Nadir Ahmed's "Acid Test" Tested and Refuted

Now, moving on inside chapter 48 verse 29, the Qur 'an presents an acid test.

This is a test to show if the Bible has been corrupted or not. It says over there, inside chapter 48 verse 29,

But their description in the Injil and the Gospel is like a sown seed which send forth its shoots, then makes it strong, then it becomes thick, and it stands straight on its stem, delighting the sower that he may enrage the disbelievers therein.

So what the Qur 'an here is saying is that this verse is supposed to be in the Injil. So an uncorrupted

Bible is supposed to have this verse. So I would like Sam Shimon to come up and show me where this verse is in the

Bible. Because the Qur 'an says this is supposed to be in the Injil, which is, of course, the revelation given to Jesus.

And I don't think he will be able to find it. The closest you're going to find, I think, is

Mark 27. I'm sorry, chapter 4 verse 27. And that is, but yet, it's not the same.

And when Sam Shimon will read the verse, you'll see this is not the same. Therefore, we see that the

Bible fails this acid test of the Qur 'an, leaving the reader with no other conclusion other than that the

Bible has been corrupted. Let's see what else did he say here. Chapter 48 verse 29. He said, yep, it is there.

Read chapter 4 verse 27 of Mark. It is different. It is not the same. And it talks about, in fact,

I have the, where is the verse? It says, For the earth bringeth forth fruit of herself, the blade and the ear.

The blade and the ear is the only thing which match. And then full corn of ear. But when the fruit is brought forth, immediately he put it in the sickle.

The Qur 'an says nothing of this. We see here that the Bible fails the

Qur 'an's acid test. We do not find this verse in the Bible at all, which proves beyond a reasonable shadow of doubt that the

Bible has been corrupted because a pure and authentic Bible will have this verse. Let's take a look at what the

Qur 'an actually says here. And let's examine what Nader Ahmed is actually alleging.

Let's look first at the text. From Surah 48, verse 29. Muhammad is the apostle of Allah, and those who are with him are strong against unbelievers, but compassionate amongst each other.

Thou wilt see them bow and prostrate themselves in prayer, seeking grace from Allah and his good pleasure.

On their faces are their marks, being the traces of their prostration.

This is their similitude. The term is mafluhum, in the Torah. And their similitude, again the same term, in the

Gospel is like a seed which sends forth its blade, then makes it strong. It then becomes thick, and it stands on its own stem, filling the sowers with wonder and delight.

As a result, it fills the unbelievers with rage at him. Allah has promised those among them who believe and do righteous deeds forgiveness and a great reward.

Now let's consider the context of this particular surah and this particular ayah.

You had a treaty that takes place. It is worked out in 6AH.

You may recall that Muhammad was bringing pilgrims to Mecca, but they're not allowed in.

A treaty is worked out, and though some people were upset with this, Muhammad receives this revelation calling it a great victory.

And in this particular revelation, you have praise of Muhammad, and you have praise of his companions.

Now the early Islamic interpreters consistently identify the text as referring to personal traits of Muhammad and the companions relating to prayer, relating to prostration, relating to special holiness.

And that fits with the context that we have given the historical setting.

Now the following early authoritative sources contain no reference whatsoever to any concept of textual corruption in the part of the

New Testament on the basis of this text, which, as I point out, is Nader Ahmed's primary reading of this text.

Notice, for example, that that is not the viewpoint taken in Sahih al -Bukhari. This is not the viewpoint taken in Sahih al -Muslim.

And so the Hadith sources do not record Muhammad even interpreting this particular text in that way.

Then we go beyond that. We go to some of the early interpreters, the Tafsir al -Tabari. Here the

Tafsir al -Tabari, this very large work I even brought to the debate

I had with Nader Ahmed, the Arabic of al -Tabari. Should he raise this issue?

Nothing in al -Tabari that is supportive of Nader Ahmed's interpretation. The same thing with Tafsir al -Qurtabi.

You don't have anything in al -Qurtabi either. Instead you have an expansion upon this same kind of interpretation that refers us back specifically to the companions and to these parables in regards to their holiness, their prayers, their prostration, things like this.

There's nothing in the Arabic text that indicates the presence of an actual citation.

In fact, the specific term we looked at before, mafluhum, appears twice, once in reference to the

Torah, and once in reference to the Injil, the Gospel. Now if the reference to the mafluhum in the

Injil introduces a citation, then why doesn't the same form introduce a citation from the

Torah? But clearly there is no citation from the Torah at all. There is just no way to view it in this fashion.

The fact is the text has nothing to do with the New Testament at all. It is a paraphrase of a parable used by the

Quran to praise the Prophet and his companions. There is no reason whatsoever to believe the original author was seeking to directly cite a never -before -seen version of the

New Testament. Nader Ahmed's interpretation is not substantiated by the Arabic, by the context, by the background, or by the early interpretation of Muslim scholarship itself, and therefore should be rejected.

Instead, given the wide and ancient attestation of the Gospel of Mark, remember that the burden of proof is on the one alleging corruption to provide historical evidence beyond the very dubious interpretation of a document written 600 years later in a land far away in a completely different language.