Addressing Addressing Islam

The following is a rebuttal to ‘Addressing Islam’; “a Christian response to common problems Muslims have with Christianity, followed by a number of problems Christians find with Islam and its texts.”

Although Christians claim that the Gospels were written by the four disciples: Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John. It is widely acknowledged that the original texts did not remain intact through history. The Gospels were transmitted through multiple stages of translation, first from their original languages into Greek, and later into Latin. Each stage of transmission introduced opportunities for interpolation and alteration, calling into question the textual integrity of the Bible as it exists today.

The article notes that seven out of the thirteen letters attributed to the Apostle Paul are considered indisputable by many biblical scholars. However, it overlooks the remaining six letters, which are widely regarded as disputed or pseudonymous. These six letters constitute over 40% of the Pauline corpus, indicating that a significant portion of Paul’s attributed writings may not be authentic. This suggests that later authors or editors altered or composed these texts to align with their own theological perspectives.

Christian scholarship itself acknowledges these issues. For example, renowned Christian scholar, Thomas Horn, expressed serious doubts regarding several New Testament epistles, including those attributed to James, Jude, Peter, and the Second and Third Epistles of John. Such admissions further demonstrate that uncertainty regarding authorship and authenticity exists even within Christian academic tradition.

A clear example of textual interpolation can be found in the First Epistle of John:

“ For there are three that testify:

the Spirit and the water and the blood; and these three agree.” (1 John 5:7–8)

This passage remained part of the New Testament for centuries. However, when Christians entered into theological conflict with Muslims, who increasingly challenged such verses, these words were later removed. The phrases referring explicitly to the Trinity (shown above) were expunged from the Revised Version published in 1881.

This raises a critical question. If the removed words were not part of the original text and were later additions, then their removal constitutes an admission by Christian scholars that the Scriptures had been subject to interpolation. On the other hand, if the earlier manuscripts were correct and the text was altered for doctrinal or polemical reasons, then this suggests that the process of tampering with the Christian Scriptures continued even into the modern period.

Either conclusion undermines the claim of an unchanged and divinely preserved biblical text.

This section of the article undermines its own argument. On the one hand, it claims that the New Testament contains numerous eyewitness accounts, while on the other it suggests that having a single unified perspective would indicate fabrication. This creates an internal contradiction. Either the Bible contains only a limited number of perspectives in which case, by the author’s own logic, it would be a fabrication, or it contains multiple, divergent viewpoints, even within the same chapters. The latter necessarily implies the presence of unknown or competing authors drawing from different theological schools of thought, which directly challenges claims of clear authorship and doctrinal consistency.

The existence of such divergent perspectives is evident in the many contradictions found within the Gospels themselves. The following examples, drawn from Introduction to the Study of the Holy Quran, illustrate these inconsistencies:

(i) Regarding the nature of Jesus(as)(as) at birth, Matthew (1:1–22) and Luke (1:32–33) portray the Messiah as an ordinary human being, albeit one who would be called the “Son of God.” In contrast, John (1:1) presents the Messiah as the eternal Word who was with God and was, in fact, God, through whom all things were made. These two portrayals are theologically irreconcilable.

(ii) Matthew (3:13–17), Mark (1:9–12), and Luke (3:21–22; 4:1) state that Jesus(as)(as) was baptized by John and then departed from him immediately or on the same day. However, the Gospel of John makes no mention of Jesus(as)’ baptism at all and instead describes Jesus’(as) meeting with John as lasting two days.

(iii) According to John (1:19–44), Jesus(as) remained with John and his disciples for several days before proceeding directly to Galilee. By contrast, Matthew (4:1), Mark (1:12), and Luke (4:1) state that after his baptism, Jesus(as) went into the wilderness to be tempted by Satan, where he remained for forty days.

(iv) John (1:35–51) suggests that shortly after meeting John, Jesus(as) took two of John’s disciples—Andrew and another unnamed individual—as his own, and that he later called Simon, Peter and Nathanael while traveling to Galilee. However, Matthew (4:12–22), Mark (1:12–20), and Luke (4:14–15; 5:1–11) place the calling of these disciples much later, after Jesus(as)’ forty-day fast, his preaching throughout Galilee, and the imprisonment of John. Both the timing and location of these events differ significantly between the accounts.

(v) John (4:3; 4:43–45) implies that Jesus(as)’ native place was Judaea and that he left it for Galilee because a prophet is not honoured in his own land. In contrast, Matthew (13:54–58), Mark (6:4), and Luke (4:24) identify Galilee as his native place and state that it was there that he was not honoured.

(vi) John (3:22–26; 4:1–3) states that Jesus(as) began preaching and baptising people before John the Baptist was imprisoned. Yet Matthew (4:12–17) and Mark (1:14–15) state that Jesus(as) began his public preaching only after John’s imprisonment.

(vii) Luke (3:23) identifies Joseph, the husband of Mary, as the son of Heli, whereas Matthew (1:16) identifies him as the son of Jacob.

(viii) Luke (3:31) traces Jesus(as)’ lineage through David’s son Nathan, while Matthew (1:6) traces it through Nathan’s brother, King Solomon.

(ix) Matthew’s genealogy lists forty-one individuals from Abraham(as) to Joseph, whereas Luke’s genealogy lists fifty-six. The names in the two genealogies also fail to correspond. Matthew (1:1-16) & Luke (3:23)

(x) Luke (24:50–51) states that Jesus(as) ascended into heaven at Bethany, while Acts (1:12) places the ascension at the Mount of Olives.

(xi) Luke (24:21–29, 36, 51) indicates that Jesus(as) ascended on the same day—or the night following—his resurrection, whereas Acts (1:3) states that the ascension occurred forty days after the resurrection.

(xii) Matthew (10:10) records Jesus(as) instructing his disciples not to take a staff or shoes for their journey. Mark (6:8–9), however, states that Jesus(as) permitted the carrying of a staff and allowed the wearing of sandals, directly contradicting Matthew’s account.

These examples collectively demonstrate that the New Testament does not present a single, coherent eyewitness narrative, but rather a collection of divergent and often contradictory accounts. This undermines the claim that the Bible represents a unified and reliably preserved record of historical events.

During the transmission of Christian scripture, Greek and Roman translators frequently adapted biblical concepts to align with their pre-existing pagan beliefs. This process inevitably influenced how Christian doctrines were formulated and understood, particularly when Christianity was spreading within Greco-Roman society.

Furthermore, several books of the Bible lack a clear and continuous chain of narration. Unlike the rigorous standards applied to the preservation of Islamic sources, many biblical texts cannot be reliably traced back to their original authors. One notable example is the Codex Sinaiticus, one of the earliest complete manuscripts of the New Testament, which was written in Greek more than 250 years after the time of Jesus(as) and the original Gospels. This significant temporal gap raises serious questions regarding textual reliability.

In contrast, the Holy Qur’an testifies to its own divine origin and preservation. It presents itself not only as revelation from God, but as a scripture divinely protected from corruption unlike previous scriptures that were entrusted to human custodianship and subsequently altered.

While God’s word itself cannot be changed, human beings can fabricate texts and falsely attribute them to God. This is precisely what has occurred in earlier scriptures. Evidence of human interference is found in the way prophets are portrayed in the Bible. Prophets, who are divinely chosen and morally exemplary individuals, are repeatedly defamed in biblical narratives, something categorically rejected in Islam.

Examples include:

• Genesis 9:20–22, which portrays Prophet Noah(as) as exposing his nakedness.
• Genesis 19:30–36, which accuses Prophet Lot of committing incest with his daughters.
• Prophet Aaron(as) is accused of misleading the Israelites into worshipping the Golden Calf during Moses’ absence (cf. Exodus 32), whereas the Qur’an absolves him of this charge and instead attributes the wrongdoing to the Samiri (Qur’an 20:85–97).

Such depictions strongly indicate human fabrication rather than divine revelation, particularly when contrasted with the Qur’anic portrayal of prophets as righteous, trustworthy, and protected from major sin.

Revelation in Islam was sent gradually, not all at once. Consequently, some legal rulings were revealed after certain events had already occurred. For example, before the Qur’anic injunction prescribing punishment for adultery had been revealed, cases were judged according to Mosaic law. A woman once confessed adultery to the Holy Prophet Muhammad ﷺ and was punished according to the law applicable at that time. Later, Islamic law established the punishment for adultery as one hundred lashes for free individuals, with a reduced punishment for bondservants (Qur’an 24:2; 4:25). This gradual process of legislation reflects divine wisdom, not contradiction.

Additionally, parts of the Bible themselves point toward the truth of Islam, including prophecies concerning the coming of the final Prophet Muhammad ﷺ.

The doctrine of the Trinity finds no basis in the Old Testament. Jesus(as) was not yet born during the period of earlier prophets, and there is no evidence that the Old Testament teaches either a Trinity or even a duality within God. Instead, it consistently affirms strict monotheism. The later introduction of Trinitarian doctrine therefore represents a theological innovation rather than a continuation of earlier revelation.

Crucially, Jesus(as) himself never explicitly claimed to be God anywhere in the Bible. No unambiguous statement exists in which he declares divinity or commands others to worship him.

On the contrary, Jesus(as) explicitly stated that his mission was to uphold and fulfil the earlier revelation, not to abolish it. In Matthew (5:17–18), he says:

“Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them.

For truly, I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not an iota, not a dot, will pass from the Law until all is accomplished.”

This clearly demonstrates that Jesus(as) came to reaffirm the message of the One God preached by earlier prophets - not to introduce a doctrine resembling polytheism.

Several fundamental questions further undermine the concept of the Trinity:

• If God is All-Powerful, why would He cede divine authority to created beings?
• How can God be divided without compromising His absolute oneness and perfection?

The formulation of Trinitarian theology is more plausibly traced to later figures most notably Paul rather than to Jesus(as) himself. Paul’s writings significantly reshaped Christian theology in ways that departed from earlier monotheistic teachings.

Finally, the descent of the Holy Spirit does not imply divinity. Angels are created beings who act solely according to God’s command and possess no independent power or free will. Their role as messengers does not elevate them to divine status, just as the angel Gabriel’s role in conveying revelation to prophets does not make him God.

The Qur’an and the Distortion of Earlier Scriptures

The Qur’an acknowledges that the Torah and the Gospel were originally revealed by God. However, this affirmation applies only to their original, unaltered forms, not to the versions that exist today, which have been subject to distortion over time.

This understanding is not a later Muslim innovation. Rather, the Qur’an itself explicitly warns that earlier communities altered or concealed the revelations entrusted to them. Allah states:

“And remember when Allah took a covenant from those who were given the Book, saying, ‘You shall make this Book known to the people and not conceal it.’ But they threw it away behind their backs, and bartered it for a paltry price. Evil is that which they have purchased.” (Qur’an 3:188)

This verse clearly indicates that those who were given earlier scriptures including the Torah and the Gospel failed in their responsibility to preserve and convey them faithfully. By concealing, altering, or selectively presenting revelation for worldly gain, they caused distortion in the transmitted texts.

Furthermore, the Qur’an never claims that earlier scriptures would be divinely protected from corruption. In contrast, it explicitly asserts divine protection for the Qur’an alone. Allah declares:

“Verily, We Ourself have sent down this Exhortation, and most surely We will be its Guardian.” (Qur’an 15:10)

This divine guarantee establishes the Qur’an’s preservation and infallibility, setting it apart from previous scriptures that were entrusted to human custodianship. As a result, while the Qur’an affirms the original revelations given to earlier prophets, it simultaneously explains why inconsistencies and distortions are found in their present-day texts.

The claim that “Allah appears to be accusing Jesus(as) of teaching the Holy Trinity but gets it wrong by assuming Mary is the third person instead of the Holy Spirit” is based on a misunderstanding of Qur’an 5:117. This verse states:

And when Allah will say, “O Jesus(as), son of Mary, didst thou say to men, ‘Take me and my mother for two gods beside Allah?’”, he will answer, “Holy art Thou. I could never say that to which I had no right. If I had said it, Thou wouldst have surely known it. Thou knowest what is in my mind, and I know not what is in Thy mind. It is only Thou Who art the Knower of hidden things.” (Qur’an 5:117)

Critics allege that this verse portrays Mary as part of the Christian Trinity. However, as explained in The Holy Qur’an with Five Volume Commentary by Hazrat Mirza Bashir-ud-Din Mahmood Ahmad (ra), this interpretation misunderstands both the verse and its purpose. Qur’an 5:117 does not define Christian doctrine nor attempt to describe the Trinity. Rather, it presents a scene from the Day of Judgment in which Jesus(as) is questioned so that he may publicly deny ever teaching the worship of himself or his mother.

When the Qur’an explicitly addresses the doctrine of the Trinity such as in Qur’an 4:172 and 5:74, Mary is not mentioned at all. This alone demonstrates that the Qur’an does not consider her to be part of the Trinity. Her mention in 5:117 is therefore not theological but corrective: it condemns all forms of human worship and the elevation of created beings to divine status, practices that emerged among certain groups after Jesus(as).

The article further claims that the Qur’an must be mistaken, using language such as “This is bizarre and betrays an ignorance of Christian teaching,” and asserting that “if it were God speaking, He would have gotten the Trinity right.” This criticism rests entirely on the false assumption that Qur’an 5:117 is defining the Trinity. In reality, the Qur’an’s rejection of associating partners with God is consistent and explicit, and it nowhere includes Mary within Trinitarian doctrine.

It is also alleged that the Qur’an’s language reflects the beliefs of a heretical sect in pre-Islamic Arabia known as Collyridianism, which reportedly worshipped Mary. This accusation implies that the Holy Prophet Muhammad ﷺ misunderstood mainstream Christianity and derived his views from a fringe sect. However, this argument is irrelevant. Islam neither teaches nor recognises a Trinity, nor does it regard Mary as divine. Qur’an 5:117 does not affirm Mary’s divinity; rather, it explicitly condemns the worship of any human being besides God. As such, invoking Collyridianism does not address the Qur’an’s actual argument and contributes nothing to the criticism.

The article further claims that Qur’an 5:117 contradicts Jesus(as)’ statements in John 10, particularly where he says, “I and the Father are one” (John 10:30). However, this interpretation misunderstands the Biblical usage of “oneness.” When Jesus(as) speaks of being “one” with the Father, he is not claiming equality in essence or divinity. Rather, he is describing unity of purpose, mission, and obedience.

This interpretation is made explicit later in the same Gospel, where Jesus(as) prays for his disciples, saying:

“that they may all be one, just as you, Father, are in me, and I in you, that they also may be in us, so that the world may believe that you have sent me.”
(John 17:21)

If “oneness” in John 10 were to mean unity of essence or shared divinity, then Jesus(as) would be asking for his disciples to partake in divinity as well, an interpretation no mainstream Christian theology accepts. The term therefore clearly denotes spiritual harmony and alignment of will, not identity of being.

The Qur’an affirms precisely this understanding. When it records Jesus(as) denying divine status (Qur’an 5:117), it does not deny his closeness to God, but rather rejects the notion that he ever claimed equality with God or independent divinity. This aligns with Jesus(as)’ own statements in the Bible, such as “for the Father is greater than I” (John 14:28) and “I can of mine own self do nothing” (John 5:30).

Thus, far from misunderstanding Christian belief, the Qur’an consistently upholds monotheism while accurately reflecting Jesus(as)’ own teachings regarding his relationship with God.

In an attempt to portray the Holy Prophet Muhammad ﷺ as a false prophet, the critic invokes the biblical criterion found in Deuteronomy:

“But the prophet who presumes to speak a word in My name that I have not commanded him to speak, or who speaks in the name of other gods, that same prophet shall die.” (Deuteronomy 18:20)

He then presents several prophecies attributed to the Holy Prophet ﷺ which he claims were unfulfilled, and therefore evidence of false prophethood (God forbid). Let us examine these allegations individually.

The Nearness of the Hour

The critic begins by citing the following hadith:

“Ibn Hawalah, when you see the caliphate has settled in the holy land, earthquakes, sorrows and serious matters will have drawn near, and on that day the Last Hour will be nearer to mankind than this hand of mine is to your head.”
(Sunan Abi Dawud, Hadith 2535)

He argues that since the caliphate remained established in Jerusalem for centuries, and the Last Hour did not occur, the prophecy failed. This objection rests on a misunderstanding of the Quranic and prophetic use of language.

The Holy Quran itself clarifies that time is not measured identically by God and human beings:

“And verily, a day with thy Lord is as a thousand years of your reckoning.” (Qur’an 22:48)

Thus, the term “Hour” (as-sa‘ah) does not necessarily denote a literal sixty-minute period, nor does it always refer exclusively to the Day of Judgement. The Quran uses the word sa‘ah in multiple contexts. For example:

“The Hour has drawn nigh, and the moon is rent asunder.” (Qur’an 54:2)

Here, as-sa‘ah does not refer to the final Judgement, but to an imminent event, namely, the victory of the Holy Prophet ﷺ and the decisive turning point for his opponents. Classical commentators have identified several layers of meaning in this verse.

Accordingly, sa‘ah can signify the Day of Judgement, a divinely appointed time of punishment, or a major historical upheaval. This latter meaning fits the prophecy perfectly. Following the Muslim conquest of Jerusalem, global power structures shifted, empires declined, new civilisations emerged, and the world entered a transformative era. The prophecy was therefore fulfilled in spirit and substance.

The Appearance of the Dajjal

The critic next claims that the Holy Prophet ﷺ foretold the appearance of the Dajjal shortly after the Muslim conquest of Constantinople (Sunan Abi Dawud, Hadith 4294), yet this allegedly did not occur despite the city’s fall in 1453.

This objection arises from a literalist misunderstanding of the concept of Dajjal. The Promised Messiah, Hazrat Mirza Ghulam Ahmad عليه السلام, explains that Dajjal is not the name of a single individual, but a symbolic term. Linguistically, dajjal refers to extreme deception and fraud, and represents a system or group characterised by theological distortion and moral deceit.

This description aptly applies to those within the Church who elevated a mortal prophet to divine status, attributing to Jesus(as) عليه السلام a share in Godhead. By presenting such doctrines, they misled humanity and corrupted the original Gospel message. In this sense, they embody the Dajjal.

In the Essence of Islam, it explains that the term Dajjal may also extend to philosophers and materialist thinkers who seek to dominate the world through industrial, mechanical, and ideological control, undermining spiritual values (The Essence of Islam, Vol. 3, p. 280).

When understood in this broader sense, the prophecy aligns clearly with history. The fall of Constantinople marked the transition into the early modern period. Shortly thereafter, European powers embarked on global expansion, spreading both political dominance and Christian theology worldwide:

“With the dawn of the early modern period… expansionist states and commercial interests in western Europe began knitting together, for the first time in history, a truly global economy.”
(Encyclopedia of World History, Infobase Publishing, 2008, Vol. 3, pp. xxxii–xxxiii)

Columbus’s voyage and the rise of European colonial empires soon followed. Thus, the global spread of Church influence and Western dominance shortly after Constantinople’s fall constitutes a clear fulfilment of the Holy Prophet’s ﷺ prophecy.

Women as Rulers

The final prophecy cited concerns the statement of the Holy Prophet ﷺ upon learning that the Persians had appointed the daughter of Khosrau as ruler:

“Never will succeed such a nation as makes a woman their ruler.”
(Sahih al-Bukhari, Hadith 7099)

The critic counters by pointing to modern Britain, which has had several female monarchs and prime ministers, yet remains successful. This objection ignores the historical and contextual specificity of the prophecy.

The statement was made concerning the Persian Empire, which was already under divine judgement due to its hostility toward the Holy Prophet ﷺ. In AD 628–629, the Holy Prophet ﷺ sent a letter to Khosrau Parvez inviting him to Islam. In response, Khosrau tore the letter and ordered the Prophet’s arrest—and according to some narrations, his execution.

The Holy Prophet ﷺ calmly foretold Khosrau’s destruction. That very night, Khosrau was assassinated by his own son, Sharawaih, who immediately revoked his father’s orders (Life & Character of the Seal of Prophets, Vol. 3, pp. 200–205).

Thereafter, the empire descended into chaos, with rulers rising and falling in rapid succession. This fulfilled the prophecy:

“When Khosrau perishes, there will be no Khosrau after him.”
(Sahih al-Bukhari, Hadith 3121)

Boran, the daughter of Khosrau, ruled briefly amid political turmoil and was overthrown within two years. Her reign marked continued decline rather than stability. The Holy Prophet’s ﷺ statement was thus a precise prediction about a specific empire at a specific moment in history—not a universal condemnation of female leadership.

The Quranic Criterion for a False Prophet

Ironically, by citing Deuteronomy’s criterion for prophethood, the critic inadvertently reinforces the Quranic position:

“And if he had falsely attributed even a trivial statement to Us, We would surely have seized him by the right hand, and then surely We would have severed his jugular vein.” (Qur’an 69:45–47)

The Holy Quran itself presents an extensive body of prophecies that continue to find fulfilment. Even limiting ourselves to Surah at-Takwir and related passages, the signs described, technological advancement, global communication, moral decay, mass transportation, widespread publication, and cosmic phenomena—were beyond the foresight of any human being.

In the Essence of Islam, the Promised Messiah عليه السلام identified these signs as manifest in the modern age, confirming both his own mission and the truthfulness of the Holy Prophet ﷺ (The Essence of Islam, Vol. 4, pp. 194–197).

Such knowledge of the unseen cannot originate from human conjecture. It can only come from divine revelation.

Does the Quran Deny the Crucifixion of Jesus(as)?

The critic concludes by claiming that the Quran contradicts established history by denying the crucifixion of Jesus(as). This claim again stems from a misunderstanding of the Quranic text. The Quran states:

“And their saying, ‘We did kill the Messiah, Jesus(as), son of Mary, the Messenger of Allah,’ whereas they slew him not, nor crucified him, but it was made to appear so to them…” (Qur’an 4:158)

The Jewish claim was that Jesus(as)’ death on the cross proved him false, since Jewish law declares one hanged upon a tree accursed (Deut. 21:23). The Quran rejects this conclusion by denying that Jesus(as) died on the cross. It does not deny that he was placed upon it, but that his death occurred there.

The arabic phrase shubbiha lahum means that the matter was made doubtful to them they assumed death without certainty. The Quran explicitly states that they followed conjecture, not knowledge.

According to Ahmadiyya belief, Jesus(as) survived the crucifixion, was taken down alive, and later travelled to preach to the lost tribes of Israel, eventually dying a natural death. This view is elaborated in Jesus in India by Hazrat Mirza Ghulam Ahmad عليه السلام.

The charge of “false prophecies” rests entirely on selective reading, historical decontextualisation, and theological misunderstanding. When examined carefully, the prophecies of the Holy Prophet ﷺ demonstrate remarkable precision, depth, and fulfilment confirming his truthfulness and divine mission beyond reasonable doubt.

Textual Preservation and Alleged Instability of the Qur’an

Many claims regarding textual instability in the Qur’an arise from misunderstanding, selective reading, or prior bias. The Qur’an was preserved in its ʿUthmānic consonantal form (rasm), while allowing authorised recitational variations. Differences such as Ḥafṣ and Warsh do not represent different Qur’ans, but recognised modes of recitation (qirāʾāt) that operate within the same textual framework.

From the earliest period of Islam, the Prophet ﷺ authorised multiple modes of recitation, known as the seven aḥruf, in order to accommodate dialectical differences among Arab tribes and to facilitate ease of recitation for the early Muslim community. The Companions were fully aware of these variations and openly discussed and challenged one another about them.

A well-known example is the incident in which ʿUmar ibn al-Khaṭṭāb heard Hishām ibn Ḥakīm recite Sūrat al-Furqān differently from his own recitation. They brought the matter before the Prophet ﷺ, who affirmed both recitations and declared, “This is how it was revealed,” explaining that the Qur’an had been revealed in multiple authorised forms. These differences were minor—often orthographic or dialectal—and did not alter the meaning of the text.

The Companions recognised recitational differences, openly challenged them, and referred disputes to the Prophet ﷺ, who affirmed multiple authorised recitations and explained that the Qur’an was revealed in different ways for ease.

Reference: Ṣaḥīḥ al-Bukhārī, 5041.

The Claim of “Lost Chapters”

The claim that chapters of the Qur’an were lost rests on a weak and exaggerated assumption. In the cited report, a single Companion states, “I have, however, forgotten it.” This personal lapse in memory is then inflated to suggest that entire chapters disappeared from the Qur’an. Such a conclusion does not logically follow.

An individual forgetting a passage does not equate to the loss of revelation within a community where the Qur’an was widely memorised, publicly recited, written down, and constantly cross-checked. The ḥadīth in question does not state that the Qur’an vanished, nor that others were unaware of the verses. It merely reflects an individual’s personal recollection. The claim of “lost chapters” is therefore built on misreading and exaggeration of the source itself.

The Battle of Yamāmah

It is true that many ḥuffāẓ (memorisers of the Qur’an) were martyred during the Battle of Yamāmah. However, this does not imply that verses were lost. On the contrary, it prompted a preventative measure to further safeguard preservation.

Reports cited to suggest actual loss are not ṣaḥīḥ (authentic). The reliable historical account shows that ʿUmar ibn al-Khaṭṭāb feared that if further battles occurred, the loss of memorizers might eventually pose a risk. As a precaution, he proposed compiling the Qur’an into a single written collection.

Abū Bakr al-Ṣiddīq accepted this proposal, and a meticulous compilation process began, relying on both written materials and verified memorisation. This episode demonstrates heightened concern for preservation, not evidence of textual loss.

(See, for example, discussions referenced in sermons such as the Friday sermon on the Battle of Yamāmah, 16/09/2022)

“Breastfeeding an Adult Ten Times”

The term “adult” is frequently added in polemical presentations but does not appear in the Qur’anic text. The issue itself relates to a specific and limited legal discussion found in isolated reports and has no bearing on the Qur’an’s preservation or content. It is often misused to suggest Qur’anic loss where none is indicated.

Compilation and Standardisation of the Qur’an

Several recurring claims are often raised in this context:

“Sūrah al-Aḥzāb (33) used to be 200 verses long.”
This assertion is based on weak or misunderstood reports and directly contradicts the mass-transmitted recitation and manuscript tradition preserved by the Muslim community.

“Uthmān burned all existing versions of the Qur’an because they disagreed with his.”
In reality, ʿUthmān standardised copies according to the agreed-upon ʿUthmānic rasm and ordered the removal of unofficial personal codices to prevent dialectal confusion—not because the content differed.

“Abdullāh ibn Masʿūd rejected the standard Qur’an.”
Ibn Masʿūd accepted the Qur’an as recited by the community. Differences attributed to him concern personal teaching notes or recitational preferences, not a fundamentally different or competing Qur’an.

In this section, the author misuses a selection of verses to present what he believes to be contradictions within the Quran. In the following paragraphs, these alleged contradictions will be dismantled one by one, demonstrating that the author is unsuccessful in establishing any inconsistency within the Quran.

Firstly, the author suggests that the Quran labelling Abraham(as) and other Israelite prophets as “Muslim,” and referring to Moses as “the first of the believers,” contradicts Muhammad ﷺ who came much later - saying, “I am the first of the Muslims.”

The reference to Moses is misplaced. There is no contradiction, as Moses refers to himself as the first of the believers, which does not conflict with Muhammad ﷺ stating that he is the first of the Muslims. Moses is still among the “People of the Book” (Jews and Christians), who share Abraham(as)ic roots with Islam and are regarded as believers in God, having worshipped and received revelation from the same God.

Regarding Abraham(as) and the other prophets, they are referred to as Muslim on a technical level. A Muslim is literally one who submits to God, and the prophets clearly fulfil this criterion. The Quran refers to Islam as “the way of your father Abraham(as),” which implies that Abraham(as) himself was Muslim, as were the prophets who followed in his tradition.

So why is Muhammad ﷺ referred to as “the first of the Muslims”? The phrase ‘awwal al-muslimin' does not necessarily mean the first Muslim ever, as we have already seen that earlier prophets are described as Muslims. Two equally strong points can be made here. Firstly, Muhammad ﷺ being described as “the first” highlights his status as the final and ultimate prophet, whose message encompasses and confirms the teachings of all earlier prophets, who are also regarded as Muslims. Secondly, when the verse is considered in context, it is addressing the polytheists of Muhammad’s ﷺ time and calling them to affirm beliefs such as God having no partner. In this sense, Muhammad ﷺ stating that he is the first Muslim means he is the first from among his own people to submit to God. He is therefore the first Muslim from his disbelieving community, not the first Muslim in absolute terms, and thus there is no contradiction.

The next issue involves the author misquoting the Quran (5:91). He claims that the Quran refers to alcohol as a “good provision.” However, the literal translation states: “From date palms and grapes, you take intoxicating drink and good provision.” The “good provision” refers to items such as fruit, raisins, and wholesome food, while the intoxicating drink is simply another product derived from them.

Even if we were to assume that the intoxicating drink is implied to be a blessing alongside the “good provision,” this would still be consistent with other Quranic verses that acknowledge there is some benefit in alcohol. There are known medicinal benefits to alcohol, and the Quran accurately mentions this advantage. At the same time, the Quran also acknowledges the harm alcohol causes to health and society. This explains why alcohol is ultimately prohibited and condemned as Satan’s work. Rather than contradicting itself, the Quran presents both aspects before reaching a final conclusion.

Another contradiction proposed by the author concerns God being All-Powerful yet supposedly unable to create a son. In fact, the author partially answers this himself through the verse he cites. The verse explains that God has no partner, and therefore cannot have a son, as He does not conceive offspring.

The author appears to question why God could not simply create a son if He is All-Powerful. The response is straightforward: God’s fundamental nature is absolute oneness. The oneness of God is the central tenet of Islam, and associating partners with God—such as a divine son—is considered the gravest sin. This is not a limitation of power. God is All-Powerful and theoretically capable of creating anything, but such an act would contradict His essential nature and therefore would never occur.

The author also claims a contradiction in the Quran’s descriptions of the materials from which mankind was created, such as a clot of congealed blood, clay and mud, dust, and a drop of sperm. However, all of these descriptions are truthful and complementary. Humans originate from a drop of sperm through conception. Almost everything in existence is formed from cosmic dust produced in stars. Regarding clay and mud, the author inaccurately summarises the verse in question. In (15:27), the Quran does not state that man was formed simply from clay and mud, but from clay derived from black mud. This black mud can be understood as a reference to early carbon-based compounds; the essential building blocks of life.

Thus, blood, sperm, dust, and black mud all represent elements involved in human creation. Rather than contradicting one another, they describe different stages of creation: from primordial stardust, to carbon-based matter, to conception through sperm, and finally to embryonic development involving blood.

The final alleged contradiction concerns the Quran (2:257) stating that there is no compulsion in religion while also instructing Muslims to fight and kill polytheists. This claim arises from a failure to consider context. Before the verse commanding the fighting of certain polytheists, the Quran instructs Muslims to honour treaties with those who have upheld them. Immediately after the verse cited by the author, Muslims are commanded to grant protection to any polytheist who seeks it.

Therefore, the command to fight applies specifically to those polytheists who broke their treaties and did not seek protection. They are not targeted because of their beliefs, but because they violated agreements and engaged in hostilities. Consequently, there is no contradiction between the Quran’s affirmation of religious freedom and its instruction to fight certain hostile polytheists under specific circumstances.

Ultimately, the author’s approach of cherry-picking verses, misquoting them, and ignoring context has led to alleged contradictions that do not withstand scrutiny. It is therefore appropriate to return to the verse the author himself cites at the outset:

“Will they not, then, meditate upon the Qur’an? Had it been from anyone other than Allah, they would surely have found therein much disagreement. .”(4:83)

The author claims that these supposed contradictions prove the Quran is from Muhammad ﷺ rather than God. Since these contradictions have been shown to be unfounded, there is no reason to conclude that the Quran is not from God Himself.

The claim that the Quran blindly adopts myths is incorrect. Rather, the Quran presents itself as a Guardian over previous scriptures, preserving historical truths while correcting theological errors that entered earlier, corrupted texts.

First, regarding Jesus(as) speaking in the cradle (19:30), the Arabic Infancy Gospel claims that Jesus(as) spoke to declare himself the “Son of God.” The Quran deliberately corrects this narrative by having Jesus(as) proclaim, “I am a servant of God.” This is not an act of copying, but one of theological rectification. Furthermore, the reference to the “cradle” may be understood metaphorically, indicating Jesus(as) speaking with prophetic wisdom at a very young age or early in his ministry in order to defend the honour of his mother.

Second, with respect to the birds of clay (3:50), the apocryphal accounts portray this as a child’s magic trick. The Quran, however, elevates the account to the level of a divine sign. Ahmadiyya exegesis interprets this metaphorically: Jesus(as) took spiritually undeveloped people - likened to clay and, by God’s permission, breathed spiritual life into them, enabling them to rise toward God like birds.

Third, regarding the crucifixion (4:158), we categorically reject the substitution theory found in the teachings attributed to Basilides. The Quran does not state that someone else was killed in Jesus(as)’ place. The phrase shubbiha lahum means that the matter was made dubious to them. Jesus(as) was placed on the cross but survived, entering a state of swoon. God did not deceive anyone; rather, the people were misled by their own assumptions that Jesus(as) had died.

Finally, Quranic verse 10:93 concerning the preservation of Pharaoh’s body serves as strong evidence of the Quran’s divine origin. While the Bible implies that Pharaoh was lost at sea, the Quran accurately foretold that his body would be preserved as a sign for future generations, a fact only confirmed by modern archaeology centuries later. This demonstrates that the Quran is not a compilation of borrowed folklore, but a unique and divinely revealed scripture.

The better news is that God has always succeeded in guiding humanity, and He has done so through a continuous and unified chain of prophets: Noah, Abraham(as), Moses, Jesus(as), and finally Muhammad ﷺ, the Seal of the Prophets. Islam affirms Jesus(as) as the Messiah, miraculously born and sent by God who preached love, forgiveness, and grace. What Islam rejects is the later theological claim that elevates a prophet into God Himself. Jesus(as) succeeded in his mission by calling people back to God, not by becoming an object of worship or serving as a substitute for human guilt (alislam.org, Jesus(as) in Islam; The Truth About Salvation).

Islam teaches that God does not require the suffering or death of an innocent person in order to forgive the guilty. The doctrine that divine justice is satisfied by punishing the blameless instead of the wrongdoer contradicts both reason and moral intuition. God is perfectly just and perfectly merciful, and forgiveness flows from His mercy, not from transferred punishment or blood sacrifice (alislam.org, Four Questions Answered; The Truth About Salvation).

Islam fully agrees that human beings sin. Where it differs sharply is in rejecting inherited guilt and vicarious atonement. Every human being is born morally pure and individually accountable. Sin is personal, repentance is personal, and forgiveness is granted directly by God. Salvation is not achieved by shifting blame onto another, but through sincere repentance, moral reform, and divine mercy (alislam.org, How to Be Free from Sin; The Truth About Salvation).

Islam also rejects the claim that salvation requires belief in a dying or resurrected God. Salvation begins in this very life, when a person is freed from enslavement to sin and drawn into nearness to God. This nearness is cultivated through prayer, humility, moral struggle, and inner transformation—not through legal declarations of guaranteed heaven or spiritual shortcuts (alislam.org, Salvation; Faculties for Seeing God Can Be Developed in This Very World).

Islam therefore does not present salvation as a one-time transaction sealed forever regardless of conduct. Instead, it offers something more serious and more honest: confidence in God’s mercy paired with continuous moral responsibility. Salvation depends entirely on God’s grace, not on deeds alone, but deeds matter because they reflect sincerity and living faith. Grace saves, but effort testifies to belief (alislam.org, The Truth About Salvation; Islam’s Concept of Salvation).

The citation of Qur’an 46:10 is a misreading. The verse does not express doubt about salvation, nor does it suggest that the Prophet Muhammad ﷺ feared rejection by God. Rather, it affirms a defining feature of genuine prophethood: a messenger does not claim independent knowledge of the unseen but faithfully follows divine revelation. This is a statement of humility and truthfulness, not uncertainty (alislam.org, The Status of the Holy Prophet Muhammad)..

The recurring question, “How can you know you have done enough?” misunderstands Islam entirely. Islam does not teach salvation by works. It teaches that no one enters Paradise by deeds alone, but by the mercy of God. Deeds do not purchase salvation; they demonstrate sincerity, repentance, and commitment. God’s mercy remains decisive and always open to those who turn to Him (alislam.org, The Truth About Salvation).

Christianity often concludes by offering a scripted prayer as the gateway to salvation. Islam rejects the reduction of faith to a single verbal formula. It calls instead to a lifelong relationship with the One God, grounded in repentance, prayer, obedience, and trust in divine mercy. God is not accessed through another’s name. He is near, responsive, and fully capable of forgiving—without incarnation, blood, or sacrifice (alislam.org, Concept of God in Islam; The Truth About Salvation).

That is not insecurity.

That is not ambiguity.

That is theological clarity, moral coherence, and spiritual dignity.

And that is the better news.