28 replies

  1. Paul

    This converted2islam guy seems fluent in arabic and so he can verify whether Smith’s claims are true or not.

    Is your arabic up to scratch to refute these claims?


    • Ismaa’eel Abu Adam is not ‘fluent’ in Arabic, he can only read the arabic Qur’an with ḥarakāt which is minimum requirement for any muslim but he does not seem to be able speak the language (be it the fusha or any arabic dialect) nor understand the grammar of classical arabic. Thats explains why sometime ago he has aspired to pursue education in the university in the holy city of Madinah but not accepted most likely because he did not pass minimum arabic language and Holy Qur’an memorisation skills required. He was never a graduate from any reputable Islamic institutions.

      Liked by 1 person

    • Eric

      Could you produce some evidence for your claim? Do you have transcripts of his educational background, what courses he took, his level of competence?

      Have you met the guy in person? And discussed his proficiency in arabic?

      If not, then I can only assume you are maligning someone you don’t know, for malicious reasons.

      All of that is besides the point though – the question is, does Paul have the necessary proficiency in arabic to dispute or refute the claims being made?


    • Dirtbag: the question is, does Paul have the necessary proficiency in arabic to dispute or refute the claims being made?

      Paul doesn’t need to have proficiency in Arabic. All he needs to do is read the current mainstream scholarship on the Qur’an.

      Liked by 2 people

    • You dont need to meet person in public, Ismaeel has produced lots of videos and I have watched him speaking in those videos, as a person who knows the language and has learnt from genuine Islamic scholars who are fluent in Arabic , trust me I can instantly recognise those who truly posses proficiency in arabic and who does not.

      Liked by 1 person

    • D
      Christians from Russia are slaughtering civilians in Syria. Time for you to distance yourself from your brothers in faith, don’t you think?


    • D

      You said;


      August 9, 2016 • 3:49 am th


      This converted2islam guy seems fluent in arabic and so he can verify whether Smith’s claims are true or not.

      Is your arabic up to scratch to refute these claims?

      I say;
      Reading some Arabic does not make one fluent in Arabic especially the classical Arabic of the Quran. Most Muslims read Arabic like the guy but do not consider themselves fluent in Arabic. Every Muslim is required to read some Arabic and that is why there is Islamic school in addition to traditional schools.

      Most Muslims have their children learn some Arabic to start with their religion but are not considered fluent or scholars until they spend years in universities and with known scholars learning Islam and or Arabic to be able to interpret the Quran.

      Jay Smith, Samuel Green and now this guy boasts of knowing Arabic but I can produce videos that they were challenged to read and interpret Arabic and they claimed they lied and could not read the Quran.

      The guy just like Jay Smith and Samuel Green can learn some Arabic and try to challenge Islam but a real person fluent in Arabic and or Islamic religion will quickly identify his mistakes.

      D and some Christians who are not knowledgeable will take Jay Smith, Samuel Green and now this guy as Islamic and Arabic scholars who are fluent in the religion and the Arabic but they are not.



    • Just to be clear here because I hate for bad arguments to be deployed regardless of their origin (Muslim or Christian).

      Isma’eel Abu Adam doesn’t have bad arabic, it was clear that he took his religion seriously when he practiced it for he went out and obtained arabic to a semi-decent level, including pronunciation. In order to get into Medina University, one doesn’t need arabic…many get in without knowing it and are sent into a two year intensive course. As for his current status, he clearly reminds of someone who has issues with his former faith and holds the view that the ends justify the means…the means sadly being the propagation of any argument against Islam no matter how weak. His citation of works like Ibn Ishaq is evidence of that fact since no Muslim (himself included) ever utilises that as a source without recourse to establishing its authenticity externally. None-the-less, he has raised issues which did require attention and explanation (Slave girls) and thankfully our Scholars are waking up to the fact that they need to articulate that and have started responding.

      Admittedly Smith’s lack of arabic wouldn’t be an issue if he were citing a renowned academic who had raised this issue as a problem to the thesis that the Qur’an is inaccurately preserved due to the multiple readings. His lack of arabic is an issue at the moment as he is functioning as the sole source of a claim that there has been a grand conspiracy.

      Of course, genuine scholarship is more than aware of these multiple readings and any Muslim who was shocked by it is either a really poor Da’ee (and no wonder they could leave Islam because they are propagating without reference back to Scholarship) or an ignorant person who has received a decent wake up call.

      I’d like to highlight that Smith has stated in the video (the link) I posted below that despite butchering the names, and apologising to native arabic speakers for his being an American and Hatun being turkish that he can none-the-less read Arabic (if not pronounce it). I have no idea why Christians make these claims (He is joined by Nabeel Qureshi who claims to use the term ‘Allah’ when ‘speaking arabic’ in his book on Jihad) when they aren’t true and I pray that our Christian readers will be willing to admit that this is not right when we confront Jay and ask him to read some arabic for us (We will excuse bad pronunciation).

      Liked by 1 person

    • Salam, Aspiring Student,

      We do not say that Ismaa’eel Abu Adam has bad Arabic, but he is far from ‘fluent’ in Arabic as a christian commenter here suggest. He is not a Sheikh nor he has a degree from a reputable Islamic Institution, so it is ironic to me that christians seems to glorify him as if he is an Islamic scholar, while he definitely is not.

      I have no doubt he might have tried to seriously study Islam and Arabic before, but the fact has not never accepted or finished education in Madinah while he aspired to become graduate to the university there must be due to failing to pass the preparatory language I’dad al-Lughawy or pre university foundation Takmily which require certain proficiency in Arabic and minimum number of ajzāʼ memorization of the Qur’an.

      Liked by 1 person

  2. How ironic that you trinitarians are supporting and promoting a guy who does not believe in the trinity and in fact laughs at the trinity!!! Keep it up. One day he’ll probably turn on you too. Just like shamoun’s one time buddy farhan qureshi!! Hope you enjoy the part where he specifically calls calvinism a CANCER! He even mentions james white by name. LOL!!

    Liked by 1 person

  3. I bet shamoun is really regretting sucking up to farhan! Hey sammy, how’s it feel to have your best bud call your religion a CANCER!!!! Bet you wish you never had him on your show!! Just think how many christians farhan’s converted to universalism!!! And you gave him a platform to do this!!!! LOL!! I think that that’s called ‘poetic justice’

    Liked by 2 people

  4. “Ismaa’eel Abu Adam aka ‘Converted2Islam’ ” ???

    Serious problem of identity. Borderline?

    Liked by 1 person

  5. Hey sammy, paulus, D??? No reply??!! Nothing to say??!! No opinions about farhan comparing calvinism to CANCER? Nothing to say about james white as the calvinist ‘salafi’!! Hey white (I know you come on this blog!), how do you feel being compared to a ‘salafi’??
    Just to be clear, i don’t agree with farhan. I don’t believe salafis are a cancer. And i don’t believe salafism promotes violence, it’s much more nuanced than that simplistic explanation. The reason why i have posted these 2 videos by farhan is to show these gullible calvinists that the people you promote and ‘big up’ today ( like neil littlejohn ) are likely to rub your face in the mud tomorrow (like farhan). So beware!!!

    Liked by 1 person

  6. In this newer ridiculous link, Jay and Hatun start trying to speak in further depth about internal differences between the varying recitation styles. It is hilarious because the group of Arabs who sent it to them from Australia have had to even write the names of the recitations in English as despite being in this field for 25 years, Jay still can’t read arabic script (although he has previously claimed to know Qur’anic Arabic years ago).

    I’d like to remind everyone that Jay only has this information because Muslims publish and print these Qur’ans for all to see, including the Qur’ans which highlight all variants within a single codice and margin and even those which highlight variants which are not preserved through the 10 readings but in Hadith and Exegetical Literature (Mu’jam al-Qira’at al-Qur’aniyyah for example).

    For me this issue highlights how ignorant one can really be because Jay seems to have been unaware of these recital variants until now despite having engaged with Muslims for two decades. More importantly, is he unaware that Islamic theology far from discounting these multiple readings has always embraced them as being divinely inspired.

    People may not like what Islamic theology teaches, but it teaches what it teaches. It always has done and even a Western academic from Stanford University analysed the transmission of traditions attributed to the Prophet Muhammad discussing the concept of the Seven Modes of Recitation and concluded that an isnad-cum-matn approach would lead one to believe they are early first century transmissions.

    Far from being information that Muslims conceal, one even finds the following information in English:





    Dr. James White often points out validly that Muslims who know nothing about the Greek of the New Testament (Koine) ought not to chip in with their own analysis of issues (external to the citation of Scholars who do know the greek), I agree with his approach on this and believe that he ought to consistently condemn a pair of patronising trouble makers who have to read some transliterated notes and butcher the words despite claiming to be working at the forefront of counter-Islamic polemics.

    On a final note, I keep seeing that Patrick is being very vocal and provocative in the comments of these videos, I’m shocked at the double persona that some of these folks have. I’ll personally be having a little chat with Patrick on Sunday because these discussions are very above his pay grade and normally he has the decency to admit it, but online he acts like someone who is concerned and read about textual preservation. (None of Smith’s crew other than Syd has ever picked up a textual criticism book in their life.)

    Liked by 3 people

    • Good comment. I’ve been viewing Paul’s Hyde park vids as well. The simple fact is that in our case we’re talking about multiple readings. They all constitute the quran. All of the minor differences between them are equally valid, believed to be revealed, can be recited in prayers. They’re all Qur’an; they are all believed to have been taught by Muhammad ( saw ).

      This is radically different from the New Testament. Here we have variant readings which emerged in the copying process – mostly unintentional scribal errors but some intentional scribal changes as well. Therefore, textual critics try to ascertain the most likely earliest reading, separating these from the likely scribal introductions to the text.

      The quranic mss also contain scribal errors (I’m now talking about something different from multiple accepted readings). These are few, restricted to manuscripts and identifiable. They’re all scribal errors – unintentional; things like spelling mistakes, forgetting to copy a word or a line, or writing something twice by mistake. People who copy texts by hand make errors and mistakes.

      In the case of the NT, however, we’ve got a few cases of deliberate alterations of the text which do significantly affect the meanings and have exegetical significance.

      But even more importantly than this, while the text of the NT can be argued to be generally well preserved in most places, it is its historical reliability which is most questionable and which creates problems. Hence the mess known as the Historical Jesus Research.

      Liked by 4 people

    • Exactly,

      This is why we don’t have Muslim scholars obsessing over creating a Stemma or bashing their heads into walls over the concept of an Original text which is impossible to reconstruct or speak of, unlike their colleagues in the realm of N.T Textual Criticism. The very fact that the exegetical literature preserves the non-Multiple reading (Canonical Qira’at) variants ascribed to Companions and Successors (2nd Generation Muslims) demonstrates just how honest and central the doctrine of the Ahruf were to Islam that they would make reference to it themselves without hesitation or embarrassment.

      As for scribal errors in Manuscripts, that is a whole different discussion, they can be isolated in cases of meaningful distortion and Muslim and non-Muslim scholars alike have done so. (I’ll note that Azami is very honest about such in his popular book); I would argue they still exist (as non-meaningful scribal flaws) in the canonised Qur’anic Orthography and their existence gives me further confidence in the Oral tradition as none of the readings fell pray to actually following the skeletal text in its deficiencies.

      As for this ridiculous argument about which is in the Eternal Tablets or whether a scribal error debunks the concept of an Eternal Qur’an (It’s literally the equivalent of me arguing that the Pericope Adulterae story’s insertion and omission in recent editions of the N.T has an impact of the ‘Eternal Jesus’ if I use his logic) – I won’t even start addressing it because it highlights that Smith is not only a charlatan in Historiography, Historicism and the Origins of Islam (hence why his Ph.D is now about Karl Pfander and nothing remotely related to Origins of Islam. Kind of like referring to a Muslim as a scholar on Christianity for doing a Ph.D on Zakir Naik….) but a failure in Theology as well; someone unable to distinguish between the usage of terms in one context and what they mean in another. I hope that the Pfander Centre for Apologetics try to publish this work in a peer-reviewed (non-Missionary) Journal and I’ll let their blind reviewers educate them.

      Liked by 4 people

    • Thanks this response Aspiring Student

      Is anybody going to do a video response from SC or does anybody have a response already done to Jay’s ignorance via an article or vid?

      Liked by 1 person

    • Not to my knowledge. Ijaz is busy in Canada.

      Liked by 1 person

  7. It’s hilarious listening to jay and hatun!! They clearly don’t know what they are talking about!!! LOL

    Btw, the irony of these 2 people with 2 totally different accents, yet nobody would dispute the language and the meaning is the same!! That’s exactly what 7 different ‘dialects’ of the Quran means! Ironically, jay and hatun are demonstrating the very thing they are trying to argue against in this presentation! Brilliant! Alhamdulillah!!

    Liked by 5 people

  8. Yahya,

    >> Is anybody going to do a video response from SC or does anybody have a response already done to Jay’s ignorance via an article or vid?

    I’ve not seen any of the above videos, so apologies if not relevant but hasn’t this already been covered.


    Liked by 2 people

  9. So basically although the Arabic is exactly the same in All copies of the Quran they are claiming they are different because different translators use different English words to make the same point ?? Oh, the desperation is so disturbing with these people.


    • I’m not sure that the Arabic is “exactly the same” in all Qurans. Sometimes the spelling is different and sometimes synonyms are used.


    • yes, so it is like saying “Person A went to to the market” or “Person A went into the market” and a different pronunciation. Its still the exact same meaning and what we get from it is that person A actually went to the market, not person B or person C and they did not go to the mountain but the market. The Quran is the Oral recitation and not the Mushaf (textual form).

      Liked by 1 person

  10. What I find perplexing is the fact that people are still pinning their hopes in finding a faded letter on a manuscript here or a word copied twice there… So by their logic, if I wrote a book about a talking cat and called it the “Quran” would the Christians celebrate and say “yes!! Hallelujah!! the Quran has been changed” is this the level of intellect we are dealing with? Sadly, I think yes. The same goes for books written in the past. Someone could deliberately change things or mistakingly miss a letter somewhere down the line yet we are to believe that this means the Original text is changed or not reliable? The difference here is that Muslims have the Oral/Spoken word memorised and protected. Almost like how on the internet you can save data in so many places it will not matter if a particular part of the web is down. Christians refuse to acknowledge (but they know in their hearts) that you go to any country and a Muslim will recite the Quran for you and they will all be saying the exact same thing.

    Recently I have seen a couple of videos in hyde park corner where a non-Muslim (could be Christian or whatever) says that the only problem they have is that they don’t think the Quran is perfectly preserved. Apart from the fact they mistakenly think that the Mushaif (Book in textual form)is the Quran, I find it rather amusing that at the same time they seem to have no problem with the bible being riddled with corruption, redaction, addition, mistakes. Very peculiar logic, I guess the holy spirit can decipher that one.


  11. ‘Converted2Islam’ might be, like many, going through a phase, or indeed phases. The struggle with Satan is not always in the expected cliches of adultery, gambling, missing prayers etc. It can cause one to doubt previously held (or thought to be) solid convictions. Satan is a mighty enemy and it’s not unusual to see men as if on a roller-coaster in their faith. Up and down, in and out, over and back, confused, and disoriented. Many times we find that these are ‘deep-thinkers’, much too deep for their own welfare, but many times you find they are sincere in their struggles. We wish all men peace of mind.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: