Muslim Apologists, Q, and the New Testament

Here is a trend that I’ve noticed among Muslim apologists.  They say that the New Testament is corrupted because it has late manuscripts, many variants, and other problems.  Most can’t back this statement up.  All Muslim apologists that I know who have gone the textual criticism route have abandoned it as they’ve realized it’s a dead end.  Well, everyone except the infamous Ijaz Ahmad who was recently exposed for doxxing and using racial slurs against a Christian apologist.  It should be noted that Ahmad has come out with material in regards to the crucifixion of Christ.  I will be getting to that in my upcoming posts. 

Now, Ijaz Ahmad, Shabir Ally and others like to quote the authority of Q.  What is Q?  It’s the material that is common to Matthew and Luke but not in Mark.  I’ve recently watched a few old debates on certain topics between Christians and Muslims.  Every single time the Muslim has cast doubt on the New Testament but is happy to quote the authority of Q.  A bit ironic.

The New Testament is the best attested document from the ancient world.  No other document comes close.  Muslim apologists have never studied the textual reliability of other ancient documents apart from the New Testament so they don’t know this.  They haven’t studied the writings of Cicero, the history of Polybius or things like that.  It’s the New Testament and only the New Testament.

However, let us ask ourselves how many manuscripts we have for Q?  We have zero manuscripts from Q.  Zero!  There isn’t a single manuscript of Q on the planet.  Oh well, to be fair not every book from antiquity has survived.  Still, pretty pathetic textual evidence.  In addition to this there isn’t a single mention of this document from antiquity.  Q is a modern word but it would have had another name.

Here is an example from the Ijaz Ahmad vs. Stephen Atkins debate on the crucifixion.  I have the time stamp at the ready.  Ahmad said that the earliest document is the Q document.  That’s a lie.  There is no Q document.  The fact that Ahmad and other Muslim apologists quote this fake document with authority of shows that their attacks on the New Testament based on textual criticism are worthless at worst and dishonest at best.

Q is a fraud.  There is no Q and there never has been.  My question for Muslim apologists is this.  Why do you trust a document with no historical references and no manuscripts while condemning the best attested document(or collection of documents) from the ancient world?