man, that he should lie, or a son of man, that he should change his mind. Has he said, and will he not do it? Or has he spoken, and will he not fulfill it?" (Numbers 23:19 ESV) So again, Balaam is saying that God does not lie and change His mind like man does. However, in Daniel 7:13-14 God is clear that this Son of Man is Divine. The Son of Man is given dominion, glory, and a kingdom and the world is going to serve Him, and it says His dominion is everlasting. Clearly these are attributes of the Divine. When Jesus claimed to be the Son of Man, He made it clear that He was referring to the Divine Son of Man in the book of Daniel, and this is indisputable because the Divine Son of Man in Daniel came with the clouds of heaven (Daniel 7:13), and when Jesus claimed to be the Son of Man during His trial He also told the people they would "see the Son of Man seated at the right hand of Power, and coming with the clouds of heaven" (Mark 14:62 ESV). So Jesus made it clear that He was referring to the Son of Man in the book of Daniel. Furthermore, this fact is confirmed by the response of the high priest. After Jesus made this claim, the high priest tore his garment and accused Jesus of blasphemy (Matthew 26:63-65; Mark 14:61-64). Obviously it wasn't blasphemous for a man to simply claim to be a man, but it was blasphemous for a man to put himself in the place of God. This is why the high priest tore his garments and accused Jesus of blasphemy. The high priest knew Jesus was putting Himself in the place of God and claiming to be Divine. So again, this clearly shows that Jesus wasn't referring to the son of man in Numbers 23:19 but to the Divine Son of Man in Daniel 7:13-14.