Tekton Apologetics

A Response to Mohamed Ghounem's Critique of our Book Review

Mohamed Ghounem has recently written a response to my review/critique of his latest book, "200+ Ways the Qur'an Corrects the Bible". The reader is encouraged to read both the review and Ghounem's response prior to proceeding to this critique since Ghounem did not respond to all of our comments, and they will not be reproduced in this response for that reason. We are glad that Ghounem has decided, in his response, to try to interact with material from some of the links provided in our review. This gives the reader very convenient access to examples of the kind of methodology that pervades Ghounem's book. Similar to his treatments of the standard apologetic resources for solving Biblical difficulties, Ghounem compresses apologetic arguments that are often well-detailed into summaries comprised of one to a few sentences. The problem with this approach is that the apologetic presentations being summarized are often too detailed for such short compressions to provide an adequate representation of the argument(s) allegedly being refuted. Ghounem proceeds to rebut these compressions of the arguments that he formulates, yet once again fails to refute the arguments themselves, much of the time because the complete scope of the apologetic arguments are clearly not indicated by his mere compressions. We therefore VERY highly recommend that the reader check out the material in the links and compare them to Ghounem's "summary compressions" and refutations of those summaries, as well as the articles to which Ghounem has linked in his critique. This will serve to at least give the reader an idea of the level of scholarship that is found in Ghounem's book.

I extend special thanks up front to JPH, Jochen Katz, and Sam Shamoun, all of which have contributed to this response, and whose contributions will be specifically noted at the appropriate times and places.

As for formatting, what I originally wrote (in the book review) will be in bold, Ghounem's response in italics, and my response to Ghounem in this regular font.

We now proceed to Ghounem's comments.

Dear tektonics, thank you for reviewing my book, it was an honor to have someone with your scholarly information give a well written critique. Now if you allow me the pleasure, I shall return the favor:

We also thank Ghounem for taking the time and effort to write a response defending his book. It is always good I think to receive some correspondence from the subject of the critique.

Ghounem's approach in attacking the Bible

As stated in the introduction, this book shows how the Quran helps, not attacks the Bible. The Quran is the Divine commentary of the Bible.

These comments are the result of the ideological wall that exists between Ghounem and Christians, so there doesn't appear to be a necessity in responding specifically. As for those of us that believe that the Bible is still the preserved word of God, we naturally will perceive his book as an attack upon it, since he is arguing that it is filled with problems. The important question to be answered is whether or not Ghounem's thesis actually holds water.

Ghounem makes much of divergences in parallel accounts in the Bible of the same event as well as alleged contradictions and errors (e.g. historical, scientific, etc.), but such exist in the Qur'an as well (See here and here).

This is a frequent phrase throughout this analyzation, and in most cases, it bares a striking resemblance to a red herring.

Ghounem's book is an attempt to demonstrate that the Qur'an is superior to the Bible. It is quite easy to simply list a couple of passages from the Bible, argue that they are contradictory, and quote a passage from the Qur'an claiming this as a "correction." The point of my constant applications to the Qur'an of Ghounem's approach to the Bible is to demonstrate how his methodology could easily be reversed if somebody put forth the time and effort. The bottom line is that both approaches would be unscholarly, and simply inadequate.

I've asked Jochen Katz to provide a response to the material in the next paragraph, in regards to Qur'anic difficulties, since it is more about him than us.

If I may clarify, the majority of the issues in the English translation of the Quran are linguistic, explained clearly with an Arabic/English dictionary. In the mid 90's when I often debated Jochen Katz (the compiler of that list (before he quit)),

Jochen: Who quit what? I may have quit talking to Ghounem, because it was a waste of time, but I didn't quit anything else. Maybe he thinks I am gone because I am no longer active on the SRI newsgroup?

I asked him out of religious integrity, to name that link "Contradictions in the English translation of the Quran". He refused.

"Jochen: I cannot remember that particular request, but that is insubstantial anyway because it is wrong. I ALWAYS invite people to explain the meaning of the passages directly with reference to the Arabic. We invite responses, rebuttals (and even provide a template for those who want to do so), and then will look at their validity and either admit they are right and remove our original claim, or try to rebut/refute them.

Also, we have a number of Arabs who proofread and contribute to this section. It is NOT about the English, it is about the MEANING of certain quranic passages that contradict each other.

Thus, Ghounem's statement is utter nonsense. The section that is about contradictions between ENGLISH versions of the Quran is another one: Qur'an Versions (www.answering-islam.org/Quran/Versions/). The section found at the address www.answering-islam.org/Quran/Contra/, and titled "Contradictions in the Qur'an", is about contradiction in the MEANING of the (Arabic) Quran.

None the less, this is one of the Divine aspects of the Quran, God has kept it in it's pure language, Arabic. This is one of the main reasons why the Quran helps the Bible. The Bible lacks the linguistic pillar of support because the Aramaic language is extinct. Furthermore, Christians already accept the Bible in all languages as divine, so if you approached any Christian and told them that only the Aramaic Bible is 100% divine, they would call you a heretic.

This "linguistic pillar" argument is one that Ghounem harps upon often in this response. As such, we should take some time to further elaborate on this position. Ghounem states that the Qur'an is truly only "authentic" in Arabic. As has already been shown, the underlying Arabic must be considered before a claimed error and/or contradiction in the Qur'an would have any substance. We agree that this is an only reasonable demand, as we Christians argue similarly in regards to the Bible. Thus, Ghounem has no problems in implicitly admitting here that the translations of the Qu'ran are erroneous, but this does not matter since the Qur'an is only "authentic" in Arabic.

So how does this compare with Christian claims regarding inerrancy for the Bible? Like Ghounem with the Qur'an, Christians admit that there are some errors in the translations. However, very similar to Ghounem's reasoning, the Biblical inerrantist will argue that, before a claimed error and/or contradiction in the Bible would have substance, we must consider the underlying Hebrew, Aramaic, or Greek, as the case may be. We are essentially on the exact same ground on this issue, and it would be hypocritical for one to discount this approach in one book, but allow it for the other. Unfortunately, Ghounem is guilty of this inconsistency. As can be clearly seen just above, he appeals to the faultiness of translations regarding difficulties in the Qur'an, but disallows the Christian apologist to make this same appeal regarding the Bible.

Ghounem apparently justifies his inconsistent logic in this regard because, according to him, the Aramaic language is "extinct," and Christians already, according to him, accept the Bible as divine in all languages. We're not sure what Ghounem means exactly in the latter claim, but Biblical inerrantists only believe that the original manuscripts (i.e. the autographs), and in the original languages (obviously), are inerrant. Thus, Ghounem's inconsistent application is not justified regarding what is allegedly believed in this regard. OTOH, if Ghounem thinks that finding a Christian (or some Christians) that believe(s) that the translations are inerrant will establish his case, we'd ask in response if finding a Muslim that made this claim for the Qur'anic translations would legitimize a critic's appealing to errors in the translations as legitimate errors in the Qur'an. Of course, regardless of whether or not there are Christians and/or Muslims out there making such erroneous claims, it doesn't change the reality of the fact that only the autographs, and in their original languages, for both books, can reasonably be scrutinized in the inerrancy debate. After all, it is only the original authors that are said to be inspired. As for the "Aramaic is dead" argument, aside from the fact that only a small proportion of the Bible was actually penned in Aramaic, this is completely beside the point. The question that arises is whether or not we can appeal to the original language(s), "dead" or not, to determine if a particular Biblical difficulty can be reconciled. Finally, Ghounem commented that "if you approached any Christian and told them that only the Aramaic Bible is 100% divine, they'd call you a heretic." In response, I can only wonder what kind of Christians with which Ghounem has been conversing, because it is only in the original languages (i.e. Hebrew, Greek, and comparatively little Aramaic), and only the autographs, that Christians (that I've talked to regarding this at least) argue that the Bible is inerrant. As for "divine," we do know through textual criticism that the Bible has been substantially preserved, and that no doctrine is in doubt due to textual variations, and we also believe that the orthodox translations, while NOT inerrant, generally faithfully inform us of these doctrines. If someone is in doubt, there are plenty of good resources out there for students wanting to study the underlying languages to affirm the meanings found in modern translations.

More is to come below regarding the translation issue.

The point to pressing this fact is to explain that the Quran simply fulfils what the Bible lacks: a stable means of communication. While the English translation of the Quran can be questioned, the Arabic Quran has stood the test of time, while a new Bible edition/version is made every year as tectonic translation shifts are still trying to settle millenniums later, over 300 words in the new Bibles are being translated differently from previous Bibles, and counting. This rests on the simple acceptance of authenticity, while Christians accept the Bible in English, French, Spanish, etc.. as authentic, the Muslims only accept the Quran in Arabic as authentic. Immediately we see a serious disadvantage for the Bible, because no book can be perfectly translated. Therefore God blessed the Bible followers by sending another original "Reading" (Quran in Arabic) since the original Bible has been lost in translation after translation, so the Bible followers no longer had to hang their eternal salvation on one of the hundreds of mistranslated Bible words. Monotheists now have a defense against skeptics, they can validly point to word translations, while Bible followers are void of this defense because their English Bibles are considered the exact words of God.

In light of our preceding comments, this argument lacks validity. The original Arabic must be considered if a claimed problem in the Qur'an is to have substance, and the Hebrew and Greek of the Bible must also be considered if a claimed problem in the Bible is to have substance. Ghounem's claim that Bible followers consider the translations as the exact words of God is false, at least among the well-informed Christians, and all Christians with which I've personally conversed regarding this subject. When it comes down to issues of errancy vs. inerrancy, Christians, Jews, and Muslims are on the same ground, and correctly take the same approach in appealing to the original languages when attempting to resolve difficulties. The claim that "the original Bible has been lost in translation after translation" is an unfounded soundbite since there are thousands of partial or full Biblical manuscripts in existence attesting to the fact that the Bible clearly has not been lost. The remark about Bible followers having "to hang their eternal salvation on one of the hundreds of mistranslated Bible words" is absurd. First of all, it is Ghounem's burden of proof to demonstrate to us where any given orthodox Bible translation does not correctly get across to the reader proper Christian doctrine. Ghounem should keep in mind, before giving us one, or even a few, examples of mistranslated words that could affect a particular doctrine in a given translation, that usually doctrines are backed up by many different verses, and sufficient doubt would have to be cast upon all relevant verses in a given translation before his argument would begin to hold water. Then, even if he could do that, only a given translation would be shown to be inadequate regarding a particular doctrine, or doctrines, as the case may be. It would have to be shown that all translations in a given language are inadequate in expounding proper doctrine for there to be a substantial problem. Even if this could be done, however, this is all irrelevant anyway since the message in its original language is the only one that actually carries the authority, as Ghounem plainly admits regarding the Qur'an.

The Qur'an and the Bible were each written centuries ago and in milieus consisting of different cultural, social, and literary norms and standards than what we often find today.

While one may label the Bible as outdated, temporary, and incompatible with today's secularist views, I believe the Quran offers a tranquil lifestyle compatible with any century.

This answer doesn't have anything to do with my statement in its original context, regarding why skeptics should take into account essential issues before pronouncing the finding of an error in the Bible and/or the Qur'an. Aside from that, Ghounem merely is giving us his opinion, so we'll refrain from further comment at this juncture.

Demonstrate that the issues are often much more complex than what Ghounem would have the reader believe with his inadequate treatments of such matters.

The issues are rather simple according to the Bible itself "For God is not the author of confusion" (1 Corithians 14:33), if something is too complex (confusing) to be easily explained, then it's not from God.

Ghounem's proof-text has nothing to do with this topic, and even if it did, this would have nothing to do with the need for ample consideration of the background issues before pronouncing the finding of a contradiction or error.

In the "Excuse" subsections, the reader is given (usually) a very brief statement as to how Christians reconcile the problematic passage(s) (sometimes "excuses" are said to be "not available" for the alleged problems).

I made a very sincere effort both on and off line to search for an excuse for every Bible problem I found which related to the Quran when making the book (few ways were removed because their reciprocal excuses were credible). This is the first time ever in the history of literature that a list of responses are included for Bible blemishes and their along with their conclusive replies.

The first statement made just above may be true in regards to direct answers. However, this is not the case in regards to indirect responses. For instance, several of Ghounem's complaints in chapter one are explained indirectly by a proper understanding of the Biblical authors' use of anthropomorphic language in describing God. As for the second statement regarding the alleged uniqueness of the book, modern critics like Dan Barker, Farrel Till, and C. Dennis McKinsey may take issue with this statement. Finally, Ghounem's replies are far from substantial, much less conclusive, as anybody actually comparing what is written by Norman Geisler, Davids and Richards, Gleason Archer, etc. with Ghounem's remarks will be able to quickly discover.

In some cases, Ghounem will list more than one way in which apologists supposedly reconcile the alleged problems, but this subsection comprises, at most, in each case, a few sentences of writing.

In many cases more than just a few sentences, and in some cases, the apologetics themselves only offer one sentence response, yet for the first book ever to offer the Biblicists stance on each issue, I sense a tone of unappreciativeness. This book offers a road map that many Bible readers may travel, rather than going into atheism once they realize on their own that the Christian apologetics are just offering smoke screens, they can remain on the straight path of God through the Quran.

There isn't much need in a response here, other than to simply encourage the reader to compare the standard Christian books on Biblical difficulties with the treatments that Ghounem makes in his book, and other skeptics make in that regard, for that matter. While Ghounem may be correct in that one or two sentence answers are only offered by the Christian apologists in some cases, this is not the case most of the time. I maintain my claim that Ghounem has not adequately represented the apologetics, and thus his "road map" needs some serious calibration. Furthermore, it is important to emphasize that if an error is proven in the Bible, Christianity would not necessarily be disproved. The overall reliability of the Bible, like other non-inerrant historical documents, would still have to be disproved. A substantial case refuting important Christian doctrine(s), historically or theologically, would have to be established before any pillar of Biblical Christianity would so much as be scratched.

As far as appreciation is concerned, a book that actually tries to interact with the full depth of some of the apologetic answers given in these books may indeed have been valuable, but Ghounem has decided not to do that, and thus has refuted little, if anything.

For somebody that has supposedly placed 6 years of research into this book, the Bibliography appears to be rather scant, not only in terms of quantity, but also quality.

One only needs the Bible and the Quran to complete the book, yet nearly 40 books (some nearly a thousand pages each) and half a dozen mega websites were used, along with my own previous works. Most of the research efforts and costs were those trying to find answers to Bible flaws, nearly every apologetic site on the net was visited, with the disappointment to find that most just copied each other, so purchases from barnes and noble and amazon had to be made, including Geisler's (whom I spoke to in person) entire apologetic library on CD-Rom (expensive, but worth it).

As I did admit in the book review, and is copied just below, Ghounem does have an impressive array of "problem-solving" books in his bibliography, but once again, he does not generally interact with the full scope of the arguments. As for websites, I'd pit the plethora of material on Tekton as well as Glenn Miller's Christian Think-tank against Ghounem's book on any topic. As far as my actual complaint about the bibliography was concerned, my point was that Ghounem should have extended his scope beyond mere problem-solving books, as evangelical scholarship extends far beyond this (more on this at the end of this article).

Unfortunately, besides the admittedly good variety of "problem solving" books used by Ghounem, the good scholarly sources regarding Christianity and/or the Bible, in Ghounem's Bibliography, appear to be but few.

A few? incase one is unfamiliar with Geisler's apologetic library, Geisler lists nearly every Christian apologetic in history as reference to his attempts to solve Bible problems, thus Geisler is a mall of apologetics, I'm surprised the quantity and quality of my choices of Christian defenders are criticized, since Geisler is the original author of the answering-Islam site often referenced here.

I think here that Ghounem has misunderstood my comments to which he is responding. I do say that his variety of "problem-solving" books is adequate (though I still maintain that he doesn't do justice to the arguments presented, for the most part). The kinds of books missing from Ghounem's resource list, for which I was criticizing him, are the in-depth historical studies of the overall reliability of the Bible and those on the Person of Jesus Christ. I did list a dozen relevant scholars who have each written many books on these important topics at the end of my review. Ghounem does, oddly, seem to imply that because Geisler uses material from a wide array of Christian apologists and scholars, that his responding to Geisler is actually equivalent to responding to these apologists and scholars themselves! We'll return to this at the end of this critique in response to a similar comment made by Ghounem.

I also ran the comment about Geisler being the "original author of the answering-Islam site" by Jochen, who responds:

The website started under the name "Christian Answers to Islam" and was located on my personal student account at Georgia Tech. After a bit more than a year some people suggested that I get a proper website with its own domain name. That name needed to be short, so that it can easily be remembered. I decided to call the site "Answering Islam" and we registered answering-islam.org.

Norman Geisler and Abdul Saleeb wrote a book that they titled "Answering Islam", but Dr. Geisler had absolutely nothing to do with our site. In fact, I only met Norman Geisler several years after the site was established. His co-author Abdul Saleeb has contributed his testimony on our site, and later some more articles, but that is it.

The title "Answering Islam" for the book and for the site were independently developed/decided upon. That Geisler is the author of a book with the same title is mere coincidence.

This shows that M. Ghounem doesn't do careful research, but simply propagates as fact what is merely his personal speculation.

There is also a methodological flaw in Ghounem's thesis from the very start. Sam Shamoun and company have collected an immense amount of data supporting the assertion that the Qur'an, contrary to what most Muslims claim, actually *endorses* the Bible rather than to claim that the written texts have been corrupted. See the following resource page:

http://www.answering-islam.org/Quran/Bible/index.html

The Quran confirms the Truth in the Bible and dispels the myths in the Bible, of the million words in the Bible, some are true and some are false (distorted, deleted, or mistranslated). It is folly to claim the Quran supports all of the Bible since the Quran itself states:

"People of the Book! Our Messenger has come to you, making clear to you many things you have been concealing of the Book and forgive you much. A light has come to you from Allah and a glorious Book, with which He will guide whoever follows His pleasure in the way of peace, and brings them forth from darkness into the light by His will." (Quran 5:15-16)

This is one of several proof-texts that Muslims will appeal to in hopes of proving that the Qur'an claims that the Bible has been corrupted. However, "concealing" is a far cry from actual written corruption. The most natural way to understand the above text is to assert that Muhammad is "revealing" information that Jews and Christians have allegedly been hiding, but not necessarily by merely changing the written words. There are also other proof-texts, such as the ones that Osama appealed to in his Pal-talk debate with Sam Shamoun (e.g. S. 4:156-159; S. 2:77-78; and S. 3:64). However, all of these have already been dealt with, including the one Ghounem mentions, in the original link. We also encourage the reader to listen to the debate that Sam Shamoun had with Nadir Ahmed on this very topic some time ago (this can be accessed on the same page we gave just above to the Shamoun vs. Abdallah debate).

Yet some Christians, even if mountains are moved in front of them, have hearts full of denial,….

The only mountain I'm personally aware of regarding this is the mountain of evidence refuting Ghounem and most other Muslims' position on this issue, which once again, is available for easy access on the web (see the link). This particular mountain is too large to be moved by mere proof-texts. The ones in denial are clearly the Muslims.

….so if one is insistent that the Quran endorses the Bible, then one would have to accept what the Bible says about itself;

". . .ye have perverted the words of the living God. . ." (Jeremiah 23:36)

Like with Jeremiah 14:14 just below, this passage says nothing about textual corruption. Ghounem is assuming what he has yet to prove.

"How can you say, 'We are wise, and the law of the Lord is with us'? But, behold, the false pen of the scribes has made it into a lie." (Jeremiah 8:8)

This has been dealt with extensively here and here.

"And the Lord said to me: "The prophets are prophesying lies in my name; I did not send them, nor did I command them or speak to them. They are prophesying to you a lying vision, worthless divination, and the deceit of their own minds." (Jeremiah 14:14)

This passage is simply about false prophets speaking lies. There is nothing in this text to indicate textual corruption.

Even Jesus admits the Scribes omitted things from the Bible;

" Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye pay tithe of mint and anise and cumin, and have omitted the weightier matters of the law, judgment, mercy, and faith: these ought ye to have done, and not to leave the other undone. " (Matthew 23:23) more here.

Somehow Ghounem has managed to turn a text referring to the scribes' and Pharisees' ignoring of admonitions in the Torah regarding judgment, mercy, and faith into an alleged statement by Jesus regarding textual corruption. Although it should be obvious from reading the verse itself, the context clearly indicates that Jesus is attacking the scribes' and Pharisees' moral character rather than charging them with textual corruption.

If one considers the actual context of the book of Jeremiah (some info. is given in the links above under Jer. 8:8), it is impossible that Ghounem's proof-texts could be referring to wholesale textual corruption. On a private e-mail exchange, Sam Shamoun offered some comments in response to Ghounem which includes a tidbit on Christ's view of the OT, which he gave me permission to post. Sam writes:

"I don't think Jeremiah 23:36 should be a problem since the context is referring to false prophets who prophesy falsely. Read the entire chapter and especially this part:

"I have heard what the prophets say who prophesy lies in my name. They say, "I HAD A DREAM! I HAD A DREAM!" How long will this continue in the hearts of these lying prophets, who prophesy the delusions of their own minds? They think the dreams they tell one another will make my people FORGET MY NAME, just as their fathers forgot my name through Baal worship. Let the prophet who has a dream tell his dream, BUT LET THE ONE WHO HAS MY WORD SPEAK IT FAITHFULLY. For what has straw to do with grain?' declares the LORD. 'IS NOT MY WORD LIKE FATHER,' declares the LORD,' AND LIKE A HAMMER THAT BREAKS A ROCK IN PIECES? 'Therefore,' declares the LORD, 'I am against the prophets who steal from one another words supposedly from me. Yes,' declares the LORD, 'I am against the prophets who wag their own tongues and yet declare, "The LORD declares." Indeed, I am against those who prophesy false dreams,' declares the LORD. 'They tell them and lead my people astray with their reckless lies, yet I did not send or appoint them. They do not benefit these people in the least,' declares the LORD."

"This actually sounds a lot like Muhammad if you ask me. Furthermore, note that God says that those who have his word let them speak it faithfully, presupposing the availability of God's revelation which he describes like a fire and a hammer."

"Besides, this is referring to what the false prophets were proclaiming orally, not to the text. Ghounem is working under the assumption that these prophets were tampering with the OT text as it existed at the time. But a careful reading will show that this refers to what they were SPEAKING, not what they wrote or did to the text of Scripture. In fact, how could they tamper with the text when there were prophets of God who could insure that the text remained intact? For instance, when Jeremiah's scroll was destroyed in chapter 36 by the king, God told Jeremiah to take up another scroll and write all the words that were there in the first scroll. If God could restore Jeremiah's revelation then God is quite capable of insuring the preservation of his word."

"Furthermore, (later) prophets like Daniel had copies of the scriptures in his possession- cf. Daniel 9:1-3, 11, 13"

"This presupposes that there were valid, authentic versions of God's word."

"As far as Jesus is concerned, just read Matthew 5:17-18 and 22:39-40 to see what Jesus' view of the text of the OT was."

"Finally, this means that the Quran is bearing false witness when it says that the Lord Jesus confirmed the Law in his possession, a Law which is virtually identical to what we have in our possessions today. Cf. surahs 3:50; 5:46; 61:6"

END QUOTE

Once again the bankruptcy of Ghounem's proof-text approach is exhibited.

So if one is to persist that the Quran endorses the Bible, and the Bible calls itself distorted, then we are back to square one where the Quran came to help the Bible.

In light of the preceding, this comment is without foundation.

This is the first time I've heard a skeptic deny that context is important

I was simply emphasizing that the "content" excuse does not get a free ride here, and if it is used, it will be rightly scrutinized.

Okay, but that's to be expected. Somebody replying to a problem by simply claiming that the relevant texts are being taken out of context, without demonstrating how exactly considering the context solves the problem, will obviously not get the job done. I apologize if I misunderstood Ghounem on this ground.

We are also told that "copyist error" is an invalid excuse because, by making such an appeal, we are admitting that our Bibles today have errors, and this makes it no longer a divine book. It might help Ghounem to consider JPH's article related to this topic.

Thank you for the reference, although that link tells the reader to subdue their examination of the Bible to B.C. levels, and don't look at the Bible as a modern day person with modern day knowledge, then the writer goes on to say Christians don't even need the Bible, interesting. I'm trying to teach acceptance rather than denial, but thanks anyway from the link.

Since Ghounem is responding to JPH's article, I've asked him to directly respond:

JPH: Here he doesn't seem to be criticizing the "subduing" but just commenting on it…."Subduing your examination" to the context within which a document is written is normal procedure in scholarship. On "need the Bible" I am not sure where he gets this but it is probably an overstatement of my point about people who are illiterate, or lived in Communist countries, etc. not needing a Bible to be saved.

if Ghounem persists in demanding that all copies of the Bible be 100% error-free for it to maintain its authenticity, he is free to think that way, but this criterion also disqualifies the Qur'an from being authentic since its history is certainly not free of textual variations.

Here is one of many examples where the topic is changed from discussing excuses and rebuttals on the Bible, over to the Quran as a diversion.

Once again, Ghounem's book is demonstrating allegedly how the Qur'an corrects the Bible. Therefore, if an alleged problem with the Bible can be used equally as forcefully, or more so, to the Qur'an, then Ghounem's case is undermined. That is why, throughout my review, I make such "diversions."

Yet as stated in the beginning, such a comparison only shows how the Quran towers in truth above the Bible, the punctuation differences in the Quran are minuscule compared to the entire chapter differences in the Protestant Vs. Catholic Bibles. Answers to Quran's textual integrity here.

That's a big claim, but whether or not reality supports it we'll leave up to the objective researcher. In the previous review, we gave a link to JPH's study of New Testament textual criticism, where the substantial reliability of the NT texts is demonstrated. OTOH, Ghounem has understated the problems with the Qur'anic text. Consider the following links: (1); (2); (3); (4). Ghounem gives a link to a substantial collection of materials from M.S.M. Saifullah's website. We'll throw in this link to the material of Akbarally Meherally as well. Both of these authors provide responses to much of the material in the critical link that we labeled (1). These are, as far as I know, among the top defenses of Qur'anic integrity that can be found on the net. There are also a few relevant counterpoints to the textual criticism material of Saifullah's found within this link. The reader wishing to delve into this issue is highly encouraged to check out what both sides have to say. Personally, I do believe that the Qur'an has been substantially preserved, at least since Uthman's recension (see the links for more info.), but the fact that there are variants in the Qur'an's textual history is beyond reasonable dispute. See link (3) where Sam Shamoun demonstrates the presence of textual variants reported in various Sahih Hadith, the Muslims' own authoritative Traditions.

It's simply common sense that one document (the Bible) which took millenniums to compile, would not be as textually authentic as a document (the Quran) which took decades to compile.

This argument is invalid. The Bible is a collection of dozens of historical documents, all of which were written within the lifetimes of its various authors. The fact that the span of time that elapsed between the writing of the first Biblical documents and the writing of the last Biblical documents is about 1,500-2,000 years has nothing to do with textual authenticity. Textual authenticity is determined by whether or not the scribes have managed to faithfully preserve what was originally written, not the time-span which comprises the period of revelation from 1st book to last book. This issue is certainly relevant when it comes to the question of canonization (See (1) and (2) for some info.), but not for textual purity.

We are next told that the "excuse" of claiming that "Later Scripture replaces Previous Scripture" is also invalid. We certainly can agree with Ghounem in theory, but new revelations must be in harmony with previous revelations, and even Muslims implicitly admit that the Qur'an is not in harmony with previous revelations by constantly resorting to the groundless claim that the Bible has been corrupted.

As already noted, the Bible itself says it's corrupted, thus the Quran is in harmony with what the Bible says about itself. Regarding the laws in stone (the 10 commandments), those are found in the Quran, as well as Islam's continuation with Abraham's everlasting covenant of circumcision, yet anything concrete or everlasting is not found in Christianity.

Given Sam's commentary we provided above and the material in the links we provided regarding the verses where the Bible is said to claim "self-corruption," Ghounem's claim is groundless. As far as "continuation" is concerned, I'll ask Ghounem to tell us where in the Qur'an Muslims are commanded to keep the 7th day Sabbath (4th commandment), and regarding circumcision, why is it that Muslims do not follow the Biblical command to do so on the 8th day? Even in the examples that Ghounem himself alludes to in hopes of demonstrating continuity between the Bible and the Qur'an, the continuity is still somewhat lacking. Also, if we are going to compare notes about continuity, since the necessity of keeping bloody sacrifices in order to atone for sin pervades the Torah, why is it that the Qur'an does not command this to be done? Keep in mind that Muslims, including Ghounem, implicitly admit Qur'anic disharmony with previous revelations when they resort to the claim that the OT and NT has been corrupted. More below….

Moreover, this is a rather shocking complaint by Ghounem since it could be applied much more forcefully to the Qur'an. There are passages in the Qur'an that were revealed that are said to supersede previous passages in the same Qur'an (and the Qur'an was only revealed over a 23 year time span this is a well-known and controversial issue in Islam known as Abrogation.

The Quran lists a sequence of events, while the Bible goes from first gear to fifth gear, causing the reader's faith to stall, the Bible goes from obeying the laws to throwing away the bulk of the laws.

This is just a soundbite. Since Ghounem does not give us anything specific with which to comment regarding the Bible's "switching gears," there isn't much that can be said in response. There are some changes made, especially when moving from one covenant to another. We note one below comparing a law of the Israelite theocracy to something that occurred in the time of Cain and Abel! The Bible also predicted that there would be a New Covenant to come in Jer. 31:31-34 hundreds of years in advance, and Christ came to establish that New Covenant (Hebrews 10:16-17). Contrarily, the Qur'an's numerous changes in commands within a mere 23 year time period would seem to fit the "going from 1st gear to 5th gear" motif much better than the Bible. Furthermore, even the Qur'an endorses some "discontinuity" between the covenant of Christ and that of the Torah:

"Behold! the angels said: 'O Mary! Allah giveth thee glad tidings of a Word from Him: his name will be Christ Jesus, the son of Mary, held in honour in this world and the Hereafter and of (the company of) those nearest to Allah; He shall speak to the people in childhood and in maturity. And he shall be (of the company) of the righteous.' She said: 'O my Lord! How shall I have a son when no man hath touched me?' He said: 'Even so: Allah createth what He willeth: When He hath decreed a plan, He but saith to it, 'Be,' and it is!' And Allah will teach him the Book and Wisdom, the Law and the Gospel, And (appoint him) a messenger to the Children of Israel, (with this message): 'I have come to you, with a Sign from your Lord, in that I make for you out of clay, as it were, the figure of a bird, and breathe into it, and it becomes a bird by Allah's leave: And I heal those born blind, and the lepers, and I quicken the dead, by Allah's leave; and I declare to you what ye eat, and what ye store in your houses. Surely therein is a Sign for you if ye did believe; '(I have come to you), to attest the Law which was before me. And to make lawful to you part of what was (Before) forbidden to you; I have come to you with a Sign from your Lord. So fear Allah, and obey me.'" (S. 3:45-50, Ali)

Now there are Christian preachers who promote homosexuality, that is the true abrogation.

Liberal Christian preachers promoting homosexuality, going against the teachings of the Bible in this regard, has nothing to do with Biblical abrogation. This would be like saying that Muslims that promote homosexuality are abrogating the Qur'anic injunction(s) to the contrary.

Here is the answers to the claims of Quranic abrogation.

Here is the direct rebuttal to the above article, and here is another one.

The apologetic "excuse" that certain words are to be understood figuratively rather than literally is scoffed at, This criticism in some cases may be warranted. OTOH, there are times when a metaphorical explanation is perfectly acceptable, such as when considering passages in a book rich in poetry and/or apocalyptic imagery.

It's simply specified that not any word can be presumed figurative when all other excuses are exhausted (ample examples are provided).

I would agree in so far as we're speaking here of plausibility. If it is absolutely implausible in a given situation that a word is to be understood figuratively, then this criticism would be warranted, and I implicitly agreed with this from the start. If it is a plausible explanation, however, that a word be taken figuratively in a given situation, then a skeptic can't reasonably claim that an error has been proven.

Ghounem also scoffs at the "excuse" of claiming an error in translation in order to explain a Biblical problem. Actually, I'm surprised that Ghounem could find ANY knowledgeable Christian apologists that would make this claim. Similar to the issue of the copyist errors, very few, if any, knowledgeable Christians would claim that the translations are inerrant, and that is certainly not our position.

Exactly, most Christian scholars admit the Bible has translation and copyist mistakes, that they follow a book full of errors. The subject is logically closed at this point, (most people at this time would accept Islam), but since some Christians have not yet become Muslim, then the teaching continues.

Yes, it's true, it's true! I can no longer continue with the charade. I must admit that I've spent many a sleepless night agonizing over whether or not Ahaziah was 22 or 42 when he became king of Jerusalem. Such an error should not only lead us to the conclusion that the WHOLE Bible is unreliable, but it should also clearly compel us, as Ghounem suggests, to convert to Islam, even though there are hundreds of other worldviews out there that also do not accept the authority of the Bible. Some of us apparently are just too obdurate to accept the only possible conclusion that a copyist error in the Bible proves that it is COMPLETELY historically unreliable, and that Islam is the true religion. While the repercussions of the issue regarding Ahaziah's age are bad enough, I hate to think what might happen if the public found out that we can't know for sure how many horse stalls that Solomon had!

But seriously though, Ghounem once again exhibits his inconsistency. The translations of the Bible have errors, as do the translations of the Qur'an. Ghounem claims that only in the original language is the Qur'an inerrant, and Biblical inerrantists state that only the original copies (i.e. autographs), and in the original languages, is the Bible inerrant. Ghounem is trying to have his proverbial cake and consume it too by allowing this qualification for the Qur'an, but not for the Bible. Ghounem would probably respond by saying that the difference is that Christians rely more heavily on translations of the Bible than Muslims do of the Qur'an, but even if that were true, it is beside the point. Christians are bound to follow the authority of what is written in the original languages, not any such errors that may be found in modern translations.

Reiterating the difference between the Bible and Quran, Muslims do not say our Quran is full of translation errors because the one we recite and use in our prayers is not a translation. If you want to hold the position that your divine book is not full of translation mistakes, then accept the Quran as your guide to Eternal life.

Actually, Ghounem is indeed saying that the Qur'an is full of translation errors, as he appeals to the original Arabic to try to correct Qur'anic difficulties! Ghounem tries to evade this issue by appealing to the language recited in Islamic prayers. The fact that only the Arabic is recited in prayers, however, is beside the point. The 5 daily ritual prayers of Islam are certainly important to that faith, yet the most important thing for an intellectual spiritual seeker is to determine what is actually being taught in Holy Book X. If a person doesn't even know what his/her own religion teaches, then how can he/she make an objective decision to follow that faith? Indeed, how can he/she actually follow it, period, since he/she does not know what to follow, since he/she cannot read what is in the holy book in question? Moreover, this is of monumental importance, as following the "correct" religion, or not, has eternal consequences. It is absolutely imperative that the person find out what exactly he/she is following. If the person doesn't know the language of Holy Book X, that person will have to either rely on translations or learn something about the original language. Whichever of these Ghounem thinks is incumbent upon the Muslim, then why is there a problem with the Christian either 1) relying on translations or 2) studying the original language as well? If it is good for the goose, it is good for the gander.

As far as the Qur'an is concerned, the only way that the majority of Muslims in the world (that do not speak Arabic) can understand what is in it is through a translation.

All Muslims in the world pray in Arabic, and the prayers are very easy to understand, 70% of Muslims are non-Arabs and some of those non-Arabs know Arabic better than some Arabs.

True, but that still leaves the majority in the dark. My question to Ghounem now is the following:

1. Is it okay for non-Arab-speaking Muslims to read the Qur'an in their own language when not praying, just in order to try to understand it, even though there are translation errors in the versions of whichever language they may speak? If Ghounem deems this acceptable, then why is it such an ordeal when Christians and/or Jews read Bibles w/ translation errors in their own languages?

2. Keeping with what was said above, if you deem it unacceptable for Muslims to try to even understand the Qur'an through a translation, what do you expect them to do?

If Ghounem states that it would be necessary for them to learn Arabic in response to #2, then why would the advice to Christians to learn some Greek and/or Hebrew be unreasonable?

Ghounem is free to deny the "authenticity" of translations, but speaking philosophically for a moment, I personally find it more sound to believe that God would prefer our reading doctrinally sound, yet otherwise imperfect translations, than for most of His followers to not have any idea what they read when "reading" and reciting His written word.

Philosophically, if that were true, then God would have sent an angel to give us a message directly to a prophet in every language, instead, the Arabic language is used for it's power and simplicity. One language is also used so that if two revelations were given simultaneously in two different languages, one does not claim superiority over the other, but in our case, one supersedes the other because one is centuries newer than the older.

Okay, but the same could certainly be said for the Bible. Just as Ghounem correctly states that it is only the original Arabic that is to be followed by the Muslim, and the main authority for Qur'anic doctrine is what can be gleaned from the Arabic Qur'an, Bible students must also allow what was originally written in Hebrew and Greek to be the main authority for Christian doctrine. Now, if Ghounem tries to write this answer off as invalid by finding examples where so-called Bible students are not willing to do this, or are simply not doing this, I'll ask in response if finding examples of Muslims using a faulty translation of the Qur'an for authority would prove his point invalid. Once again, however, finding examples of adherents of either religion preferring the authority of a translation when it conflicts with the true meaning of the passage (according to its original language) does not change the reality that such people are erroneously following a translator, in such a case, over and against that of the original, inspired author.

Furthermore, as millions of people every year take the time and effort to learn the language of money (English), why wouldn't someone have the faith to use our God given brains to learn the language of Heaven (Arabic) as millions also learn every year.

Indeed, and I'll add to this that people could take the time and effort to understand the original languages of the Bible as well, if it were necessary.

Moving on to some of the specific problems in the book, Ghounem complains in chapter 1 about the Bible's use of anthropomorphic and/or metaphorical language, suggesting that the Bible REALLY is telling us that God needs rest (Gen. 2:2), that He sleeps (Psalm 78:65), and that He makes mistakes (Gen. 6:6-7). Of course, if Ghounem wishes to insist that these be taken literally, he has a problem since the Qur'an also uses anthropomorphic language to describe God (See the beginning of this article).

Instead of addressing the flaws of God in the Bible needing to rest after creating the universe, another red herring attempt is made to an article using various mistranslated words like "forget" instead of "forsake", as when Jesus asked his Creator on the cross why He had forsaken him.

Ghounem doesn't give us any substance here, so we simply encourage the reader to check out the articles. As far as the alleged "red herring" is concerned, the links to the articles were given simply to demonstrate that the Bible, and the Qur'an, often use anthropomorphic language to describe God, and this understanding eliminates the alleged problems to which Ghounem refers, although I'll add that in some cases actually understanding the meanings behind the words used, and of course the context itself, can be instrumental, or even essential, as well.

Ghounem also states that God must need food since in Gen. 18:1-8, in one of the numerous OT theophanies, God consumes food alongside Abraham. It is stretching it to conclude, based on this one incident, particularly since this is a theophany, that God literally needed the food. This is especially the case since the Bible did not say that God literally needed it anymore than Jesus would have needed the fish that he consumed after his resurrection from the dead.

Any theological book reviewer would have a more credible judgment if they had a greater knowledge of the Bible. According to the Bible, the claimed tri-une God as a theophany, was so hungry that he killed a fig tree because it did not give him food out of season;

"He (Jesus) hungered. And seeing a fig-tree afar off having leaves, He came, if haply He might find anything thereon: and when He came to it, He found nothing but leaves; for it was not the season of figs. And He answered and said unto it, No man eat fruit from thee henceforward forever. And His disciples heard it. And as they passed by in the morning, they saw the fig-tree withered away from the roots." (Mark 11:12-14, 20).

Any theological book author would have a more credible judgment if he/she actually had a decent amount of knowledge about what the Bible teaches regarding Christ, in that he was human as well as divine. This explains the hunger. In Ghounem's defense, however, he may have thought that I was implying in my statement that Jesus never needed to eat anything during his life since I stated that he didn't need the fish that he consumed in his post-resurrection appearance. However, I used that example to demonstrate that Jesus, in his resurrected and immortal body, no longer needed the food, and the context indicates that Jesus consumed it to prove to the disciples that he wasn't a spirit. (For more on this passage, see Sam Shamoun's response to Shabir Ally-the relevant portion is about one-third of the way down the page.) Note, however, that Ghounem further demonstrates his misunderstanding of the Trinity by claiming that a theophany is an appearance of the whole Godhead.

In chapter 2, the Bible is derided for attributing various sins to prophets, specifically Moses, Aaron, and David. Qur'anic verses are then cited to confirm that the various sins discussed in the Bible concerning these men are either not mentioned, or are "corrected," by the Qur'an. In addition, the common Muslim claim that all prophets were sinless is contradictory to some of the material written about them from early authoritative Muslim sources (See (1); (2); (3)).

Here we see a new technique added to the red herring (smoke screen), an appeal to authority (Ad Verecundiam). What the reviewer overlooks is that some of these early Muslim commentators were converts to Islam from Jewish and Christian backgrounds, so their opinions may carry the dogma of their former notions, but that in no way changes what the Quran states. So what a reader claims about the Quran or Bible does not change what the Quran and Bible plainly state.

As I had explained earlier, appealing to issues in the Qur'an is not a red herring in a book review whose purpose is to demonstrate the author's inability to show where the Qur'an corrects the Bible. If it can be shown that the Qur'an attributes sins to prophets, then obviously the Qur'an is in agreement with the Bible (instead of "correcting" it) on this point. As far as the "appeal to authority" is concerned, the links actually demonstrate that the Qur'an itself attributes sins to certain prophets, in addition to certain Muslim commentators.

Ghounem complains in one place that Cain was not punished for the killing of Abel. He must have either overlooked Gen. 4:10-12 or thought capital punishment should have been inflicted on him, as the apologetic "excuse" listed is that God had not yet established capital punishment.

Being sent to travel the earth is a contradictory law from "Eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, Burning for burning, wound for wound, stripe for stripe." as specified in Exodus. Cain was not punished as others who committed murder were punished (Numbers 35:17).

True, but what's the problem exactly? Here are all of the comments I made in the review on this issue, beginning with the part that Ghounem quotes:

"Ghounem complains in one place that Cain was not punished for the killing of Abel. He must have either overlooked Gen. 4:10-12 or thought capital punishment should have been inflicted on him, as the apologetic "excuse" listed is that God had not yet established capital punishment. His rebuttal to this is: "The problem with this excuse is that the Bible does not specify 'Thou shalt not kill' until (Exodus 20:13) hence, readers are bewildered as to why Cain is freed." Actually, it isn't bewildering at all. We know, from this incident perhaps more than anything, that killing was considered to be wrong from the very beginning, but capital punishment was not established until later as part of the laws governing the Israelite theocracy, hence the difference."

The chapter ends with a couple of appeals to various passages in the Bible that Ghounem thinks foretell the coming of Muhammad (John 16:12-13 and Isaiah 29:12). These and other such claims have been debunked here, here, and here.

Many of the Bible passages predicting Muhammad use dual meaning words, if some Christians want to accept the meanings that don't point to who over a billion people accept as a prophet, then that is their free choice. I believe it is a fork in the road that God gives the traveler a chance to remain closed minded or to follow the signs.

This is a non-answer. The point is that the passages Ghounem points to in regards to supposedly predicting the coming of Muhammad do not withstand scrutiny. I'm not sure what Ghounem's point was, or if he had one, in appealing to the number of people that follow Islam, but if he is trying to implicitly argue from this that Muhammad truly was predicted in the Bible, we might as well retort that because even more people follow the Christ of Christian faith, a divine, suffering Christ (i.e. one that is incompatible with Islam), that the Messianic prophecies are automatically valid. Once again, this might not have been Ghounem's intent, but the sheer number of followers a religion has does not necessarily hold relevance to the validity of alleged Biblical predictions.

In the next chapter, Ghounem attempts to demonstrate that the Qur'an is compatible with modern science whereas the Bible is often not compatible with it. Some "contradictions" are appealed to as well, such as a couple in the two creation narratives.

That link says the Bible contradictions are due to translation errors, one on the use of the Hebrew word Toledot and another error is on the verb usage in G2:19 which the New international version of the Bible tries to fix while other Bibles still use other errant verb usage. We're back to where we started in saying the Bible has translation errors while the Quran rescues the Bible from these communication flaws.

And thus we're back to the same translation issues. Unless Ghounem can refute the apologetic answers to the alleged contradictions on better grounds than simply claiming "translation error," then he hasn't accomplished his task at proving an error, especially as he allows the appeal of "translation error" in trying to solve Qur'anic difficulties.

Whether or not Biblical Cosmology truly supports such assertions is one matter

That link states; "But that particular translation has a few bugs in it." And "Thus some translations will now say that Jerusalem is "most important" rather than using words which indicate a geographic connotation." Thus more translation excuses.

Same response as above.

Ghounem may be surprised by the exegeses of classical Muslim scholars regarding what the Qur'an actually teaches about such things as well (See (1) and (2)).

Again an Ad Verecundiam (appeal to authority) and again, many Christian and Jewish converts to Islam back then believed the earth was flat, which was a common notion based on the Bible up to the days Columbus discovered America. What authorities say does not change the physical text of either Scriptures.

Here Ghounem simply gives us an explanation without any documentation to back it up. Intriguingly enough, Lee Strobel, in his latest book, "The Case for a Creator," talks to a couple of experts that demonstrate that it is actually a myth that those in Western Europe thought that the Earth was flat prior to Columbus' voyage:

"'Writers of astronomy textbooks just keep recycling the myth, sort of like the flat-Earth myth, which was the idea that Columbus was told the Earth was flat and he thought it was round. That's just wrong too.'

"Scholars at the time knew it was a sphere,' said Richards.'

"I knew they were right about that. David Lindberg, former professor of the history of science and currently director of the Institute for Research in the Humanities at the University of Wisconsin, said in a recent interview:

"One obvious [myth] is that before Columbus, Europeans believed nearly unanimously in a flat Earth--a belief allegedly drawn from certain biblical statements and enforced by the medieval church. This myth seems to have had an eighteenth century origin, elaborated and popularized by Washington Irving, who flagrantly fabricated evidence for it in his four-volume history of Columbus....The truth is that it's almost impossible to find an educated person after Aristotle who doubts that the Earth is a sphere. In the Middle Ages, you couldn't emerge from any kind of education, cathedral school or university, without being perfectly clear about the Earth's sphericity and even its approximate circumference.**"

[Source: "The Case for a Creator." Lee Strobel. Interview with Guillermo Gonzalez, PHD, and Jay Wesley Richards, PHD. pg. 163-164. 2004; **Excerpt from "Natural Adversaries?" "Christian History", 76 (Volume XXI, No. 4), 44]

As far as my "appeal to authority" is concerned, the links demonstrate that at least some Muslim commentators, including the very highly-esteemed Ibn Kathir, believed that the Qur'an taught a flat earth. My point: Ghounem's understanding of what the Qur'an teaches in this regard is disputable, to say the least. I am not saying from this that any attempts to provide scientifically and linguistically plausible exegeses of certain Qur'anic passages is necessarily impossible, but the mere proof-text that Ghounem provided in his book clearly will not suffice to prove his point. Hence, Ghounem has, in actuality, not demonstrated any superiority in the Qur'an regarding this scientific issue.

We are told in another chapter that the Qur'an does not teach a global flood, unlike in the Bible, and that this is more in harmony with the scientific evidence as well. There are, however, quite a bit of relevant books, articles, and other literature from scientists of Christian persuasion that argue that the Bible does indeed teach a local flood rather than a global one and that the days of creation are to be understood as long periods of time rather than literal days (i.e. Old Earth Creationists; See this website). OTOH, there are scientists of Christian persuasion that argue that the Bible does indeed teach a global flood and a literal 6 days of creation, and propound scientific evidence supporting their assertions (i.e. Young Earth Creationists; See this website). Our purpose here is not to endorse one of these particular positions over the other, but merely to demonstrate that Ghounem has made some gross oversimplifications in his short discussions of these matters.

A small sect of Christians believe the Bible teaches a local flood, I am not going to list the opinions of every single sect of Christianity, I chose the position held by the majority of Christians, Jews and what the Bible plainly says "global flood" (Genesis 6:17). Likewise, regarding homosexuality, a small sect of Christians believe the Bible condones two men relationships, does that mean the topic of homosexuality in the Bible is complicated? Only if the minority wants it to be, but to 99% of the Bible readers, it is clearly forbidden. So in showing how the Quran helps the Bible, I choose the Biblically supported and majority held view points every time, there are minority opposing view points to everything, yet that is irrelevant to the book because the book aims to help the masses. Therefore it's not a matter of over simplifying topics, it's instead a logical position based on what the Bible actually says and how almost all Jews and Christians assent to what is said.

Since Ghounem is so fond of pointing out alleged logical fallacies in his critiques, we'll point out one here that Ghounem makes, that being his appeal to popularity. Ghounem is, of course, correct in that it is what the Bible teaches that is important. However, the "appeal to popularity" demonstrates another inconsistency on the part of Ghounem. We see that he is now appealing to the majority for leverage when it suits his purposes, and dismisses the importance of mentioning the minority view, but in other parts of his response, when it suits his purposes, he appeals to the existence of Christians (that happen to be in a small minority) that practice certain heresies, or believe something that is Biblically bogus, in order to justify a given route for his polemics (e.g. polygamy, unorthodox versions of the Trinity)! Of course, in such cases, Ghounem does not tell us that such are practiced/believed by an obviously small minority of those claiming to be Christian.

Back to the topic at hand, Ghounem's simple claim, along with the proof-text in the absence of any actual analysis, that this is what the Bible teaches is begging the question. If Ghounem could refute some of the "local flood" advocates' exegetical arguments, that would be one accomplishment. If he could then proceed to do that, establishing that the Bible clearly does teach a global flood, however, he'd still have to deal with the work of the scientists that argue that the scientific evidence indicates that the historical occurrence of a global flood is plausible. I should also probably point out at this point that I'm not suggesting that Ghounem must refute, point-by-point, every article and book Old-Earth Creationists have written, or refute all of the scientific evidence given by Young-Earth Creationists. Such a task, if possible, would probably require more than a few large volumes of material, at least to perform the matter adequately. However, I don't find it unreasonable to expect, especially from someone claiming to be demonstrating errors in the Bible, while adequately refuting the relevant apologetic "excuses," to at least acknowledge that a substantial number of Christian scientists, backed by at least some scholarly support for their Biblical exegeses, are now arguing that the Bible teaches a local flood and an old Earth, and interact with their arguments. Similarly, I don't find it unreasonable to expect that person making these grandiose claims to devote at least a few pages of space to briefly interact with some YEC scientific arguments for a global flood and young Earth. Ghounem was simply grossly deficient on both of these counts in his book, I'm sorry to say.

As far as what the Qur'an actually teaches, there is ample data once again from classical Qur'anic scholars to cast significant doubt upon Ghounem's Qur'anic exegeses regarding these issues (See Global or Local Flood? and The Days of Creation).

I had a nice discussion here with Denis Giron on this topic which dispels what Global flood advocates try to suggest of the Quran.

The relevant material is found toward the bottom of the page to which Ghounem links. We advise the reader to compare the arguments put forth by Sam Shamoun with that in Ghounem's conversation with Denis Giron.

The claim that the Qur'an forcasts modern scientific findings is perhaps the most popular argument made by Muslim apologists in favor of the divine inspiration of the Qur'an. It is often said, for instance, that the Qur'an's teachings on Embryology match what has been discovered recently by modern science. Ghounem discusses this as well. Most of these issues have been substantially scrutinized here.

The "translation" of the Quran has been examined, and any linguistic questions have been answered completely.

The link I gave in the original review contains a rebuttal to the book to which Ghounem has linked. See here. Once again, I also want to tout the following article where the "scientific approach" is applied to the Bible. While I personally find this whole "scientific-approach" in apologetics questionable, particularly when and if it focuses on random statements here and there in Scripture, rather than on certain concepts taught by Scripture, this link, at the very least, demonstrates how easily the Muslim apologists' methodology could obtain similar results in other books, given enough time and effort.

In Chapter 4, Ghounem argues that various laws and/or commandments in the Bible are either contradictory to each other or "better versions" are to be found in the Qur'an. Many, perhaps all, of the "contradictions" can be reconciled simply by considering the textual and/or historical contexts of the verses in question.

In other words, the Bible is not a modern day guide? The teachings within were good and right for the people back then but are not right for us now? Some Christians and most of the Jews would have some contention with this position.

Ghounem has misunderstood the point I made. Simply stating that we should pay careful attention to the contexts, and allow the texts to speak against their historical background(s), is not by any stretch saying that its teachings are not valid today.

One quick example is an alleged contradiction in the Bible regarding whether marriage is to be encouraged (e.g. Gen. 2:18-24 and I Timothy 4:1-5) or discouraged (e.g. I Corinthians 7:8) [See here].

That link amusingly says that Paul, thinking the world was going to come to an end, made his statement under duress, and that the passage would sound better if the word "woman" was translated into "wife" since both are the same word in Greek. So Paul who was supposed to be divinely inspired was wrong about the future and the Bible translators who were also supposed to be inspired were wrong about the translation, that explains it. Got Quran?

JPH: I don't know what he means here. Paul did not think the world was coming to an end.

Wildcat: It appears from this that we'll have to ask Ghounem to explain which part of JPH's article he understood to imply that Paul thought the world was going to come to an end. The other issue mentioned is just another translation issue. Also, I wonder, once again, what kind of Christians that Ghounem has been talking to in order to come to the conclusion that the translators were supposed to be inspired. This is not representative of our belief on the subject, nor is it representative of the belief of any Christians whose writings I've read or with whom I've conversed about this topic.

We are told, because of Ezekiel 20:24-26, that God gave laws as a form of punishment (See here).

That link reiterates my position, that certain laws are a form of discipline, and once the Quran is followed, the unnecessary laws are removed.

I went ahead and took this one myself rather than asking JPH. The link actually does not concur with Ghounem's position at all, at least if I've understood Ghounem's position accurately. Ghounem's book strongly implies that God literally *sanctioned* specific laws as a form of punishment, whereas the link states correctly that the text is indicating that God simply "gave them over to their sinful desires." This explanation fits not only the immediate context better, but also that which is given throughout the Bible. Perhaps I misunderstood Ghounem's original intent, though I don't think so. The text is telling us that God *allowed* (not forced) them to go astray, as per their own sinful desires, living under their own man-made pagan statutes rather than God's, whereas Ghounem gives the impression that God literally sanctioned pagan practices; IOW, placing them in the "thus saith the Lord" category.

We are told that there is a contradiction between Gen.1:29-30 and 9:3 as to whether consuming meat is allowable. The standard apologetic "excuse" given, which is the one in which we agree, is that the latter command supersedes the former. Ghounem states that this would be acceptable if Paul hadn't claimed later that it was wrong to eat meat in Romans 14:21. However, Paul is most certainly not forbidding the consumption of meat, as can be seen earlier in that same chapter (Rom.14:4; see also I Timothy 4:1-4!). The context of this verse is in a chapter where Paul speaks of refraining from activities in the presence of those where such activities will provide a stumblingblock for them (in this case that would mean, for example, a meat consumer serving up lamb chops to his/her vegetarian guest).

In other words, this is one of the many instances of Paul pretending to be someone he's not in order to deceive his audience, here is a confession of Paul lying about his beliefs to trick others;

"To the Jews I became as a Jew, in order to win Jews; to those under the law I became as one under the law -- though not being myself under the law" (1 Corinthians 9:20)

Ghounem has decided here to introduce a red herring, which does not answer our point. First, it is absurd to claim that one is being dishonest for not wanting to be a stumbling block to someone else. In fact, it would only be polite to serve a vegetarian guest a meal appropriate to his/her chosen dietary lifestyle. There is no reason to conclude from this that Paul was being deceptive, or is advocating deception. To the contrary, Paul made his position on diet explicitly clear to his readers:

"Accept him whose faith is weak, without passing judgment on disputable matters. One man's faith allows him to eat everything, but another man, whose faith is weak, eats only vegetables. The man who eats everything must not look down on him who does not, and the man who does not eat everything must not condemn the man who does, for God has accepted him. Who are you to judge someone else's servant? To his own master he stands or falls. And he will stand, for the Lord is able to make him stand." (Romans 14:1-4, NIV)

JPH comments on Ghounem's proof-text in an encyclopedic entry, this time with consideration of the relevant social issues of the day:

"Is Paul being a chameleon and a charlatan? No more so than the teacher who learns the dialect of a student in order to be more effective teachers to them. Is it being a 'chameleon' and being 'opportunistic' to absorb local customs and behaviors for the sake of viable communication? Not at all. This was especially so in the ancient world. As Malina and Neyrey note in Portraits of Paul, it was natural and expected for persons to submit themselves to and for the good of the group by meeting their expectations for behavior [190]. The 'chameleon' insult is a product of anachronism by a Western mindset and in no way reflects any idea that Paul would lie or make up stories." (Source)

Once again the scholarly bankruptcy in proof-texting makes itself manifest.

So whether Paul forbid or allowed meat, forbid or allowed circumcision, forbid or allowed marriage, is all up for debate because Paul admittingly played both sides of the fence.

It is only up for debate for those more satisfied with appealing to proof-texts, without taking time to consider the literary, historical, and socio-cultural contexts of the passages in question.

We are told that the Bible commands that apostates be put to death based on Ezekiel 18:24 and Hebrews 10:26-29. Of course, these passages speak of death in a spiritual sense, and I'd be surprised if Ghounem could come up with a single Biblical scholar that would support his interpretation of these particular verses.

I may be hard pressed to find a Christian evangelist to admit to the meaning is a physical death, while on the other hand, it would be very easy to find a Jewish scholar to confirm it means a physical death.

Upon further examination of the context of Ezek. 18:24, I must concede that I was mistaken in stating that this passage refers to spiritual death, and my original review has been/will be revised accordingly. The surrounding context makes it clear (see e.g. 18:13) that the wicked will be put to death for committing certain sins, and this comports well with the fact that the Torah sanctions capital punishment if one is tried and found guilty of certain sins. I would still disagree, however, that this is sufficient for a "death to apostates-proof-text," in the sense of one "de-converting" from "Judaism." Ghounem probably concludes this because the verse in question states that the man that "turns from his righteousness and commits sins" will die. However, one turning from righteousness to wickedness is not necessarily connected with one leaving a particular religion, or abandoning a particular religious belief system. One can be wicked while professing to be a follower of Religion X, and one can be "righteous" (from a worldly point of view at least) despite leaving Religion X. In fact, if a person converts to Religion Y after leaving Religion X, that person will still be compelled to try to live in "righteousness" because of the teachings of the new religion. While apostasy might result in one turning from righteousness to wickedness, the two are not connected by necessity.

As for the Hebrews passage, even though in verse 28 the author alludes to the law of Moses and the death penalty, the context from verse 27 would indicate that the "death" for those that reject Christ comes at the final judgment:

"If we deliberately keep on sinning after we have received the knowledge of the truth, no sacrifice for sins is left, but only a fearful expectation of judgment and of raging fire that will consume the enemies of God. Anyone who rejected the law of Moses died without mercy on the testimony of two or three witnesses. How much more severely do you think a man deserves to be punished who has trampled the Son of God under foot, who has treated as an unholy thing the blood of the covenant that sanctified him, and who has insulted the Spirit of grace?" (Hebrews 10:26-29, NIV)

Additionally, it should be obvious that this passage is not commanding apostates be put to death by the fact that the early church obviously did not execute apostates (more below….).

It is also somewhat surprising that Ghounem would go this route since there are commands to put apostates to death in early authoritative Islamic literature. For more info. see this page.

Both early followers of both Scriptures "burned people at the stake", but after the ashes have blown away, we find that the Bible supported those grotesque actions while the Quran does not.

I'm personally not aware of any "apostate-hunting" on the part of the early church. Unfortunately, this was done at times in the Middle Ages to some extent, but there is no New Testament justification for such acts. That is, of course, unless Ghounem believes that the earliest Christians, including those that wrote the New Testament, misunderstood their own Scriptures, since there is no evidence of such occurring in the early church.

Next, we turn to the Qur'an and early Islamic traditions. First, consider the following verse:

"O Prophet! strive hard against the unbelievers and the Hypocrites, and be firm against them. Their abode is Hell,- an evil refuge indeed. They swear by Allah that they said nothing (evil), but indeed they uttered blasphemy, and they did it after accepting Islam; and they meditated a plot which they were unable to carry out: this revenge of theirs was (their) only return for the bounty with which Allah and His Messenger had enriched them! If they repent, it will be best for them; but if they turn back (to their evil ways), Allah will punish them with a grievous penalty in this life and in the Hereafter: They shall have none on earth to protect or help them." (S. 9:73-74; Ali)

In this passage, Muhammad is told to war against unbelievers and hypocrites. The subjects of the passage are those that committed blasphemy after accepting Islam. If they "turn back to their evil ways," God will punish them grievously in this life and in the after-life. This verse, as it stands, is probably insufficient to prove that apostates be placed to death. Similar to our discussion on Ezek. 18:24, this verse is speaking of committing blasphemy and returning to evil. There are some Sahih Hadith, however, that are more explicit about the fate of apostates:

Narrated 'Abdullah:

"Allah's Apostle said, 'The blood of a Muslim who confesses that none has the right to be worshipped but Allah and that I am His Apostle, cannot be shed except in three cases: In Qisas for murder, a married person who commits illegal sexual intercourse and the one who reverts from Islam (apostate) and leaves the Muslims.'" (Sahih Bukhari Vol. 9, Book 83, # 17)

Narrated 'Ikrima:

"Some Zanadiqa (atheists) were brought to 'Ali and he burnt them. The news of this event, reached Ibn 'Abbas who said, 'If I had been in his place, I would not have burnt them, as Allah's Apostle forbade it, saying, "Do not punish anybody with Allah's punishment (fire)." I would have killed them according to the statement of Allah's Apostle, "Whoever changed his Islamic religion, then kill him."'" (Sahih Bukhari Vol. 9, Book 84, #57)

Thus, Ghounem's assertion is false. The early church clearly did not have a death penalty for apostasy, and the authoritative Islamic literature clearly does indicate that apostates are to be put to death. In fact, shortly after Muhammad's death, much of Arabia was going into apostasy from Islam. It took a full-blown war by Abu Bakr, Muhammad's successor, in which thousands were killed, in order to bring Arabia back fully into Islam. See this page for more information regarding Islam and Apostasy.

We are told that Christians practiced polygamy for centuries after Jesus, and that it was not outlawed until the 19th century, and some Christian sects practice this even today. No evidence for any of these assertions is given.

The book is not meant to be a world history of polygamy, but if one needs more details on the history of polygamy in Christianity and modern day Bible following polygamists, one can visit a number of Christian pro-polygamy sites across the internet.

While there are probably some cases of this occurring throughout Christian history, such would be in the minority. If we are to use Ghounem's logic, this would mean that we are right to conclude that, since the majority of Christians do not practice polygamy, it should not be mentioned (see above regarding the "local vs. global" flood debate). Ghounem stated in the "flood section" that "A small sect of Christians believe the Bible teaches a local flood, I am not going to list the opinions of every single sect of Christianity, I chose the position held by the majority of Christians, Jews and what the Bible plainly says "global flood" (Genesis 6:17)." It is interesting though that in his book, and now, Ghounem felt compelled to make an issue of polygamy because of a "small sect" of "Christians" that teach and/or practice it, though once again he does not indicate that this is a minority-view.

Here, we will not commit the same "appeal to popularity" that Ghounem does, but simply reiterate that the Bible does not allow for it, unlike the Qur'an, as the link given in the original article demonstrates.

the only Christian sect I personally know of that allows polygamy would be Mormonism, which is considered by most to be outside of orthodox Christianity.

All Christians are individuals, no matter what sect they adhere to, their marital preference is a matter of personal taste.

Any Christians committing polygamy, however, would do so against the teachings of the Bible, particularly the N.T.

To give a few examples from the chapter on history, we are asked, if Adam was to die after eating from the forbidden tree, why he lived for another 930 years (See here)

This link uses the same excuse my book documents "Adam died a spiritual death", infact, my book includes another excuse not found in this link "Adam died a slow death" So it appears that I use more Bible apologetic excuses than this review suggests I use. As the rebuttal to this excuse in the book states, Adam still had spiritual life and blessings with God, thus, did not spiritually die. It appears that the time was not taken to read the rebuttals before writing this review.

JPH: Calling it an "excuse" is a helpless plea of someone with no actual answer. Where does he get that "Adam still had spiritual life and blessings with God"? It's nowhere in the text. The OT says Adam got curses from God.

Wildcat: As for Ghounem's comment on the number of excuses, it isn't the actual number that concerns me, but rather the inadequate representation of the apologetic arguments. As for "not taking time to read the rebuttals before writing the review," it was simply a matter of my finding the apologetic cases to be more persuasive than those of Ghounem rather than my not reading and considering his responses.

The chapter on women starts out in the Garden of Eden, where, according to Ghounem, "the root of negative stereotyping towards women" is revealed because Adam blamed Eve when questioned regarding the consumption of the forbidden fruit. This is an odd complaint in light of the fact that all 3 (including the serpent) are rebuked and punished by God

All three were punished, but it was the woman in the Bible who was blamed the most and punished the most.

which brings us to the next complaint that asks why Adam and Eve are not equally punished. Ghounem bases this on Gen. 3:16, where, he states that there are four curses bestowed upon Eve (even though there are really only 1 or 2 at the most; i.e. sorrow in bearing children and having Adam "rule over her"), and that the curses bestowed on Adam in Gen.3:17-19 indirectly punish Eve as well. Kaiser and Davids' "Hard Sayings of the Bible" contains a great commentary on both "curses" bestowed upon Eve. Although Ghounem lists this book in his Bibliography, he does not interact with any of their material on this.

There are still numerically more curses on Eve then on Adam, and after looking in the HSB again, I still don't see anything sufficient to warrant an excuse for the unbalanced punishments, what is the page number(s)?

The page numbers are 96-99, and I suggest Ghounem reflect on both lengthy commentaries, as both conclusions greatly undermine this "unbalanced curse" argument. Of course, Ghounem would probably simply change the "excuse" from "none available" to "translation error" and refer to his table where the latter is a so-called "invalid excuse," but in light of our above discussion, it is inconsistent to make this "excuse" for the Qur'an while not allowing it for the Bible.

We are told that it is a "pathetic excuse for cutting a woman's hand off," as is commanded in Deut. 25:11-12, just because a woman injures a man's genitals to where he can no longer have children.

Nothing in this commandment mentions how hard the hit is or whether the man can still have children, this is an exaggeration of the rescue in an attempt to justify the punishment.

The link we gave demonstrates that the language used in the verse indicates a malicious act on the part of the guilty party. Instead of actually dealing with the data, Ghounem decides to pull a reductio ad absurdum.

This is another of many places that Ghounem has not done his homework, as JPH demonstrates

It appears that JPH has wild fantasies of a weight lifting woman who is able to pierce through the pants of a man and rip off this attackers genitals or crush them into sand.

JPH: It appears Goony has wild fantasies of ancient people having pants and not robes with an opening in the front. And it doesn't require lifting of weights to give your "you know what's" a painful, debilitating squeeze. I invite him to try it on himself.

Otherwise, holding an attacker by the private parts as any doctor would testify, would not render the attacker sterile.

Wildcat: I would actually be interested to see a doctor's testimony that states that a man's ability to reproduce cannot possibly be compromised by trauma to the testes and/or associated parts of the male reproductive system. The fact that it indeed can compromise the man's ability to reproduce should even be intuitively obvious.

Furthermore, by the time the woman took a few seconds to get a grip, the attacker would have plenty of time to push her away. Therefore, since the likely hood of sterilization is nearly impossible, the excuse of dieing without having heirs to support you as JPH pleads to, is invalid. On the other hand, the chance of a woman dying from having her hand cut off (shock or blood loss) is much more likely.

JPH: Again, since he thinks so I'd invite him to volunteer to give it a try and see how well he can "push away" someone with a death grip on his gonads -- especially when the woman's husband can step in also and hold him down. Oops.

Wildcat: Ghounem's comment on blood loss may well be possible in some cases. Of course, we're assuming that since the Qur'an also commands amputation as a punishment, such as for stealing, Ghounem does not find anything particularly morally wrong with amputation:

"The punishment of those who wage war against Allah and His Messenger, and strive with might and main for mischief through the land is: execution, or crucifixion, or the cutting off of hands and feet from opposite sides, or exile from the land: that is their disgrace in this world, and a heavy punishment is theirs in the Hereafter; Except for those who repent before they fall into your power: in that case, know that Allah is Oft-forgiving, Most Merciful. ye who believe! Do your duty to Allah, seek the means of approach unto Him, and strive with might and main in his cause: that ye may prosper. As to those who reject Faith,- if they had everything on earth, and twice repeated, to give as ransom for the penalty of the Day of Judgment, it would never be accepted of them, theirs would be a grievous penalty. Their wish will be to get out of the Fire, but never will they get out therefrom: their penalty will be one that endures. As to the thief, Male or female, cut off his or her hands: a punishment by way of example, from Allah, for their crime: and Allah is Exalted in power. But if the thief repents after his crime, and amends his conduct, Allah turneth to him in forgiveness; for Allah is Oft-forgiving, Most Merciful."(S. 5:33-39)

Not surprisingly, however, such controversial topics surrounding the value of women in Islam are not touched upon by the author.

Women in the Quran have rights that are still not allowed in the Bible (i.e. inheritance, etc..)

In response, we'll quote some material Sam Shamoun has, contained in a response to Osama Abdallah, on inheritance according to the Old Testament:

A careful reading of the entire context will show that the inheritance spoken of was LAND INHERITANCE. It has nothing to do with the bequeathing of money to family members:

"These were those numbered of the Israelites, 601,730. Then the Lord spoke to Moses: 'To these THE LAND MUST BE DIVIDED AS AN INHERITANCE according to the number of the names. To a larger group you will give a larger inheritance, and to a smaller group you will give a smaller inheritance. To each one his inheritance must be given according to his enumeration. The land must be divided by lot; and they will inherit in accordance with the names of their ancestral tribes. Their inheritance must be apportioned by lot among the larger and smaller groups.' And these are those of the Levites who were numbered, after their families: from Gershon, the family of the Gershonites; of Kohath, the family of the Kohathites; from Merari, the family of the Merarites. These are the families of the Levites: the family of the Libnites, the family of the Hebronites, the family of the Mahlites, the family of the Mushites, the family of the Korahites. Kohath became the father of Amram. Now the name of Amram's wife was Jochebed, daughter of Levi, who was born to Levi in Egypt. And she bore to Amram Aaron, Moses, and Miriam their sister. And to Aaron were born Nadab and Abihu, Eleazar and Ithamar. But Nadab and Abihu died when they offered strange fire before the Lord. And those numbered of them were 23,000, all males from twenty years old and upward; for they were not numbered among the Israelites; no inheritance was given to them among the Israelites. These are those who were numbered by Moses and Eleazar the priest, who numbered the Israelites in the plains of Moab along the Jordan River opposite Jericho. But there was not a man among these who had been among those numbered by Moses and Aaron the priest when they numbered the Israelites in the Wilderness of Sinai. For the Lord had said of them, 'They will surely die in the wilderness.' And there was not left a single man of them, except Caleb son of Jephunneh and Joshua son of Nun." Numbers 26:51-65 NET Bible

The land that God was going to give Israel was to be divided amongst the twelve tribes. Tribal affiliation was determined from the father's side, i.e. if your father was from Judah than you were a Judean. Hence, ownership of the land was transferred over to the sons so that it would remain within the possession of that particular tribe and family.

The particular passage that Osama quoted from is dealing with a situation where a man died and only had daughters:

"Then the daughters of Zelophehad son of Hepher, the son of Gilead, the son of Machir, the son of Manasseh, the son Joseph came forward. Now these are the names of his daughters: Mahlah, Noah, Hoglah, Milcah, and Tirzah. And they stood before Moses and before Eleazar the priest and before the leaders of the whole assembly at the entrance to the tent of the meeting and said, 'Our father died in the wilderness, although he was not part of the company of those that gathered themselves together against the Lord in the company of Korah; but he died in his own sin, and he had no sons. Why should the name of our father be lost from among his family because he had no son? Give us a possession among the relatives of our father.' So Moses brought their case before the Lord. And the Lord spoke to Moses: 'The daughters of Zelophehad have a valid claim. You must indeed give them possession of an inheritance among their father's relatives, and you must transfer the inheritance of their father to them. And you must tell the Israelites, If a man dies and has no son, then you must transfer his inheritance to his daughter; and if he has no daughter, then you are to give his inheritance to his brothers; and if he has no brothers, then you are to give his inheritance to his father's brothers; and if his father has no brothers, then you are to give his inheritance to his relative nearest to him from his family, and he will possess it. And it will be for the Israelites a legal requirement, as the Lord commanded Moses.'" Numbers 27:1-11 NET Bible

Hence, what Osama thought was an argument supporting his assertion actually backfires against him and demonstrates God's fairness and concern in insuring that a person didn't lose his property!

Interestingly, there is a passage which may in fact show that daughters could receive an inheritance from the father in regards to finances, i.e. cattle, livestock etc.:

"So the Lord blessed the second part of Job's life more than the first. He had fourteen thousand sheep, six thousand camels, a thousand yoke of oxen, and a thousand female donkeys. And he also had seven sons and three daughters. The first daughter he named Jemimah, the second Keziah, and the third Keren-Happuch. Nowhere in all the land could women be found who were as beautiful as Job's daughters, and their father granted them an inheritance alongside their brothers." Job 42:12-15 NET Bible

END QUOTE

Source: http://answering-islam.org/Responses/Osama/women.htm

In a private e-mail, Sam also imparted the following comments regarding inheritance in the Bible and Qur'an:

"Since Job supports the view that women did receive a portion of their father's wealth, we can safely surmise that the Holy Bible in no way denies the right of daughters to receive an inheritance. In fact, the next passage from Paul actually shows that it is the parents' responibility to save up for all the children:

'Now I am ready to visit you for the third time, and I will not be a burden to you, because what I want is not your possessions but you. After all, children should not have to save up for their parents, but parents for their children.' 2 Corinthians 12:14

"The preceding passage presupposes that it was a custom for parents to save up an inheritance for all the members of their family, including daughters, confirming my position that the Bible does not deny the woman's right to a share in the inheritance."

"Therefore, the only thing that the Bible's silence on this issue shows is that God leaves it open for family members to decide the portion each family member is alotted, provided that the firstborn gets a double share. Cf. Deuteronomy 21:15-17"

"This is unlike Islam which fixes the shares that a woman is to receive, irrespective of the circumstances. Thus, one can argue that since Islam has fixed the shares under the guise of a divine legislation, this means that in the case of a daughter she will always get less than her brother, even though it may be the case that the daughter is in greater need or has contributed more to the family than her sibling. For more information on Islam and inheritance, see here."

END QUOTE

Ghounem, in his book, does rightly state that the Numbers passage is regarding estates, and does acknowledge that daughters were to inherit the estates if there were no sons. However, the other relevant information in the Bible regarding inheritance that Sam discusses in the above excerpts is not mentioned.

In the original review, we listed about half a dozen or so controversial passages from the Qur'an or Hadith regarding women. Ghounem did decide to interact with the one issue of wife-beating:

The Qur'an also states that men are superior to women and that men can *beat* their wives because of disobedience (S. 4:34).

There is actually a sequence of events that must take place before the man is allowed to "beat" his wife, second, the beating is taught in hadith as a light gesture like tap with a tooth brush like stick, third, we are taught to be like prophet Muhammad (pbuh) who never beat any of his wives, more on this verse here.

Here is what the verse in question states:

"Men are the protectors and maintainers of women, because Allah has given the one more (strength) than the other, and because they support them from their means. Therefore the righteous women are devoutly obedient, and guard in (the husband's) absence what Allah would have them guard. As to those women on whose part ye fear disloyalty and ill-conduct, admonish them (first), (Next), refuse to share their beds, (And last) beat them (lightly); but if they return to obedience, seek not against them Means (of annoyance): For Allah is Most High, great (above you all)." (S. 4:34, Ali)

(Note that the word "lightly" in parentheses is an addition, not found in the original Arabic)

In this instance, we see that the Qur'an admonishes men to beat their wives for disobedience as a last resort, after 1) admonishing them and 2) banishing them from their beds. Thus, Ghounem is correct regarding the "sequence of events" that must take place, but this "sequence of events," at the same time, casts doubt on Ghounem's claim about the "tooth brush like stick." Whatever we are to make of it, toothbrush or no, the context indicates that the beating had to hurt. If women were disobedient to the point that an admonition from their husbands, and even banishment from their beds, did not work, how will a light tap with a toothbrush actually serve to "get them into line"? Consider also the following:

Narrated 'Ikrima:

"Rifa'a divorced his wife whereupon 'AbdurRahman bin Az-Zubair Al-Qurazi married her. 'Aisha said that the lady (came), wearing a green veil (and complained to her (Aisha) of her husband and showed her a green spot on her skin caused by beating). It was the habit of ladies to support each other, so when Allah's Apostle came, 'Aisha said, 'I have not seen any woman suffering as much as the believing women. Look! Her skin is greener than her clothes!' When 'AbdurRahman heard that his wife had gone to the Prophet, he came with his two sons from another wife. She said, 'By Allah! I have done no wrong to him but he is impotent and is as useless to me as this,' holding and showing the fringe of her garment, 'Abdur-Rahman said, 'By Allah, O Allah's Apostle! She has told a lie! I am very strong and can satisfy her but she is disobedient and wants to go back to Rifa'a.' Allah's Apostle said, to her, 'If that is your intention, then know that it is unlawful for you to remarry Rifa'a unless Abdur-Rahman has had sexual intercourse with you.' Then the Prophet saw two boys with 'Abdur-Rahman and asked (him), 'Are these your sons?' On that 'AbdurRahman said, 'Yes.' The Prophet said, 'You claim what you claim (i.e.. that he is impotent)? But by Allah, these boys resemble him as a crow resembles a crow,'" (Sahih Bukhari Vol. 7, Book 72, # 715)

Notice in this Hadith that 'Aisha stated that she had not seen any woman suffering as much as the believing (i.e. Muslim) women, and this was said in the context of a Muslim woman that came to her and showed 'Aisha her bruise where she had been beaten by her husband. This gives the impression that wife-beating was not an uncommon occurrence among the early Muslim community.

As far as Muhammad is concerned, consider this Sahih Hadith, which details how he struck 'Aisha on the chest, causing her pain. In this case, however, it is not clear why Muhammad hit her. It may have been because he was startled by her shadow, as the context might indicate. While this is not a sufficient example of Muhammad striking his wife for the reasons detailed in S. 4:34 (i.e. disloyalty and ill-conduct), this demonstrates that he was not adverse to the concept of hitting one's wife.

See the material in the following links for more information:

http://www.answering-islam.org/Silas/wife-beating.htm

http://www.answering-islam.org/Silas/beating_badawi.htm

the reader can hopefully see from this how easily Ghounem's prooftext-approach could be turned around in order to denigrate the Qur'an as well.

On the contrary, all that has been shown is that the Quran can easily be explained, while fantasies of kung fu fighting, body part snatching women would have to be conjured to try explaining the Bible (perhaps Tarantino's "kill bill" was watched one to many times).

Ghounem here continues his "reductio ad absurdum" that he started earlier as a substitute for actually dealing with the data in JPH's link. It appears, if anything, that it is Ghounem that should lay off the kung-fu movies, since he is strangely implying that a woman grabbing a man's genitals would require some kind of complex martial-arts expertise.

We move on to the topic of Jesus in chapter 7. It starts off with a couple of common "contradictions," such as whether or not Jesus healed two blind men or one blind man on the way to Jericho. JPH has an article on the number of demoniacs

First, this does not touch the error of one or two blind men,

JPH: He obviously has problems expanding explanations by principle.

Wildcat: Indeed, and I had even written in the original review that the link answers Ghounem's argument by principle.

second, the excuse for the demoniacs is "second guy didn't do much, or as much", does this defend the fact that Matthew does not match the other Gospels?

JPH: Yes.

If the second demoniac did not do much, then how would it have been known that he was a demoniac? Common sense would delineate that some action must have taken place on the part of the second demoniac for Matthew to label him as a demoniac.

JPH: Now that's plumb stupid. He has to do a certain *amount* of things to be recognized as a demoniac?

Wildcat: I'll add to JPH's response that the demoniac's reputation would clearly indicate that he was indeed a demoniac. See Mark 5:1-5 where it is made implicitly clear that the demoniac had a reputation for causing problems, since he had to be chained. It is possible that only one had to be chained, yet it is only reasonable to conclude that other "demoniacs" would likely have been known as such by their previous actions. With that being the case, it wouldn't have necessarily been essential that the 2nd demoniac did anything in particular during the actual encounter with Jesus.

It is asked why Mark states that the two thieves reviled Jesus (15:32) whereas Luke records one defending him (Luke 23:39-42). Ghounem then alludes to Matt. 27:54 and Luke 23:47, which details the centurion's confession that Jesus was innocent and truly was the Son of God. In other words, Ghounem thinks that because some confessions are recorded in the Gospels that all such confessions/repentances were detailed by the Gospel authors

I'm not saying that every confession in the Bible was supposed to be recorded, I'm only saying that at this most important moment in the Gospel, where the audience below is hanging on every word being said, the deciding moment where Jesus could prove his innocence, one gospel records the presumed last words of his Shepherd and Messiah while others don't.

Okay, but this response doesn't shed anymore light on why this is a problem.

Ghounem is clearly taking an extreme conflict-approach to the texts, yet one that is prodigiously unwarranted, and one that the Qur'an could certainly not withstand.

Actually, it's the common sense approach, and the Quran is the only one of the two that withstands the study.

This is another mere soundbite, and we would, of course, disagree. The same "common sense" approach has led to laundry lists of alleged contradictions in the Qur'an by various classes of skeptics as well. I'm sure the folks over at the "Skeptics Annotated Bible," one of Ghounem's sources, also felt that they were using "common sense" in forming their "Skeptics Annotated Qur'an." I submit that "common sense" should make us realize that there is more involved in establishing "problems" in ancient or semi-ancient texts than merely looking for proof-texts. Consider the following:

Why Critics of the Bible do not Deserve the Benefit of the Doubt

Up next is the chapter on the Trinity, and among the problems with Ghounem's approach to this, we discover that his understanding of this doctrine is badly flawed. In at least a couple of places in his book, not necessarily in this particular chapter, it appears that Ghounem has confused the orthodox understanding of the Trinity with the heresy known as Modalism.

On the topic of Trinity, there are more than just two schools of thought, in fact, around the world, Christians follow(ed) nearly a dozen additional contradicting forms of trinity, applying different standards and levels of divinity to Jesus; Adoptionism, Apollinarianism, Docetism, Donatism, Dualism, Ebionism, Eutychianism, Iconoclasm, Macedonianism, Manichaeism, Marcionism, Dynamic Monarchianism, Monarchianism, Monophysitism, Monothelitism, Montanism, Nestorianism, Patripassianism, Pelagianism, Quietism, Sebellianism, Socinianism. Of course the follower of each type of trinity will call the follower of the other type of trinity a heretic.

This is a mere smokescreen. First of all, Ghounem appeals often enough to what the majority-view on a given Biblical subject is in order to determine how a specific issue should be addressed, and as such, if he is going to be consistent, he would attempt to address the legitimate, orthodox beliefs regarding the Trinity. Of course, once again, we don't advocate the "appeal to popularity" fallacy, but we point this out again simply to demonstrate Ghounem's inconsistency. Secondly, Ghounem's book is entitled "200 Ways the Qur'an Corrects the Bible," and as such, we'd expect what the Bible actually teaches in this regard to be addressed, not what a given group, or groups, teach on the matter (particularly since Ghounem gives the impression in his book that he is actually attacking what the average, orthodox Christian believes). In this case, it is more than clear that the Bible does not teach that "the Trinitarian God was crucified," as the Gospels show that Jesus (i.e. the one being crucified) was actually praying to the Father. Ghounem's refutations of these concepts are fine if he were countering Oneness Pentecostals, who teach Modalism, but they are irrelevant as a counter to what the Bible, and by extension, orthodoxy, actually teach on this matter. This would be similar to our attacking the Qur'an by stating that it teaches racism, since one heretical group of Muslims (i.e. The Nation of Islam) teaches the supremacy of African-Americans (more below….).

Each of these trinities are expir(ed)ing one after the other because none can solve the confusion of a tri-une god. The reality is that one person can be three people (a uncle can also be a cousin and a nephew), but if one of the three die, then all three die, thus people don't want a conflicting God,….

Amazingly, this alleged critique of the Trinity may have some merit when used against Modalism, but this response merely reflects the fact that Ghounem misunderstands (or is ignoring) what the Bible actually teaches in this regard, as his critique is simply not applicable to the orthodox version of the Trinity.

….therefore Islam is the fastest growing religion in the world because the Quran clarifies that Jesus was as great as all the other divinely led Prophets, someone empowered, blessed and one with God in mission, but not God Himself.

It appears that Ghounem is basically telling us here that he is content in continuing to attack his Modalistic strawman rather than the orthodox teachings on this matter. If he wants to attack the Biblical portrait of God as illogical, that is one issue, but the Biblical portrait simply does not support his assertions on the nature of the Trinity, or Jesus himself for that matter. The fact that Jesus prays to God in Gethsemane, as well as on the cross, demonstrates the absurdity in the portrait that Ghounem tries to paint (e.g. "the Triune God being crucified"). Ghounem may think that the true Biblical portrait is illogical (even though he has yet to actually offer a relevant critique of the Trinity, as propounded by evangelical scholars), but this doesn't excuse his attacking a strawman (Once again, his remark that "if one of the three die, then all three die," is actually another attack against the logic of Modalism, not Biblical Trinitarianism.) rather than what the Bible actually teaches on the matter. Of course, I personally believe that a truly objective observer would not find the doctrine illogical when properly expounded, and Ghounem's problems appear to be that he has either not seen it properly expounded, or has decided not to deal with the proper exposition, for whatever reason. Ghounem furthermore implies that Islam is growing supposedly because of the lack of logic involved in the doctrine of the Trinity, as if the two are somehow directly related, or that a rejection of the Trinity automatically should, for some reason, compel somebody to embrace Islam as opposed to the other hundreds of non-Christian worldviews in existence. While we're on the topic, it is probably worth mentioning that Islam's growth is mainly attributable to procreation, whereas, interestingly enough, Christianity is, by far, the fastest growing religion by *conversion*, at least according to the sources that I've seen on the matter, such as the World Christian Encyclopedia and the Lausanne Statistics Task Force. Regardless, this is irrelevant to the topic of which worldview, if either, is actually true.

Suffice it to say that these problems that Ghounem has conjured up disappear once one grasps the proper Biblical understanding of Christ and the Trinity rather than his Modalistic strawman. Some relevant material regarding the true orthodox Christian understanding of the Trinity can be found in the following links: (1); (2); (3); (4).

JPH in the first link makes the claim that Jesus was the self made "wisdom" of God,

JPH: "Self made" is false.

this is an odd assertion since Jesus in the Gospel was not wise enough to know when the Day of Judgment would be (Mark 13:32) or why God had forsaken him on the cross (Matt. 27:46) or dozens of other issues that Jesus was not Omniscient about.

This is a rather simplistic response given the hoard of data that JPH lists in link (1) to back up his assertion, but in order to respond to Ghounem's argument, the key once again is in understanding Christ's humanity. See here and here for commentaries of the two passages alluded to by Ghounem. In the latter link, there are several relevant articles in the encyclopedia; scroll down to "Matthew 27:46."

The short chapter entitled "Afterlife," starts out by claiming that there are multiple ways found in the Bible of removing sins (e.g. charity and incense), contrary to the Christian claim that blood is the only way in which atonement is made. This assertion is false as we show here.

This link uses an exact phrase fallacy. The two sentences "flour will make atonement" and "flour will be a sin offering" both have the same meaning as understood by Jews, yet the link insists on evangelical terminology. Because the phrase sin offering instead of atonement is used, it's assumed an invalid way to be forgiven. Perhaps a Bible dictionary would explain that both mean purifying.

Ghounem once again has not adequately represented the argument expounded in the link. Since the flour was placed atop the burnt offerings, it was the burnt offerings that still constituted the basis of the sacrificial service(s). The giving of flour was simply a provision that made it possible for the poor Israelites to benefit from the sacrificial offerings by contributing something more in line with their degree of wealth (see the link for more, but most importantly, read Leviticus 5:11-13 in context).

(Revelation 14:3-4) I wonder if Ghounem believes that other such players in the book of Revelation like the 7-headed dragon and the woman that stands on the moon and is clothed with the sun are meant to be taken literally as well.

Most Jews and many Christians believe the unmarried boys passage is literal.

Once again we have here the "appeal to popularity," although in this case, I'd question whether or not this belief is actually a majority-belief among Christians.

We finally reach the closing chapter entitled "Additional Ways," which houses the last 10 sections of the book. Another "contradiction" is mentioned in that, while several passages in the Bible state that God loves sinners, in Hosea 9:15 it is said that God does not love sinners. This is where an understanding of the Biblical word for hate would have been helpful to Ghounem..

Rather than claiming that hate is not literally the opposite of love as this link alleges, perhaps a closer look at (Hosea 9:15) would reveal the Bible specifically states that love for the sinners would be severed; "I will love them no more". Perhaps a link explaining how "love" in the Bible is not literally the opposite of hate would explain this quote.

Glenn Miller has an article on Luke 14:26, where the principles discussed there shed some light on this and other such passages.

If Ghounem and others want to do some relevant homework in this area, they might want to educate themselves on the writings of such scholars as Richard Baukham, Craig Blomberg, Raymond Brown, D.A. Carson, William Lane Craig, James D.G. Dunn, R.T. France, Gary Habermas, Larry Hurtado, Bruce Metzger(!), Ben Witherington, and N.T. Wright, the likes of which are notably absent from Ghounem's resource list.

Baukham focuses on politics, Brown's "101 Questions and Answers" was inadequate,….

Baukham also focuses on relevant New Testament studies. Consider, for instance, his short book "God Crucified". As for Brown's book, the one Ghounem lists is more of an introductory book, covering many topics related to the Bible in just shy of 150 pages. The kind of works I personally had in mind regarding Brown are some of his more substantial books on New Testament issues.

W.L. Craig and Hurtado are being used by me for an upcoming book: "101 Bible Quotes on Christ Disproving Trinity",

This seems good, at least on the surface, assuming that Ghounem corresponds with their material more amply than he did the various problem-solving books. However, after reading Ghounem's responses to me in regards to the Trinity, it appears that he is content in continuing to attack his Modalistic strawman. If this methodology is not changed to address what the Bible actually teaches, rather than focusing on a view embraced by only a comparative few unorthodox Christian groups, then Ghounem's new book will mostly serve to fool the misinformed, much like the "200 Ways" book. We hope that he reconsiders his approach.

Blomberg, Carson, Dunn, France, Habermas, Metzger, Witherinton, and Wright were all used by me indirectly because they are all referenced by Dr. Norman Geisler. Thus the Geisler's Apologetic's library on CD-Rom was expensive but worth it because it encompasses the top authors on Bible errors (I suppose we can now add JPH as one replied to as well).

If I didn't know better, I'd think here that Ghounem were joking. Geisler used these authors, and others, as sources. To even hint that one has replied to these authors' work simply by attempting to refute Geisler (although, like with the HSB, I seriously doubt that Ghounem adequately represented all of the relevant arguments Geisler made in his books) is pure nonsense. The scholars I listed have written, between them, scores of books covering tens of thousands of pages of material. The only bits of their material that Ghounem perhaps "used indirectly" were those actual parts that Geisler referenced. No core themes by any of these authors, however, were actually addressed in Ghounem's book. Furthermore, I think Ghounem may have missed my point. All of these scholars specialize, not in solving Biblical difficulties per se, but in various branches of New Testament studies. Blomberg would be perhaps an exception since he does deal more directly with "contradictions," yet his scholarship would be more adequately described as studies in the (overall) historical reliability of the Gospels. As the extended quote of JPH in my original review has showed, if one is going to refute Christianity, then the skeptic's burden is to prove that the Bible is not, overall, a reliable historical record. Even if a Biblical difficulty could be proven to be an error, the fact would remain that the Bible consists of a collection of historical documents, and errors do not necessarily disprove overall reliability, as any professional historian would attest. As far as "replying to JPH" is concerned, I'm actually glad that Ghounem decided to take a stab at replying to the material in the links, as this gives the reader an opportunity to see his faulty methodology in action. I implore the reader to compare the material in the various links to the "summaries" of the apologetic arguments that Ghounem gives in the body of his response. After reading from the actual links, the reader will be able to quickly see that such a tactic did not get the job done.

Postscript: For those interested in a good book on "comparative religion" in regards to Christianity and Islam, the best one that I'm personally aware of would probably be a book by Dr. William Campbell entitled "The Qur'an and Bible in the Light of History & Science."

Well, after reading the reply to this review, I pray that you find the courage to move forward to Islam and you find that the book "200+ Ways the Quran Corrects (Helps) the Bible" is the best guide to assist you in your conversion.

Peace

Mohamed Ghounem

With all due respect to Ghounem, after reading his response, I have, unfortunately, only managed to find more of the same kind of shallow argumentation and conflict-approach that characterizes his book. I maintain that this exchange exemplifies the fact that polemics comprised of mere proof-texts, at the worst, and 1-3 pages of material, in the best cases, to issues that are, in reality, much more complex, accomplishes little, if anything. Furthermore, I maintain that the only thing that can be accomplished by "refuting" apologetic arguments without presenting, or taking into account, the full scope of the respective apologetic arguments under scrutiny, is to deceive gullible readers, whether this is done intentionally or not.

---

Ghounem has responded to the above; see here. Wildcat will be responding as soon as time allows, though this may be next year (2005).

---

ADDENDUM

Ghounem wrote a response to the above response that can be accessed here. I'm fairly comfortable with the way that the dialogue stands as of now, so I will probably wait until I finish a couple of other projects before getting back to a discussion of the relevant issues in our debate (the probable timetable we're looking at is, unfortunately, at least a few months from now, particularly because of such a busy secular schedule). In the meantime, anybody that has any questions for me regarding our dialogue is welcome to e-mail me, though please forgive any delay in my response-time.

This current "add-on" is simply to provide a paragraph's worth of comments on one major aspect of our debate, Jochen's clarifications of Ghounem's misconception regarding Norman Geisler and the Answering Islam website, as well as to respond to a few remarks of a personal nature made by my opponent.

I would like to, first of all, thank Ghounem for the generally professional attitude and approach that he has exhibited throughout this exchange, on private e-mail conversations, and for his waiting until we worked out all of the "bugs" in the above response (those mainly that arose from the file-restructuring project recently completed) before publishing his response. Ghounem is to be commended for his professional and mature approach since this seems to be the exception, rather than the rule, in Muslim internet-polemics. Unfortunately, however, he did make some unwarranted remarks about Jochen Katz and me that were more personal in nature. Therefore, I do feel compelled to provide some immediate responses to those remarks. Before doing so, however, I'll briefly comment on one other important aspect of this exchange.

Ghounem insists that he has accurately represented the apologetic arguments that he is trying to refute in his books, whereas we obviously disagree. We should clarify the point that while we do not expect Ghounem to literally quote everything that the apologetics have to say on a given issue, we do expect for all of the key points of the respective apologetic arguments to be represented in his rebuttals (since the absence of one or more key points could certainly change the overall plausibility of an argument). We maintain that, for the most part, Ghounem has not done this. So, we encourage any curious readers to simply compare the relevant material within the books found in Ghounem's bibliography (particularly the "problem-solving" books) with what Ghounem provides in his book. The reader will quickly find that Ghounem's simplifications, in most relevant cases, failed to encompass the full breadth of the respective arguments, and thus his rebuttals are inadequate. More conveniently, we encourage the readers to consider the places in Ghounem's responses to the original review, and our above response, where this same phenomenon sometimes occurs. Ghounem, in responding to some of our points (or to arguments made in some of the links we provided), quotes only part(s) of the argument, and then provides rebuttals to what he has quoted, while other important points are disregarded. The obvious fallacy with such an approach is, once again, that the points that are disregarded often are very crucial to the overall plausibility of the apologetic presentation(s) being offered. Rebuttals to presentations with vital parts missing from consideration may sound solid in the minds of uninformed readers, but they often turn out to be anywhere between ridiculous and inadequate in the reader's mind when he/she is presented with ALL of the key pieces to the argument(s) allegedly being refuted. Ghounem does mention that, in some cases, it is not necessary to provide the whole argument since they can fall into a particular category of refutation, such as "translation error." In such cases, he claims that resolutions to Biblical problems that appeal to translation errors are not valid since, according to him, Christians believe that the translations also represent the "exact words of God". The appeal to "copyist error" is in a similar boat. Of course, the validity of his denial of such appeals is one of the things we've argued against in this exchange, so we refer the readers back to the beginning of the above response (near the beginning) for the relevant material.

We now move on to some of the more personal remarks made in Ghounem's recent response. First up, Jochen sent me some responses to a couple of remarks made by Ghounem in regards to Geisler being the original author of his site. Below is the relevant excerpt with Jochen's responses. Jochen's original remarks are in bold, Ghounem's responses in italics, and Jochen's new responses in this normal font:

Jochen: [The website started under the name "Christian Answers to Islam" and was located on my personal student account at Georgia Tech. After a bit more than a year some people suggested that I get a proper website with its own domain name. That name needed to be short, so that it can easily be remembered]. I decided to call the site "Answering Islam" and we registered answering-islam.org.- Norman Geisler and Abdul Saleeb wrote a book that they titled "Answering Islam", but Dr. Geisler had absolutely nothing to do with our site. The title "Answering Islam" for the book and for the site were independently developed/decided upon. That Geisler is the author of a book with the same title is mere coincidence. This shows that M. Ghounem doesn't do careful research, but simply propagates as fact what is merely his personal speculation.

Actually I've done more research than you think:

1) When I drove to a Church in NJ last year to hear Geisler give his anti-Islamic dribble, I spoke to him afterwards, following a pleasant talk, I gave some more info about myself, I told him that I used to debate his site's webmaster Jochen Katz, and he nodded approvingly, he did not correct me to say Katz has nothing to do with me.

2) The chronology isn't quite as you portray it, Geisler's book was published in 1994, while your domain was created in 1997 according to the whois records, so Geisler chose the name before you did, so it's only natural to say that Geisler was the original author.

3) Geisler's book "Answering Islam" is being sold on the website Answering-Islam.org, Geisler's material from the book Answering Islam is on the website called Answering Islam, do the math.

Jochen: Ghounem's response is the best proof that I am right in what I said before, i.e. that it is a waste of time to discuss anything with him. Here is why:

Ghounem claimed that Dr. Norman "Geisler is the original author of the answering-Islam site" (See here).

Being the founder of the Answering-Islam.org website, I corrected this false claim, explained the history of our name, and clearly stated that Dr. Norman Geisler was not in any way involved with the creation or development of Answering-Islam.org, neither in the beginning nor in later times (See above).

What was Ghounem's response? Instead of apologizing for making a false claim, and removing that false claim from his article, he starts to argue and list 'reasons' why he is justified to claim that Geisler is the original author of Answering Islam (See again here). Does Ghounem imagine that Norman Geisler, president of a Bible seminary (*) and a famous author, publishes his articles and papers on the student account of a math student at Georgia Tech (e.g. *; *; *), particularly after he has already published a book on Islam years ago? To say that is unlikely would be a major understatement!

One final remark: Ghounem's not so subtle attempts of ridicule, in this case by way of speculation about my emotional state ("Your not still bitter are you?") or mental abilities ("I see this point is still going over your head"), are entirely uncalled for. These ad hominem elements in Ghounem's contributions are further disqualifying him from being a serious discussion partner in the arena of Muslim-Christian debates. [Note: these comments were made in another excerpt of Ghounem's 2nd response not quoted here]

END QUOTE

Briefly considering Ghounem's arguments in favor of Geisler being affiliated with the "Answering Islam" website (since the testimony of the one man that would actually know is apparently not good enough for him), in reverse order, we find:

3) Geisler's book "Answering Islam" is being sold on the website Answering-Islam.org, Geisler's material from the book Answering Islam is on the website called Answering Islam, do the math.

Following Ghounem's link you will see that Answering Islam is actually NOT selling the book. The page makes available a debate about this book between a Muslim and Abdul Saleeb, the co-author of the book. Naturally, the page also provides the full bibliographical citation of the book under discussion and, as a service to the readers, adds a link to a bookshop where it may be bought relatively inexpensively. However, Answering Islam recommends many books that they have not authored (cf. this page). That argument is absolutely laughable. Is everyone listed in the Answering Islam bibliography suddenly "the original author of the site"?

Also, as Jochen informed me, nothing of Geisler's material in this book is on the web. A few excerpts of this book are on the web, but those were written by the second author of the book, Abdul Saleeb, and personally given to Jochen by him. Of the chapters written by Geisler, there is nothing on the site. Again, this was baseless speculation.

2) The chronology isn't quite as you portray it, Geisler's book was published in 1994, while your domain was created in 1997 according to the whois records, so Geisler chose the name before you did, so it's only natural to say that Geisler was the original author.

"Answering Islam" is a very generic title, not something that takes a lot of ingenuity to come up with. This is an absolutely natural choice for a website that examines the claims of Islam and critically evaluates them. There are certainly plenty of other generic book titles out there (e.g., Calculus, Introduction to Philosophy, Investing Wisely, etc.) without anyone concluding that one person must be the author of all books with the same title. With the same reasoning, Norman Geisler would become also the original author of answering-islam.COM (an Islamic website), if the name is what determines the originator. It is certainly NOT natural to conclude from this that Geisler is the author. Geisler puts his name on everything he writes -- hundreds of articles and books. Ghounem's claim that Geisler was the author/owner of the site (not merely the first person to use the expression "Answering Islam" as a title) has no foundation at all. And again, Jochen provided the history of that name already in his first response quoted above.

1) When I drove to a Church in NJ last year to hear Geisler give his anti-Islamic dribble, I spoke to him afterwards, following a pleasant talk, I gave some more info about myself, I told him that I used to debate his site's webmaster Jochen Katz, and he nodded approvingly, he did not correct me to say Katz has nothing to do with me.

Not much needs to be said here, as this is Ghounem's personal testimony. Perhaps Geisler mistakenly acknowledged Ghounem's remark about Jochen being his webmaster, and nodded merely because he recognized the name since he had met Jochen in 2003.

Most ironically, Ghounem refuted himself about Geisler being the originator of the site when earlier in his response he provided this link to a newsgroup posting, dated 20 December 1999, stating:

N. Geisler, co producer of the "Answering Islam" site, doesn't have the "Courage" to put this on their site, yet he and Jochen Katz his buddy producer both "RATE" Islamic Web sites on "Courage". Is Norman Geisler, the infamous Abdul Saleeb? Inquring Minds wanna know.

Jochen Katz responds: Norman Geisler has nothing whatsoever to do with the web site Answering Islam. I doubt he even has ever had a look at it. He is certainly not a co-producer. This web site is my own child and has recently passed into the maintenance and development responsibility of a team of Christians, of which again, Norman Geisler is not a member. … I am in contact with Abdul Saleeb and he is a different person than Norman Geisler, about half his age. If these minds were inquiring for truth, they could just have asked me, but they never did. They only pretend that they want to know by spreading speculations on their web site.

Since the claim of Geisler being in any way part of Answering Islam was wrong five years ago (and Ghounem should have been aware of this, since he links to it), how then does Ghounem conclude that Geisler could become the original author of the site at a later time?

Next, we move on to some of the comments Ghounem made regarding myself:

[My original remark] Upon further examination of the context of Ezek. 18:24, I must concede that I was mistaken in stating that this passage refers to spiritual death

It's very honorable to admit you did not know the context,....

In this one case, I originally had drawn an incorrect conclusion. With a more in-depth look the second go-around, however, I noticed and corrected it. I don't claim to be infallible, and am willing to revise my articles accordingly when I see mistakes. It should be noted, however, that this still didn't help Ghounem's case regarding the particular issue under dispute.

Here is where the unwarranted remarks start, picking up from the last quote,....

....but this is one of many examples of not knowing the topic prior to writing your review. While on the other hand, I have spent years examining the topics, and if you do the same, I think you'll appreciate my book rather than mistakenly criticize it.

This is a very ironic remark in light of the fact that Ghounem makes a very similar mistake in not understanding JPH's approach in the latter's short article regarding Paul and the "present crisis" in Corinth. The difference in this case, however, is that, unlike me, Ghounem apparently did not notice, or at least did not acknowledge, his mistake the second go-around. We'll perhaps discuss this in somewhat more depth in our impending response. For now, the reader checking out the short link and Ghounem's response (i.e. That link amusingly says that Paul, thinking the world was going to come to an end, made his statement under duress, and that the passage would sound better if the word "woman" was translated into "wife" since both are the same word in Greek. So Paul who was supposed to be divinely inspired was wrong about the future and the Bible translators who were also supposed to be inspired were wrong about the translation, that explains it. Got Quran?) can easily see the error. What this confirms, once again, is that we're human beings and not impervious to making errors. I do not think that this-in itself- is enough for me to declare Ghounem as one that is obviously unqualified to be a scholarly voice in Christian-Muslim dialogue. Both errors are simply that, not necessarily indicators of our lack of knowledge or experience.

Then again, towards the end:

With all due respect, your negative review is based on your own bias and miscomprehension of the religions, , you did not know that several passages are literal rather than figurative as you originally assumed, you didn't know that Bible publishers are calling their modern day English Bibles the "exact words of God", you didn't know various Islamic laws regarding circumcision, the Sabbath, discipline, etc…, you didn't know the history of apostate killing in Christianity, you didn't know that Jews have indefinitely stopped sacrificing while Muslims still sacrifice, you didn't know that Jews were given some additional laws as a form of punishment, and so on…

I don't blame you for your innocent misunderstandings, no one is expected to be an expert, but to portray yourself as an authority (writer for tectonics) while being wrong on the points you address in my book does not reflect graciously on you or tektonics.

....I hope the original reviewer has learned more about the Bible and Quran as well as the intricacies of creating my book. As shown, I've taken great efforts to perform the unprecedented task of including the heart of the available Biblicists explanations for each of the ways the Quran helps the Bible. I hope the original reviewer has also learned that the excuses can indeed be compressed to a few sentences once it's realized that translation, copyist, and scribble errors are not as explainable as Biblicists convey and that even if verbose empathy is narrated for an error, it still remains an error.

Unfortunately, the above diatribe is a classic example of the proverbial "pot calling the kettle black". The main reason is because the various attacks he has made just above in regards to my knowledge of these subjects, ironically, appear to be largely the result of his own apparent lack of knowledge on such things. Who it is exactly that is demonstrating a lack of knowledge and/or understanding regarding the pertinent issues in this dialogue we'll leave for the readers to decide. But, I will provide some comments to Ghounem's specific charges, in no particular order:

you did not know that the assumed original Gospel is actually a translation from the verbal Aramaic into the scribbled Greek....you didn't know that Jews have indefinitely stopped sacrificing while Muslims still sacrifice

These accusations are false. First, Ghounem has "deduced" my alleged ignorance of underlying Aramaic oral traditions behind the compilation of the Greek Gospels b/c I make numerous references in my response to the divine inspiration of "the original Greek." However, it should be obvious that I'm simply referring in such cases to the Greek New Testament as it was penned by the original authors. My claim that these documents were inspired certainly does not preclude the presence of oral (or even written) Aramaic traditions underlying the formation of the Gospels. Ghounem has merely assumed my ignorance of this apparently in light of *his* beliefs regarding the criterion for "inspiration", which we'll get to in more depth in our later, more thorough refutation to his recent response.

As for the 2nd claim regarding the Jews and sacrifices, Ghounem simply should have read the relevant portion of my response more carefully. I was asking about continuity between the TORAH and the Qur'an, not between what post-70 A.D. Jews are doing and what Muslims do.

Regarding the 3rd claim about my alleged ignorance of the Eid sacrifice, I was fully aware that this was performed by Muslims, yet Ghounem's conclusion in this case is understandable since I should have clarified what I meant in my original statement. When I spoke of "bloody sacrifices", I intended to convey their importance regarding atonement for sin. in the Torah and Gospel vs. that of the Qur'an.

....you did not know that several passages are literal rather than figurative as you originally assumed....

This is presumably a reference to Ezekiel 18:24, on which see above; it was one mistake on my part, not several, and one that didn't change the conclusion of that particular dispute anyway.

....you didn't know that Bible publishers are calling their modern day English Bibles the "exact words of God",....

I actually never made a claim one way or the next regarding the opinions of Bible publishers. This is another example of Ghounem formulating groundless assumptions and then proceeding to attack my knowledge based on those assumptions. I said that well-informed Christians (including those I've talked with on the subject) do not claim this, and I stick to this claim. Furthermore, the "authorities" of the two Bibles ("Heritage Bible" and "Geocentric Bible") that were quoted, in addition to the quotation of Robert Sumner, is clearly not going to suffice to show that this is a majority-position, and one task for our next refutation of Ghounem will be to check out what the major, and more typical, translations have to say on this issue (i.e. NIV, NASB, etc.). If the result of that search turns out how I think it will, then it will ironically turn out to be Ghounem that is ignorant of the overall position of the Bible translators/publishers. Again, I should remind the reader that this is all irrelevant anyway, regardless of what person X or publisher Y believes, as I clearly stated in my response that Christians actually believing this would not change the reality that such Christians are trusting a translator over and against that of the inspired author, a mistake that the well-informed simply will not make.

....you didn't know various Islamic laws regarding circumcision, the Sabbath, discipline, etc…,

Actually, I didn't know about Ghounem's own personal attempt at fitting Muslims' use of *Friday* as a day of assembly into the Biblical Sabbath command. Once again, we'll have more to say about this, as well as circumcision, later.

....you didn't know the history of apostate killing in Christianity,....

This again is a bogus claim made by Ghounem, which is based on my statements that the *early* church did not execute apostates. Perhaps I should have defined what I meant by "early" in this case (up to about 100-200 years), as Ghounem answered my question (via private e-mail exchange) of what the phrase "early church" meant to him by stating that it referred to church history up to the 19th century! OTOH, Ghounem should have gotten the point from the beginning since I did mention in this response that there were unfortunate cases of "apostate-killing" performed by the Church in the Middle Ages (i.e. I obviously didn't think that the "early church" extended even to that time, let alone the 19th century).

you didn't know that Jews were given some additional laws as a form of punishment, and so on....

I knew about the Bible verses that Ghounem uses to try to make this argument, and we refuted this argument with a proper examination of the context. In response, we might as well say that Ghounem didn't know the context of the Bible verses that he was touting to make his argument.

Lastly, revisiting a couple of Ghounem's accusations

With all due respect, your negative review is based on your own bias and miscomprehension of the religions,....

My negative review was based on nothing more than a growing knowledge of what the relevant scholarship has to say on such issues. In light of such knowledge, Ghounem's fallacies made not only in his book, but as well as both of his responses, become all the more obvious. Ghounem did make one correct statement that we quoted earlier, and that is that he has been involved in Muslim-Christian dialogue substantially longer than I have, which makes it all the more unfortunate that his polemics have not progressed beyond the level of the unwarranted use of proof-texts and outdated arguments. Furthermore, it is sadly ironic that the erroneous conclusions he has drawn regarding my alleged lack of knowledge seem to largely stem from his own ignorance of the relevant topics under dispute, as well as imputing on to me (hopefully not deliberately) at least one of his own questionable assumptions.

Ghounem comments on this addendum here.

---

By request, we decided to address another of Ghounem's points regarding inheritance in the Bible that he wrote in response to material Sam Shamoun provided us. This is a reply to only one of several aspects of that topic; we'll get to the rest in our later rebuttal.

'Now I am ready to visit you for the third time, and I will not be a burden to you, because what I want is not your possessions but you. After all, children should not have to save up for their parents, but parents for their children.' 2 Corinthians 12:14

This passage says nothing about daughters, Paul is talking about the male children, unless Paul was attempting to contradict the OT again. Paul in other passages differentiates between the genders (1 Corinthians 14:34). Furthermore, the Greek word used for children in this passage is "tevknon", which is in the masculine form, indicating male children. (now that excuse and rebuttal took a few sentences each, yet the reviewer bemoans that I should unnecessarily inflate the book)

We ran the claim regarding "tevknon" by "Jaltus" over at TWeb, an authority on the Greek language:

As for the above argument, it is patently false. TEKNON is actually neuter in gender and rarely refers to exclusively male children unless the context explicitly states such. In this case, Paul is intentionally being ambiguous for a few reasons, the most important of which is that he calls all Christians "firstborn sons" of God, thus showing both male and female will inherit from God. The other issue is that Paul is not writing to Jews, but to Greeks. Thus, he is writing into their cultural context rather than writing blindly from his own. After all, Paul was a diaspora Jew, not a Jerusalem Jew, since he grew up in Tarsus.

Sam Shamoun adds:

You may want to include John 1:12-13, where in verse 12 John says that Jesus gave all who believe in his name the right to be children of God. The Greek word there is TEKNA, and it is the plural form of TEKNON.

Other texts such as Mark 10:29-30, Acts 2:39 and 21:5, Rom. 8:16-17, 21, and I Cor. 7:14 utilize the same word for "children" and each strongly implies that both genders are included in the respective descriptions.

There is a short comment on Ghounem's book by a Skeptic here.

--"Wildcat"