Archive for category: Islam

And yet another reason to avoid PalTalk like the plague.

We noted in our last installment the presentation of twenty some odd pages of citation regarding the textual integrity of a (Codex Sinaiticus) by our Islamic authors. They tip their hand (as if we were any longer wondering about their bias) when they introduce this material, taken from James Bentley’s Secrets of Mount Sinai: The Story of Codex Sinaiticus, by

For the past few weeks we have been examining an article posted early in December embodying an Islamic attack upon the Christian Scriptures (and, by so doing, a defense of the Qur’an), co-authored by Saifullah & Azmy. One of the reasons I took up the challenge of the article was that the article includes twenty-two pages of a book on

Saifullah and Azmy quote the less than conservative Interpreter’s Bible in saying, “It is safe to say that there is not one sentence in the NT in which the MS tradition is wholly uniform.” This is simply untrue, and most especially in the context in which it is offered, it is grossly misleading. First, there is a vast difference between

At this point our authors return to the issue of isnad, and in the process demonstrate an accute ignorance not only of the irrelevance of the topic given the history of their own Scriptures, as we have noted, but likewise the fact that to follow their reasoning is to abandon the existence of any historical records of antiquity at all.

The fundamental misunderstanding of Saifullah and Azmy regarding the science of textual criticism vitiated any serious challenge to be offered by the entirety of their article (we respond to it, however, due to the fact that most evangelicals are utterly unfamiliar with the most basic elements of the field as well, and hence might find the willy-nilly citation of obscure

We continue our response to Saifullah and Azmy by noting their listing of various ecclesiastical traditions (Protestant, Roman Catholic, and then much smaller ones, such as Coptic, Armenian, etc.) and their statement “They all contain a different number of books. Again the scriptures are demonstrably not the same today as in Muhammad’s time.” Notice the massive (and unwarranted) leap between

I mentioned briefly a few days ago the decision by Australian Judge Michael Higgins condemning a seminar, newsletter, and website article posted by Catch the Fire ministries. You can read more about it here at the Free Republic website. Here is the actual document recording the initial decision. The judge will be releasing a lengthier decision in the future. Reading

Recognizing that this series might be illegal in Australia (and would certainly be so in any nation enslaved to Muslim law), we press forward in responding to our Muslim apologists who seek, through the use of what might charitably be identified as “scatter-gun” citations to sow as much doubt as possible concerning the nature of the canon of the Christian

A brief installment as we continue our response to an Islamic apologetic attack upon the integrity of the canon and transmission of the text of the Bible. Our writers continue to sow seeds of doubt by making reference to canonical discussions at the time of the Reformation. It is very interesting to note how you can misuse a scholarly source

Continuing our response to Saifullah & Azmy, we note the next statement: Even during the Reformation, the Canon of the Bible, both Old and New Testaments, was called into question. If by this statement we are meant to understand that there was a dispute over the Apocryphal books at the time of the Reformation, just has there had been in

Our Muslim authors begin their article by asking, “Is the Bible in our hands the same as during the time of Prophet Muhammad?” Immediately one must ask a number of questions: the same as that possessed by whom and where? That is, while it is very clear from the voluminous patristic sources (the writings of the early Christians) that the

Our good brother Sam Shamoun over at answering-islam.org sent me a link to a new article, updated on 12/7/2004, at www.islamic-awareness.org, written by M S M Saifullah & Hesham Azmy. As with the mass of Islamic apologetic material being produced today, the article seeks to undermine the authority and accuracy of the Bible while assuming the perfection of the Qur’ân.

If I did not believe that every Federal Judge (known today as “god on earth” it seems, at least in their own minds) will someday stand before the True Judge, I would throw my hands up in utter dismay. Take two ibuprofen before reading this. My friends, such judges are a judgment from God on an ungodly nation. Mark my

Islam means “submission,” not peace. Proof is available linguistically, and here, culturally.

So said Tertullian during the Roman persecutions of the church long ago. There are still martyrs today, and Islam is busy making them. You probably won’t hear about this on the news. They are far too busy with other things.

We are not a big “links” website (barely have time to keep up with stuff as it is), but we gladly and heartily recommend to you answering-islam.org, and especially the resources offered by Sam Shamoun. Sam is a good friend of the ministry, and just an all around good guy, despite his looks. 🙂 Sam was on our last cruise

  The Muslim debater was Hamza Abdul Malik of the Islamic Propagation Center.  I