Also from Answering Christianity:
"The “miracles” attributed to Paul are myths, based on hearsay, not eyewitnesses (who are they?). But the Hadith (based on eyewitnesses) narrates the Holy Prophet did over 300 miracles. The Hadith are based on isnad (chain of narrators) yet the Gospels have no isnad."
Here is a fine example of the mediocrity of Islamic apologetics (of course there is plenty of Christian apologetics that is mediocre). I mean, really, this is anachronism at the worse. Isnaad refers to the links show in that various hadiith are valid. John said that Jim said that Abdullah said that he heard Muhammad say... That is how the hadiith all begin. And is that not entirely "hearsay"? I mean, Isnaad IS hearsay, and nothing more.
Of course there is no need for isnad with Acts. The claim of Acts is that it is written by Luke, who saw these things personally and knew Paul personally. That seems pretty straight forward and, um, more convincing than, five or six people saying they heard it from someone else. But Islam is never wrong and never open to criticism.
Even reason must submit.
