The alleged superiority of Islam over Christianity
Analyzing Jalal Abualrub’s Response to an Arab Christian

[Part 2]

Sam Shamoun

We resume our analysis of Abualrub’s claims. He says:

All what Christians can bring are statements by people who came after Jesus, who never met Jesus and who can never quote a single statement from Jesus –or any other prophet before him- affirming either partially or totally the creed they invented. 

He will repeat this again:

All what Christians bring are interpretations of vague biblical texts, none of which is in its original form or language, and claims that these texts mean this or that, without clear evidence.


To begin with, there is nothing vague about the overwhelming biblical evidence supporting essential Christian doctrines such as the blessed Trinity, the Deity and humanity of the Lord Jesus Christ etc., apart from Abualrub’s Islamic presuppositions which cannot allow the Holy Bible to speak regarding these matters without distorting it.

Furthermore, these Divinely revealed doctrines are not simply based on interpretations or translations but on the basis of the very original languages which the Holy Bible was written in. A careful examination of the original languages of the Holy Scriptures provides further support, not less, for these Divinely inspired truths.

Moreover, note Abualrub’s glaring inconsistency at this point. He earlier cited Mark 12:29-30 as the words of Jesus and yet he now wants to call into question the integrity and veracity of these very same documents that he himself cites to prove his position!

What’s even more disturbing and dishonest about Abualrub’s statements is that he stakes his entire beliefs on the testimony of a man born approximately five hundred and seventy years after the birth of our Lord, a man who never met Jesus or his companions, who was far removed from the time of Christ in the first century, and who didn’t even speak the language of Jesus or his followers!

And contrary to Abualrub’s assertions, the NT documents are based on the eyewitness testimony of those who knew Christ personally and who had been commissioned by him to preach his Good News:

"Inasmuch as many have undertaken to compile a narrative of the things which have been accomplished among us, just as they were delivered TO US BY THOSE WHO FROM THE VERY BEGINNING WERE EYEWITNESSES and ministers of the word, it seemed good to me also, having followed all things closely for some time past, to write an orderly account for you, most excellent The-oph'ilus, that you may know the truth concerning the things of which you have been informed." Luke 1:1-4; cf. Acts 1:1-15

"But when the Counselor comes, whom I shall send to you from the Father, even the Spirit of truth, who proceeds from the Father, he will bear witness to me; and you also are witnesses, because you have been with me from the beginning." John 15:26-27

"But one of the soldiers pierced his side with a spear, and at once there came out blood and water. He who saw it has borne witness -- his testimony is true, and he knows that he tells the truth -- that you also may believe." John 19:34-35

"This is the disciple who is bearing witness to these things, and who has written these things; and WE know that his testimony is true." John 21:24

"YOU KNOW THE WORD which he sent to Israel, preaching good news of peace by Jesus Christ (he is Lord of all), the word which was proclaimed throughout all Judea, beginning from Galilee after the baptism which John preached: how God anointed Jesus of Nazareth with the Holy Spirit and with power; how he went about doing good and healing all that were oppressed by the devil, for God was with him. And WE ARE WITNESSES to all that he did both in the country of the Jews and in Jerusalem. They put him to death by hanging him on a tree; but God raised him on the third day and made him manifest; not to all the people but to us who were chosen by God as witnesses, who ate and drank with him after he rose from the dead. And he commanded us to preach to the people, and to testify that he is the one ordained by God to be judge of the living and the dead. To him all the prophets bear witness that every one who believes in him receives forgiveness of sins through his name." Acts 10:36-43

"For we did not follow cleverly devised myths when we made known to you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, BUT WE WERE EYEWITNESSES OF HIS MAJESTY. For when he received honor and glory from God the Father and the voice was borne to him by the Majestic Glory, ‘This is my beloved Son, with whom I am well pleased,’ WE HEARD THIS VOICE borne from heaven, for WE WERE WITH HIM on the holy mountain." 2 Peter 1:16-18

"That which was from the beginning, WHICH WE HAVE HEARD, WHICH WE HAVE SEEN WITH OUR EYES, WHICH WE HAVE LOOKED UPON AND TOUCHED WITH OUR HANDS, concerning the word of life -- the life was made manifest, AND WE SAW IT, AND TESTIFY TO IT, and proclaim to you the eternal life which was with the Father AND WAS MADE MANIFEST TO US – THAT WHICH WE HAVE SEEN AND HEARD WE PROCLAIM ALSO TO YOU, so that you may have fellowship with us; and our fellowship is with the Father and with his Son Jesus Christ." 1 John 1:1-3

As far as Paul is concerned, there is ample evidence supporting his conversion and encounter with the risen Lord. For instance, Jesus didn’t simply appear to Paul but also to a disciple named Ananias whom he sent to baptize Paul:

"As he neared Damascus on his journey, suddenly a light from heaven flashed around him. He fell to the ground and heard a voice say to him, ‘Saul, Saul, why do you persecute me?’ ‘Who are you, Lord?’ Saul asked. ‘I am Jesus, whom you are persecuting,’ he replied. ‘Now get up and go into the city, and you will be told what you must do.’ The men traveling with Saul stood there speechless; they heard the sound but did not see anyone. Saul got up from the ground, but when he opened his eyes he could see nothing. So they led him by the hand into Damascus. For three days he was blind, and did not eat or drink anything. In Damascus there was a disciple named Ananias. The Lord called to him in a vision, 'Ananias!’ ‘Yes, Lord,’ he answered. The Lord told him, ‘Go to the house of Judas on Straight Street and ask for a man from Tarsus named Saul, for he is praying. IN A VISION HE HAS SEEN A MAN NAMED ANANIAS COME AND PLACE HIS HANDS ON HIM TO RESTORE HIS SIGHT.’ ‘Lord,’ Ananias answered, ‘I have heard many reports about this man and all the harm he has done to your saints in Jerusalem. And he has come here with authority from the chief priests to arrest all who call on your name.’ But the Lord said to Ananias, ‘Go! This man is my chosen instrument to carry my name before the Gentiles and their kings and before the people of Israel. I will show him how much he must suffer for my name.’ Then Ananias went to the house and entered it. Placing his hands on Saul, he said, ‘Brother Saul, the Lord - Jesus, who appeared to you on the road as you were coming here - has sent me so that you may see again and be filled with the Holy Spirit.’ Immediately, something like scales fell from Saul's eyes, and he could see again. He got up and was baptized, and after taking some food, he regained his strength. Saul spent several days with the disciples in Damascus. At once he began to preach in the synagogues that Jesus is the Son of God." Acts 9:3-20

"‘Brethren and fathers, hear the defense which I now make before you.’ And when they heard that he addressed them in the Hebrew language, they were the more quiet. And he said: ‘I am a Jew, born at Tarsus in Cili'cia, but brought up in this city at the feet of Gama'li-el, educated according to the strict manner of the law of our fathers, being zealous for God as you all are this day. I persecuted this Way to the death, binding and delivering to prison both men and women, as the high priest and the whole council of elders bear me witness. From them I received letters to the brethren, and I journeyed to Damascus to take those also who were there and bring them in bonds to Jerusalem to be punished. As I made my journey and drew near to Damascus, about noon a great light from heaven suddenly shone about me. And I fell to the ground and heard a voice saying to me, "Saul, Saul, why do you persecute me?" And I answered, "Who are you, Lord?' And he said to me, "I am Jesus of Nazareth whom you are persecuting." Now those who were with me saw the light but did not understand the voice of the one who was speaking to me. And I said, "What shall I do, Lord?" And the Lord said to me, "Rise, and go into Damascus, and there you will be told all that is appointed for you to do." And when I could not see because of the brightness of that light, I was led by the hand by those who were with me, and came into Damascus. And one Anani'as, a devout man according to the law, well spoken of by all the Jews who lived there, came to me, and standing by me said to me, "Brother Saul, receive your sight." And in that very hour I received my sight and saw him. And he said, "The God of our fathers appointed you to know his will, to see the Just One and to hear a voice from his mouth; for you will be a witness for him to all men of what you have seen and heard. And now why do you wait? Rise and be baptized, and wash away your sins, calling on his name."’" Acts 22:1-16

It should be obvious why Jesus appeared to Ananias after having appeared to Paul. By appearing and sending Ananias to Paul, Jesus was giving confirmation that what Saul had seen wasn’t a deception or the figment of his overactive imagination. After all, individuals normally do not have the same dream or vision where they receive messages independently from one another so as to verify each other’s experiences. And:

"Am I not free? Am I not an apostle? Have I not seen Jesus our Lord? Are not you my workmanship in the Lord?" 1 Corinthians 9:1

"For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received, that Christ died for our sins in accordance with the scriptures, that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day in accordance with the scriptures, and that he appeared to Cephas, then to the twelve. Then he appeared to more than five hundred brethren at one time, MOST OF WHOM ARE STILL ALIVE, though some have fallen asleep. Then he appeared to James, then to all the apostles. Last of all, as to one untimely born, he appeared also to me." 1 Corinthians 15:3-8

Furthermore, the other Apostles such as Peter confirmed Paul’s Apostleship and gave him the right hand of fellowship:

"And when he had come to Jerusalem he attempted to join the disciples; and they were all afraid of him, for they did not believe that he was a disciple. But Barnabas took him, and brought him to the apostles, and declared to them how on the road he had seen the Lord, who spoke to him, and how at Damascus he had preached boldly in the name of Jesus. So he went in and out among them at Jerusalem, preaching boldly in the name of the Lord. And he spoke and disputed against the Hellenists; but they were seeking to kill him." Acts 9:26-29

"For I would have you know, brethren, that the gospel which was preached by me is not man’s gospel. For I did not receive it from man, nor was I taught it, but it came through a revelation of Jesus Christ. For you have heard of my former life in Judaism, how I persecuted the church of God violently and tried to destroy it; and I advanced in Judaism beyond many of my own age among my people, so extremely zealous was I for the traditions of my fathers. But when he who had set me apart before I was born, and had called me through his grace, was pleased to reveal his Son to me, in order that I might preach him among the Gentiles, I did not confer with flesh and blood, nor did I go up to Jerusalem to those who were apostles before me, but I went away into Arabia; and again I returned to Damascus. Then after three years I went up to Jerusalem to visit Cephas, and remained with him fifteen days. But I saw none of the other apostles except James the Lord’s brother. (In what I am writing to you, before God, I do not lie!) Then I went into the regions of Syria and Cili'cia. And I was still not known by sight to the churches of Christ in Judea; they only heard it said, ‘He who once persecuted us is now preaching the faith he once tried to destroy.’ And they glorified God because of me." Galatians 1:11-24

"Then after fourteen years I went up again to Jerusalem with Barnabas, taking Titus along with me. I went up by revelation; and I laid before them (but privately before those who were of repute) the gospel which I preach among the Gentiles, lest somehow I should be running or had run in vain. But even Titus, who was with me, was not compelled to be circumcised, though he was a Greek. But because of false brethren secretly brought in, who slipped in to spy out our freedom which we have in Christ Jesus, that they might bring us into bondage -- to them we did not yield submission even for a moment, that the truth of the gospel might be preserved for you. And from those who were reputed to be something (what they were makes no difference to me; God shows no partiality) -- those, I say, who were of repute added nothing to me; but on the contrary, when they saw that I had been entrusted with the gospel to the uncircumcised, just as Peter had been entrusted with the gospel to the circumcised (for he who worked through Peter for the mission to the circumcised worked through me also for the Gentiles), and when they perceived the grace that was given to me, James and Cephas and John, who were reputed to be pillars, gave to me and Barnabas the right hand of fellowship, that we should go to the Gentiles and they to the circumcised; only they would have us remember the poor, which very thing I was eager to do." Galatians 2:1-10

It must be kept in mind that, for the most part, the NT books are documents written by different authors at different times which circulated independently from one another. Therefore, these documents serve as independent witnesses that provide multiple attestation for the events they record. This is unlike the Quran which, at least according to the standard Muslim view, came through one man.

God also supplied Paul with supernatural miracles and visions to confirm his apostleship:

"For I will not venture to speak of anything except what Christ has wrought through me to win obedience from the Gentiles, by word and deed, by the power of signs and wonders, by the power of the Holy Spirit, so that from Jerusalem and as far round as Illyr’icum I have fully preached the gospel of Christ," Romans 15:18-19

"The signs of a true apostle were performed among you in all patience, with signs and wonders and mighty works." 2 Corinthians 12:12

In order to show why these statements by Paul are quite significant one must remember that these epistles were written to his contemporaries who had the means of verifying whether Paul’s claims to the miraculous were true or not. Thus, if Paul were lying about performing signs and wonders he would have been easily exposed by the very people he was writing to, especially by those who were already antagonistic towards him and wanted nothing more than to discredit him.

This also holds true for the other Apostles and writers since they presented their message to contemporaries, many of whom were hostile to the movement, who knew that what the Christians were proclaiming was true since they themselves had witnessed firsthand what Jesus had said and done. Note, for example, the following statements:

"Men of Israel, hear these words: Jesus of Nazareth, a man attested to you by God with mighty works and wonders and signs which God did through him IN YOUR MIDST, AS YOU YOURSELVES KNOW -- this Jesus, delivered up according to the definite plan and foreknowledge of God, you crucified and killed by the hands of lawless men. But God raised him up, having loosed the pangs of death, because it was not possible for him to be held by it." Acts 2:22-24

"‘To this day I have had the help that comes from God, and so I stand here testifying both to small and great, saying nothing but what the prophets and Moses said would come to pass: that the Christ must suffer, and that, by being the first to rise from the dead, he would proclaim light both to the people and to the Gentiles.’ And as he thus made his defense, Festus said with a loud voice, ‘Paul, you are mad; your great learning is turning you mad.’ But Paul said, ‘I am not mad, most excellent Festus, but I am speaking the sober truth. FOR THE KING KNOWS ABOUT THESE THINGS, and to him I speak freely; for I am persuaded that none of these things has escaped his notice, for this was not done in a corner.’" Acts 26:22-26

Hence, the writers of the NT were in a position to accurately preserve and pass on the words and deeds of Christ since they were either eyewitnesses to these events or personally knew of those who witnessed these events firsthand.

Now contrast this with what the Quran says about Muhammad’s inability to do any miracles:

And nothing could have hindered Us that We should send signs except that the ancients rejected them; and We gave to Samood the she-camel -- a manifest sign -- but on her account they did injustice, and We do not send signs but to make (men) fear. S. 17:59 Shakir

And they say: Why are not signs sent down upon him from his Lord? Say: The signs are only with Allah, and I am only a plain warner. Is it not enough for them that We have revealed to you the Book which is recited to them? Most surely there is mercy in this and a reminder for a people who believe. S. 29:50-51

These references emphatically deny that Muhammad performed any supernatural signs apart from the Quran, which was intended to be all that was needed to verify Muhammad’s prophetic claims. What makes this denial rather amusing is that the Quran is believed to be a document composed during the time of Muhammad, which means that Muhammad wouldn’t be able to get away with claiming to be able to do miracles if in fact he couldn’t produce any signs or wonders. After all, his contemporaries would have exposed him as a fraud for claiming to be able to do one thing but failing to deliver the goods. In other words, Muhammad was forced to explain to his contemporaries why he didn’t bring any miracles since he knew he was unable to perform any.

In light of the foregoing, it isn’t at all surprising that it isn’t until more than a century after Muhammad’ death that we find Muslims composing miracle stories of their prophet. At this time, the hostile witnesses were all dead and the Muslims were in control and governed most of the Middle East and could therefore write whatever they wanted without anyone contesting it.

Despite the clear testimony of the Quran to the contrary, Abualrub tries to deceive the Arab Christian by claiming that the Quran mentions some of Muhammad’s miracles:

The Quran praises Prophet Muhammad, peace be upon him, more than it praises any other prophet and mentions some of the miracles he performed, by Allah’s permission, that are greater than the miracles Prophet Esa performed, by Allah’s permission. Example: the splitting of the moon witnessed by the Makkans and surrounding towns [as al-Bukhari reported]: {The Hour has drawn near, and the moon has been cleft asunder}; [54:1].

Anyone reading Sura 54:1 would never conclude from it that this is referring to an alleged miracle of Muhammad. In fact, there are several problems with claiming that it does. First, this contradicts Sura 29:48-51 which says that the Quran is sufficient as a sign, or miracle, from God. If Muhammad needed to provide a miracle in addition to the Quran then this only serves to falsify his own statement regarding the Quran’s sufficiency. Second, the Quranic text doesn’t give us any data whereby to connect this with the story found in the hadith that the moon was split during Muhammad’s time. It is vague and can refer to any incident, whether before, during or after Muhammad’s time. After all, even Muslims admit that the text may in fact be referring to a future incident, a sign to occur during the Day of Judgment:

AS RAZI points out, the first verse of this surah appears almost like a continuation of the last verses of the preceding one, especially 53: 57 – "that [Last Hour] which is so near draws ever nearer" -: and so we may assume that both were revealed at approximately the same time, i.e., towards the end of the early part (perhaps the fourth year) of Muhammad’s prophethood …

Most of the commentators see in this verse a reference to a phenomenon said to have been witnessed by several of the Prophet’s contemporaries. As described in a number of reports going back to some Companions, the moon appeared one night as if split into two distinct parts. While there is no reason to doubt the subjective veracity of these reports, it is possible that what actually happened was an unusual kind of partial lunar eclipse, which produced an equally unusual optical illusion. But whatever the nature of that phenomenon, it is practically certain that the above Quran-verse DOES NOT REFER TO IT but, rather, TO A FUTURE EVENT: namely, to what will happen when the Last Hour approaches. (The Quran frequently employs the past tense to denote the future, and particularly so in passages which speak of the coming of the Last Hour and of Resurrection Day; this use of the past tense is meant to stress the certainty of the happening to which the verb relates.) Thus, Raghib regards it as fully justifiable to interpret the phrase inshaqqa l-qamar ("the moon is split asunder") as bearing on the cosmic cataclysm - the end of the world as we know it - that will occur before the coming of Resurrection Day (see art. shaqq in the Mufradat). As mentioned by Zamakhshari, this interpretation has the support of some of the earlier commentators; and it is, to my mind, particularly convincing in view of the juxtaposition, in the above Quran-verse, of the moon’s "splitting asunder" and the approach of the Last Hour. (In this connection we must bear in mind the fact that none of the Quranic allusions to the "nearness" of the Last Hour and the Day of Resurrection is based on the human concept of "time".) (Muhammad Asad, Message of the Qur'an [Dar Al-Andalus Limited 3 Library Ramp, Gibraltar rpt. 1993], p. 818, fn. 1; online source; capital and underline emphasis ours)

Third, instead of this verse referring to an actual historical event, with details being provided later on by the Muslims, it is more likely that the story found in the hadith was fabricated around this passage. In other words, Muslims decided to forge narrations asserting that Muhammad caused the moon to split as a sign to the unbelievers so as to connect it with this Quranic verse.

For more on Muhammad not being able to perform signs and wonders please read the following piece:

No two Christian sects can ever agree on the details of any part of the Christian creed… Yet, even on these vague biblical texts that are interpreted at will to mean whatever various Christian sects wish them to mean, no two Christian sects totally agree on their meaning or on any other aspect of Christianity, including trinity and the nature of Jesus. Each Christian sect declares that theirs –and theirs alone- is the true Christian faith and the true interpretation of biblical texts.


Abualrub deliberately distorts and exaggerates the differences between the major branches of historic, conservative Christianity. Conservative Catholics, Orthodox and Protestants agree in their official teachings on the following:

  1. The doctrine of the Holy Trinity.
  2. The Hypostatic Union of Christ.
  3. The virginal conception and birth of the Lord Jesus from the virgin maiden Mary by the power of the Holy Spirit.
  4. Christ’s crucifixion and death for sinners.
  5. The physical, bodily resurrection of the Lord Jesus on the third day and his ascension into heaven.
  6. The physical, bodily return of Christ to the earth.
  7. The Divine Personhood of the Holy Spirit.
  8. The inspiration, inerrancy and infallibility of the Holy Bible.
  9. God’s grace is primary and necessary for salvation.
  10. The general resurrection of the dead.
  11. The Day of Judgment.
  12. Eternal life and fellowship with God as well as eternal conscious torment (hell).

This is not to deny that there are major differences between these groups, i.e. the canon of the Hebrew Scriptures, is justification by faith alone or by faith and works etc. Yet these differences do not undermine the fact that there is considerable amount of agreement regarding what the Holy Bible teaches.

Moreover, all the conservative, mainline Christian denominations affirm and subscribe to the Apostles’ Creed and the Nicene Creed.

The most disturbing aspect of Abualrub’s "rebuttals" and "scholarly" materials is the rather blatant hypocrisy and dishonesty found in many of them. Take, for instance, his claim that no two Christian sects agree on the details of the Christian Creed, which presupposes that all the diverse Muslim sects are in complete agreement regarding Abualrub’s Islamic creed. Nothing could be further from the truth.

For instance, Muhammad is supposed to have predicted that the Muslims would be divided into seventy-three sects, only one of which would be saved:

Narrated AbuHurayrah:
The Prophet (peace_be_upon_him) said: The Jews were split up into seventy-one or seventy-two sects; and the Christians were split up into seventy one or seventy-two sects; and my community will be split up into seventy-three sects. (Sunan Abu Dawud, Book 40, Number 4579)

Narrated Abdullah ibn Amr
Allah's Messenger (peace be upon him) said: There will befall my Ummah exactly (all those) evils which befell the people of Isra'il, so much so that if there was one amongst them who openly committed fornication with his mother there will be among my Ummah one who will do that, and if the people of Isra'il were fragmented into seventy-two sects my Ummah will be fragmented into seventy-three sects. All of them will be in Hell Fire except one sect. They (the Companions) said: Allah's Messenger, which is that? Whereupon he said: It is one to which I and my companions belong.
Transmitted by Tirmidhi. (Tirmidhi Hadith, Number 56; ALIM CD-ROM Version)

Hence, the vast majority of Muslims will end up in hell according to Muhammad!

And just to illustrate some of the major differences that exist between these sects all one has to do is compare the beliefs of Abualrub’s cult regarding the nature of Allah. Abualrub belongs to a group that calls itself Salafis who believe that Allah actually has hands, feet, shins, a face etc., even though these characteristics are unlike anything in creation. In other words, Abualrub’s sect believes that Allah has a body of some kind which is unlike any other body in all creation! Note what the following Salafi source claims:

[1] All that has been revealed in Allah's Book [the Qur'an] as regards the [Sifat…] Qualities of Allah…, the Most High,- like His Face, Eyes, Hands, Shins, (Legs), His Coming, His Istawa (rising over) His Throne and others; His Qualities or all that Allah's Messenger... qualified Him in the true authentic Prophet's Ahadith (narrations) as regards His Qualities like [Nuzul… His Descent or His laughing and others etc. The religious scholars of the Qur'an and the Sunna believe in these Qualities of Allah and they confirm that these are really His Qualities, without Ta'wil… (interpreting their meanings into different things etc.) or Tashbih… (giving resemblance or similarity to any of the creatures) or Ta'til… (i.e. completely ignoring or denying them i.e. there is no Face, or Eyes or Hands, or Shins etc. for Allah). These Qualities befit or suit only Allah Alone, and He does not resemble any of (His) creatures. As Allah's Statements (in the Qur'an): (1) "There is nothing like unto Him, and He is the All-Hearer, the All-Seer" (V.42:11). (2) There is none comparable unto Him (V.112:4). (Al-Imam Zain-ud-Din Ahmad bin Abdul Lateef Az-Zubaidi, The Translation of the Meanings of Summarized Sahih Al-Bukhari Arabic-English, Translated by: Dr. Muhammad Muhsin Khan [Maktaba Dar-us-Salam Publishers & Distributors, Riyadh Saudi Arabia], p. 842; bold emphasis ours)

The next Muslim author, after mentioning those who seek the face of Allah, writes:

… Meaning they want to see Allah's face (because that is the greatest pleasure for the people of Paradise). The Qur'an and the Sunnah affirm that Allah has a face, two hands, fingers, and two eyes. Some people deny these attributes because they incorrectly suppose that by affirming them they are humanizing Allah. Such an argument is only valid for those who would say, for example, "Allah has hands like ours (?)" Such a statement is not allowed because it qualifies Allah's attributes without evidence from the Qur'an or the Sunnah. It would also be in contradiction to the Qur'anic verse: <There is nothing that is like Him, and He is The Ever-Hearing, The Ever-Seeing>. Thus we must affirm the attributes that Allah, and/or his Messenger have affirmed; we must believe that these attributes befit the Magnificence, and Glory of Allah; and we are not allowed to qualify these attributes unless Allah, and/or his Messenger have done so for us. (Waleed K.S. Al-Essa, Authentic Supplications Of the Prophet [A Daar of Islamic Heritage Publication, P.O. Box 831415, Miami, FL. 33283, 1993], p. 59, n. 145; underline emphasis ours)

Suffice it to say, not all Muslims agree with this conception of Allah and many have even labeled Abualrub’s cult "anthropomorphists".

Moreover, Sufi Muslims and Shias believe that one can ask departed Muslim saints such as their prophet to intercede for them since they believe that these dead individuals are alive in what they call Barzakh and can therefore hear the invocations made to them. This practice is known as tawassul:

Abualrub and his Salafi cultists condemn such a practice as idolatry and have no hesitation to speak out against any Muslim who endorses it.

In fact, here is what Abualrub’s Muslim brothers, the Salafis, have to say about the other Muslim sects:


Sufism (Tasawwuf) was not known in the time of the Prophet (may Allah raise his rank and grant him peace) or his Companions, nor was it well known in the first three generations after them. The Messenger of Allaah (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) praised when he said, "The best of mankind is my generation, then those who come after them, then those who come after them…" (Narrated by al-Bukhaari, 2652; Muslim, 2533; from the hadeeth of Ibn Mas’ood) Sufism (Tasawwuf) first appeared in Basrah in Iraq, where some people went to extremes in worship and in avoiding the worldly life, something which is admonished in the Quran: "The Monasticism which they invented for themselves; We did not prescribe it for them." (Quran 57:27) On this page Insha'Allaah you find An in-depth historical background to the origins of sufism and their' corrupt beliefs. (SUFISM-THE DEVIATED PATH; source)


Shiaism (The Rafidah) and Islam are indeed different religions. This sect has developed into what we now know as the Shia whose beliefs and thoughts are repugnant beyond belief. The divergence of Shiaism from Islaam can be summarized from the books which they consider most authentic, and the statements of their most respected scholars. Some of the proofs are available on this page Most of the Muslim UMMAH and Western scholars have very little genuine and reliable knowledge of SHIA beliefs and practices. However, most of the openly declared SHIA beliefs revolve around The Concept of Imamah, the superiority of Ali (May Allah be pleased with him), and the so-called love of the Prophet's family members. As a result, the intense love that Sunni Muslims carry for the Prophet's family members combined with the magnanimous personality of Ali has led some Sunnis to accept Shia’s as part of the Muslim UMMAH.

However, the brutal fact remains that under the pretense of Ali's Superiority and the so-called love of the Prophet's family members, Shias have literally evolved an entirely new religion, grossly distorted the teachings of the Holy Qur'‚n, and completely rejected the sanctity and authenticity of the Hadeeth. They have elevated the sayings of their imams to the level of the Prophet’s sayings and have classified them as Hadeeth. For all practical purposes, they reject the most authentic sayings of the Prophet (Peace be upon him) and Base their religion on the so-called Hadeeth attributed to their Imaams. By doing so they have rejected one of the most fundamental principles of Islam: The law can only be derived from the sayings and actions of the Prophet (Peace be upon him), not any other human being.

The Saba’iyyah, a sect of the Rawafid, emerged in the time of `Ali and told `Ali he was God. `Ali (may Allah be pleased with him) burned some of them to death as a result. Later, the Rawafid split into many groups like: The Zaydis, Imamis, Kaysaniyyas, Qaddahiyyas and Exaggerators (Ghullat). Some people asked Imam Zayd ibn `Ali to disavow Abu Bakr and `Umar. He would not do so, and some people refused his decision, and deserted him, thereby becoming known as Rawafid, which means: the Refusers, the Rejecters. Those who stayed with him became known as the Zaydis, and so they are technically not of the Rawafid. The exaggerators are not Muslims, these Raafidi (Shia) actually descend from Abu Lu'luah Majoosi (a Persian fire worshipper) and Abdullaah ibn Saba’ (a Jew). However they are more dangerous from the Christians themselves. Christians fight Islaam face to face (if they did) while Rafidiyah stab Islam from its back they have lot of Absurdities in their beliefs like Badah, Rajah, Mutah, Taqiyyah, etc

The Zaydis, Imamis and exaggerators split up further, with each group accusing the other of kufr. The Zaydis split into three groups: Jarudis, Sulaymanis and Butris. They all agreed on the leadership of Imam Zayd ibn `Ali ibn al-Husayn when he revolted at the time of Hisham ibn `Abdul-Malik. They are the closest of the Shiah to Ahlus-Sunnah; they merely maintain that `Ali had more right to the Caliphate, but they do not claim that he was explicitly appointed as Caliph by the Prophet (may Allah bless him and his Household and grant them peace), and hence they accept the Caliphates of Abu Bakr, `Umar and `Uthman. The Kisanis split into two groups: one claimed that Muhammad ibn Hanafiyyah, a son of `Ali, is still alive and that he is the Mahdi; the other group say he died and passed on the leadership.

The Imamis and exaggerators split into fifteen groups, among which are the Ja`faris/Ithna `Asharis (Twelvers) and the Isma`ilis. The exaggerators claimed divinity for their Imams, permitted all sorts of haram things, and in short dismissed the obligations of shari`ah.

Below we have more then 100 Articles exposing Shia's using their own books and writings with detailed sources so that they don't deny it. These references are copied from the religious books of Shiite religion. While translating them we have asked forgiveness of Allah many times, for, these are very much annoying for any Muslim to read. Neither I personally wish anyone to have them but to save the innocent simple Muslims from the Shiites (Raafidah) it was necessary to write them and forward them to our fellow Muslims so that they can know the real terrifying beliefs of Shiites. Additionally I have also listed some articles about Ismailism and the Agakhanis; one of the more deviant groups within the Shia religion they are an offshoot of the Raafidah (Shiah) and share some of their characteristics. Aga Khan is their supreme leader and, in their view, has characteristics and attributes similar to those of Allaah. (SHIITES AND SHIAISM; source)

In another debate which he ran from, Abualrub made the following comments (in black) to former Muslim turned agnostic Ali Sina (red text):

∑ "Sufism has had a great impact on the way the average Iranians view Islam. Sufism does not have the hard edges that traditional Islam has. It is much more tolerant and much more mystical."  Well, you have chosen the wrong Muslim to talk ill about Sufism. I am a follower of the Quran and Sunnah, the way the Prophet's companions understood and implemented them. Thus, not only Sufism is a borrowed philosophy, as you stated, but a separate ideology alien and in opposition to Islam.  I never fail to criticize Sufism in the light of the Quran and Sunnah and will soon write a booklet on its negative impact on Muslims.

Yet, you offered no examples on how Sufism is more tolerant than 'traditional Islam', whatever that term means. Thus, so far, your criticism is concentrated on what Iran had to offer you in terms of Shiism and Sufism, both of which I am extremely familiar with, but opposed to, and the revolution and its impact on the Iranian society. I fail to see specific examples in the creed of Islam or its tenets that compelled you to dislike Islam.

6. "Most of the Iranian modern Muslims did not go to mosques or paid much attention to the Mullahs." I ask you for evidence to this statement. Someone else could counter by saying that it is well-known that the Iranian mosques are full of worshippers and that the so-called mullahs, an un-Islamic term, still hold considerable influence over Iran , with millions of Iranians still devoted to them and supportive of their agenda. I am not a Shiite nor do I ever support Shiism or its dogmas, but justice is required from all. You, again, issue sweeping statements here for which you need to not only present evidence, but also state the relevance of them to why you left the true Islam, rather than the Iranian, Sufi, Shiite Islam.

7. "The Islamization of Iran which led to the Islamic revolution was so sudden that took everyone by surprise. Khomeini said people did not make the revolution because they wanted a better life; they made the revolution because they wanted Islam. That of course was not true." Again, you are talking to the wrong person about Shiism , Iran and Khomeini. If this is why you left Islam, I heard nothing so far in terms of why you left the Quran and prophetic Sunnah, which came to existence before Shiism, or the so-called Islamic Sufism, or the Iranian revelation. Yet, your statement that the Islamization of Iran led to the Islamic revolution is stated backward. Do you mean that the revolution led to the Islamization, or at least to bringing Khomeini to power who then led the Islamization of Iran? (Source)

9. "The average Iranian is still a moderate Muslim. He does not go to the Mosque, does not respect the Mullahs, he fasts and prays and views Islam as a personal faith. The average Iranian has a Sufi understanding of Islam. So in a sense the mainstream Muslims are right to call Iranians heretics." Again, these are sweeping statements for which I have seen no proof on your part. Yet, as it appears, you are stating here that moderate Iranians are religious, since they pray and fast, except for your claim that they do not go to mosques and do not respect the Mullahs. To continue, I should state that mainstream Muslims, whatever that means, do not consider Iranians heretics. Mainstream Islam is a sect, while the Iran is a big country that comprises, among other races, Persians, Turks, Pashtunes and Arabs who are divided into many religions and sects, such as Sunnis, Shiites, fire-worshippers, Jews, etc. I think that you mean that Sunni Muslims consider Shiites heretics, since this is the centuries-old dispute that arose between the two Islamic sects, not between Muslims and Iranians.

10. "Frankly I never thought men are exalted our women and are a degree superior to them."  It depends on what you understand of Allah's statement that men have a degree of superiority above women. The background you were raised in, according to you, is Shiism, Sufism and beliefs of moderate Iranians. This is not the true Islam which preceded Shiism, Islamic-Sufism and the Iranian revolution. Islam is founded on the two revelations: the Quran and Sunnah, and all that is not taken from the Quran and Sunnah is anything but Islamic. (Source)

Hence, if Abualrub is correct then the great majority of Muslims are not practicing true Islam with the exception of the few who happen to agree with his Salafyism! This also implies that the Quran is corrupt and unclear which explains why Muslims are so divided and confused.

Muslims have failed to heed the warnings of the Quran against dividing into sects:

So set thy face to the religion, a man of pure faith -- God's original upon which He originated mankind. There is no changing God's creation. That is the right religion; but most men know it not -- turning to Him. And fear you Him, and perform the prayer, and be not of the idolaters, even of those who have divided up their religion, and become sects, each several party rejoicing in what is theirs. S. 30:30-32 Arberry

He has laid down for you as religion that He charged Noah with, and that We have revealed to thee, and that We charged Abraham with, Moses and Jesus: ‘Perform the religion, and scatter not regarding it. Very hateful is that for the idolaters, that thou callest them to. God chooses unto Himself whomsoever He will, and He guides to Himself whosoever turns, penitent. They scattered not, save after knowledge had come to them, being insolent one to another; and but for a Word that preceded from thy Lord until a stated term, it had been decided between them. But those to whom the Book has been given as an inheritance after them, behold, they are in doubt of it disquieting. S. 42:13-14 Arberry

Thus, Muslims have become like the idolators, like the Jews and Christians, by dividing up their religion. Hence, Abualrub has no basis to talk about divisions in Christianity in light of the many differing sects of Islam, many of which are condemned as heretics and/or apostates by his own cult and sect.

Now how does Abualrub defend the fact that Islam has been divided into so many sects? Here is how:

Fifteenth: Muslims, just like Jews and Christians, have divided into sects; this is a defect that has no valid excuse.  However, and in contrast to the Bible, the Quran clearly rejects sectarianism and ordains unity around the Quran and Sunnah, {And hold fast, all of you together, to the Rope of All‚h, and be not divided among yourselves}; [3:103].  Yet, all Muslim sects agree that Allah is One, Prophet Muhammad is the Messenger of Islam and Prophet Esa is not divine.  Are there two Christian sects that agree with each other in the details of any major edict of the Christian religion?

He acknowledges that there is no valid excuse for all these divisions in Islam but has the audacity to say that the Holy Bible, unlike the Quran, doesn’t reject sectarianism. Let us see if this is truly the case:

"John said to him, ‘Teacher, we saw a man casting out demons in your name, and we forbade him, because he was not following us.’ But Jesus said, ‘Do not forbid him; for no one who does a mighty work in my name will be able soon after to speak evil of me. For he that is not against us is for us.’" Mark 9:38-40

"I will remain in the world no longer, but they are still in the world, and I am coming to you. Holy Father, protect them by the power of your name—the name you gave me—so that they may be one as we are one… My prayer is not for them alone. I pray also for those who will believe in me through their message, that all of them may be one, Father, just as you are in me and I am in you. May they also be in us so that the world may believe that you have sent me. I have given them the glory that you gave me, that they may be one as we are one: I in them and you in me. May they be brought to complete unity to let the world know that you sent me and have loved them even as you have loved me." John 17:11, 20-23

"Just as each of us has one body with many members, and these members do not all have the same function, so in Christ we who are many form one body, and each member belongs to all the others." Romans 12:4-5

"The body is a unit, though it is made up of many parts; and though all its parts are many, they form one body. So it is with Christ. For we were all baptized by one Spirit into one body—whether Jews or Greeks, slave or free—and we were all given the one Spirit to drink. Now the body is not made up of one part but of many. If the foot should say, ‘Because I am not a hand, I do not belong to the body,’ it would not for that reason cease to be part of the body. And if the ear should say, ‘Because I am not an eye, I do not belong to the body,’ it would not for that reason cease to be part of the body. If the whole body were an eye, where would the sense of hearing be? If the whole body were an ear, where would the sense of smell be? But in fact God has arranged the parts in the body, every one of them, just as he wanted them to be. If they were all one part, where would the body be? As it is, there are many parts, but one body. The eye cannot say to the hand, ‘I don't need you!’ And the head cannot say to the feet, ‘I don't need you!’ On the contrary, those parts of the body that seem to be weaker are indispensable, and the parts that we think are less honorable we treat with special honor. And the parts that are unpresentable are treated with special modesty, while our presentable parts need no special treatment. But God has combined the members of the body and has given greater honor to the parts that lacked it, so that there should be no division in the body, but that its parts should have equal concern for each other. If one part suffers, every part suffers with it; if one part is honored, every part rejoices with it. Now you are the body of Christ, and each one of you is a part of it." 1 Corinthians 12:12-27

"There is one body and one Spirit—just as you were called to one hope when you were called—one Lord, one faith, one baptism; one God and Father of all, who is over all and through all and in all." Ephesians 4:4-6

"I appeal to you, brothers, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that all of you agree with one another so that there may be no divisions among you and that you may be perfectly united in mind and thought. My brothers, some from Chloe's household have informed me that there are quarrels among you. What I mean is this: One of you says, ‘I follow Paul’; another, ‘I follow Apollos’; another, ‘I follow Cephas’; still another, ‘I follow Christ.’ Is Christ divided? Was Paul crucified for you? Were you baptized into the name of Paul? I am thankful that I did not baptize any of you except Crispus and Gaius, so no one can say that you were baptized into my name. (Yes, I also baptized the household of Stephanas; beyond that, I don't remember if I baptized anyone else.) For Christ did not send me to baptize, but to preach the gospel—not with words of human wisdom, lest the cross of Christ be emptied of its power." 1 Corinthians 1:10-17

The foregoing shows that the Holy Bible clearly, emphatically, unambiguously condemns divisions and sectarianism since Christ’s prayer is that all true believers be perfectly united in the Spirit and on the basis of truth:

"I appeal to you, brethren, to take note of those who create dissensions and difficulties, in opposition to the doctrine which you have been taught; avoid them. For such persons do not serve our Lord Christ, but their own appetites, and by fair and flattering words they deceive the hearts of the simple-minded." Romans 16:17-18

"For many deceivers have gone out into the world, men who will not acknowledge the coming of Jesus Christ in the flesh; such a one is the deceiver and the antichrist. Look to yourselves, that you may not lose what you have worked for, but may win a full reward. Any one who goes ahead and does not abide in the doctrine of Christ does not have God; he who abides in the doctrine has both the Father and the Son. If any one comes to you and does not bring this doctrine, do not receive him into the house or give him any greeting; for he who greets him shares his wicked work." 2 John 1:7-11

So much for Abualrub’s arguments. He continues with these claims:

Christian Arabs do not even call Esa by his European name ‘Jesus’, but by his Arab [and true] name ‘`Esa’, or by another name they invented: ‘Yasu`; they do not use the word ‘god’ to describe the Creator, but the Creator’s true name ‘Allah’. Add to this another fact that no man can change: the Christians and Jews do not have access to the original books contained in the Bible in the original language they were written in…


Here Abualrub commits several mistakes. First, he erroneously claims that Christian Arabs call Jesus Esa when in fact they call him Yasu’. The second mistake Abualrub makes is to suggest that Esa is Jesus’ (correct) Arabic name and even his true name. No, the most appropriate rendering of Jesus’ original Hebrew name Yeshua' is the traditional Arabic transliteration Yasu'. For a detailed response to this particular claim, see the article Is 'Isa the true name of Jesus?

His third mistake is to assume that the Creator’s true name is Allah when in reality it is Yahweh:

"God also said to Moses, ‘Say this to the people of Israel, "Yahweh, the God of your fathers, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob, has sent me to you": this is my name for ever, and thus I am to be remembered throughout all generations.’" Exodus 3:15

"And God said to Moses, ‘I am Yahweh. I appeared to Abraham, to Isaac, and to Jacob, as God Almighty, but by my name Yahweh I did not make myself known to them.’" Exodus 6:2-3

"Let them know that you alone, whose name is Yahweh, are the Most High over all the earth." Psalm 83:18

"And Yahweh will become king over all the earth; on that day Yahweh will be one and his name one." Zechariah 14:9

Moreover, he erroneously thinks that just because Arab Christians use the word Allah for the true God of the Holy Bible this somehow means that Abualrub’s Allah, the god preached by Muhammad in the Quran, is therefore the true God. In reality, the Allah of the Holy Bible, the One worshiped by the true believers in the Lord Jesus, is the Triune God of Father, Son and Holy Spirit. The Allah of Muhammad, on the other hand, is not the Father and has no Son. Therefore, Muhammad’s Allah is not the same God worshiped and glorified by the true Christian believers. For more on this topic please read the following response to Abualrub’s distortions of the facts:

Finally, Abualrub is being very inconsistent for demanding of Christians what he himself cannot produce for his own book. If by original books he means the original languages in which the books of the Holy Bible were written (i.e. Hebrew, Aramaic, Koine Greek), then yes we can produce those. If by original books Abualrub means the original manuscripts written by the prophets or apostles, known as the autographs, then the answer is rather obvious: No Christian or Jew can produce the autograph, but neither can Abualrub produce the original Quranic manuscript written down by Muhammad or by one of his scribes. In fact, there wasn't just one manuscript of the Quran, but several which were compiled after Muhammad's death. It was Uthman who decided to standardize what he felt was the more authentic version from many competing codices which were written down by ear and eyewitnesses of Muhammad, men who had committed the Quran to memory. Uthman decided to burn these other primary codices.

In fact, even to this day there isn’t one version of the Quran, but at least two that are still used from over a dozen versions. These versions are called qiraat, or readings, by Muslims, which they expediently deem to be equally authoritative:

When reading the Qur'an, we frequently refer to Warsh or Hafs and say, "This is Hafs" or "This is Warsh". What we mean by that is that this is the riwaya or Warsh or the riwaya of Hafs. It is the riwaya of a particular qira'a. The qira'at or the readings, or methods of recitation, are named after the leader of a school of Qur'an reciters. Each qira'a derives its authority from a prominent leader of recitation in the second or third century hijri who in turn trace their riwaya or transmission back through the Companions of the Prophet. For instance, in the back of a Warsh Qur'an, you are likely to find "the riwaya of Imam Warsh from Nafi' al-Madini from Abu Ja'far Yazid ibn al-Qa'qa' from 'Abdullah ibn 'Abbas from Ubayy ibn Ka'b from the Messenger of Allah, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, from Jibril, peace be upon him, from the Creator." Or in Hafs you will see "the riwaya of Hafs ibn Sulayman ibn al-Mughira al-Asadi al-Kufi of the qira'a of 'Asim ibn Abi'n-Nujud al-Kufi from Abu 'Abdu'r-Rahman 'Abdullah ibn Habib as-Sulami from 'Uthman ibn 'Affan and 'Ali ibn Abi Talib and Zayd ibn Thabit and Ubayy ibn Ka'b from the Prophet, may Allah bless him and grant him peace." These all go back to the Prophet.

There are slight differences in these readings, for example, where one stops, as in Surat al-Baqara (1): "Dhalika'l-Kitabu la rayb" or "Dhalika'l-Kitabu la rayba fih" as well as some voweling differences ("suddan" or "saddan"), and sometimes a difference in the letters due to different diacritical marks, as ya' or ta' (turja'una or yurja'una). Sometimes a word will have a shadda or not have a shadda…

Today, the two readings most used are the qira'a of 'Asim in the riwaya of Hafs, and the qira'a of Nafi' in the riwaya of Warsh. Also in use in Africa is the qira'a of Abu 'Amir in the riwaya of ad-Duri. (Aisha Bewley, The Seven Qira'at of the Qur'an; online source; bold emphasis ours)

(C)ertain variant readings existed and, indeed, persisted and increased as the Companions who had memorised the text died, and because the inchoate (basic) Arabic script, lacking vowel signs and even necessary diacriticals to distinguish between certain consonants, was inadequate. ... In the 4th Islamic century, it was decided to have recourse (to return) to "readings" (qira'at) handed down from seven authoritative "readers" (qurra'); in order, moreover, to ensure accuracy of transmission, two "transmitters" (rawi, pl. ruwah) were accorded to each. There resulted from this seven basic texts (al-qira'at as-sab', "the seven readings"), each having two transmitted versions (riwayatan) with only minor variations in phrasing, but all containing meticulous vowel-points and other necessary diacritical marks. ... The authoritative "readers" are:

Nafi` (from Medina; d. 169/785)
Ibn Kathir (from Mecca; d. 119/737)
Abu `Amr al-`Ala' (from Damascus; d. 153/770)
Ibn `Amir (from Basra; d. 118/736)
Hamzah (from Kufah; d. 156/772)
al-Qisa'i [sic] (from Kufah; d. 189/804)
Abu Bakr `Asim (from Kufah; d. 158/778)

(Cyril Glassť, The Concise Encyclopedia of Islam [Harper & Row: San Francisco, 1989], p. 324, bold added)

The following Salafi website acknowledges this mass confusion which surrounded the Quran's transmission:

Secondly, what is meant by styles (ahruf, sing. harf)?

The BEST of the scholarly OPINIONS concerning what is meant is that there are seven ways of reciting the Qur’aan, where the wording may differ but the meaning is the same; if there is a different meaning then it is by way of variations on a theme, not opposing and contradiction.

Thirdly ...

It is known that Hishaam was Asadi Qurashi (i.e., from the clan of Bani Asad in Quraysh) and ‘Umar was ‘Adawi Qurashi (i.e., from the clan of Bani ‘Adiyy in Quraysh). Both of them were from Quraysh and Quraysh had only one dialect. If the difference in ahruf (styles) had been a difference in dialects, why would two men of Quraysh have been different?

The scholars mentioned NEARLY FORTY DIFFERENT OPINIONS concerning this matter! Perhaps the most correct is that which we have mentioned above. And Allaah knows best.


It seems that the seven styles were revealed with different wordings, as indicated by the hadeeth of ‘Umar, because ‘Umar’s objection was to the style, not the meaning. The differences between these styles are not the matter of contradiction and opposition, rather they are synonymous, as Ibn Mas’ood said: "It is like one of you saying halumma, aqbil or ta’aal (all different ways of saying ‘Come here’)."


With regard to the seven recitations (al-qiraa’aat al-saba’), this number is not based on the Qur’aan and Sunnah, rather it is the ijtihaad of Ibn Mujaahid (may Allaah have mercy on him). People thought that al-ahruf al-saba’ (the seven styles) were al-qiraa’aat al-saba’ (the seven recitations) because they happened to be the same number. But this number may have come about coincidentally, or it may have been done deliberately by Ibn Mujaahid to match what was narrated about the number of styles (ahruf) being seven. Some people thought that the styles (ahruf) were the recitations, but this is a mistake. No such comment is known among the scholars. The seven recitations are one of the seven styles, and this is the style that ‘Uthmaan chose for all the Muslims.


When ‘Uthmaan made copies of the Qur’aan, he did so according to one style (harf), but he omitted the dots and vowel points so that some other styles could also be accommodated. So the Mus-haf that was copied in his time could be read according to other styles, and whatever styles were accommodated by the Mus-haf of ‘Uthmaan remained in use, and the styles that could not be accommodated fell into disuse. The people had started to criticize one another for reciting differently, so ‘Uthmaan united them by giving them one style of the Qur’aan.


Your saying that Mujaahid’s different recitations meant the seven styles (ahruf) is not correct, as was said by Shaykh al-Islam ibn Taymiyyah. (Majmoo’ah al-Fatawa, vol. 13, p. 210) ...

Islam Q&A (
(Question #5142: The revelation of the Qur’aan in seven styles (ahruf, sing. harf); online source; bold and capital emphasis ours)

Imagine, if you would, what Abualrub would have said if Christians claimed that the Bible had been transmitted in seven different versions, or readings, and that each reading has come through two transmissions, totaling fourteen versions! And this doesn’t even apply to the English translations of the Quran, but solely to the alleged Arabic original which Abualrub claims he is able to produce!

For more on this subject, please read the following articles:

The truth of the matter is that the Holy Bible has vastly superior textual, historical, archaeological, and documentary evidence than the Quran. The Holy Bible is better attested in terms of manuscript evidence and textual purity as the following links show:

This concludes this particular rebuttal, with the rest of our answers to his other comments to follow soon, Lord Jesus permitting.

Responses to Jalal Abualrub
Articles by Sam Shamoun
Answering Islam Home Page