Mark’s Prologue Examined In light of the assertions of an Incompetent Dawagandist, Part II‎

Sam Shamoun

Continuing from Part I

Excursus
Ibn Anwar also tries to prove that the reading found in the KJV, “As it is written in the prophets,” is not original but a scribal alteration. It seems that later scribes who were far removed from the time of Christ and who, much like Ibn Anwar, were ignorant of Jewish exegetical practices wrongly assumed that someone had mistakenly corrupted the original reading of Mark since they may have reasoned that Mark could not have attributed all of these quotes to Isaiah. They decided to “restore” the original reading by changing “in Isaiah” to “in the prophets.”

Ibn Anwar then argues that even if “in the prophets” was in fact the original reading this still would pose a problem since Exodus 23:20 is not part of the writings of the Prophets but found in the Law of Moses. Ibn Anwar reasons that since the Jewish canon differentiates between the Law of Moses (called the Torah) from the Prophetic writings (called the Nevi’im) Mark would have still been mistaken.

Here, Ibn Anwar is overstating his case and is stretching it quite a bit since he erroneously assumes that, (a) Mark is only quoting from Exodus 23:20, and that (b) Moses’ writings cannot be classified along with the Prophets.

The fact is that NT scholars believe that Mark has actually combined Exodus 23:20 and Malachi 3:1 together since both passages speak of God sending his messenger/angel.
 
“As it is written in Isaiah the prophet, ‘Behold, I send my messenger (angel) before your face, who will prepare your way,’” Mark 1:2
 
“Behold, I will send my messenger (angel), and he shall prepare the way before my face: and the Lord, whom you seek, shall suddenly come to his temple, even the messenger of the covenant, whom you delight in: behold, he shall come, says the LORD of hosts.” Malachi 3:1
 
“Behold, I send an Angel (messenger) before your face, to keep you in the way, and to bring you into the place which I have prepared.” Exodus 23:20
 
“And, behold, I send my angel (messenger) before your face, that he may keep you in the way, that he may bring you into the land which I have prepared for you.” LXX

It is evident that Mark has replaced Malachi’s “my face” with the words taken from the Greek version of the Exodus text, namely “your face,” in order to connect this with God sending a messenger ahead of Jesus. The Lord Jesus himself quotes Malachi in the same way:
 
“This is he of whom it is written, ‘Behold, I send my messenger before your face, who will prepare your way before you.'” Luke 7:27 – cf. Matthew 11:10

And, as some of the commentators which we cited earlier noted, the rabbis themselves combined Exodus 23:20 and Malachi 3:1 together due to their similarity in wording. Therefore, Mark was indeed quoting from the Prophets even though he added words from the writings of Moses to one of the Prophetic quotes.

Secondly, the NT employs the word “Prophets” in reference to all of the OT writings, including Moses:
 
“Now, brothers, I know that you acted in ignorance, as did your leaders. But this is how God fulfilled what he had foretold through all the prophets, saying that his Christ would suffer. Repent, then, and turn to God, so that your sins may be wiped out, that times of refreshing may come from the Lord, and that he may send the Christ, who has been appointed for you—even Jesus. He must remain in heaven until the time comes for God to restore everything, as he promised long ago through his holy prophets. For Moses said, ‘The Lord your God will raise up for you a prophet like me from among your own people; you must listen to everything he tells you. Anyone who does not listen to him will be completely cut off from among his people.’ Indeed, all the prophets from Samuel on, as many as have spoken, have foretold these days. And you are heirs of the prophets and of the covenant God made with your fathers. He said to Abraham, ‘Through your offspring all peoples on earth will be blessed.’ When God raised up his servant, he sent him first to you to bless you by turning each of you from your wicked ways.’” Acts 3:17-26

That Peter’s reference to all the Prophets predicting that the Christ would suffer also includes Moses is clear not only from the immediate context which actually cites Moses’ writings but from the following reference as well:
 
“‘To this day I have had the help that comes from God, and so I stand here testifying both to small and great, saying nothing but what the prophets and Moses said would come to pass: that the Christ must suffer and that, by being the first to rise from the dead, he would proclaim light both to our people and to the Gentiles.’ And as he was saying these things in his defense, Festus said with a loud voice, ‘Paul, you are out of your mind; your great learning is driving you out of your mind.’ But Paul said, ‘I am not out of my mind, most excellent Festus, but I am speaking true and rational words. For the king knows about these things, and to him I speak boldly. For I am persuaded that none of these things has escaped his notice, for this has not been done in a corner. King Agrippa, do you believe the prophets? I know that you believe.’ And Agrippa said to Paul, ‘In a short time would you persuade me to be a Christian?’ And Paul said, ‘Whether short or long, I would to God that not only you but also all who hear me this day might become such as I am—except for these chains.’” Acts 26:22-29

Even though Paul distinguishes Moses from the Prophets the fact that the Apostle says that the former announced the sufferings of Christ affirms that Moses was one of the Prophets whom Peter said predicted the death of Christ.

It is also clear that when Paul asks Agrippa whether he believes in the Prophets the blessed Apostle had Moses in mind as well since he had just referred to him earlier in their conversation.

Here are some further examples from Paul where Moses is grouped with the Prophets:
 
“Paul, a servant of Christ Jesus, called to be an apostle, set apart for the gospel of God, which he promised beforehand through his prophets in the holy Scriptures, concerning his Son, who was descended from David according to the flesh and was declared to be the Son of God in power according to the Spirit of holiness by his resurrection from the dead, Jesus Christ our Lord, through whom we have received grace and apostleship to bring about the obedience of faith for the sake of his name among all the nations, including you who are called to belong to Jesus Christ, To all those in Rome who are loved by God and called to be saints:” Romans 1:1-7
 
“Now to him who is able to strengthen you according to my gospel and the preaching of Jesus Christ, according to the revelation of the mystery that was kept secret for long ages but has now been disclosed and through the prophetic writings has been made known to all nations, according to the command of the eternal God, to bring about the obedience of faith— to the only wise God be glory forevermore through Jesus Christ! Amen.” Romans 16:25-27

We know that when Paul refers to the Prophets here he also has the Law of Moses in mind since this is what he says elsewhere:
 
“But now the righteousness of God has been manifested apart from the law, although the Law and the Prophets bear witness to it—the righteousness of God through faith in Jesus Christ for all who believe. For there is no distinction: for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, and are justified by his grace as a gift, through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus, whom God put forward as a propitiation by his blood, to be received by faith. This was to show God’s righteousness, because in his divine forbearance he had passed over former sins. It was to show his righteousness at the present time, so that he might be just and the justifier of the one who has faith in Jesus. Then what becomes of our boasting? It is excluded. By what kind of law? By a law of works? No, but by the law of faith. For we hold that one is justified by faith apart from works of the law. Or is God the God of Jews only? Is he not the God of Gentiles also? Yes, of Gentiles also, since God is one—who will justify the circumcised by faith and the uncircumcised through faith. Do we then overthrow the law by this faith? By no means! On the contrary, we uphold the law.” Romans 3:21-31

According to the inspired Apostle, Moses was one of the Prophets who announced beforehand the coming of the Lord Jesus Christ and his glorious Gospel.

Thus, Ibn Anwar is wrong on both counts.

It is also vitally important to mention that the NT authors used the word “Law” for writings other than those of Moses’.
 
“Jesus answered them ‘Has it not been written in your LAW, I said you are gods?’” John 10:34

Jesus cites Psalm 82:6 and calls it the Law.
 
“The crowd spoke up, ‘We have heard from the LAW that the Christ will remain forever, so how can you say, “The Son of Man must be lifted up?” Who is this Son of Man?’” John 12:34

There is no reference in Moses’ writings that the Christ remains forever. The only places one finds such indications are Psalm 110:1,4, Isaiah 9:6-7 and Daniel 7:13-14. The Jews were evidently using “Law” to refer to the OT in general.
 
“But this is to fulfill what is written in their LAW: ‘They hated me without reason.’” John 15:25

Jesus calls Psalms 35:19 and 69:4 the Law here.       

Paul does something similar in Romans 3:10-19 where he refers to what is written in the Law but then cites Psalms 5:9, 10:7, 36:1, 14:1-3, 51:4, 53:1-3, 59:7-8, 140:3 and Ecclesiastes 7:20.

He does it another time in the following passage:
 
“In the LAW it is written: ‘Through men of strange tongues and through the lips of foreigners I will speak to this people, but even then they will not listen to me,’ says the Lord.” 1 Corinthians 14:21

Here the blessed Apostle calls Isaiah 28:11-12 the Law. This should sufficiently demonstrate that the term Law was and is used in a broader sense to refer to the entire Hebrew Bible.

Third, Ibn Anwar selectively appeals to the Jewish tradition of dividing the OT into three sections consisting of Law, Prophets and the Writings when it is convenient for him to do so, but doesn’t bother to inform his readers that according to this same tradition the Prophetic writings were divided into earlier and latter Prophets and that Isaiah headed off the latter Prophets which also included Malachi! Therefore, it would have been thoroughly appropriate for Mark to quote passages from the writings of the Prophets by mentioning the name of the first book that headed off that specific part of the OT since his audience would have known from what was written that Mark was referring to that particular section and not just to the book of Isaiah.

As Messianic Jewish NT commentator David H. Stern explains:

2-3 It is written in the prophet Yesha‘yahu. Only the last two lines quoted are from Isaiah; the first two are from Malachi. The scroll of the Prophets begins with Isaiah, and it was common to refer to a scroll by its first book; but see Mt 27:9 N. (Stern, Jewish New Testament Commentary [Jewish New Testament Publications, Inc; 1st edition, October 1992], p. 87)

Nor does he take into consideration the Jewish tradition when it comes to determining the canon of the OT! Elsewhere Ibn Anwar tries to cast doubt on the canon of the Holy Bible by appealing to the varying number of OT books that are found among certain Christian denominations, i.e. the 46 OT books of the Roman Catholic Church, the 50 of the Greek Orthodox Church etc.

Since Ibn Anwar refers to the Jewish tradition of classifying and separating the OT books into three sections we would expect that he would also appeal to this very same tradition to determine the extent of the OT canon. After all, even the Quran says that Allah entrusted the Israelites with his revealed Book and prophethood:

But why do they (the Jews) come to thee for decision, WHEN THEY HAVE THE TAURAT IN WHICH IS THE COMMAND OF GOD. Surely We revealed the Taurat in which IS guidance and light; WITH IT THE PROPHETS WHO SUBMITTED THEMSELVES (to Allah) JUDGED (matters) FOR THOSE WHO WERE JEWS, and the masters of Divine knowledge and the doctors, BECAUSE THEY WERE ENTRUSTED WITH THE PROTECTION OF THE BOOK OF ALLAH, and they were witnesses thereof; therefore fear not the people and fear Me, and do not take a small price for My communications; and whoever did not judge by what Allah revealed, those are they that are the unbelievers. We ordained therein for them (the Jews): ‘Life for life, eye for eye, nose for nose, ear for ear, tooth for tooth, and wounds equal for equal.’ But if any one remits the retaliation by way of charity, it IS an act of atonement for himself. And if any fail to JUDGE by what God has revealed, they are wrong-doers. S. 5:43-45

We gave Moses the Book, and made it a Guide to the Children of Israel, (commanding): ‘Take not other than Me as Disposer of (your) affairs.’ O ye that are sprung from those whom We carried (in the Ark) with Noah! Verily he was a devotee most grateful. And We decreed for the Children of Israel in the Book, that twice would they do mischief on the earth and be elated with mighty arrogance (and twice would they be punished)! S. 17:2-4

We did aforetime give Moses the Guidance, and We gave the Book in INHERITANCE to the Children of Israel,- A Guide and a Reminder to men of understanding. S. 40:53-54

We did aforetime grant to the Children of Israel THE BOOK, the Power of Command, AND PROPHETHOOD; We gave them, for Sustenance, things good and pure; and We favored them above the nations. And We granted them Clear Signs in affairs (of Religion): it was only after knowledge had been granted to them that they fell into schisms, through insolent envy among themselves. Verily thy Lord will judge between them on the Day of Judgment as to those matters in which they set up differences. S. 45:16-17

The similitude of those who were entrusted with the Taurát, but who subsequently failed in those (obligations), is that of a donkey which carries huge tomes (but understands them not). Evil is the similitude of people who falsify the Signs of Allah: and Allah guides not people who do wrong. Say: ‘O ye of Jewry! If ye think that ye are friends to Allah, to the exclusion of (other) men, then express your desire for Death, if ye are truthful!’ S. 62:5-6

The Quran also encourages people to ask the Children of Israel about their history, especially regarding the Exodus:

And certainly We gave Moses nine clear signs; SO ASK THE CHILDREN OF ISRAEL. When he came to them, Pharaoh said to him: Most surely I deem you, O Moses, to be a man deprived of reason. S. 17:101

This means that Ibn Anwar would have to accept the fact that the Apocryphal books which certain Churches deem canonical are not part of the OT canon since the Jews have never recognized them as such.

For more on the issue of the canon and to see how this argument can be turned more forcefully against the canon of the Quran we recommend the following articles and rebuttals:

http://answering-islam.org/Responses/Saifullah/bravo6.htm
http://answering-islam.org/Responses/Saifullah/bravo7.htm
http://answering-islam.org/Responses/Saifullah/bravo8.htm
http://answering-islam.org/Responses/Saifullah/bravo9.htm
http://answering-islam.org/Responses/Saifullah/bravo_app.htm
http://answering-islam.org/authors/shamoun/anonymousquran1.html
http://answering-islam.org/authors/shamoun/anonymousquran2.html
http://answering-islam.org/authors/shamoun/anonymousquran3.html
http://answering-islam.org/authors/shamoun/anonymousquran_excursus.html

However, seeing that consistency is not one of Ibn Anwar’s strengths (nor are honest or integrity), it doesn’t surprise us that he only appeals to Jewish tradition whenever it suits his purpose but totally discards it when it refutes his shallow argumentation and/or exposes Muhammad as a false prophet.

We conclude with a friendly reminder to Ibn Anwar. Those who live in a glass house shouldn’t throw stones… In light of the numerous examples of false attributions in the Quran and hadith literature, e.g. the presence of Haman and a Samaritan at the time of Moses, the story of Gideon being mixed up with Saul, Muhammad being taken on a journey to a non-existent Temple in Jerusalem etc. (1; 2; 3; 4; 5; 6), is Ibn Anwar willing to do the same thing with his Islamic sources that he recommends be done with the Holy Bible? After all, if the alleged false attribution of a quote has the implication that the book belongs in the trash bin, what does that mean for the Muslim scripture and ahadith when books, persons and their stories are misplaced, i.e. misattributed? Will Ibn Anwar be comfortable flushing the Quran and Muhammad’s sunna down the toilet? If he is going to be consistent then he should have absolutely no problems doing so, in fact he should actually be eager to get rid of such trash.

So much for Ibn Anwar’s objections.

Related Articles
For more information on this topic, as well as other related issues, and to also see how these very same criticisms of the Holy Bible can be turned against the Quran we recommend the following rebuttals and articles:
http://answering-islam.org/Shamoun/badawi_lies4.htm
http://answering-islam.org/Responses/Shabir-Ally/realjesus.htm
http://answering-islam.org/Responses/Menj/egypt.htm
http://answering-islam.org/Responses/Menj/fables.htm
http://answering-islam.org/Responses/Menj/birth-narratives.htm
http://tektonics.org/lp/mkone2.html
http://tektonics.org/gk/helmsr01.html
http://tektonics.org/gk/helmsr02.html

Source: http://answering-islam.org/authors/shamoun/rebuttals/zaatari/mark_isaiah_attribution.html

IHS

Mark’s Prologue Examined In light of the assertions of an Incompetent Dawagandist, Part I‎

Sam Shamoun

Muslim dawagandist Ibn Anwar has become rather fond of rehashing the same old liberal attacks and criticisms against the Holy Bible that have been refuted over and over again. Just recently Ibn Anwar produced a short piece (1; 2) attacking Mark for ignorantly attributing a wrong quote to the Prophet Isaiah in Mark 1:2-3. The dawagandist writes:

Can you imagine a book that claims to convey factual information and data making a terrible factual error in its first paragraph? Let's say we have a book called "101 Facts on Animals" and in the first supposed fact it makes an UNFACTUAL claim. Would you be taking that book seriously anymore or will you consider chucking it in the bin and find other books instead? This is the predicament that Christians face when the claim is made that the Gospel according to Mark is divinely inspired or "god-breathed". At the very beginning of the book and in the first chapter of Mark we have a truly irreconcilable [sic] textual error. (Bold and underline emphasis ours)

After quoting Mark 1:2 Ibn Anwar writes:

I challenge every Christian in the world to show me where I can find in Isaiah the verse "Behold, I am sending my messenger before your face, who shall prepare your way". Believe me when I say that not even the Pope can help you here. That is because the verse does not exist in Isaiah, although you can actually find it in the Old Testament. To be more specific it is in the Torah. To be even more specific it is in Exodus! The words are different but the meaning is basically the same.

If Ibn Anwar was honest and truly interested in finding an answer to this alleged discrepancy all he had to do was consult some Biblical commentaries which would have provided him with the data to understand what Mark was doing here. In fact he could have found the answer on our site since we have addressed this assertion before, namely in response to another Muslim polemicist named MENJ.

The fact of the matter is that it is Ibn Anwar who is ignorant, not Mark, and he is the one who has made a gross blunder by erroneously assuming that Mark was mistaken since this exposes his ignorance of the Jewish exegetical practices employed during the time of Christ.

It was a common practice amongst the Jews to take citations from different biblical writings – especially when such references touched on similar themes or ideas and/or used the same words – and attribute them to a single author. The rabbis even coined a term for this particular method of exegesis, namely gezera shewa.

Ibn Anwar has no excuse for not being aware of this information since this is common knowledge to NT scholars, whether liberal or conservative. Case in point, liberal NT scholar John C. Fenton refers to this Jewish practice in his commentary on Matthew 2:5-6 where the passage attributes Micah 5:2 and 2 Samuel 5:2 to the Prophet Micah:
 
“The prophecy is from Mic. 5.2, but it is not given in the LXX translation, nor is it an exact rendering of the Hebrew text, 2 Sam 5.2 may have been combined with the Micah prophecy; combining of similar Old Testament passages WAS A REGULAR FEATURE OF RABBINIC STUDY OF THE SCRIPTURES.” (Fenton, Saint Matthew (The Penguin New Testament Commentaries) [Penguin Books, 1963], p. 46; bold and capital emphasis ours)

Noted Evangelical NT scholar Robert H. Gundry makes the same point in reference to Matthew 27:9-10 where Matthew combines and attributes specific texts from Jeremiah and Zechariah to Jeremiah:
 
“… The naming of Jeremiah but not Zechariah not only follows a Jewish practice in composite quotations and makes mention of the prophet to whose writing a reader’s mind might not be drawn because of the subtlety of the allusion (in contrast with the obviousness of the other side of the quotation–see esp. 2 Chr 36:21 with Lev 26:34-35 and Jer 25:12; 29:10)…” (Robert H. Gundry, Matthew: A Commentary on His Handbook for a Mixed Church under Persecution [William. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., Grand Rapids, MI; 2 edition, October 1995], p. 557; bold emphasis ours)

Another Evangelical NT scholar also refers to this in his explanation of Mark 1:2-3 and Matthew 27:9-10:

1:2-3. Jewish teachers often combined several texts or parts of texts, especially if they had a key word or words in common (here, “prepare the way”). Because they were so well learned in the Scriptures, they did not have to say which texts they were quoting and often assumed the context without quoting it. Thus Mark cites both Isaiah (40:3) and Malachi (3:1) here, although he mentions Isaiah only. Isaiah refers to preparing the way for God, who is coming to restore his people. Malachi refers to God coming in judgment to set matters straight among his people. Mark applies these texts about God to Jesus. (Craig S. Keener, The IVP Bible Background Commentary: New Testament[InterVarsity Press, Downers Grove, Il.; February 1994], p. 135; underline emphasis ours)

And:

27:9-10. Jewish scholars could cite some texts while simultaneously alluding to others. Matthew here quotes Zechariah 11:12-13, but by attributing it to Jeremiah he also alludes to a similar text that he wishes his more skillful readers to catch (Jer 32:6-10; cf. 19:1-4, 10-11). (The quotation I almost verbatim, and it is unlikely that Matthew would have known the text so well and yet attributed it accidentally to the wrong author, unless he is using a list of standard messianic proof texts instead of citing directly from Zechariah, or he is purposely “blended” texts, as I suggest here). Zechariah 11:12-13 refers to the low valuation God’s people had placed on him; they valued him at the price of a slave (Ex 21:32). (Ibid., p. 125)

Finally,
 
“By appealing to ‘Jeremiah’ rather than to Zechariah, however, Matthew makes clear that he intends his biblically literate audience to link analogus passage in Jeremiah (32:6-14) and to interpret them together (as in the gezerah shewa of Mk 1:2-3, which Matthew recognizes and modifies in Mt 3:3) …” (Keener, A Commentary on the Gospel of Matthew [William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, July 1999], p. 675; bold emphasis ours)

Moreover, Matthew and Mark weren’t the only writers who employed this method since the NT writers often used this practice of combining Biblical passages that used identical words or phrases to explain one another.

2:33-35. Jewish interpreters often linked texts using the same word or phrase (the principle was called gezerah shavah). Peter thus introduces Psalm 110:1, a clearly messianic passage that includes “right hand” and speaks of exaltation just as Psalm 16 does … (Ibid., p. 329)

And:

13:35-37. Rabbis used a technique to connect passages that used the same key word; thus here Paul may use “holy” in Isaiah 55:3 to lead into a citation of Psalm 16:10, which guarantees that the object of David’s promise would never rot (Ibid., p. 360 – see also pp. 420, 422, 712, 653)

Now the readers may be wondering what connection does Isaiah 40:3 and Malachi 3:1 have with each other which led Mark to combine them together. Their connection lies in the fact that both texts speak of Yahweh sending a herald, a messenger, to announce and prepare for his appearance. (It should be stated that, as even Ibn Anwar correctly noted, Mark has also added language from Exodus 23:20 where Yahweh tells the Israelites that he will send his messenger/angel ahead of them to guide them into the promise land. The connection between this text and the other two is found in regards to Yahweh sending a messenger.)

As the following Bible commentators explain:
 
“John’s status as the one who prepares the way for the Messiah is certified by a collage of three Old Testament verses (Exod. 23:20; Mal. 3:1; and Isa. 40:3). The fact that the composite quotation is attributed to Isaiah is to be regarded as due not to ignorance but to emphasis; the evangelist is suggesting that the allusions to Exodus and Malachi are best understood in the light of Isaiah’s prophecy; the Messenger promised in Exodus and Malachi is none other than the one whose voice is heard crying in the wilderness.” (Douglas R. A. Hare, Mark (Westminster Bible Companion) [Westminster John Knox Press, Louisville, Kentucky; 1st edition, 1996], p. 14; bold emphasis ours)

And:

2-3 The citation formula, “even as it is written in Isaiah the prophet,” indicates that the proper context for understanding the gospel is the promise of future salvation found in the latter half of Isaiah. The citation which follows is a composite quotation from Ex. 23:20; Mal. 3:1 and Isa. 40:3, passages which evoke the image of the forerunner Elijah. In the exegetical tradition of the rabbis these texts had already been combined in the conviction that the “messenger of the covenant” (Ex. 23:20) is Elijah (Mal. 3:1; 4:5).²⁵ Mark’s first statement is from the Law, and it agrees verbatim with the text of Ex. 23:20 in the Septuagint. It is enriched by a formulation originating in the Hebrew text of Mal. 3:1, although the first person has been altered to the second in the interest of the messianic interpretation of the passage. This fused text may have been selected from a testimony-collection in which the conflation had already taken place. The second statement introduces a word from the Prophets, and agrees with Isa. 40:3 LXX, with the single alteration of “the paths of God” to “his paths.” By this change the text becomes applicable to Jesus, who was known in the early church as “the Lord.”

The integrity of the mixed citation in Ch. 1:2 has often been questioned. It fails to satisfy the formulation of citation which specifies “the prophet Isaiah” but agrees in form with a quotation introduced in a different context by Matthew and Luke. For these reasons it is commonly regarded as a very ancient gloss, interpolated into the text at so early a stage that it has left its mark upon the entire manuscript tradition. Opposed to this conjecture is not merely the consistent witness of the manuscript tradition, which lends no textual support to the omission of verse 2, but the important fact that the three OT passages, blended in this fashion, are all related to the wilderness tradition and have a significant function in the prologue itself. Ex. 23:20 contains God’s promise to send his messenger before the people on a first exodus through the wilderness to Canaan. In Isa. 40:3 the messenger announces the second exodus through the wilderness to the final deliverance prepared for God’s people. In both the citation from the Law and from the Prophets the theme of an exodus through the wilderness is dominant and appropriate to Mark’s conception and purpose. The blended citation functions to draw attention to three factors which are significant to the evangelist in the prologue: the herald, the Lord and the wilderness. In the verses which immediately follow, the significance of each of these elements is emphasized by Mark, who sees in the coming of John and Jesus to the wilderness the fulfillment of the promised salvation of which the prophet Isaiah had spoken. In stressing the element of fulfillment at the beginning of his account Mark conforms the narrative to the apostolic preaching, in which the theme of fulfillment was of strategic importance. The authenticity of verse 2 should be accepted. (William L. Lane, The Gospel according to Mark: The English Text With Introduction, Exposition, and Notes (The New International Commentary on the New Testament) [William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company; 2nd edition, June 1974], pp. 45-47; underline emphasis ours)

²⁵ Cf. Exodus Rabba 23:20. The identical words, “Behold, I send my messenger,” in Ex. 23:20 and Mal. 3:1 furnished the exegetical ground of the conflation. (Ibid., p. 45)

Again:
 
“The quotation of 1:2-3 is identified as coming from the prophet Isaiah, although it is actually a tapestry of three OT passages. The reference to the sending of the messenger in v. 2 follows the first half of both Exod 23:20 and Mal 3:1, although there is no exact counterpart in the OT to the latter half of v. 2 (‘who will prepare your way’). The greater part of the tapestry comes from v. 3, which reproduces Isa 40:3 nearly exactly. Isa 40:3 is quoted by all four Gospels with reference to John the Baptist (Matt. 3:3; Mark 1:3; Luke 1:76; John 1:23). The Isaiah quotation in v. 3 was deemed the defining element of the tapestry of quotations. Thus, the whole is attributed to Isaiah, who was considered the greatest of all the prophets, and whose authority in the early church superseded that of both Exodus and Malachi.” (James R. Edwards, The Gospel According to Mark. (The Pillar New Testament Commentary) [William B. Eerdman's Publishing Company, Grand Rapids, MI 2002], pp. 26-27; bold emphasis ours)

Finally:

2-3 This is essentially a combined quotation of Mal. 3:1 (with elements drawn from Ex. 23:20) and Is. 40:3, the whole being attributed to Isaiah presumably because the better-known Isaiah text, even though coming second, was the basis of the herald idea which links the two. Once the two texts are brought together, it is natural that Mal. 3:1 opens the combined quotation, not only because the opening ‘idou could hardly come in the middle but also because the idea of God’s appointed herald is more explicit in Mal. 3:1, while the more allusive language of Is. 40:3 forms an appropriate comment on it. We do not know of these two passages being brought together previously, but it is a natural link, not only on the basis of the phrase pnh-derek which occurs in both, but also because they share more generally (with Mal. 3:23-24 [EVV 4:5-6]) the idea of a herald for the eschatological coming of God. Matthew and Luke, by incorporating the Mal. 3:1 quotation in their later account of the significance of John (Mt. 11:10; Lk. 7:27) while leaving Is. 40:3 at this point, have weakened the effect of this massive opening scriptural salvo.

Once Ex. 23:20 has been linked with Mal. 3:1 (see below) there is also a wilderness connection in each passage, which in this context would be important for Mark …

Ex. 23:20 is a prophecy not of God’s eschatological coming but of his provision for Israel in the wilderness, but the similarity in wording led to the two passages being associated in Jewish exegesis, and the wilderness connection (picked up in the following quote in Is. 40:3) would make the conflation especially attractive to Mark in context… (R. T. France, The Gospel of Mark: New International Commentary on the Greek Testament [William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company; 2nd Print edition, February 2002], pp. 63-65; underline emphasis ours)


The Lord Jesus Christ – The Visible Yahweh has come!

In his haste to discredit Mark’s reliability Ibn Anwar failed to mention how Mark’s prologue presents Jesus as the visible appearing of Yahweh God. Notice the context of Mark 1 carefully:
 
“The beginning of the gospel about Jesus Christ, the Son of God. It is written in Isaiah the prophet: ‘I will send my messenger ahead of your face, who will prepare your way’— a voice of one calling in the desert, “Prepare the way for the Lord, make straight paths for him.”’And so John came, baptizing in the desert region and preaching a baptism of repentance for the forgiveness of sins. The whole Judean countryside and all the people of Jerusalem went out to him. Confessing their sins, they were baptized by him in the Jordan River. John wore clothing made of camel's hair, with a leather belt around his waist, and he ate locusts and wild honey. And this was his message: ‘After me will come one more powerful than I, the thongs of whose sandals I am not worthy to stoop down and untie. I baptize you with water, but he will baptize you with the Holy Spirit.’ At that time Jesus came from Nazareth in Galilee and was baptized by John in the Jordan. As Jesus was coming up out of the water, he saw heaven being torn open and the Spirit descending on him like a dove. And a voice came from heaven: ‘You are my Son, whom I love; with you I am well pleased.’” Mark 1:1-11

By quoting Malachi 3:1 and Isaiah 40:3 in order to introduce John as the forerunner whom the prophets said would come Mark pretty much identifies Jesus as the God of the OT

According to both of these OT texts that Mark cited Yahweh would send a herald to prepare the people for his arrival:
 
“Comfort, comfort my people, says your God. Speak tenderly to Jerusalem, and proclaim to her that her hard service has been completed, that her sin has been paid for, that she has received from the hand of Yahweh double for all her sins. A voice of one calling: ‘In the desert prepare the way for Yahweh; make straight in the wilderness a highway for our God. Every valley shall be raised up, every mountain and hill made low; the rough ground shall become level, the rugged places a plain. And the glory of Yahweh will be revealed, and all mankind together will see it.’… You who bring good tidings to Zion, go up on a high mountain. You who bring good tidings to Jerusalem, lift up your voice with a shout, lift it up, do not be afraid; say to the towns of Judah, ‘Here is your God!’ See, the Lord (adonay) Yahweh comes with power, and his arm rules for him. See, his reward is with him, and his recompense accompanies him. He tends his flock like a shepherd: He gathers the lambs in his arms and carries them close to his heart; he gently leads those that have young.” Isaiah 40:1-5, 9-11
 
“‘See, I will send my messenger, who will prepare the way before my face. Then suddenly the Lord (ha adon) you are seeking will come to HIS temple; the messenger of the covenant, whom you desire, will come,’ says Yahweh of hosts.” Malachi 3:1

These passages clearly testify that Yahweh himself was going to appear to his people and enter into his own temple.

This means that John the Baptist is the voice that cries out and the messenger whom God sends to prepare the way for Yahweh’s very own appearing.

However, the Baptist himself says that he was sent to prepare for the coming of the Lord Jesus Christ, a fact which all the Gospels are in agreement:
 
“In the fifteenth year of the reign of Tiberius Caesar—when Pontius Pilate was governor of Judea, Herod tetrarch of Galilee, his brother Philip tetrarch of Iturea and Traconitis, and Lysanias tetrarch of Abilene — during the high priesthood of Annas and Caiaphas, the word of God came to John son of Zechariah in the desert. He went into all the country around the Jordan, preaching a baptism of repentance for the forgiveness of sins. As is written in the book of the words of Isaiah the prophet: ‘A voice of one calling in the desert, “Prepare the way for the Lord, make straight paths for him. Every valley shall be filled in, every mountain and hill made low. The crooked roads shall become straight, the rough ways smooth. And all mankind will see God's salvation.”’ … The people were waiting expectantly and were all wondering in their hearts if John might possibly be the Christ. John answered them all, ‘I baptize you with water. But one more powerful than I will come, the thongs of whose sandals I am not worthy to untie. He will baptize you with the Holy Spirit and with fire. His winnowing fork is in his hand to clear his threshing floor and to gather the wheat into his barn, but he will burn up the chaff with unquenchable fire.’” Luke 3:1-6, 15-18 – cf. Matthew 3:1-15
 
“The Word became flesh and made his dwelling among us. We have seen his glory, the glory of the One and Only, who came from the Father, full of grace and truth. John testifies concerning him. He cries out, saying, ‘This was he of whom I said, “He who comes after me has surpassed me because he was before me.”’ John 1:14-15
 
“Now this was John's testimony when the Jews of Jerusalem sent priests and Levites to ask him who he was. He did not fail to confess, but confessed freely, ‘I am not the Christ.’ They asked him, ‘Then who are you? Are you Elijah?’ He said, ‘I am not.’ ‘Are you the Prophet?’ He answered, ‘No.’ Finally they said, ‘Who are you? Give us an answer to take back to those who sent us. What do you say about yourself?’ John replied in the words of Isaiah the prophet, ‘I am the voice of one calling in the desert, “Make straight the way for the Lord.”’ Now some Pharisees who had been sent questioned him, ‘Why then do you baptize if you are not the Christ, nor Elijah, nor the Prophet?’ ‘I baptize with water,’ John replied, ‘but among you stands one you do not know. He is the one who comes after me, the thongs of whose sandals I am not worthy to untie.’ This all happened at Bethany on the other side of the Jordan, where John was baptizing. The next day John saw Jesus coming toward him and said, ‘Look, the Lamb of God, who takes away the sin of the world! This is the one I meant when I said, “A man who comes after me has surpassed me because he was before me.” I myself did not know him, but the reason I came baptizing with water was that he might be revealed to Israel.’ Then John gave this testimony: ‘I saw the Spirit come down from heaven as a dove and remain on him. I would not have known him, except that the one who sent me to baptize with water told me, “The man on whom you see the Spirit come down and remain is he who will baptize with the Holy Spirit.” I have seen and I testify that this is the Son of God.’ The next day John was there again with two of his disciples. When he saw Jesus passing by, he said, ‘Look, the Lamb of God!’” John 1:19-36

What this shows is that Jesus is Yahweh God according to all four Gospels!

Notice the logic behind this.
- The Prophets announced that Yahweh would send a herald ahead of him in order to prepare for his appearance.
- Both the Lord Jesus and all four Gospel writers testify John the Baptist was that herald (cf. Matt. 11:1-10; Luke 7:18-27).
- The Baptist’s advent meant that Yahweh would soon appear to his people.
- However, according to the Baptist’s own testimony he was sent to prepare the way for the Lord Jesus Christ.
- This means that Jesus Christ is none other than Yahweh God, the very Lord whom the Prophets said would come to his people and enter into his own temple!

No wonder Ibn Anwar tried to discredit the testimony of Mark! He realizes that Mark’s Gospel, along with the rest of the NT writings, affirms that Jesus Christ is the unique Divine Son of God who died for our sins and rose again on the third day. Ibn Anwar knows that Mark’s witness conclusively proves that Muhammad was a false prophet who has misled countless numbers of people away from the true God and deceived them into believing a false gospel that will condemn them for all eternity.

We pray that our risen Lord Jesus will have mercy on Muslims such as Ibn Anwar by bringing them out of the lie of Islam and into the glorious light of his true Gospel.

Continuing on Part II

Source: http://answering-islam.org/authors/shamoun/rebuttals/zaatari/mark_isaiah_attribution.html

IHS

The Arrogance and Ignorance of Bassam Zawadi, Part II

Exposing More of Zawadi’s Gross Blunders and Mistakes

Sam Shamoun

Continuing from Part I

More of Zawadi’s gross blunders and blatant inconsistencies
To make matters worse Zawadi’s “reply” to Dr. White contradicts what he had written in response to Christian apologist David Wood concerning the Bible prophesying the advent of Muhammad:

The Qur'an EXPRESSLY STATES THAT BOTH THE OLD AND NEW TESTAMENTS contain references to Muhammad:

Those who follow the Messenger, The unlettered Prophet, Whom they find mentioned In their own (Scriptures) - In the Law and the Gospel?... It is they who will prosper. (Qur'an 7:157)^[2]

And remember, Jesus, The son of Mary, said: "O Children of Israel! I am the messenger of Allah (Sent) to you, confirming The Law (which came) Before me, and giving Glad Tidings of a Messenger To come after me, Whose name shall be Ahmad [i.e. Muhammad]." (Qur'an 61:6) (Rebuttal to David Wood's Article "Muhammad in the Bible?: An Analysis of the Muslim Appeal to Biblical Prophecy"; bold and capital emphasis ours)

By citing Q. 7:157 Zawadi has not only identified and equated the Torah with the Old Testament he has further confirmed that the Gospel which the Quran mentions is actually the New Testament which Christians possess!

Notice Zawadi’s words carefully here. He does not argue that the Quran claims that the “original” Torah and Gospel contain predictions of Muhammad. Zawadi clearly says the Islamic scripture affirms that there are predictions of Muhammad in the Old and New Testaments! This means that when Zawadi goes on to write the following right afterwards,

I want to make it clear from the beginning what Muslims actually believe. We believe that Muhammad was predicted in the original Torah and Gospel revealed to Moses and Jesus respectively. Some of these prophecies happened to remain preserved and found their way into the Bible, which also contains much falsehood according to Islamic teachings.

He is merely contradicting himself. Zawadi must either accept that the Quran is identifying the Old and New Testaments as the Torah and the Gospel respectively, or must face the fact that he is grossly mistaken and made a huge blunder by saying that the Quran testifies that the Old and New Testaments contain predictions of Muhammad. After all, if the Torah and the Gospel are not the Old and New Testaments then this means that the Quran says absolutely nothing about Muhammad being predicted in the books that are found within these two Testaments.

But it gets worse for Zawadi since he also writes:

The book of Acts is not the Gospel, thus I don't know how it is relevant to the discussion [sic]. Secondly, the verse itself does not clearly indicate that what is promised to come (The Comforter) is the Holy Spirit that they will be baptized with.

However, if Acts isn’t the Gospel then why did Zawadi mention the New Testament when quoting Q. 7:157 which refers to the unlettered Prophet that is announced in the Gospel? Isn’t Acts part of the New Testament? And if the New Testament is the Gospel mentioned in Q. 7:157 then surely Acts must be considered the Gospel as well according to Zawadi’s own argument!

So which is it? Which position of Zawadi’s should we believe? Should we accept his assertion that the Quran expressly states that both the Old and New Testaments mention Muhammad, which means that the Quran is equating these Scriptures with the Torah and the Gospel? Or should we believe that the Old and New Testaments are not the “original” Torah and Gospel revealed to Moses and the Lord Jesus? Can Zawadi ever make up his mind and stop contradicting himself as often as he does?

More importantly, how can he attack Dr. White on a point that he himself agrees with since Zawadi himself identifies the Torah and Gospel as the Old and New Testaments (even though this was clearly a huge blunder on his part, one which cost him dearly)? According to Zawadi’s own criterion doesn’t this prove that he is downright arrogant and rather ignorant since he, like White, inadvertently identified the Torah as the Old Testament and the Gospel as the New Testament?

The Holy Bible has a few words to say to people like Zawadi who, in their arrogance, think that they are actually offering a meaningful rebuttal to the arguments of their opponents:
 
“When pride comes, then comes dishonour, but with the humble is wisdom.” Proverbs 11:2
 
“Pride goes before destruction, And a haughty spirit before stumbling.” Proverbs 16:18
 
“Before destruction the heart of man is haughty, But humility goes before honor. He who gives an answer before he hears, It is folly and shame to him.” Proverbs 18:12-13
 
“A man who hardens his neck after much reproof Will suddenly be broken beyond remedy… A man's pride will bring him low, But a humble spirit will obtain honor.” Proverbs 29:1, 23

It has been clear to us that Zawadi simply doesn’t want to accept reproof and refuses to learn from all the countless times that we have exposed his inability to comprehend his opponent’s arguments as well as his blatant willingness to distort the facts to suit his purpose. This is why Zawadi is constantly getting embarrassed because, as the Holy Scriptures say, the risen and immortal Lord will expose and humble such arrogant and stubborn persons who refuse to submit to his Word.

Lord Jesus willing, there will be further rebuttals to Zawadi’s inconsistencies, distortions and lies to follow shortly.

OPEN CHALLENGE: WE CHALLENGE ZAWADI TO PRODUCE ONE SINGLE VERSE FROM THE ENTIRE QURAN WHERE IT SAYS THAT ALLAH REVEALED THE TORAH TO MOSES. WE WOULD LIKE FOR HIM TO SHOW US A SINGLE PLACE WHERE HIS "HOLY" BOOK SAYS THAT MOSES RECEIVED THE TORAH.

Related Articles
http://answering-islam.org/Responses/Meherally/bible.htm
http://answering-islam.org/Responses/Meherally/bible2.htm
http://answering-islam.org/Responses/Meherally/bible_r1.htm
http://answering-islam.org/Responses/Meherally/bible_r2.htm
http://answering-islam.org/Responses/Meherally/bible_r3.htm
http://answering-islam.org/Responses/Meherally/taurat.htm
http://answering-islam.org/Responses/Meherally/taurat_challenge.htm

Appendix

Zawadi has produced an appendix to his initial article in order to interact with my criticisms.

Zawadi starts out by raising a red herring since he asserts that I ignored all the “crystal clear statements” which he thinks illustrates that James White is ignorant concerning basic matters about Islam. The problem with this claim is that my purpose wasn’t to address all of Zawadi’s false accusations in this particular rebuttal since that will come later if the Lord Jesus wills. The point of this specific response was to show how Zawadi committed a blunder regarding what the Quran says concerning the revelation of the Torah and that he was wrong for attacking Dr. White’s integrity and character. Since Zawadi acknowledges that he made a mistake and candidly admits that the Quran never says that the Torah was given to Moses this means that by the sovereign grace of the Triune God I successfully established what I had set out to prove.

Now the honest person would have left it at that and retracted his attack against Dr. White, at least in regards to this point. However, Zawadi can’t leave well enough alone and feels the need to save face by coming up with some excuse justifying his gross blunder. Zawadi appeals to what he had written elsewhere regarding how the Quran uses the terms Torah and the Gospel in order to show that he is fully aware that the Islamic scripture applies these terms in reference to the Old and New Testaments:

The main problem with Christians who put forth these arguments is that they fail to identify and understand how the Qur'an uses the terms 'Torah' and 'Gospel' in the Qur'an. When the Qur'an talks about the Torah and Gospel, one of its intentions is to speak about the original revelations sent to Moses and Jesus peace be upon them both respectively. Sometimes the Qur'an or authentic hadith MIGHT APPEAR to be speaking about the Torah and Gospel, which Jews and Christians refer to.

For example, when I debate the topic 'Did Jesus Claim Divinity' with Christians, I usually issue this challenge 'Show me where Jesus claimed divinity in the Gospel'. Now, my intention here is that I am referring to the Gospel referred to by Christians and that is the combined four gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John. However, my intention is not to state that this is the actual Gospel that God revealed to Jesus peace be upon him. So the word is used in different contexts and Christians fail to identify this when it comes to studying the Qur'an and authentic hadith. (Refuting The Argument Regarding The Qur'an Ordering The Jews And Christians To Judge By Their Scriptures; capital emphasis ours)

Doesn’t Zawadi realize that this only provides further evidence that he is inconsistent and dishonest? Doesn’t he see that this simply demonstrates that he contradicted himself since he obviously forgot what he had written in his previous articles?

Notice once again his assault against Dr. White:

This is a joke, where does the Qur'an say that the Torah is the Old Testament law? The Qur'an said that the Torah was revealed to Moses. How could the Old Testament law have been revealed to Moses when even many conservative evangelical scholars even admit that Joshua contributed to it?

Zawadi chides Dr. White for stating that the Quran uses the word Torah for the Old Testament Law, going so far as to call what he said a joke! But seeing that Zawadi admits that the Torah in the Quran can mean and does refer to the Old Testament why then did he take Dr. White to task? Why did he insult Dr. White and call his statements a joke?

The reason is clear. Zawadi forgot what he had written and thought he had caught Dr. White in a mistake and in his arrogance went on the attack. Little did he realize that this blunder would come back to bite him and expose his intellectual ineptness.

Moreover, in the same paragraph where he admits that he was mistaken Zawadi comes up with another excuse to justify his gross blunder:

As for Shamoun's second question, I will have to admit that I made a mistake when I said that the Qur'an says that the Torah was revealed to Moses. Sometimes as a Muslim I mistakenly say "Qur'an" instead of "Islam". Islamic teachings consist of both the Qur'an and the authentic hadeeth.

The problem with this assertion is that Dr. White said nothing about “Islam,” i.e. the Quran AND the authentic hadiths, identifying the Torah as the Old Testament Law. Dr. White explicitly stated that the Quran says that God sent down the Torah, which he then identified as the Old Testament Law. So if Zawadi meant that it is the so-called authentic hadith which asserts that the "original" Torah was revealed to Moses then he had no business to attack Dr. White since the latter wasn’t speaking of the ahadith.

Besides, as we demonstrated in this very rebuttal even these allegedly sound narratives identify the Torah in the possession of the Jews at Muhammad’s time as the very revelation which God gave to Moses! And since the only Torah which these Jews had at that time is the very Pentateuch or the first five books of the Old Testament which we currently possess this means that Dr. White was right!

As if Zawadi couldn’t make it any worse for himself he goes on to attack a straw man and in so doing only further embarrasses himself. He mentions that Ibn Kathir claimed that the story of Adam in the Old Testament was false and deceptive in order to show that this renowned Muslim expositor believed that these Scriptures were corrupt and unreliable. He then argues that the Salaf didn’t believe that the two Testaments were the Torah revealed to Moses!

As anyone who has actually taken the time to read my article carefully can testify I said absolutely nothing about the Salaf believing that the two Testaments were the revelation given to Moses, nor did I ever claim that Ibn Kathir viewed the Old Testament as completely reliable. My only point in referencing them was to establish that the word Torah is not limited to the revelations which Moses received since the first generation of Muslims used it to refer to the other inspired Books that God had sent down.

In fact, Zawadi himself admits as much since he later writes:

Hence, they had no problem in recognizing that the word Torah could in certain contexts refer to the original revelation sent to Moses AND IN OTHER CONTEXTS REFER TO THE OLD AND NEW TESTAMENTS. (Emphasis ours)

Therefore, since Zawadi acknowledges that the early Muslims would refer to both the Old and New Testaments as the Torah this means that he was wrong for attacking Dr. White since it turns out that the latter was right after all. The simple matter is that it was Zawadi who was grossly mistaken.

Zawadi then quotes specific narratives from al-Bukhari which speak of Allah revealing the Torah to Moses so as to prove that the early Muslims and Islamic scholars were aware of these hadiths and therefore knew that the Torah was given to Moses. Seeing that I never contested this fact this further shows that Zawadi is doing nothing more than attack a straw man again.

Zawadi needs to face the music and accept the fact that he is not qualified to defend Islam or criticize the arguments of his opponents. Zawadi is simply doing more harm than good by producing articles that are filled with logical fallacies, gross misrepresentations of sources, outright distortions of facts, and major blunders which result in serious embarrassment for his fellow Muslims and his religion. If Zawadi really loves Islam then he should stop producing articles that only hinder the Islamic cause since his “replies” demonstrate why Islamic apologetics are intellectually bankrupt and dishonest. His arguments go a long a way in demonstrating why any serious student of truth should never be a follower of the false prophet Muhammad but should actually be repulsed by the Muslim god and the vile and immoral teachings of this wicked false religion.

Source: http://answering-islam.org/authors/shamoun/rebuttals/zawadi/ignorance_arrogance.html

IHS

The Arrogance and Ignorance of Bassam Zawadi, Part I

Exposing More of Zawadi’s Gross Blunders and Mistakes

Sam Shamoun

Muslim dawagandist Bassam Zawadi has written an article where he pretty much attacks the character of Reformed Christian scholar and apologist Dr. James R. White. Zawadi insults White by calling him both arrogant and ignorant. However, a careful analysis of Zawadi’s article actually proves the exact opposite and demonstrates that Zawadi will not hesitate to distort the facts in order to serve his agenda of discrediting the opposing view in order to prevent Muslims from ever seriously considering what the other side has to say. In logic this is called ad hominem attacks and poisoning the well, fallacies that Zawadi has perfected.

In his “rebuttal” Zawadi chides Dr. White for asserting that the Quran claims that the Torah which God sent down is the Old Testament Law.

James White in his video entitled Shirk: A Basic Definition said:

But according to the Qur'an God sent down the Torah and the Injeel. The Torah, the Old Testament law. The Injeel, the Gospel. (Time Slice: 3:10-3:16)

This is a joke, where does the Qur'an say that the Torah is the Old Testament law? The Qur'an said that the Torah was revealed to Moses. How could the Old Testament law have been revealed to Moses when even many conservative evangelical scholars even admit that Joshua contributed to it? (The Arrogance and Ignorance of James White)

In the above quoted statement, James White does not say that the Quran says the Torah is the OT Law, and the Injil the Gospel. That is merely his explanation for the uninitiated listeners as to what these words refer. The Quran simply uses the words and assumes familiarity with these terms.

Even if Zawadi thinks that White is wrong to equate them, Zawadi is twisting White’s words, since White did not say, in this sentence, that the Quran said this verbatim. So Zawadi’s personal attack is totally unfounded here.

In fact, Dr. White went on to inform his audience that Muslims will deny that the Quran refers to the Old and New Testaments and demonstrates why they are mistaken:
 
“Now Muslims today will argue, ‘Well that doesn’t mean, that’s not the same thing as what you have today.’ I don’t think they have any basis for doing that. It seems very, very clear that Muhammad knew of the New Testament, he knew of the Old Testament. He just couldn’t read it! He didn’t know what was in it! But he did say that Allah had nuzul, he had sent down those books and, in fact, he told us to believe them! He told us to test him by them! Which that’s what I do, and sometimes they get upset when you do that. But that’s what you have do. And so he believed, Muhammad believed that God had sent down the Torah and the Injil, and so you have the people of the Book who have a special place, uh, over against the standard pagans and the polytheists.”

And if a person that is making a claim about the Quran which this book doesn’t explicitly contain implies that the claimant is ignorant and arrogant then this applies to Zawadi since in actuality the Quran never once says that the Torah was given to Moses. Instead, the Quran says that Allah gave Moses the Book which is never once identified as the Torah.

This is a point which even Muslims agree with. For instance, in his comments on Q. 5:44 the late Rashad Khalifa wrote:

*5:44 The Torah is a collection OF ALL THE SCRIPTURES revealed through all the prophets of Israel prior to Jesus Christ, i.e., TODAY’S OLD TESTAMENT. NOWHERE in the Quran do we find THAT THE TORAH WAS GIVEN TO MOSES. (Source; capital emphasis ours)

Appealing to the Holy Bible won’t help Zawadi since according to the inspired Scriptures, specifically the NT writings, the word Torah or “Law” is used for writings other than those of Moses’, just as the following verses prove.
 
“Jesus answered them ‘Has it not been written in your LAW, I said you are gods?’” John 10:34

In this verse Jesus cites Psalm 82:6 and calls it the Law.
 
“The crowd spoke up, ‘We have heard from the LAW that the Christ will remain forever, so how can you say, “The Son of Man must be lifted up?” Who is this Son of Man?’” John 12:34

There is no reference in Moses’ writings which teach that the Christ remains forever. The only places one finds such indications are Psalm 110:1,4, Isaiah 9:6-7 and Daniel 7:13-14. The Jews were evidently using “Law” to refer to the OT in general.
 
“But this is to fulfill what is written in their LAW: ‘They hated me without reason.’” John 15:25

Jesus calls Psalms 35:19 and 69:4 the Law here.

Paul does something similar in Romans 3:10-19 where he refers to what is written in the Law but then cites Psalms 5:9, 10:7, 36:1, 14:1-3, 51:4, 53:1-3, 59:7-8, 140:3 and Ecclesiastes 7:20.

He also does this in the following example:
 
“In the LAW it is written: ‘Through men of strange tongues and through the lips of foreigners I will speak to this people, but even then they will not listen to me,’ says the Lord.” 1 Corinthians 14:21

The other problem with appealing to the Holy Bible is that the inspired Scriptures clearly identify the Pentateuch, or the first five Books of the OT, as the Torah or Law which God gave to Moses:
 
“Yet he did not put the sons of the assassins to death, in accordance with what is written in the Book of the Law of Moses where the LORD commanded: ‘Fathers shall not be put to death for their children, nor children put to death for their fathers; each is to die for his own sins.’” 2 Kings 14:6
 
“And the Levites carried the ark of God with the poles on their shoulders, as Moses had commanded in accordance with the word of the LORD.” 1 Chronicles 15:15
 
“Then Jehoiada placed the oversight of the temple of the LORD in the hands of the priests, who were Levites, to whom David had made assignments in the temple, to present the burnt offerings of the LORD as written in the Law of Moses, with rejoicing and singing, as David had ordered.” 2 Chronicles 23:18
 
“So the king summoned Jehoiada the chief and said to him, ‘Why have you not required the Levites to bring in from Judah and Jerusalem the tax levied by Moses, the servant of the LORD, and the congregation of Israel for the tent of testimony?’ For the sons of Athaliah, that wicked woman, had broken into the house of God, and had also used all the dedicated things of the house of the LORD for the Baals. So the king commanded, and they made a chest and set it outside the gate of the house of the LORD. And proclamation was made throughout Judah and Jerusalem to bring in for the LORD the tax that Moses the servant of God laid on Israel in the wilderness.” 2 Chronic. 24:6-9
 
“‘Stand in the holy place with a group of Levites for each subdivision of the families of your fellow countrymen, the lay people. Slaughter the Passover lambs, consecrate yourselves and prepare the lambs for your fellow countrymen, according to the word of the LORD commanded through Moses.’ Josiah provided for all the lay people who were there a total of thirty thousand sheep and goats for the Passover offerings, and also three thousand cattle—all from the king's own possessions. His officials also contributed voluntarily to the people and the priests and Levites. Hilkiah, Zechariah and Jehiel, the administrators of God's temple, gave the priests twenty-six hundred Passover offerings and three hundred cattle. Also Conaniah along with Shemaiah and Nethanel, his brothers, and Hashabiah, Jeiel and Jozabad, the leaders of the Levites, provided five thousand Passover offerings and five hundred head of cattle for the Levites. The service was arranged and the priests stood in their places with the Levites in their divisions as the king had ordered. The Passover lambs were slaughtered, and the priests sprinkled the blood handed to them, while the Levites skinned the animals. They set aside the burnt offerings to give them to the subdivisions of the families of the people to offer to the LORD, as is written in the Book of Moses. They did the same with the cattle. They roasted the Passover animals over the fire as prescribed, and boiled the holy offerings in pots, caldrons and pans and served them quickly to all the people. After this, they made preparations for themselves and for the priests, because the priests, the descendants of Aaron, were sacrificing the burnt offerings.” 2 Chronicles 35:5-14
 
“Then Jeshua son of Jozadak and his fellow priests and Zerubbabel son of Shealtiel and his associates began to build the altar of the God of Israel to sacrifice burnt offerings on it, in accordance with what is written in the Law of Moses the man of God.” Ezra 3:2
 
“Then I said: ‘O LORD, God of heaven, the great and awesome God, who keeps his covenant of love with those who love him and obey his commands, let your ear be attentive and your eyes open to hear the prayer your servant is praying before you day and night for your servants, the people of Israel. I confess the sins we Israelites, including myself and my father's house, have committed against you. We have acted very wickedly toward you. We have not obeyed the commands, decrees and laws you gave your servant Moses. Remember the instruction you gave your servant Moses, saying, “If you are unfaithful, I will scatter you among the nations, but if you return to me and obey my commands, then even if your exiled people are at the farthest horizon, I will gather them from there and bring them to the place I have chosen as a dwelling for my Name.”’” Nehemiah 1:5-9
 
“On the second day of the month, the heads of all the families, along with the priests and the Levites, gathered around Ezra the scribe to give attention to the words of the Law. They found written in the Law, which the LORD had commanded through Moses, that the Israelites were to live in booths during the feast of the seventh month and that they should proclaim this word and spread it throughout their towns and in Jerusalem: ‘Go out into the hill country and bring back branches from olive and wild olive trees, and from myrtles, palms and shade trees, to make booths’-as it is written.” Nehemiah 8:13-15
 
“On that day the Book of Moses was read aloud in the hearing of the people and there it was found written that no Ammonite or Moabite should ever be admitted into the assembly of God, because they had not met the Israelites with food and water but had hired Balaam to call a curse down on them. (Our God, however, turned the curse into a blessing.) When the people heard this law, they excluded from Israel all who were of foreign descent.” Nehemiah 13:1-3
 
“A man with leprosy came to him and begged him on his knees, ‘If you are willing, you can make me clean.’ Filled with compassion, Jesus reached out his hand and touched the man. ‘I am willing,’ he said. ‘Be clean!’ Immediately the leprosy left him and he was cured. Jesus sent him away at once with a strong warning: ‘See that you don't tell this to anyone. But go, show yourself to the priest and offer the sacrifices that Moses commanded for your cleansing, as a testimony to them.’ Instead he went out and began to talk freely, spreading the news. As a result, Jesus could no longer enter a town openly but stayed outside in lonely places. Yet the people still came to him from everywhere.” Mark 1:40-45
 
“And he said to them: ‘You have a fine way of setting aside the commands of God in order to observe your own traditions! For Moses said, “Honor your father and your mother,” and, “Anyone who curses his father or mother must be put to death.”’” Mark 7:9-11
 
“Jesus then left that place and went into the region of Judea and across the Jordan. Again crowds of people came to him, and as was his custom, he taught them. Some Pharisees came and tested him by asking, ‘Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife?’ ‘What did Moses command you?’ he replied. They said, ‘Moses permitted a man to write a certificate of divorce and send her away.’ ‘It was because your hearts were hard that Moses wrote you this law,’ Jesus replied. ‘But at the beginning of creation God “made them male and female.” “For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh.” So they are no longer two, but one. Therefore what God has joined together, let man not separate.’” Mark 10:1-9
 
“Then the Sadducees, who say there is no resurrection, came to him with a question. ‘Teacher,’ they said, ‘Moses wrote for us that if a man's brother dies and leaves a wife but no children, the man must marry the widow and have children for his brother. Now there were seven brothers. The first one married and died without leaving any children. The second one married the widow, but he also died, leaving no child. It was the same with the third. In fact, none of the seven left any children. Last of all, the woman died too. At the resurrection whose wife will she be, since the seven were married to her?’ Jesus replied, ‘Are you not in error because you do not know the Scriptures or the power of God? When the dead rise, they will neither marry nor be given in marriage; they will be like the angels in heaven. Now about the dead rising—have you not read in the book of Moses, in the account of the bush, how God said to him, “I am the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob”? He is not the God of the dead, but of the living. You are badly mistaken!’” Mark 12:18-27
 
“On the eighth day, when it was time to circumcise him, he was named Jesus, the name the angel had given him before he had been conceived. When the time of their purification according to the Law of Moses had been completed, Joseph and Mary took him to Jerusalem to present him to the Lord (as it is written in the Law of the Lord, ‘Every firstborn male is to be consecrated to the Lord’), and to offer a sacrifice in keeping with what is said in the Law of the Lord: ‘a pair of doves or two young pigeons.’” Luke 2:21-24
 
“Moses describes in this way the righteousness that is by the law: ‘The man who does these things will live by them.’ But the righteousness that is by faith says: ‘Do not say in your heart, “Who will ascend into heaven?”’ (that is, to bring Christ down) ‘or “Who will descend into the deep?”’ (that is, to bring Christ up from the dead). But what does it say? ‘The word is near you; it is in your mouth and in your heart,’ that is, the word of faith we are proclaiming:” Romans 10:5-8
 
“Again I ask: Did Israel not understand? First, Moses says, ‘I will make you envious by those who are not a nation; I will make you angry by a nation that has no understanding.’” Romans 10:19
 
“Do I say these things on human authority? Does not the Law say the same? For it is written in the Law of Moses, ‘You shall not muzzle an ox when it treads out the grain.’” 1 Corinthians 9:8-9
 
“Now if the ministry that brought death, which was engraved in letters on stone, came with glory, so that the Israelites could not look steadily at the face of Moses because of its glory, fading though it was, will not the ministry of the Spirit be even more glorious? If the ministry that condemns men is glorious, how much more glorious is the ministry that brings righteousness! For what was glorious has no glory now in comparison with the surpassing glory. And if what was fading away came with glory, how much greater is the glory of that which lasts! Therefore, since we have such a hope, we are very bold. We are not like Moses, who would put a veil over his face to keep the Israelites from gazing at it while the radiance was fading away. But their minds were made dull, for to this day the same veil remains when the old covenant is read. It has not been removed, because only in Christ is it taken away. Even to this day when Moses is read, a veil covers their hearts. But whenever anyone turns to the Lord, the veil is taken away.” 2 Corinthians 3:7-16

In the above references all of the following passages are ascribed to Moses: Exodus 3; 12; 13:2,12; 20:12; 21:17; 24-32:16; 34; Leviticus 3; 12:8; 14:2-32; 18:5; 20:9; 23:33-44; 26:33; Numbers 1:47-54; 4:1-15; 7:9; Deuteronomy 5:16; 12:5-6; 16:1-7; 24:1-4, 16; 23:3-5; 25:5-10; 30:1-4, 12-14; 32:21.

Thus, the NT ascribes Mosaic authorship to four of the five books of the Pentateuch, namely Exodus, Leviticus Numbers, and Deuteronomy.

Zawadi cannot therefore appeal to the Holy Bible to prove that the Torah was given to Moses when he rejects what that Torah is according to the inspired Scriptures of God.

Turning to the hadith literature for help isn’t any better since the ahadith employ the term Torah for all of the inspired Scriptures, not just to the Book of Moses. Here is what Ibn Kathir wrote in regards to Q. 7:157:

… Ibn Jarir recorded that Al-Muthanna said that `Ata' bin Yasar said, “I met `Abdullah bin `Amr and asked him, `Tell me about the description of Allah's Messenger in the Tawrah.' He said, `Yes, by Allah! He is described in the Tawrah, just as he is described in the Qur'an …
 
(O Prophet! Verily, We have sent you as a witness, and a bearer of glad tidings, and a warner.) [33:45] as a safe refuge for the unlettered ones. “You are My servant and Messenger. I have called you ‘Al-Mutawakkil’ (who trusts in Allah), not hard or harsh.' Neither uttering foul speech in the markets nor returning evil deed with one in kind. Rather, he forgives and forgoes. Allah will not end his life until He straightens through him the crooked religion, so that they might proclaim, ‘There is no deity worthy of worship except Allah.’ He will open through him sealed hearts, deaf ears and blind eyes.”’’ `Ata' then said, “I also met Ka`b and asked him the same question, and his answer did not differ from `Abdullah's answer, even concerning one letter.” Al-Bukhari recorded it from 'Abdullah bin 'Amr. It was also recorded by Al-Bukhari [up to the word] forgoes. And he mentioned the narration of 'Abdullah bin 'Amr then he said: “It was COMMON in the speech of our Salaf that they describe the Books of the People of the Two Scriptures AS THE TAWRAH, as some Hadiths concur. Allah knows best.” (Tafsir Ibn Kathir (Abridged), Volume 4, (Surat Al-Ar'af to the end of Surah Yunus), abridged by a group of scholars under the supervision of Shaykh Safiur-Rahman Al-Mubarakpuri [Darussalam Publishers & Distributors, Riyadh, Houston, New York, Lahore; First Edition: May 2000], p. 179 ; bold and capital emphasis ours)

Ibn Kathir writes elsewhere,

And it should be recognized that many of our forebears used to apply the word “Torah” to the books of the peoples of the scriptures. These are in their view more comprehensive than those God revealed to Moses. This fact is attested from the hadith. (The Life of the Prophet Muhammad (Al-Sira al-Nabawiyya), translated by professor Trevor Le Gassick, reviewed by Dr. Ahmed Fareed [Garnet Publishing Limited, 8 Southern Court, south Street Reading RG1 4QS, UK; The Center for Muslim Contribution to Civilization, 1998], Volume I, p. 237; bold and underline emphasis ours)

These quotes from Ibn Kathir prove that Zawadi is not a true Salafi since he contradicts the teachings of the Salaf. He only pays lip service to what the so-called rightly guided predecessors believed and practiced.

This, perhaps, explains why the following translator of the English version of Sahih al-Bukhari included the words Old Testament within parentheses next to the word Torah in the following narration:

Narrated Ata bin Yasar: I met Abdullah bin ‘Amr bin Al-‘As and asked him, “Tell me about the description of Allah's Apostle which is mentioned in Torah (i.e. Old Testament)." He replied, “Yes. By Allah, he is described in Torah with some of the qualities attributed to him in the Quran as follows: ‘O Prophet! We have sent you as a witness (for Allah's True religion) and a giver of glad tidings (to the faithful believers), and a warner (to the unbelievers) and guardian of the illiterates. You are My slave and My messenger (i.e. Apostle). I have named you “Al-Mutawakkil” (who depends upon Allah). You are neither discourteous, harsh Nor a noise-maker in the markets And you do not do evil to those Who do evil to you, but you deal With them with forgiveness and kindness. Allah will not let him (the Prophet) Die till he makes straight the crooked people by making them say: “None has the right to be worshipped but Allah,” with which will be opened blind eyes and deaf ears and enveloped hearts.’” (Sahih al-Bukhari, Volume 3, Book 34, Number 335)

The translator knew that in this particular context Torah could not be a reference to Moses’ Book and, since he was a Salafi Muslim who knew what the Salaf taught, he could see that Abdullah was clearly using it in relation to the other prophetic writings found in the Old Testament.

This same translator, in the comments to Q. 7:157 found in the English version that he and another Salafi scholar produced, states that,
 
(1) (V. 7:157) There is in the Taurat (Torah) and the Injeel (Gospel), even after the original text has been distorted, clear prophecies indicating the coming of Prophet Muhammad, e.g. Deut. 18:18, 21:21; Psl. 118:22-23; Isa. 42:1-13; Hab. 3:3-4; Matt. 21:42-43; Jn. 14:12-17, 26-28, 16:7-14. (Dr. Muhammad Taqi-ud-Din Al-Hilali and Dr. Muhammad Muhsin Khan, Interpretation of the Meanings of the Noble Qur’an in the English Language From Surah 6 to 9 [Darussalam Publishers & Distributors, Riyadh, Lahore, Houston and New York], Part 2, p. 221)

Thus, not only do these two Salafi scholars equate the Torah with the Psalms, Isaiah and Habakkuk they even identify Matthew and John as the Gospel!

Thankfully, not all modern Muslims try to distort the truth like Zawadi. The late Muslim translator T.B. Irving was honest enough to realize that the Torah could refer not only to the books of Moses but also to the rest of the prophetic writings. In his English version of the Quran Irving even translated the word Torah as Old Testament:

We had Jesus, the son of Mary, follow in their footsteps in order to confirm what had come before him from the Torah and We gave him the Gospel which contains guidance and Light, to confirm what he already had in the Old Testament (al-Taurat), and as guidance and a lesson for those who do their duty. S. 5:46 T. B. Irving

God has bought up their persons and their property from believers, so they may have the Garden [instead). They fight for God's sake; they kill and are killed as a rightful promise from Him [to be found] in the Old Testament (al-Taurat), the Gospel and the Quran. Who is more Trustworthy with His word than God? ... S. 9:111 Irving

So Jesus the son of Mary said: “Children of Israel, I am God's messenger to you, confirming whatever came before me in the Testament (al-Taurat) and announcing a messenger coming after me whose name will be Ahmad." Yet when he brought them explanations, they said: "This is sheer magic!” S. 61:6 Irving

Those who are laden with the Old Testament (al-Taurat), yet do not carry it out may be compared to a donkey who is carrying scriptures. S. 62:5 Irving

The other problem Zawadi faces by appealing to the ahadith is that according to these sources Muhammad believed and honored the Torah in the possession of the Jews of that time:

… Abu Dawud recorded that Ibn `Umar said, “Some Jews came to the Messenger of Allah and invited him to go to the Quff area. So he went to the house of Al-Midras and they said, ‘O Abu Al-Qasim! A man from us committed adultery with a woman, so decide on their matter.’ They arranged a pillow for the Messenger of Allah and he sat on it and said…

<<Bring the Tawrah to me.>> He was brought the Tawrah and he removed the pillow from under him and placed the Tawrah on it, saying…

<<I TRUST YOU and He Who revealed it to you.>> He then said …

<> So he was brought a young man… and then he mentioned the rest of the story that Malik narrated from Nafi`.” These Hadiths state that the Messenger of Allah issued a decision that conforms with the ruling in the Tawrah, not to honor the Jews in what they believe in, for the Jews were commanded to follow the Law of Muhammad only. Rather, the Prophet did this because Allah commanded him to do so. He asked them about the ruling of stoning in the Tawrah to make them admit to what the Tawrah contains and what they collaborated to hide, deny and exclude from implementing for all that time. They had to admit to what they did, although they did it while having knowledge of the correct ruling… (Tafsir Ibn Kathir, Q. 5:41; bold, capital and underline emphasis ours)

Zawadi has desperately tried weaken the reliability of this particular narrative but to no avail since even one of Zawadi’s premiere Salafi scholars and student of the so-called renowned Shaykh of Islam Ibn Taymiyyah, namely Ibn Qayyim al-Jawziyyah, mentioned this very same narration in his Ighathat Al Lahfan, Volume 2, p. 351:

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

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

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

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

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

Abu Dawud narrated in his collection that Ibn Umar said:

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

The scholars said: if the Torah was corrupted he would not have placed it on the pillow and he would not have said: I believe in you and in the one who revealed you. This group of scholars also said: Allah said:
 
“And the word of your Lord has been accomplished truly and justly; there is none who can change His words, and He is the Hearing, the Knowing.”

And the Torah is Allah’s word. (Bold and underline emphasis our)

In light of the foregoing, it is apparent that Muhammad truly believed in the inspiration and reliability of the Torah which the Jews of his time possessed. And seeing that the Torah which Muhammad’s Jewish contemporaries were reading is the same as what we currently possess this means that Muhammad basically confirmed the Holy Bible that we have today!

To see more of our rebuttals to Zawadi’s failed attempts of refuting the fact that Muhammad confirmed the Holy Bible we recommend consulting the articles found in this link.

There you will find our replies to Zawadi where we expose his deliberate mishandling and gross distortions of scholars and sources, as well as documenting his gross misunderstanding of what these references say and his severe inability to see their implications.

Continues on Part II

Source: http://answering-islam.org/authors/shamoun/rebuttals/zawadi/ignorance_arrogance.html

IHS