Answering Islam - A Christian-Muslim dialog

Ibn Qayyim al-Jawziyyah and the Text of the Torah Revisited:

A further exposition of a Dawagandist’s shoddy and shallow logic

Sam Shamoun

Bassam Zawadi included an appendix to his “rebuttal” where he attempted to “refute” the comments I made in an article I wrote regarding a specific narration by Ibn al-Qayyim that cites the various views held by Muslim scholars concerning the textual integrity of the Torah (*).

Here, I would like to address some of Zawadi’s points in order to show how his statements will come back to haunt him since they further expose the rather incoherent and chaotic nature of the Islamic sources.

Zawadi seeks to explain away the explicit statements of the Quran that Jesus testified to and believed in the textual veracity of the Torah in his possession by saying that,

Similarly, when Jesus confirms the Torah he is only confirming its truth when it speaks about his coming. Even Shamoun's citations confirm this:

After citing Ibn Kathir’s explanation of Q. 61:6 Zawadi erroneously concludes:

So here we see that Jesus (peace be upon him) confirmed the Torah by fulfilling its prophecy of him to come. He also confirmed it by upholding it and ruling by it. None of these necessitate that the full uncorrupted Torah was with Jesus in manuscript form. Jesus could have known the Torah in his heart as God was inspiring it to him.

As for Jesus saying the "Torah between my hands" this could either mean that Jesus did have a true inspired copy being distributed amongst the very few of the true followers [sic] or that Jesus by intention was speaking about the true inspired Torah, despite it being mixed with corrupted Old Testament verses. Whatever the case is, it is not clear [sic] that Jesus was affirming that the Old Testament is the pure and full preserved word of God. If our Qur'anic experts could understand the Qur'an confirming the Torah and Gospel does not necessarily imply that the Torah and Gospel are fully preserved [sic], then I don't see why we should believe Jesus confirming the Torah implies that the Torah is fully preserved either.

There is just no winning with Zawadi. He continues to live in a fantasy world where he thinks he “destroys” arguments and soundly “defeats” his opponents, when in reality he only manages to further prove why Islamic polemics are just simply intellectually bankrupt and are based on gross lies and distortions of facts.

Let us quote the words of Ibn Kathir once again so as to expose Zawadi’s deliberate distortion and manhandling of his very own Islamic sources:

<'Isa, son of Maryam, confirming the Tawrah that had come before him,> meaning, HE BELIEVED IN IT AND RULED BY IT.

<...and to make lawful to you part of what was forbidden to you.> meaning, HE ADHERED TO THE TAWRAH, except for the few instances that clarified the truth where the Children of Israel differed. Allah states in another Ayah that 'Isa said to the Children of Israel.

So the scholars say that the Injil abrogated some of the rulings of the Tawrah. (Tafsir Ibn Kathir, Abridged - Surat An-Nisa, Verse 148 to the end of Surat Al-An'am [January 2000, first edition], Volume 3, Parts 6, 7 & 8, pp. 193-194; source; bold and capital emphasis ours)


<the Tawrah and the Injil>. The Tawrah is the Book THAT ALLAH SENT DOWN TO MUSA, son of Imran, while the Injil is what Allah sent down to Isa, son of Maryam, peace be upon them, AND ISA MEMORIZED BOTH BOOKS...

<If you believe. And I have come confirming that which was before me of the Tawrah,> AFFIRMING THE TAWRAH AND UPHOLDING IT," (Tafsir Ibn Kathir, Abridged – Surat Al-Baqarah, Verse 253, to Surat An-Nisa, Verse 147, Abridged by a group of scholars under the supervision of Shaykh Safiur-Rahman Al-Mubarakpuri [Darussalam Publishers & Distributors, Riyadh, Houston, New York, Lahore; March 2000, first edition], Volume 2, Parts 3, 4 & 5, pp. 163, 165; source; bold and capital emphasis ours)

As the preceding references conclusively demonstrate Ibn Kathir didn’t simply say that Jesus confirmed the Torah only in the sense of affirming the prophecies made concerning his advent. Ibn Kathir explicitly stated that Jesus memorized, believed in, affirmed and upheld the veracity of the Torah, as well as ruled by it!

Ibn Kathir wasn’t the only expositor that held this view. Modern Muslim scholar and writer Mahmoud M. Ayoub quotes Ar-Razi’s explanation of Q. 3:50 who agrees with Ibn Kathir:

Razi then raises the following question: ‘It may be argued that latter statement contradicts the one before it. This is because it clearly indicates that he came to make lawful some of the things which were unlawful in the Torah. This would mean that his legislation was contrary to that of the Torah, which would contradict his saying, "I shall confirm the Torah which was before me."’ Razi, however, holds that ‘there is actually no contradiction between the two statements because confirming the Torah CAN ONLY SIGNIFY THE BELIEF THAT ALL THAT IS IN IT IS TRUE AND RIGHT. If, moreover, the second purpose [of Jesus’ apostleship] is not mentioned in the Torah, his making lawful some of the things which are unlawful in it would not contradict his having confirmed the Torah. Furthermore, SINCE THE TORAH CONTAINS PROPHECIES CONCERNING THE COMING OF JESUS, then neither his coming nor his law would be contrary to the Torah.’ (Ayoub, The Quran and Its Interpreters, The House of Imran [State University of New York Press, Albany 1992], Volume II, p. 150; bold and capital emphasis ours)

Thus, Jesus didn’t simply affirm the prophecies of the Torah concerning his coming, he also confirmed and believed in its textual veracity and authority.

This also sufficiently puts to rest Zawadi’s assertion that Jesus may have confirmed only the true inspired Torah which was mixed up with the Old Testament since Zawadi is not only begging the question concerning the alleged textual corruption of the Hebrew Bible, he conveniently ignores the way the Quran uses the term “confirm” or saddaqa.

The Muslim scripture uses this word in a positive sense to mean to believe in, to trust, to accept fully, just as the following examples from the Quran conclusively prove:

And the angels called to him, standing in the Sanctuary at worship, 'Lo, God gives thee good tidings of John, who shall confirm a Word of God (musaddiqan bikalimatin mina Allahi), a chief, and chaste, a Prophet, righteous.' S. 3:39

The Baptist believed in a Word from Allah by fully supporting and endorsing Jesus’ mission:

And the angels, namely, Gabriel, called to him, standing in the sanctuary, in the temple, at worship that (anna, means bi-anna; a variant reading has inna, implying a direct speech statement) 'God gives you good tidings (read yubashshiruka, or yubshiruka) of John, who shall confirm a Word, being, from God, namely, Jesus, that he is God's Spirit; he is referred to as [God's] 'Word', because he was created through the word kun, 'Be'; a lord, with a following, and one chaste, forbidden from women, and a prophet of the righteous': it is said that he never sinned and never so intended. (Tafsir Al-Jalalayn; underline emphasis ours)


When Allah made (His) covenant with the prophets, (He said): Behold that which I have given you of the Scripture and knowledge. And afterward there will come unto you a messenger, confirming (musaddiqun) that which ye possess. Ye shall believe in him and ye shall help him. He said: Do ye agree, and will ye take up My burden (which I lay upon you) in this (matter)? They [the prophets] answered: We agree. He said: Then bear ye witness. I will be a witness with you. S. 3:81

Here, Allah is supposedly informing the prophets that a messenger is going to come to confirm what they possessed, which in this context refers to their Scriptures.

Now doesn’t this clearly show that by confirming the Quran means completely embracing the previous Scriptures as being fully reliable? Or are we to really assume that what this citation is actually saying is that the messenger would come to the prophets and confirm only those parts of their Scriptures which remained intact, which would essentially mean that the prophets failed to preserve the revelation that God gave to them?

Here is another example:

And Mary, Imran's daughter, who guarded her virginity, so We breathed into her of Our Spirit, and she confirmed (saddaqat) the Words of her Lord and His Books, and became one of the obedient. S. 66:12

Mary confirmed Allah’s books by fully embracing and believing in them:

(And Mary, daughter of Imran, whose body was chaste, therefore We breathed therein something of Our Spirit) and so Gabriel breathed inside her garment and she became pregnant with Jesus. (And she put faith in the words of her Lord) she believed in what Gabriel told her that he was the Messenger of Allah entrusted with giving her a holy son (and His Scriptures) and she also believed in His Scriptures: the Torah, the Gospel and all other Scriptures; it is also said this means: she believed in the words of her Lord that Jesus the son of Mary will come into being by Allah saying "Be!" and he became a human being, and she also believed in His Scripture: the Gospel, (and was of the obedient) in times of hardship and comfort; and it is also said that this means: and she was obedient to He Who is far transcendent and majestic'. (Tanwîr al-Miqbâs min Tafsîr Ibn ‘Abbâs; bold and underline emphasis ours)


“who confirm (yusaddiqoona) the Day of Doom and go in fear of the chastisement of their Lord.” S. 70:26-27

The Muslims confirm the Day of Judgment by fully believing in it and accepting it as a reality that will come to pass.

All of these examples establish beyond any reasonable doubt that Jesus didn’t simply confirm the Torah by pointing out which parts of it were valid and which sections were corrupted. Rather, Jesus confirmed the Torah by fully embracing and testifying to its inspiration and preservation. And since we have manuscript copies of the Hebrew Scriptures that were written before Jesus’ birth that are virtually identical to what we currently possess we can definitely say that the Torah that Jesus testified as being completely reliable and fully authoritative is the same OT that is found in our Bibles today. There is simply no way around this fact.

Zawadi is clearly perverting the meaning of words to make them say the opposite. In his mind “pointing out disagreements” is somehow taken to mean confirming. In that sense then the Holy Bible is also confirming the Qur’an by exposing everything that is wrong with it. This means that I must be confirming Bassam Zawadi’s articles by refuting the errors contained in them. Our website should be called “Confirming Islam” since it is about showing the falsehood of Islam (besides acknowledging that even falsehood contains some truth, as does every forgery). When a witness is called in court and asked: Can you confirm the testimony of this person, he says: Yes, I confirm his word by saying he is wrong and it was different!!?? When Muslims speak about Science confirming the Quran they actually mean that Science exposes and corrects the multitude of errors contained in this book? Either the word means “to confirm” or it does not. But then it should not be translated that way. What all of this really is, is a trick of Muhammad of claiming agreement with earlier accepted revelation for the purpose of legitimizing himself.

Moreover, Zawadi is quite selective in the Muslim scholars he cites since there were and continue to be Muslim authorities who accept the fact that the Torah and the Gospel have not been corrupted but remain as they were originally revealed. Here I am going to simply repeat the words of Ibn al-Qayyim and Ibn Kathir who cited the comments of specific Muslim expositors and theologians that accepted the textual veracity and preservation of the previous Scriptures, since Zawadi has failed to adequately respond to their quotes:

Mujahid, Ash-Sha'bi, Al-Hassan, Qatadah and Ar-Rabi' bin Anas said that,

<who distort the Book with their tongues.> means, "They alter (Allah's Words)."

Al-Bukhari reported that Ibn 'Abbas said that the Ayah means they alter and add although none among Allah's creation CAN REMOVE THE WORDS OF ALLAH FROM HIS BOOKS, they alter and distort their apparent meanings. Wahb bin Munabbih said, “The Tawrah and Injil REMAIN AS ALLAH REVEALED THEM, AND NO LETTER IN THEM WAS REMOVED. However, the people misguide others by addition and false interpretation, relying on books that they wrote themselves." Then...

<they say: "This is from Allah," but it is not from Allah;> As for Allah's books, THEY ARE STILL PRESERVED AND CANNOT BE CHANGED.” Ibn Abi Hatim recorded this statement... (Tafsir Ibn Kathir – Abridged, Volume 2, Parts 3, 4 & 5, Surat Al-Baqarah, Verse 253, to Surat An-Nisa, verse 147 [Darussalam Publishers & Distributors, Riyadh, Houston, New York, Lahore; First Edition: March 2000], p. 196: *; bold and capital emphasis ours)


On the other side, another party of hadith and fiqh scholars said: these changes took place during its interpretation and not during the process of its revelation. This is the view of Abi Abdullah Muhammad bin Ishmael Al-Bukhari who said in his hadith collection:

"No one can corrupt the text by removing any of Allah’s words from his Books, but they corrupted it by misinterpreting it."

Al-Razi also agrees with this opinion. In his commentary he said:

There is a difference of opinions regarding this matter among some of the respectable scholars. Some of these scholars said: the manuscript copies of the Torah were distributed everywhere and no one knows the exact number of these copies except Allah. It is IMPOSSIBLE to have a conspiracy to change or alter the word of God in all of these copies without missing any copy. Such a conspiracy will not be logical or possible. And when Allah told his messenger (Muhammad) to ask the Jews to bring their Torah and read it concerning the stoning command they were not able to change this command from their copies, that is why they covered up the stoning verse while they were reading it to the prophet. It was then when Abdullah Ibn Salam requested that they remove their hand so that the verse became clear. If they have changed or altered the Torah then this verse would have been one of the important verses to be altered by the Jews.

Also, whenever the prophet would ask them (the Jews) concerning the prophecies about him in the Torah they were not able to remove them either, and they would respond by stating that they are not about him and they are still waiting for the prophet in their Torah.

Abu Dawood narrated in his collection that Ibn Umar said:

A group of Jewish people invited the messenger of Allah to a house. When he came, they asked him: O Abu Qassim, one of our men committed adultery with a woman, what is your judgment against him? So they placed a pillow and asked the messenger of Allah to set on it. Then the messenger of Allah proceeded to say: bring me the Torah. When they brought it, he removed the pillow from underneath him and placed the Torah on it and said: I believe in you and in the one who revealed you, then said: bring me one of you who have the most knowledge. So they brought him a young man who told him the story of the stoning.

The scholars said: if the Torah was corrupted he would not have placed it on the pillow and he would not have said: I believe in you and in the one who revealed you. This group of scholars also said: Allah said:

"And the word of your Lord has been accomplished truly and justly; there is none who can change His words, and He is the Hearing, the Knowing."

And the Torah is Allah’s word.

This group of scholars also said: there are famous traditions also which indicate that the Jews covered up the prophecies in the Torah concerning the prophet, and they did not allow their children and the common people to look up these prophecies, and if any one looked up these prophecies, the Jews will tell him that they are not concerning Muhammad. These are the arguments which this group of scholars used.

A third group said: the Torah was altered slightly, however the majority of it is still intact, but the changes were MINOR, and among those who have chosen this view is our scholar [Ibn Tayimiyyah] in his book Al-Jawaab ("The Answer"). (Ibn al-Qayyim al-Jawziyyah, Ighathat Al Lahfan, Volume 2, p. 351; bold, capital and underline emphasis ours)

These Muslim scholars were simply following in the footsteps of Jesus and Muhammad since both of these men clearly testified to the reliability and accuracy of the Scriptures in their possessions. Unlike Zawadi, these Islamic authorities could clearly see from the words and example of their false prophet that the Torah that he praised is the same that they had access to and therefore couldn’t attack its textual veracity.

After trying to convince us that the authentic hadiths are a source of religious authority for Muslims – despite the fact that not all of his fellow co-religionists share this view or accept Zawadi’s so-called authentic collections of narrations – Zawadi writes,

Secondly, the narration does not say that the Arabic name "Al Mulk" was used in the Torah back in those days. It only alludes to the Surah. The Qur'an says that the Torah says "so and so" and the Qur'an is in the Arabic language. However, we know that the Torah wasn't in Arabic. So it is only a translation. Perhaps the name "Al Mulk" wasn't used even in the Torah's language and some other name was given, but the narration alludes to Surah Al Mulk being referred to in the original inspired Torah.

Zawadi still doesn’t get the point. He wants us to actually believe that the Torah contained a passage which says that stoning occurs only when four men testify that they saw a man’s organ enter and penetrate a woman when such an injunction doesn’t even appear in the Quran! Moreover, the consistent testimony of the Holy Bible is that a legal matter will be settled by the testimony of two or three witnesses, not four!

“If there is found in your midst, in any of your towns, which the LORD your God is giving you, a man or a woman who does what is evil in the sight of the LORD your God, by transgressing His covenant, and has gone and served other gods and worshiped them, or the sun or the moon or any of the heavenly host, which I have not commanded, and if it is told you and you have heard of it, then you shall inquire thoroughly. Behold, if it is true and the thing certain that this detestable thing has been done in Israel, then you shall bring out that man or that woman who has done this evil deed to your gates, that is, the man or the woman, and you shall stone them to death. On the evidence of two witnesses or three witnesses, he who is to die shall be put to death; he shall not be put to death on the evidence of one witness. The hand of the witnesses shall be first against him to put him to death, and afterward the hand of all the people. So you shall purge the evil from your midst.” Deuteronomy 17:2-7

“A single witness shall not rise up against a man on account of any iniquity or any sin which he has committed; on the evidence of two or three witnesses a matter shall be confirmed.” Deuteronomy 19:15

“But if he will not listen, take one or two others along, so that ‘every matter may be established by the testimony of two or three witnesses.’” Matthew 18:16

“This will be my third visit to you. ‘Every matter must be established by the testimony of two or three witnesses.’” 2 Corinthians 13:1

“Do not entertain an accusation against an elder unless it is brought by two or three witnesses.” 1 Timothy 5:19

“Anyone who rejected the law of Moses died without mercy on the testimony of two or three witnesses.” Hebrews 10:28

It is more than obvious that these Muslims were lying and making up stories concerning what they read in God’s truly inspired Scriptures.

After claiming to have defeated me Zawadi proceeds to rant and rave,

Ha! Talk about DEBATE OVER! [sic] Notice the absurd response:

It is evident that certain Muslims made up reports where they claim that the previous Scriptures contained these specific verses in order to provide substantiation for a particular view

This ladies and gentlemen is Shamoun admitting that he has been defeated. Notice that we are not debating whether Islam's claim about the Torah and Gospel being textually corrupted is true or not. We are debating whether Islam claims that the Torah and Gospel have been textually corrupted or not.

Zawadi again speaks presumptuously by arrogating to himself the right to speak on behalf of all Muslims since he again claims that Islam derives its authority from the Qur'an, authentic Prophetic traditions and authentic traditions of the Salaf. Try telling that to the Shiites who reject the authority of three out of the four rightly guided caliphs, since in their opinion they were not so rightly guided, and who cast aspersions upon the Sunni collection of ahadith. Maybe Zawadi can also sway all of those Quran only groups that claim that the hadiths have perverted the true meaning of the Muslim scripture.

Be that as it may, Zawadi actually thinks that the narrations that he provided where verses are quoted from the Bible which do not appear in the Jewish-Christian Scriptures prove that Islam somehow teaches that the Torah and the Gospel have been corrupted! Talk about being utterly desperate. Zawadi will pretty much use anything to give the semblance that his pathetic arguments actually have some merit to them.

It seems that we are going to have to break this down step by step for Zawadi in order to help him see more clearly how his desperate appeal to these alleged sound narrations to support his contention against the Holy Bible raises a host of problems for his view.

1. The Quran clearly testifies that both the Lord Jesus and Muhammad confirmed the Torah in their possessions.

2. Many of the ulema, or Muslim scholars, including such men as Ibn Abbas, Wahb ibn Munabbih, al-Bukhari, ar-Razi etc., testified that none of Allah’s books have been corrupted and that the Torah and the Gospel remain as they were revealed. They based their position on certain statements from the Quran and specific narratives where Muhammad praised the Torah in his possession.

3. We have extant manuscript copies of the Torah written at various times and places, some of which actually predate the advent of Christ as well as Muhammad.

4. None of these copies contained the passages mentioned by the specific hadiths quoted by Zawadi.

5. Therefore, this leaves Zawadi with one of two options:

(1) Allah made a mistake or deceived his prophets into believing a Scripture that was corrupt and unreliable. Allah made Jesus and Muhammad confirm the textual veracity of the Torah in their possessions even though their copies did not contain these verses. Allah is therefore ignorant since he didn’t know that the copies of the Torah were missing these passages, or he is a deceiver since he duped his own spokespersons into believing in a corrupted text.

(2) These hadiths are forgeries and must be rejected since they contradict the plain testimony of the Quran and other narrations attributed to Muhammad, as well as going against the extant manuscript tradition of the Torah.

So now what will Muslims do and how will they decide? Will they decide to go with the manuscript evidence, the testimony of the Quran and Muhammad’s statements as recorded in the hadiths? Or will they go with the reports of certain individuals who claimed that there were certain verses in the Torah which do not exist in the extant manuscript tradition, and which were not known either to Jesus or Muhammad?

If they choose the former then they will have to accept that the Torah which we currently possess is the inspired, preserved Word of God since that is what Jesus and Muhammad confirmed and read. If they opt for the latter view then they must accept that Allah is either imperfect and can be mistaken since he didn’t know any better or he is a deceiver since he flat out deceived his prophets into believing a corrupted text.

More importantly, what does Zawadi do with the statements of the same hadiths which testify that there are missing verses of the Quran as well as additions made to it? We will provide a few examples to document our point.

In the present Quran we find the following verse,

And the creation of the male and the female, S. 92:3

However, al-Bukhari reports that this text has an additional clause which was not recognized and accepted by some of the very men whom Muhammad commissioned to teach and pass on the “revelation”:

Narrated Alqama:

I went to Sham and was offering a two-Rak'at prayer; I said, “O Allah! Bless me with a (pious) companion.” Then I saw an old man coming towards me, and when he came near I said, (to myself), “I hope Allah has given me my request.” The man asked (me), “Where are you from?” I replied, “I am from the people of Kufa.” He said, “Weren't there amongst you the Carrier of the (Prophet's) shoes, Siwak and the ablution water container? Weren't there amongst you the man who was given Allah's Refuge from the Satan? And weren't there amongst you the man who used to keep the (Prophet's) secrets which nobody else knew? How did Ibn Um 'Abd (i.e. 'Abdullah bin Mas'ud) use to recite Surat-al-lail (the Night: 92)?” I recited:--

"By the Night as it envelops By the Day as it appears in brightness. And by male and female.” (92.1-3) On that, Abu Darda said, “BY ALLAH, the Prophet made me read the Verse IN THIS WAY after listening to him, but these people (of Sham) TRIED THEIR BEST to let me say something different.” (Sahih al-Bukhari, Volume 5, Book 57, Number 105)


Narrated Ibrahim:

The companions of 'Abdullah (bin Mas'ud) came to Abu Darda', (and before they arrived at his home), he looked for them and found them. Then he asked them,: "Who among you can recite (Qur'an) as 'Abdullah recites it?" They replied, “All of us.” He asked, "Who among you knows it by heart?" They pointed at 'Alqama. Then he asked Alqama, “How did you hear 'Abdullah bin Mas'ud reciting Surat Al-Lail (The Night)?” Alqama recited:

By the male and the female.’ Abu Ad-Darda said, “I TESTIFY that I heard the Prophet reciting it likewise, but these people want me to recite it:--

‘And by Him Who created male and female.’ BUT BY ALLAH, I WILL NOT FOLLOW THEM.” (Sahih al-Bukhari, Volume 6, Book 60, Number 468; see also Volume 5, Book 57, Number 85)

Al-Bukhari also narrates a tradition concerning this next citation,

There is no blame on you in seeking bounty from your Lord, so when you hasten on from "Arafat", then remember Allah near the Holy Monument, and remember Him as He has guided you, though before that you were certainly of the erring ones. S. 2:198

Which shows that this verse initially had an additional clause that is now missing from the extant codices:

Narrated Ibn 'Abbas:

'Ukaz, Mijanna and Dhul-Majaz were markets during the Pre-Islamic Period. They (i.e. Muslims) considered it a sin to trade there during the Hajj time (i.e. season), so this Verse was revealed:-- “There is no harm for you if you seek of the Bounty of your Lord during the Hajj season.” (2.198) (Sahih al-Bukhari, Volume 6, Book 60, Number 44)

We further read in Q. 18:79-80 the following story concerning Moses’ encounter with an unnamed servant of Allah:

As for the ship, it belonged to poor people working on the river, and I wished to mar it, for there was a king behind them who is taking every ship by force. And as for the youth, his parents were believers, and we feared lest on growing up he should involve them into trouble through rebellion and disbelief; S. 18:79-80

Ibn Abbas, however, read it slightly differently:

XXXVII: "When they had gone a distance further on, he said to his servant, 'Bring us our morning meal. This journey of ours has made us very tired.' He said, 'Do you see what has happened? When we went to find shelter at the rock, I forgot the fish. No one made me forget to remember it except Shaytan. It found its way into the sea in an amazing way'" (18:62-63)

... The Messenger of Allah said, “Would that Musa had been patient so that He would have told us more about them!”

He said that Ibn 'Abbas used to RECITE, “Before them was a certain king who seized every sound boat by force,” and he used to RECITE, “As for the youth, he was an unbeliever.” (Aisha Bewley, The Sahih Collection of al-Bukhari, Chapter 68. Book of Tafsir, No. 4450; capital and underline emphasis ours)

The words “sound” and “he was an unbeliever” are omitted from the so-called official text.

Ibn Kathir says that in Ibn Masud’s Quran the last clause of the following reference,

“... and above every one possessed of knowledge is the All-knowing one.” S. 12:76

Read differently,

... `Abdullah bin Mas`ud read the Ayah this way, (وَفَوْقَ كُلِّ عَالِمٍ عَلِيمٌ) “And above every scholar, is the All-Knower (Allah).” (Tafsir Ibn Kathir)

According to the second caliph the Quran contained specific verses, such as the command to stone the adulterers, which are no longer found in the extant manuscripts:

... In the meantime, 'Umar sat on the pulpit and when the callmakers for the prayer had finished their call, 'Umar stood up, and having glorified and praised Allah as He deserved, he said, “Now then, I am going to tell you something which (Allah) has written for me to say. I do not know; perhaps it portends my death, so whoever understands and remembers it, must narrate it to the others wherever his mount takes him, but if somebody is afraid that he does not understand it, then it is unlawful for him to tell lies about me. Allah sent Muhammad with the Truth and revealed the Holy Book to him, and among what Allah revealed, was the Verse of the Rajam (the stoning) of married persons (male & female) who commit illegal sexual intercourse, and we did recite this Verse and understood and memorized it. Allah's Apostle did carry out the punishment of stoning and so did we after him.

I am afraid that after a long time has passed, somebody will say, ‘By Allah, we do not find the Verse of the Rajam in Allah's Book,’ and thus they will go astray by leaving an obligation which Allah has revealed. And the punishment of the Rajam is to be inflicted to any married person (male & female), who commits illegal sexual intercourse, if the required evidence is available or there is conception or confession. And then we used to recite among the Verses in Allah's Book: O people! Do not claim to be the offspring of other than your fathers, as it is disbelief (unthankfulness) on your part that you claim to be the offspring of other than your real father’ ...” (Sahih al-Bukhari, Volume 8, Book 82, Number 817; see also Vol. 9, No. 424)

The final example is taken from Q. 33:6 which reads as follows,

“The prophet is closer to the believers than their own selves, and his wives are their mothers... ”

The late Muslim translator Abdullah Yusuf Ali records that Ubayy b. Ka‘b, a companion of Muhammad and considered to be one of the best reciters/readers, had an additional clause which was attested by other Muslim readers:

"In spiritual relationship the Prophet is entitled to more respect and consideration than blood-relations. The Believers should follow him rather than their fathers or mothers or brothers, where there is conflict of duties. He is even nearer - closer to our real interests - than our own selves. IN SOME QIRAATS, LIKE THAT OF UBAI IBN KA'B, occur also the words ‘and he is a father to them,’ which imply his spiritual relationship and connect on with the words, ‘and his wives are their mothers.’ Thus his spiritual fatherhood would be contrasted pointedly with the repudiation of the vulgar superstition of calling any one like Zaid ibn Haritha by the appellation Zaid ibn Muhammad (xxxiii. 40): such an appellation is really disrespectful to the Prophet." (Ali, The Holy Qur'an, p. 1104, fn. 3674; bold and capital emphasis ours)

Ubayy b. Ka’b was one of the four men from whom Muhammad told Muslims to learn the Quran:

Narrated Masriq:

‘Abdullah bin ‘Amr mentioned ‘Abdullah bin Masud and said, "I shall ever love that man, for I heard the Prophet saying, ‘Take (learn) the Qur'an from four: ‘Abdullah bin Masud, Salim, Mu’adh and Ubai bin Ka'b.’" (Sahih al-Bukhari, Volume 6, Book 61, Number 521)

He was also one of only four men to have the entire Quran. Ibn Sa’d recorded:

... When the Apostle of Allah, may Allah bless him, breathed his last, NOT MORE THAN FOUR PERSONS HAD THE QUR'AN IN ITS ENTIRETY. All of them were of the Ansars and there is a difference about the fifth one. The persons of the Ansars who had collected it in its entirety were Zayd Ibn Thabit, Abu Zayd, Mu'adh Ibn Jabal and Ubayyi Ibn Ka'b, and the person about whom there is a difference was Tamim al-Dari. (Ibn Sa'd, Kitab Al-Tabaqat Al-Kabir, English translation by S. Moinul Haq, M.A., PH.D assisted by H.K. Ghazanfar M.A. (Kitab Bhavan Exporters & Importers, 1784 Kalan Mahal, Daryaganj, New Delhi - 110 002 India), Volume II, Parts I & II, pp. 457-458; bold and capital emphasis ours)

The following renowned Muslim authority and jurist admitted that:

... An unusual reading of the Qur'an includes, “He is a father to them,” but it is no longer recited since it is AT VARIANCE with the version of ‘Uthman. (Muhammad Messenger of Allah (Ash-Shifa of Qadi 'Iyad), Qadi 'Iyad Musa al-Yahsubi, translated by Aisha Abdarrahman Bewley [Madinah Press, Inverness, Scotland, U.K. 1991; third reprint, paperback], pp. 29-30; bold and capital emphasis ours)

Interestingly, the late Muslim scholar and Quran translator Muhammad Asad actually inserted this variant within brackets into his translation:

“The Prophet has a higher claim on the believers than [they have on] their own selves, [seeing that he is as a father to them] and his wives are their mothers...”

Here is his reason why he chose to add this to his version of the Quran:

Thus, connecting with the preceding mention of voluntary, elective relationships (as con­trasted with those by blood), this verse points to the highest manifestation of an elective, spiritual relationship: that of the God-inspired Prophet and the person who freely chooses to follow him. The Prophet himself is reported to have said: "None of you has real faith unless I am dearer unto him than his father, and his child, and all mankind" (Bukhari and Muslim, on the authority of Anas, with several almost identical versions in other compilations). The Companions invariably regarded the Prophet as the spiritual father of his community. Some of them - e.g., Ibn Masud (as quoted by Zamakhshari) or Ubayy ibn Kab, Ibn Abbas and Muawiyah (as quoted by Ibn Kathir) - hardly ever recited the above verse without adding, by way of explanation[sic], "seeing that he is [as] a father to them"; and many of the tabi in - including Mujahid, Qatadah, lkrimah and Al-Hasan (cf. Tabari and Ibn Kathir) - did the same: hence my interpolation, between brackets, of this phrase. (However, see also verse 40 of this surah and the corresponding note.) As regards the status of the Prophet's wives as the "mothers of the believers", this arises primarily from the fact of their having shared the life of God's Apostle in its most intimate aspect. Consequently, they could not remarry after his death (see verse 53 below), since all the believers were, spiritually, their "children". (*; bold and underline emphasis ours)

There are a lot more examples of such additions and deletions but these will have to suffice for now. For more instances of missing or additional verses and on the textual corruption of the Quran we recommend the following links:

In light of the above cases will Zawadi be honest enough to apply his own criterion to the Quran and admit that his very own Scripture is corrupted? Will he argue that the official position of Islam is that the Quran is imperfectly preserved and therefore unreliable since many of these narrations come from the so-called sound ahadith collections which are “an important source of authority” for Muslims? We all know the answer to that one.

In conclusion we must say that the debate is over for Bassam. In fact, it has been over long ago, ever since he decided to defend his false prophet Muhammad and attack the truth of the Bible and the Gospel of the risen and immortal Lord Jesus Christ. It is just a matter of time before he himself realizes it (if he hasn’t already).

And we once again want to personally thank Zawadi for further assisting us in discrediting Muhammad’s claims by providing additional evidence that he was a false prophet who opposed the inspired Scriptures of the true God, despite claiming to fully embrace them. We want to encourage Zawadi to continue his efforts of writing articles which provide documentation that his sources are filled with irreconcilable contradictions, showing that his religion is in utter shambles. In fact, it is only a matter of time before Islam crumbles and vanishes from the face of the earth. (May our risen Lord Jesus Christ quickly bring that to fruition and use the destruction of Islam to save the souls of countless number of Muslims by bringing them to himself for his glory and praise. Amen!)

Lord Jesus willing, there will be more rebuttals to Zawadi’s bluster and distortions to follow shortly.