Christ or Muhammad? The Bible or the Qur’an? Jehovah or Allah?

An Introduction to Islam From A Christian Perspective Prepared for Adult Bible Study, Murphy Road Church of Christ, Missouri City, Texas

Gene Mabry 2002

i

Contents Lesson 1 – Introduction........................................................................................................................................................page 1 Lesson 2 – Muhammad, The Last and Greatest Prophet?...................................................................................................page 7 Lesson 3 – Islam’s Holy Book, The Qur’an.......................................................................................................................page 13 Lesson 4 – Major Themes of the Qur’an (1): Allah, The God of Islam.............................................................................page 17 Lesson 5 – Major Themes of the Qur’an (2): Jesus, The Prophets, and Earlier Scriptures................................................page 21 Lesson 6 – Response To Islamic Charges Against The Bible............................................................................................page 27 Lesson 7 – Response to Islamic Charges (2): The Canon of Scripture and the Gospel of Barnabas.................................page 35 Lesson 8 – Major Themes of the Qur’an (3): Death, End Times, Resurrection, Judgment, Hell and Paradise.....page 43

Lesson 9 – Was Jesus Crucified For The Sins Of The World? No, According To Islam................................page 47 Lesson 10 – Evaluation of Islamic Evidences (1): The “Miracle of the Qur’an”............................................page 51 Lesson 11 – Evidences (2): “Modern Discoveries of Science Previously Revealed in the Qur’an”...............page 55 Lesson 12 – Evidences (3): More Modern Discoveries Previously Revealed in the Qur’an.............................................page 61

Lesson 13 – Islamic Evidences (4): The Unity of the Qur’an and the Doctrine of Abrogation.......................page 69 Lesson 14 – Evaluation of Islamic Evidences (5): Did Muhammad Perform Miracles?.................................page 75 Lesson 15 – Muhammad’s Legacy To Women................................................................................................page 79 Lesson 16 – The Islamic Concept of Jihad...................................................................................................... page 85 Appendix – Did Jesus Claim To Be The Son of God? Copyright 2003, by William E. (Gene) Mabry Author’s Note: After an initial charge for one copy, permission is granted to make unlimited copies of this material, provided the copies are given away free of charge. I am thankful to God for the opportunity I had to do this study. May it bring glory to Him, through our Lord Jesus Christ. Corrections or questions should be sent to me at [email protected].

Lesson One Introduction And Overview On September 11, 2001, this country was abruptly awakened to the fact that at least one form of radical Islamic fundamentalism presents a very real threat to our way of life in America. Some would even say that, if left unchecked, this force is a very real threat to Western civilization as we have known it. This form of Islam sees the world as existing in only two divisions – the world of faith in Allah, and the world of unbelief or faith in false gods. “For this kind of Islam, the world and all it contains are destined to become the permanent abode of Allah, and any and all means are justified in achieving this end.”1 On the other hand, many moderate Muslims, especially in this country, say that Islam is a religion of peace, and they claim to be deeply embarrassed by Islamic acts of terror, which in their view, cannot be justified by the Qur’an. The political and military aspects of this problem are being addressed by our government. Christians must pray for our leaders and the leaders of other nations, that peace and security may prevail on the earth (I Tim. 2:1-2). But in any case, the dramatic and tragic events of September 11 should serve to awaken Christians to the spiritual dangers and challenges, as well as opportunities, presented by the rapid growth of Islam and the evident zeal of Muslims, both in this country and around the world. This course will be an introduction to the religion of Islam from a Christian perspective, with a comparison of Islam’s teachings to the teachings of the Bible. We will have a glimpse of the history of Islam, the claims of its prophet, its doctrines, how it uses the Bible to buttress it claims, and also its criticisms of the Bible. Our study will focus especially on those areas in which Islam is a challenge to the faith of Christians, and also those areas in which we might have opportunities to introduce the Truth to Muslims. Note: I will give references in the Qur’an as two numbers, the chapter number followed by a colon, then the verse number. This is similar to the way we identify passages in the Bible, except that instead of the “book, chapter and verse” that we use, it will just be “chapter and verse.” Different translations number the verses in a slightly different way. So if the referenced verse in your translation of the Qur’an doesn’t seem to go with the point I’m making, try reading the verse before or after.) The Rapid Growth of Islam The world population of Muslims grew from about 493 million in 1971 to over 924 million in 1991.2 Today, there are over 1.3 billion Muslims in the world.3 In the last decade especially, the Muslim population of the U.S. has mushroomed. According to one source, in 1990 (the year this congregation was established), there were about 30 mosques in the U.S., but by 2001, there were more than 3,000.4 By 1993, there were more Muslims in the United States than Methodists.5 One reason for the increase is that Muslim nations have a high birth rate. But another reason is that Islam is a very militant, aggressive religion, determined ultimately to be the one and only religion of mankind. Young Muslims have left their home countries and have immigrated to Europe and the U.S. for higher education and economic advantages, and they have brought their religion with them and have worked to spread it. Petroleum dollars have been used by Arab nations to establish Islamic centers and mosques throughout the world,6 and large amounts of literature have been distributed in non-Muslim countries. John Ankerberg and John Weldon, Fast Facts On Islam (Eugene, Oregon: Harvest House, 2001), 10 Ney Rieber, A Resource for the Study of Islam (Fort Worth, Texas: Star Bible Publications, 1993), 3 3 Ankerberg and Weldon, 14 4 Ibid., pg. 13 5 Norman Geisler & Abdul Saleeb, Answering Islam: The Crescent in the Light of the Cross (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 1993), 9 6 The Houston Chronicle (6/23/02, section E, pg. 1) reported that the Ismaili Muslims were to open a new Jamatkhana (place of gathering) in Sugar Land, on 6/24. The center will also house the national offices of the Ismaili Council for the United States. The Ismailis are a relatively small branch of Islam (15 million worldwide), yet 15,000 Ismailis live in the Houston area. 1 2

2

This fast-growing religion is in direct competition with the gospel of Christ (and all other religions) for the minds of those round about us, and of our children and our grandchildren. We need to know something about this religion in order to counteract its influence, and to teach those who have been influenced by it. Some Objectives of Islam7 It is Islam’s goal to become the one, universal religion. The Qur’an claims that Islam is the only religion and way of life that is acceptable to Allah (3:19). It states that Allah’s Messenger (Muhammad) was sent as a universal messenger, to proclaim the Religion of Truth (Islam) over all religions (9:33; 34:28). Just as Christians believe Jesus is the only way to God (Jn. 14:6), so Muslims believe that Islam is the only way to God (5:89). A strict reading of the Qur’an leads many Muslims to the belief that Islam is not compatible with any other form of government, so the creation of an Islamic state, everywhere, is a goal of many Islamic fundamentalists. For example, in Political Theory of Islam, S. Abul A’La Baududi writes that the state is basically the instrument of reform, and must enforce the law of Allah. God alone is the real sovereign, the real lawgiver. All legislation must reflect and enforce the teachings of the Qur’an. If a government disregards the law revealed by God, believers are not obligated to obey that government. He concludes by saying that “...Islam...is the very antithesis of secular Western democracy.” One objective of an Islamic state would be to establish a society based on Islamic morals. That is inferred from verses in the Qur’an such as 3:110 and 22:41. In such a society, not only is every aspect of public life governed by the Qur’an, but every aspect of personal life as well. Tolerance for other viewpoints does not exist in such countries (such as Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, and Iran). An example of what that would mean for Christians is provided by a Pakistani court, in 1992, which ordered the death sentence for the crime of blasphemy for a man professing Christianity, based on the testimony of one Muslim that the man had made insulting, vulgar remarks against Islam and Muhammad. (The case was to be appealed and I do not know the outcome.) It should be noted that radical Muslims believe that if the goals of Islam cannot be achieved by peaceful means, they must eventually be achieved by jihad (holy war). But many Muslims believe this use of jihad is a perversion of Islam. We will study this question in more detail later in the course. Islam’s Challenges to Christians8 Islam challenges one’s faith in Christ and the Bible. According to the Qur’an, Jesus was a prophet to Israel, but not the Son of God; He was just a man. Jesus’ message was supposedly the same as that of Muhammad and every other prophet, i.e., the religion of Islam. Adam, Abraham, and all the Old Testament prophets, were Muslims. The contents of the Bible are a corruption of their message, adding human traditions and pagan philosophies. Furthermore, Jesus did not die on the cross for our sins; in fact, He did not die on the cross at all. In view of these claims, Christians must be “ready to make a defense” (I Pet. 3:15). Islam challenges one’s morality. Islam is in many ways a very strict religion in morals, and in Islamic nations morality is enforced by the state. Many Muslims don’t really comprehend the separation of church and state we have in our country. So because our nation allows such things as pornography, drunkenness and promiscuity, (not to mention flagrant public near-nudity), the general perception is that Christianity allows these things, since we are seen as a “Christian nation.” So to have any influence with Muslims, our manner of life must be noticeably superior to the norm in our country.

7 8

See Rieber, 6-14 Ibid., 16-21

3

Islam challenges one’s concern for the lost. This is true, first of all, because of the influence Islam may have on people who might otherwise be receptive to the gospel. Some of those we would like to see become Christians may become Muslims, if we are not diligent in proclaiming the gospel. But also, the present condition of things challenges our concern for those who are Muslims. Present political and military conditions in the world, especially the inflamed rhetoric and violent actions of radical Muslims, may make it difficult for us to maintain a Christ-like attitude toward Muslims. We must overcome this stumblingblock, and practice love towards all, including Muslims. One way we can love them is by trying to lead them to Christ. Some Basic Beliefs of Islam9 Muslims believe that Islam is the original religion (7:172). They believe that God sent messengers (also known as prophets or apostles) to every nation and/or culture, and that the message of all the prophets was basically the same, namely, Islam. Therefore, all of the prophets were Muslims, including Noah, Abraham, David, Isaiah, John the Baptist, and Jesus (3:83). Muslims therefore claim to believe in and respect all of the prophets. But they also believe that the teachings of all the prophets before Muhammad, were twisted, distorted and perverted by the people who followed them. So, for example, what we have in the Bible is not the pure teaching of Moses and Jesus, but a mixture of some truth with much error. On the other hand, Muhammad was the last and greatest of the prophets, and his revelations have been perfectly preserved in the Qur’an. Whereas other prophets were sent to particular nations or peoples, Muhammad was the universal prophet, sent to bear witness to all the world. The “Five Pillars of Islam” are five prescribed forms of worship. They are: Faith All must confess, “There is no God but Allah, and Muhammad is His prophet.” When one first makes this confession, he becomes a Muslim and is forgiven of his sins. Prayer Five ritual prayers are prescribed each day. On Friday, Islam’s holy day, it is customary to be at the mosque during one of the five times of prayer. The Fast During the month of Ramadan, one must eat no food during daylight hours. Alms This required gift for the poor, called Zakah, or Zakat, is set at 2 ½ percent of all valuables and property that have been held for one year. Pilgrimage At least once in a lifetime each Muslim who is able is required to make a pilgrimage to Mecca, in Saudi Arabia. The obligation is excused for reasons of economics or health, but it means very much to Muslims to make the pilgrimage, and many who are poor will save all their lives to be able to go. The Concept of Worship In Islam there is ritual worship, but there is also non-ritual worship. Actually, Muslims view everything done for the pleasure of Allah (to please Allah), as worship. So the man who puts in an honest day’s work, the wife who does her household duties well, a student who tries his best – if they are doing these things primarily because it is the will of Allah – they are in these activities worshiping Allah. The “Holy Qur’an” (Koran) is believed to be the inspired word of God, revealed to the prophet Muhammad word for word by the angel Gabriel. The Qur’an was originally written in Arabic, and Muslims believe that no translation can completely and perfectly convey the sense of the original. Therefore, the only completely authentic Qur’an is the Arabic version. In fact, the English translation is not really the Qur’an; it is only a translation of the Qur’an. Accordingly, most translations acceptable to Muslims will have the Arabic in a column beside the translation.

9

Ibid., 45-54

4

Muslims believe there were other inspired Scriptures before the Qur’an, such as the Scrolls of Abraham (now lost), the Torah of Moses (corrupted by the Jews), the Psalms of David (corrupted), the O. T. prophets (corrupted), and the gospel of Jesus (corrupted). Muslims consider the Gospel of Barnabas (an apocryphal work most scholars date from the 14th Century) to be the most authentic gospel. Most Muslims do not believe Acts and the epistles were ever authentic Scriptures. A central tenet of Islam is that there is one God, whose name is Allah. The Qur’an mentions the concept of the “Trinity,” calling it blasphemy, and stresses that Jesus was just a mortal man, nothing more than an apostle of Allah (4:171, 5:76). Sources of Authority for the Muslim10 The Qur’an is the highest authority in Islam. The Muslim’s attitude toward the Qur’an is much the same as a Christian’s attitude toward the New Testament. The Hadith is a second important source of authority. A Hadith is an oral tradition, later written down, of something Muhammad supposedly said, or did. It may have been his explanation of a verse in the Qur’an, or something he did that illustrated how one should live (like “approved examples”). The Hadith are appealed to in making applications of the Qur’an. For example, the Qur’an says to pray five times a day, but the details of how to pray are found in the Hadith. There are literally thousands of these traditional accounts, and Islamic scholars differ over which ones are authentic. The Importance of Fairness, Accuracy, and Empathy11 If we wish to influence Muslims with the gospel, it will be helpful to understand that many or most Muslims have a basic hostility toward what they perceive to be Christianity, and any attempt on the part of a Christian to teach a Muslim is viewed as the act of a predator digging its claws into the body of its victim (aggression). Muslims generally are very suspicious of the “People of the Book” (Jews or those professing Christianity). One reason is that the Qur’an warns them that they should not listen to us (3:100). But in part, this distrust that Muslims have of us is the legacy of centuries of misrepresentation and distortion of Muslim beliefs and practices. The Crusades of the Roman Catholic Church not only inflicted tremendous bloodshed on Muslim peoples, but there was also a tremendous amount of misinformation generated in Europe as propaganda to raise support for the Crusades. That history, along with later European colonialism, is not forgotten in the Muslim world. Therefore, if we wish to gain the trust of a Muslim, we must be very careful to accurately represent Islamic teaching, and not make false charges against them. We must make an honest effort to understand what they really believe if we are to evaluate it and compare it to the Bible. Muslims have had their religion and their Prophet maligned so often that they really don’t expect fairness from us. If we can show fairness, we may eventually disarm their distrust of us. We must show them how true Christians behave, as a contrast to those who have falsely professed to be Christians. We should understand that the only Qur’an that is totally acceptable to a Muslim is the Arabic version. Any translation we use should be one by a Muslim scholar, who is recognized by the Islamic community. When we reference a passage from the Qur’an, we should be very careful to keep it in context, recognize the use of figurative language, etc. In other words, the rules that apply to Bible study should also be applied to the Qur’an, so that we don’t make the mistake of erecting straw men that we can tear down.

10 11

Ibid., 55-56 Ibid., 22-33

5

We should also understand that Muslims respect Muhammad as the greatest man who ever lived, so great care should be exercised to not unnecessarily show disrespect toward him. Though valid arguments may be made against his claims of inspiration, we must try not to be unnecessarily offensive. If we would be offended and turned off by someone who claimed Jesus was a homosexual, we can understand how a Muslim feels if we malign Muhammad.12 If we act and speak according to the rule laid down in Matt. 7:12, we will be on track. Brief Overview of This Study We will take a look at Muhammad, giving a brief history of his call to be a prophet & the rise of Islam, his place in Islamic culture and theology, and his claims of being the fulfillment of Biblical prophecy. Also, we will evaluate his moral example, his miracle claims, etc. We will consider the Islamic concept of prophets, who they were, and what their message was, including what they believe about Jesus as a prophet. We will have a brief introduction to the Qur’an (known by Muslims as The Holy Qur’an). We will survey its major themes, then consider and respond to its claims, and the evidences put forth to support those claims. We will take note of and respond to some popular Muslim charges against the Bible. We will seek to understand and evaluate Islamic monotheism, studying such things as the nature & attributes of Allah, problems with Islamic monotheism, and Islam’s rejection of the deity of Jesus. We will offer a defense of the deity of Jesus and the Biblical doctrine of the Godhead. We will consider the Islamic doctrines of creation, and the nature of man. We will take a brief look at the Islamic doctrines of the end times, and salvation, and offer a defense of the Biblical doctrine of salvation by the cross of Jesus. We will also consider the Islamic doctrine of Jihad, and its connection with the current campaign of terrorism. Questions For Discussion 1. Did the events of September 11, 2001, have any impact on how you perceive Muslims in general? 2. What value do you see in a study of Islam such as we are beginning? 3. How might our way of life in America change if Muslims became a majority here? Is that the most important concern we should have about Islam? 4. Are Christianity and Islam compatible in any sense? Is there any kind of tolerance that we may exercise toward Muslims? 5. Is there anything about Islam mentioned in this lesson that might be appealing in some ways to many people? 6. Is it possible to show any kind of respect for Muhammad, if we are arguing our case that he is a false prophet?

12

As a Baptist recently did at a Baptist Convention, calling Muhammad a demon possessed pedophile. Whether true or not, such inflammatory language contributes nothing towards the goal of converting Muslims to Christ.

6

7

Lesson Two Muhammad – The Last and Greatest Prophet? A Brief History of Muhammad’s Call and the Establishment of Islam13 Muhammad was born in about A. D. 570 in Mecca. He was orphaned at an early age, and put under the care of his uncle, Abu Talib. Young Muhammad had to earn his own way as a shepherd and trader. He is said to have been a sincere and honest young man. At the age of 25, he was conducting a successful caravan trade for a wealthy widow named Khadija, who was 15 years older than him. Muhammad and Khadija soon married, and apparently had a happy marriage. During this time, Muhammad grew more and more dissatisfied with the idolatry that was rampant in Arabia at the time. He began the practice of devoting some time each year to a retreat in which he would fast and pray. Some say he would spend the entire month of Ramadan each year in a cave north of Mecca, fasting, praying, and meditating. During one of these retreats, in the year A. D. 610, Muhammad had a dream that he first interpreted as the angel Gabriel calling him to be a prophet. Upon reflection, he was afraid that the source of his dream might have been a jinn, or evil spirit. But his wife Khadija is said to have related the story to her Christian cousin, who reassured them that the source of Muhammad’s revelation was the same as that of Moses, and that he too would be a prophet of his nation. Muhammad first began his ministry about three years later by preaching privately to his family and friends. His basic message was the existence of one sovereign God (Allah), the resurrection, judgment, and the necessity of practicing charity. He gained a few converts, including his wife & other family members and friends. The majority of those in Mecca at first were indifferent to Muhammad’s message, but indifference soon developed into hostility. Most of the citizens of Mecca believed in many gods, and they wanted to preserve Mecca’s lucrative position as a destination of pilgrimages. (The Kaabah, which Muslims claim was built by Abraham as the first House of God, was full of idols.) The Meccans resented their inherited way of life being attacked, and they resented Muhammad setting himself up as a prophet with authority over others. The small group of Muslims began to be harassed and persecuted, and at least two small groups of Muslims fled for refuge to Abyssinia, a day’s sail across the Red Sea. These expeditions were in part to explore the possibility of moving the base of operations there, if it appeared the new movement could not survive in Mecca.14 The earliest Muslim biographers of Muhammad relate that during this period, during one of his sermons to leading citizens of Mecca, he proclaimed as part of the Qur’an that the deities al-Lat, al-Uzza, and Manat (favorites of many in Mecca) could be considered divine beings whose intercession was effectual with Allah. But soon Muhammad came to believe that these verses were interpolations of Satan, and he substituted the words that are now in 53:19-23 (cf. 22:51). These are the famous “Satanic Verses.” Many modern biographers dispute this account but the evidence for it is claimed by others to be strong. Also during this period in Mecca, Muhammad supposedly was transported by the angel Gabriel (perhaps in a vision) to Jerusalem, “and then through the seven heavens where he visited with all the previous prophets (Jesus was found in the second heaven, Moses in the sixth, and Abraham in the seventh). Finally he was taken into the presence of God where he received the specific procedures for the Islamic worship of daily prayers.”15 This account was at first met with much skepticism. Even some of his followers began to doubt his truthfulness.

13

Information in this section is for the most part condensed from Norman Geisler & Abdul Saleeb, Answering Islam: The Crescent in the Light of the Cross (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 1993), 68-80 14 Robert Payne, The History of Islam (New York: Dorset Press, 1990), 20-21 15 See Geisler, pg. 73

8

The Hijra (Flight) In the year 619, Muhammad lost his wife, and also his staunch protector, Abu Talib. In 621, a dozen men from Medina (at that time the town was known as Yathrib) secretly confessed Islam before Muhammad, and the following year a delegation of 75 people from Medina accepted Islam and “invited Muhammad to their city and pledged an allegiance to defend their prophet as they would their own kin.”16 Shortly after this, Muhammad and about 150 of his followers secretly slipped away from Mecca to Medina. Muhammad safely reached Medina in 622. Muslims take this migration to Medina as the beginning date of their chronology. It is known as the Hijra. Muhammad was well received in Medina. The presence of several Jewish clans had made the idea of monotheism more generally acceptable, and there had been Jewish stories about a coming prophet. The people of Medina probably hoped Muhammad could unify the various Arabian clans who were constantly fighting among themselves. As it turned out, Muhammad was indeed able to accomplish the hoped for unification, and a constitution was drawn up for the city, obligating all factions to defend each other against outsiders, acknowledging Muhammad as the prophet, and giving him final authority to settle civil disputes. However, in spite of concessions made to the Jews, such as prescribing that prayers should be said facing Jerusalem (this was later changed to Mecca), the Jewish clans in Medina did not accept Muhammad as a prophet. It was about this time that Qur’anic revelations became more negative toward the Jews. Carnal Warfare It was at this time that carnal warfare became a distinct feature of Islam, and there are several passages in the Qur’an dating from this period that discuss fighting in the cause of Allah. The Muslims in Medina began to raid commercial caravans from Mecca. The justification given in Qur’anic revelations was that the Muslims had been wronged by being expelled from their homes in Mecca (22:39-40). Such fighting was commanded (2:244), and to encourage those who were reluctant to fight, rewards were promised (4:95-97; 3:194-195). Such fighting is supposed to be only in self defense or in retaliation against those who have fought against Islam. But “fighting against Islam” can be interpreted very broadly. The first actual bloodshed from these raids occurred in 624 when a band of Muslims ambushed a Meccan caravan. Muhammad was at first reluctant to divide the booty since this had taken place in a month that all Arabs considered sacred. But eventually a Qur’anic revelation (2:216-217) ended his doubt, and the spoils were divided. Later that year, in anticipation of another Muslim attack on one of its caravans, the leaders of Mecca sent a force of soldiers to protect the caravan. The Meccan forces outnumbered the Muslims three to one. They met for battle at a place called Badr. The Muslims won a victory over the superior force from Mecca, which was interpreted as a clear sign from Allah that Muhammad was his prophet (8:17). More victories were promised (8:65). With this victory, Muhammad’s prestige greatly increased, and he began consolidating his power, by the assassinations of several critics in Medina, by the expulsion of one of three Jewish tribes from Medina, and through a series of multiple marriages.17 The next year the Muslims lost a significant battle against the forces from Mecca, at a place called Uhud. But in spite of that loss, Muhammad was able to withdraw to Medina where he continued measures to strengthen his power, including the expulsion of another of the Jewish tribes and confiscation of their properties. In 627, a powerful Arab confederacy besieged Medina with an army of 10,000 men, but were unable to take the city and eventually withdrew. With his power being further strengthened by this victory, Muhammad eliminated the last of the three Jewish tribes in Medina, based on the suspicion that the Jews had secretly helped the Meccan enemies. All the men of the tribe were put to death, and the women and children were sold into slavery.

16 17

Ibid., pg. 74 Ibid., pg. 77

9

The Conquest of Mecca Muhammad continued to lead successful military campaigns for the next two years, and as his power grew, many Arabs began to voluntarily join the fold of Islam. In 628 a peace treaty was signed between the Meccan allies and Muhammad’s allies, but when the treaty was broken over a year later by Meccan forces, in 630 Muhammad invaded Mecca at the head of a large army, and met virtually no resistance. He cleansed the Kaabah of its idols, granted a general pardon to most of the leaders of Mecca (including those who had fought against him) and granted them generous gifts for their surrender. Following this, a large number of Arabian tribes professed their allegiance to Muhammad, and others submitted after being defeated in battle. Muhammad’s great accomplishment was to unite all the warring Arabian tribes into one unified nation under the banner of Islam. Muhammad’s Place in Islamic Culture and Theology It is probably difficult for Westerners to imagine the degree and intensity of the love and respect shown to Muhammad throughout the Islamic world, even by those who are not strong Muslims, but especially by the devout. The Qur’an states, “Ye have indeed in the Apostle of God a beautiful pattern (of conduct) for anyone whose hope is in God and the Final Day.” (33:21) Again, “What the messenger has brought – accept it, and what he has prohibited – refrain from it!” (59:7) Accordingly, the reports of Muhammad’s sayings (hadith) and actions (sunnah) were tirelessly gathered for generations following his death. There were thousands of these, supposedly recorded by his companions. Muslim scholars have gathered several volumes of them (in Sunni Islam, there are six canonical collections of hadith), and though not considered inspired, they are second only to the Qur’an in their authority. They report virtually every minute detail of Muhammad’s life. An example: “...the key to happiness is to follow the sunna and to imitate the Messenger of God in all his coming and going, his movement and rest, in his way of eating, his attitude, his sleep and his talk... That means, you have to sit while putting on trousers, and to stand when winding a turban, and to begin with the right foot when putting on shoes.”18 Muhammad’s influence is seen not just in individual lifestyles, but also in the laws and customs of Islamic countries. “Islamic law, or shari’a, is based on the Qur’an, the hadith, ijma’ (the consensus of the community), and qiyas, the application of analogical reasoning to the other three sources for the deduction of new rules.”19 However, in the last century the influence of Western culture has been felt throughout the Islamic world, so that many nominal Muslims have become more liberal in their outlook, the lifestyles of many are not in strict accordance with Islamic tradition, and some civil laws in certain countries are being patterned after democratic models. This change is viewed with alarm by the more devout Muslims, and is one reason for the recent upsurge in Islamic fundamentalism. I take this to be similar to the origin and growth of the sect of the Pharisees in Judaism, in response to the influence of Greek and Roman culture in the years leading up to the time of Christ. The Qur’an is adamant in its insistence on the unity of God, and stresses that Muhammad was only a mortal man, nothing more (in contrast to the Christian belief that Jesus was the incarnation of God). Accordingly, to refer to Muslims as “Muhammadans,” or to Islam as “Muhammadanism,” is supposedly offensive to Muslims, since that implies an analogy to “Christians,” who worship Christ as God. They believe Muhammad was the final prophet, the greatest of the prophets, and the most perfect man who ever lived. But officially, he is not worshiped as God. Nevertheless, in practice, many of the masses in Islamic countries do show to Muhammad a veneration that is very similar to that shown to Mary, the mother of Jesus, by many Catholics. Many Muslims believe that Muhammad intercedes for them before God’s throne. In Islamic literature, whenever Muhammad’s name is written, it is followed by some form of the expression, “May God bless him and give him peace.” This is sometimes written as an abbreviation in parentheses, sometimes an Arabic symbol is used. This appears to be a universal custom followed by all Islamic authors. So all Muslims give to Muhammad a respect that is higher than that shown to any other man. Some Muslims go beyond that, and give to Muhammad a veneration that orthodox Islam would disavow.

18 19

al-Ghazzali, a great Muslim theologian, quoted by Geisler, pg. 82 Ibid., pg. 82

10

Muhammad’s claim was that he was not only a prophet, but that he was the final prophet, with God’s final message for all mankind. Another way in which he is believed to be different from other prophets is that his revelation was preserved completely and perfectly, and has never been altered by even one letter. It is believed that the messages of all other prophets have either been lost, or corrupted by men. An Evaluation of The Claim of Biblical Support There are several lines of argument used to support Muhammad’s claim to have been a prophet. One is that the Bible prophesied his coming, in both Old and New Testaments. We will now notice some of the Biblical prophecies that are claimed to have been fulfilled by Muhammad, and evaluate this claim. Deut. 18:15-18 The promise to Israel that God would raise up a prophet like Moses from their “brothers” (“countrymen,” NAS, is literally, brothers) is said to be fulfilled by Muhammad. We are reminded that Isaac and Ishmael were brothers (Arab tradition states that Arabs descended from Ishmael). Furthermore, there are many ways in which Muhammad is said to be “like” Moses. “There were hardly any two prophets who were so much alike as Moses and Muhammad.... Both were given a comprehensive law and code of life. Both encountered their enemies and were victorious in miraculous ways. Both were accepted as prophets and statesmen. Both migrated following conspiracies to assassinate them....”20 In response, it might also be pointed out that there were many ways in which Moses and Muhammad were very different. For example, many mighty miracles were performed through Moses, but Muhammad did not claim miraculous powers, and had no miraculous signs. No doubt many such differences could be pointed out. But the two major problems with taking this as a prophecy of Muhammad are, 1) The prophecy is that an Israelite will be raised as a prophet for the Israelites, and Muhammad was obviously an Arab, not an Israelite. It is true that the word for “brothers” in Deut. 18:15 may also refer to other relatives in addition to immediate siblings (for example, in Gen. 9:25, 13:8, 14:16, 29:15; and Deut. 2:4), and in this sense, the descendants of Ishmael were “brothers” to the descendants of Isaac. But in most cases of its use in Deuteronomy, it is clear that its meaning extends no farther than “brother Israelites,” as, for example, in Deut. 18:2 (cf. Josh. 13:14, with context). The context must determine how the word is used in each case. In Deut. 17:15, mention is made of a king the Israelites would set over themselves, whom the Lord would choose, from among their brothers (miqirbªkaa mee'acheykaa). This is the same Hebrew phrase found in Deut. 18:15. Of course the first king of Israel, chosen by God, was Saul of the tribe of Benjamin (I Sam. 9). All the kings of Israel were likewise descendants of Isaac. “From among your brothers” means Israelites in Deut. 17:15, and there is no reason to take it differently in Deut. 18:15. The promise in Deut. 18 was made in connection with & as an extension of the covenant given on Mount Horeb (vs. 16). The prophet would be raised up for them, from among them, as a means by which God would speak to them. But that covenant was made with the Israelites, not the descendants of Ishmael (Ex. 19:1-6). (We know from other passages that the prophet’s message would eventually be for the whole world. But whatever may have been the farthest extent of the prophet’s mission, he was to be first of all a prophet raised up for the Israelites. But Muhammad began his mission among the Arabs, from whom he came.)

20

I. A. Ibrahim, A Brief Illustrated Guide To Understanding Islam (Houston, Darussalam, Publishers, 1997), 33-34

11

2) The second problem with taking Muhammad as the fulfillment of Deut. 18:15 is that inspired apostles said Jesus was the fulfillment of this prophecy. For Christians, the case is settled by the New Testament claim (which preceded that of the Qur’an by six centuries) that Jesus was the fulfillment of this prophecy. Jesus was an Israelite, who spoke all the words God gave Him to speak (Jn. 12:49). In Acts 3:22-26, Peter (whose inspiration was confirmed by miraculous powers) referred to Jesus as the fulfillment of Deut. 18:15. Matt. 3:11 According to some Muslims, this statement of John the Baptist was a prophecy of Muhammad. It is argued that it could not be a reference to Jesus, because John spoke of one who would come “after” him, while Jesus was a contemporary. Further, it is said that John did not follow Jesus as though Jesus were greater than him, and the fact that Jesus was baptized by John shows that Jesus was not greater than John. In response, it is obvious to anyone reading the gospels that Jesus was the one spoken of in Matt. 3:11. Jesus did in fact begin His ministry “after” John began his. When Jesus came to be baptized by John, John protested that he needed to be baptized by Jesus (Matt. 3:14). When the Spirit descended on Jesus (Matt. 3:16), John saw this, and in the gospel of John, John the Baptist himself identifies Jesus as the One about whom he was speaking (Jn. 1:26-34). John 14:16 Jesus’ promise that another “Helper” was coming (KJV, “Comforter”) is said to be a prophecy of Muhammad. The Greek word for “helper” is paraclete, which means “one called to the help of another” (sometimes translated “advocate”). Muslim scholars claim that paraclete is a corruption of the text, and that the true reading is periclytos, which means “praised one.” The Arabic equivalent of periclytos is “Ahmad,” which is one form of Muhammad’s name. The Qur’an (61:6) quotes Jesus as saying, “O Children of Israel, surely I am the messenger of Allah to you, verifying that which is before me of the Torah and giving the good news of a Messenger who will come after me, his name being Ahmad.” The footnote in my Qur’an gives several reasons why the promise of Jesus in John 14-16 has to be a reference to Muhammad. In response, first of all, every one of the Greek manuscripts of John 14:16 has paraclete in this passage. Not a single one has periclytos. There is no evidence of textual corruption. The promised Helper was to be given to Jesus’ apostles (“you,” vs. 16), but Muhammad lived several centuries after all the apostles had died. The Helper would bear witness of Jesus, thus confirming the testimony of the apostles, who had been with Him from the beginning (Jn. 15:26-27). Jesus said that the apostles knew this Helper, and He would abide with them, and would be in them (Jn. 14:17). Muhammad was certainly not in the apostles. This Helper would be sent by the Father in the name of Jesus (Jn. 14:26). Muhammad didn’t come in the name of Jesus. This Helper was identified as the Holy Spirit (Jn. 14:26), and Jesus said He would come “not many days from now” (Acts 1:5). In fact, they were to wait for His coming at Jerusalem (Acts 1:8), and He came on the day of Pentecost (Acts 2:1-4). To anyone with a fair amount of Bible knowledge, Muslim attempts to find support in the Bible are weak indeed. The typical approach is to lift passages from the Bible that seem useful in supporting their case, while ignoring or rejecting the passages that would undermine their arguments. The Muslim usage of Scripture “is often arbitrary and without textual warrant. Although Islamic scholars are quick to claim that the Scriptures have been corrupted..., nevertheless, when they come upon a text that they feel can be made to lend credence to their view, they have no problem accepting its authenticity....with total disregard for the textual evidence.... In short, their determination of which biblical texts are authentic is arbitrary and self-serving.”21 I would add that they usually show no regard for the context of the passages they use. (See Questions for Discussion on next page.)

21

See Geisler, 154

12

Questions For Discussion 1. Where do you suppose Muhammad got his beliefs about God and spiritual matters, if the source of his “revelations” was not the angel Gabriel, nor Satan or an evil spirit?

2. How do you explain Muhammad’s willingness to endure persecution and risk death, if he was intentionally being deceptive about his “revelations”?

3. In Medina, Muhammad became both a spiritual and civil ruler. Was this an unheard of development, or were there precedents for this?

4. The lesson referenced a Qur’anic revelation that ended Muhammad’s doubt about taking booty from the raid that occurred during a holy month in 624. How would you characterize this “revelation”?

5. Give at least two possible reasons why a large number of Arabian tribes professed the allegiance to Muhammad following the fall of Mecca.

13

Lesson Three Islam’s Holy Book, The Qur’an In a sense, this entire study is an effort to answer the question implied in the title of lesson two: Is Muhammad truly a prophet of God? But before we embark upon a direct examination of that question, we will take a look at what is claimed to have been revealed to Muhammad, the Qur’an. Muslims believe that the Qur’an itself is the best evidence that it is the word of God. A familiarity with the Qur’an will better prepare us to evaluate the claims made for it. Compilation (or Collection) and Arrangement of the Qur’an 22 According to the Qur’an itself, its various portions were revealed to Muhammad verbatim in a piecemeal fashion by the angel Gabriel (see 25:32; 17:106). This was accomplished over a period of 23 years. The arrangement of the portions in their present form is also said to have been the work of divine inspiration. Whenever a portion was revealed, Muhammad would recite it to his companions (Qur’an means reciting, or recitation), who would commit that portion to memory. Muhammad himself is said to have memorized the revelations. They were also written on “pieces of paper, stones, palm-leaves, shoulder-blades, ribs, and bits of leather.” The order or sequence of the chapters and verses in the present day Qur’an is believed to have been accomplished by Muhammad himself, under the direct supervision of the angel Gabriel. “Generally speaking, the chapters are arranged according to length – with the exception of the first sura (chapter)….This has resulted …in an inversion of the chronological order, as the longest Suras, which are mainly the latest, come first, while the shortest and earliest are placed last.”23 In addition, “most of the longer chapters have verses that come from various periods of Muhammad’s ministry.” As revelations came to him, Muhammad would often instruct that they be inserted into various chapters that had already been delivered. As you can imagine, critics have charged that the result is a mishmash of portions seemingly having no relation to other portions in the same context, but orthodox Muslims defend the arrangement as the perfect word of God. Although Muslims believe each revelation was written down in Muhammad’s presence when it was first revealed to him (Muhammad himself is said to have been unable to read or write), before his death in A. D. 632 the various portions had never been gathered into one book. About a year after Muhammad’s death, in the battle of Yamamah (A. D. 633), a great number of those who could recite the Qur’an from memory were killed. Out of fear that knowledge of the Qur’an might be lost, Umar, who later became the second Caliph, urged that the revelations all be collected into one book. The responsibility for collecting the various fragments into one volume was given to Zayd ibn Thabit, one of Muhammad’s most trusted secretaries. Later, during the reign of Uthman, the third Caliph, it was reported to Uthman that several Muslim communities were using different versions of the Qur’an. It is reported that Uthman ordered fresh copies to be made of the version that had been produced by Zayd ibn Thabit. These copies were sent to all major Islamic centers in the empire, and all other copies were ordered to be burned. This action is defended by Maulana Muhammad Ali in the introduction to his translation of the Qur’an, on the basis that the variations only consisted of different pronunciations arising from those who spoke different dialects, and that the action of making official copies and burning all others was supported by the “Companions of the Prophet,” who had committed the Qur’an to memory. This Arabic version of the Qur’an is believed to have been faithfully preserved without error, so that in all the world there is only one, perfect Qur’an. For the sake of argument, we will grant in this study that the present day Qur’an is an accurate transmission of Muhammad’s message. The question remains – Was Muhammad’s message truly a revelation from God?

22

Much of the material in this lesson is taken from Norman Geisler & Abdul Saleeb, Answering Islam: The Crescent in the Light of the Cross (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 1993), 89-106 23 Ibid., pg. 92

14

The Perfect, Final Revelation From God Though the literary style of the Qur’an changes markedly from the earliest portions (the Meccan period) to the later portions (the Madinan period), throughout all portions the message generally appears as the speech of Allah, who usually speaks in the first person plural (“We”). Even when Muhammad is speaking, his words are introduced by the command, “Say,” to emphasize that this is what Allah has told him to say. Thus the Qur’an emphatically claims to be the Word of God. (See 18:1; 39:1-2; 55:1-2; etc.) In fact, we are told that the Qur’an has its origin in a heavenly “Mother of the Book,” or “Original of the Book,” with is in the presence of God (43:34; cf. 85:21-22). Some apparently take this quite literally, others understand it to mean simply that the Qur’an existed in the knowledge of God before it was revealed. At one time there was a great theological debate among Muslims as to whether the Qur’an was created, or whether it existed eternally. It is said that whereas Christians believe that in the beginning was the Word and the Word became flesh, Muslims believe that in the beginning was the Word and the Word became a Book.24 Muslims believe that “The Qur’an is a comprehensive code of life covering every aspect and phase of human life.”25 It is considered to be the final revelation from God, because it perfects and fulfills the revelations that came before it (such as the Bible). It is believed that the Qur’an both provides a fuller and clearer explanation of disputed doctrines than did the Bible, and it corrects the mistakes that have come from the corruption of previous revelations (see 10:37.) Therefore, “…all the people of the world have been directed to have faith in it, to give up all other books and to follow it alone, because it contains all that is essential for living in accordance with God’s pleasure.”26 Proof Offered that the Qur’an is the Word of God According to many Muslims, the Qur’an is the only miracle Muhammad had, or needed, to establish himself as a true prophet of God. (Others believe that Muhammad did in fact perform many miracles.) The Qur’an itself doesn’t describe Muhammad performing miracles. But this challenge is issued: “And if you are in doubt as to that which We have revealed to Our servant, then produce a chapter like it and call on your helpers besides Allah if you are truthful" (2:23). Again, “Say: If men and jinn should combine together to bring the like of this Qur’an, they could not bring the like of it, though some of them were aiders of others” (17:88). According to Maulana Muhammad Ali, the challenge pertains not simply to mere style and diction, but to the “wonderful transformation” which it accomplished in the Arabian peninsula.27 (We will have a separate lesson devoted to the question of whether Muhammad did in fact perform miracles.) Arguments made to prove that the Qur’an is the word of God include arguments from Muhammad’s illiteracy, the unique literary style of the Qur’an, its perfect preservation, its prophecies, its unity, and its scientific accuracy, as well as its power in changing people’s lives. We will examine these arguments in later lessons. Major Qur’anic Themes Changes may be observed in the Qur’an over the course of Muhammad’s life, not only in the literary style employed, but in the themes emphasized in various periods. In the early days of Muhammad’s ministry, his message consisted mainly of exhortations to men to reform their lives in view of the fact that they were accountable to God, and would be judged by God. The day of judgment and the destiny of the lost in hell and of the saved in Paradise are described in graphic terms. Over and over again the threat of hellfire is held before those who disbelieve in the messages of Allah. Soon, the oneness and transcendence of God became the prevailing theme. When Muhammad began attacking the idols worshipped by his fellow Meccans as being nonentities, he aroused their hostility and opposition, and even persecution. About this time, there came a good many portions recounting the experiences of many Biblical characters, and others, whom Muhammad said were prophets before him. (Most of these accounts bear some 24

Ibid., pg. 98 Ibid., pg. 101, quoting Alhaj Ajijola 26 Ibid., pg. 102, quoting Ajijola 27 Footnote 36, pg. 13, of Ali’s translation of the Qur’an 25

15

resemblance to the Biblical accounts, but there are many, many changes, which are either perversions of the Biblical accounts or corrections of the Biblical accounts, depending on your point of view.) Most of these accounts teach the same lesson repeatedly, namely, that Allah’s prophets were always rejected by many or most of those who heard them, and that Allah always judged and punished those who rejected his messages, while rewarding those who faithfully proclaimed and obeyed his messages. These portions would certainly have encouraged Muhammad and his followers during times when his message was being rejected by many. The portions that are dated from the period after Muhammad was accepted by Medina as its spiritual and civil leader, are markedly different than the earlier portions, both as to content and style. There is a change in Muhammad’s position, from simply a “warner,” to a prince. He is the “beautiful model” or “excellent exemplar,” who shows by his life how one should live (33:21). He is to be obeyed, and in obeying him, one obeys Allah (4:80). He is a “mercy to the nations” (21:107). Even Allah and His angels bless Muhammad, and so believers should also bless him (33:56). The newly founded Islamic community needed direction in practical matters, so portions of the Qur’an began to deal with politically and socially relevant questions. “The whole structure of Islamic ethics, law, and jurisprudence finds its foundation largely in the revelations of this period.”28 When it became clear that the Jewish clans in Medina were not going to accept Muhammad as a prophet, the Qur’anic portions became much less tolerant, more forceful in their denouncement of the “people of the Book.” The revelation was given that Abraham and his son Ishmael had purified and rebuilt the Kaaba in Mecca as the first House of God (2:125-127), and the “spiritual center” towards which Muslims were to pray was changed from Jerusalem to Mecca (2:142-145). These changes and others gave rise among Muslim scholars to the doctrine of “Abrogation,” which says that a revelation given at one time may be abrogated by a later revelation. But other Muslims deny the doctrine of abrogation, saying that the apparent discrepancies can be reconciled. We may have opportunity to take a closer look at this issue in a later lesson. In the next two or three lessons we will take a brief look at what the Qur’an teaches about such basic issues as the nature of God, creation, man, sin, and salvation; the prophets, including Jesus; the day of judgment, and the eternal state. Then, we will begin to evaluate the evidence that is given to support the claims of Muhammad, as well as the criticisms Muslims offer against the beliefs of Christians. Questions for Discussion 1. In the accounts given above of the collection of the Qur’an, what do you perceive to be weaknesses, or strengths, in the argument that the Qur’an accurately preserves Muhammad’s “revelations”?

2. The Qur’an claims to be the final, complete and perfect Word of God. Find passages in the New Testament that make the same claim for the gospel of Christ. Are these two claims compatible with each other, or are they mutually exclusive? How can we know which claim is true?

3. How do you think the kinds of changes in the Qur’an described above might be explained?

28

See Geisler, pg. 95-96

16

17

Lesson 4 Major Themes of the Qur’an (1) Allah, the God of Islam The whole system of Islam is summed up in their confession of faith: “There is no god but Allah, and Muhammad is Allah’s Apostle.” The monotheism of Islam is its most central feature. This question is often raised: Do Muslims, Christians and Jews worship the same God? In this lesson we will attempt to understand the Islamic concept of God. Meaning of the Term “Allah” Allah is an Arabic word that literally means, the God. “Allah means ‘God’ which connotation English achieves by dismissing even the definite article and using the capital letter – a device which Arabic lacks.”29 There is no question that Muhammad believed and taught that Allah was the same God that is worshipped by Jews and Christians. It is interesting to note that the Arabians believed in the existence of “Allah” long before Muhammad came along. In fact, Muhammad’s father was named Abd-Allah, “the slave of God.” But in those days, Allah was known as the chief god among many lesser gods. The Arabians were polytheists, worshipping many gods, chief of which was Allah. But even though Allah was the highest, many of the lesser gods actually were given more attention than Allah.30 Thus, when Muhammad began preaching, he did not introduce a new deity to the people in Mecca, he simply emphasized Allah as the only true God, and denied the existence of the other deities. Is “Allah,” as worshipped by Arabs in the years before Muhammad, to be identified as the same God worshipped by Christians and Jews? Only in the sense in which Paul preached to the Athenians, “What therefore you worship in ignorance, this I proclaim to you.” (Acts 17:23) The Athenians had no knowledge of the true God, so Paul identified the “Unknown God,” mentioned in the inscription on one of their altars, with the true God he was proclaiming to them. On the other hand, some Arabians in the time of Muhammad had some knowledge of the God worshipped by Jews and Christians, and many of them had come to believe that their Allah was identical with the Jewish/Christian God. Is it possible that the “Allah” worshipped by Arabs before the time of Muhammad represented the distorted remnants of a prior, incomplete knowledge of the true God, dating from the time of Abraham or before? Perhaps. Consider that Melchizedek was a priest of God Most High (Gen. 14:18), that Abimelech, king of Gerar, had some knowledge of God (Gen. 20), that Jethro the father-in-law of Moses was the priest of Midian, with at least some knowledge of God (which no doubt was increased by the events of the exodus - Ex. 18:1-12), and that Balaam was an (unfaithful) prophet of the Lord (Num. 22-24). Be that as it may, the real issue before us is whether or not the one and only true & living God revealed Himself and His will through Muhammad. One (but only one) clue to this question is to compare the God proclaimed by Muhammad with God as revealed in the Bible. As Christians, we begin with the presupposition that the Bible is true. Similarities Between Allah and The God Who Is Revealed In The Bible (Jehovah, or Yahweh) To be sure, there are many points of agreement between the God of the Qur’an and the God of the Bible. Following are some of these: Oneness – “Say: He, Allah, is One.”31 (112:1) See Deut. 6:4; I Cor. 8:4.

29

Kenneth Cragg, in The Call of the Minaret, quoted by Norman Geisler, Answering Islam: The Crescent in the Light of the Cross (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 1993), 15 30 Ibid., 15 31 The quotations in this section are taken from the translation of Maulana Muhammad Ali.

18

Creator Of All – “And certainly We created the heavens and the earth and what is between them in six periods, and no fatigue touched Us.” (50:38) See Gen. 1:1. Sustainer Of All – “And there is no animal in the earth but on Allah is the sustenance of it, and He knows its resting-place and its depository....” (11:6) See Acts 17:25. Sovereign and Omnipotent – “And to Allah makes obeisance every living creature that is in the heavens and that is in the earth, and the angels (too) and they are not proud. They fear their Lord above them and do what they are commanded.” (16:49-50) See Psa. 103:19-22. Omniscient – “The Knower of the unseen and the seen, the Great, the Most High. Alike (to Him) among you is he who conceals (the) word and he who speaks openly, and he who hides himself by night and (who) goes forth by day.” (13:9-10) See Heb. 4:13. Omnipresent – “And certainly We created man, and We know what his mind suggests to him – and We are nearer to him than his life-vein.” (50:16) “And Allah’s is the East and the West, so whither you turn thither is Allah’s purpose....” (2:115) See Psa. 139. Just in Judgment – “And We will set up a just balance on the day of Resurrection, so no soul will be wronged in the least. And if there be the weight of a grain of mustard seed, We will bring it. And Sufficient are We to take account.” (21:47) See Psa. 96:11-13. Invisible – “Vision comprehends Him not, and He comprehends (all) vision....” (6:104) See I Tim. 1:17, 6:16. Incomparable – “Nothing is like Him....” (42:11) See Isa. 40:18; 46:5, 9. Loving – “...Surely Allah loves those who turn much (to Him), and He loves those who purify themselves.” (2:222) See Rom. 8:39. Merciful – “Say: O My servants who have been prodigal regarding their souls, despair not of the mercy of Allah; surely Allah forgives sins altogether. He is indeed the Forgiving, the Merciful.” (39:53) See Eph. 2:4. Some verses are especially full in their description of God. Thus, “Allah – there is not god but He, the Everliving, the Self-subsisting by Whom all subsist. Slumber overtakes Him not, nor sleep. To Him belongs whatever is in the heavens and whatever is in the earth. Who is he that can intercede with Him but by His permission? He knows what is before them and what is behind them. And they encompass nothing of His knowledge except what He pleases. His knowledge extends over the heavens and the earth, and the preservation of them both tires Him not. And He is the Most High, the Great.” (2:255) Again, “He is Allah besides Whom there is no God: The Knower of the unseen and the seen; He is the Beneficent, the Merciful. He is Allah, besides Whom there is no God; the King, the Holy, the Author of Peace, the Granter of Security, Guardian over all, the Mighty, the Supreme, the Possessor of greatness. Glory be to Allah from that which they set up (with Him)! He is Allah, the Creator, the Maker, the Fashioner: His are the most beautiful names. Whatever is in the heavens and the earth declares His glory; and He is the Mighty, the Wise.” (59:22-24) From these passages we see that in many ways, the descriptions of God found in the Qur’an are very similar to those found in the Bible. However, similarity does not prove sameness. Closer study will reveal some significant differences.

19

Differences Between Allah and The God Who Is Revealed In The Bible (Jehovah, or Yahweh) Allah represents absolute unity. Perhaps the most significant difference is that the Qur’an stresses the absolute unity of God to the extent that it specifically denies the deity of Jesus, and the doctrine of the Trinity. Both of these doctrines are classified as the sin of idolatry, or shirk, the setting up of partners or associates with God. (See 5:72-75.) According to the Qur’an, this is the one sin that will not be forgiven (4:116).32 The New Testament clearly teaches the deity of Christ (Jn. 1:1-3, etc.), and it is also implied in the Old Testament (cf. Isa. 9:6). The deity of the Holy Spirit is also clearly taught (Acts 5:3-4). Muslims accuse us of tritheism (belief in three gods), but this is a misrepresentation or misunderstanding of what Christians believe. It isn’t necessary for us to confess the historic “Christian creeds” (our only creed is the Bible), and it is no doubt impossible for finite man to fully comprehend God. But on this point it is clear that the nature of Allah differs from the nature of God as taught in the Bible. (We will devote an entire lesson to what the Qur’an teaches about Jesus, and will discuss this point in more detail at that time.) The love of Allah The message of the gospel is that God loved all people in the world, even when they were sinful & rebellious, and it was that love that prompted Him to provide a way of salvation through His Son (Jn. 3:16; Rom. 5:8; Eph. 2:4-5; I Jn. 4:9-10). When we understand this fact, along with all else that is revealed about God in the Bible, it becomes easy to love God with all our heart, soul and mind (Matt. 22:37). This concept of God loving mankind unconditionally seems to be absent from the Qur’an. God’s love of mankind is strictly conditional. “Now when we search the Qur'an, we will not find this kind of spontaneous love from Allah. It says very little about God's unconditional love for mankind. In the Qur'an God's love is an expression of approval, solely to those who do good.” 33 Note the following Qur’anic references: “....Surely Allah loves the doers of

good.” (2:195) “Say: If you love Allah, follow me: Allah will love you, and grant you protection from your sins. And Allah is Forgiving, Merciful. Say: Obey Allah and the Messenger; but if they turn back, Allah surely loves not the disbelievers.” (3:30-31) It seems that Allah’s love of us is conditioned on us first loving him! In this connection it is also worth noting that the special kind of love implied by the New Testament description of God as our “Father,” and the saved as His children, is absent from the Qur’an. Passages such as I Jn. 3:1-2, Lk. 12:32, and Rom. 8:15-17 provide much comfort and assurance for Christians, but Allah does not relate to his people as a father relates to his children. Absolute Predestination There are many passages in the Qur’an which seem to teach that Allah has preordained everything that happens. For example, we read in 9:51, “Say: Nothing will afflict us save that which Allah has ordained for us....” This includes the unbelief and disobedience for which Allah sends people to hell. And to make certain that those chosen for hell remain unbelievers, Allah does not send them guidance, or he actually leads them astray. For example, “He whom Allah guides is on the right way; and he whom He leaves in error – they are the losers. And certainly We have created for hell many of the jinn and the men....” (7:178-179). “And if We had pleased, We could have given every soul its guidance, but the word from Me was just; I will certainly fill hell with the jinn and men together” (32:13). “...Do you desire to guide him whom Allah leaves in error? And whomsoever Allah leaves in error thou canst not find a way for him” (4:88). 32

Some might perceive a contradiction between these two passages, regarding forgiveness. Will Allah forgive this sin, or not? 33 Stephen Masood, “For God So Love The World...” (Note: proofreading this page a year after writing, I noticed the reference here was to www.Answering-Islam.com, which is a mistake, for that Web site is a virulent anti-Christian site. A Google search brought up the reference at http://home.global.co.za/~elofred/, though I’m sure that is not where I originally found the quotation.)

20

In fairness, it should be pointed out that many Muslim scholars try to explain these passages in such a way that they do not contradict the doctrine of the free will of man, since the Qur’an in many passages seems to teach that doctrine. In fact, even some Muslim scholars acknowledge that this is a problem. “One of the great Islamicists, Goldziher, summarizes the situation in this way: ‘There is probably no other point of doctrine on which equally contradictory teachings can be derived from the Qur’an as on this one.’”34 But many other Muslim scholars have taken the passages in question at face value, and therefore believe that all things are foreordained, predetermined, by Allah. Thus, Al-Ghazzali, a respected Muslim theologian wrote, “He willeth also the unbelief of the unbeliever and the irreligion of the wicked and, without that will, there would neither be unbelief nor irreligion. All we do we do by His will: what He willeth not does not come to pass.”35 Indeed, there are reports in the hadith that Muhammad was very explicit in his teaching on this question. For example: “Allah’s Apostle...said, ‘Each one of you collected in the womb of his mother for forty days...and then Allah sends an angel and orders him to write four things, i.e., his provision, his age, and whether he will be of the wretched or the blessed (in the Hereafter)....”36 Scholars have pointed out many other differences between the God of the Qur’an and the God of the Bible.37 But the differences discussed in this lesson illustrate the point. Either the Bible is in error on at least some of its information about God, or the Qur’an is in error on those points. And if a Book is in error about God, it cannot be the inspired Word of God.

34

See Geisler, pg. 141. Ibid., pg. 143. 36 Ibid., pg. 142. 37 For a more detailed discussion of the contrasts between Allah and Jehovah from the standpoints of theology and philosophy, see Geisler, pgs. 134-145. 35

21

Lesson 5 Major Themes of the Qur’an (2) What the Qur’an Teaches About Jesus, the Prophets, and Earlier Scriptures The prophets and their scriptures are very important themes in the Qur’an. Two Arabic words are especially important. Rasul signifies “one who is sent,” and corresponds roughly to the Greek word for “apostle.” Nabi signifies “one who carries information and proclaims news from God,” and corresponds to the Hebrew word for “prophet.”38 Though there is some difference between these words, they are used interchangeably to some extent. According to Islam, a prophet is a human being sent by God to proclaim His word, and to serve as a model for men to follow. Qualifications for prophethood, in addition to being a man who is chosen by God, include a life that is free, or almost free, from sin. Prophets are men who have been able to rise above the faults and sinful inclinations that are common among most others, so that they are either without sin, or free from all major sins or faults. Unity of the Prophets’ Messages According to the Qur’an, “To every people (was sent) a Messenger; when their Messenger comes (before them), the matter will be judged between them with justice, and they will not be wronged.” (10:47)39 See also 16:36 and 40:15. Two important beliefs about the prophets are brought out in these references. First, God has sent a prophet to every nation or people. Second, the message of all the prophets has been basically the same: the people must acknowledge the one true God and submit to His will and do good works, in view of the Resurrection, Judgment, and the Hereafter. In view of this, Muslims claim to respect all of the prophets, believing that they were all Muslims, and that their religion was Islam. However, though their basic message was supposedly the same, the belief is that there were some minor differences in the messages of some prophets. According to one Muslim scholar, an apostle may come to impose a new law and to abrogate what precedes it, either completely or in part.40 Thus, it is believed that Jesus was sent to the Jews both to confirm and to slightly revise the Law of Moses. One Muslim tradition gives the number of prophets as 124,000, but only about 25 or so are mentioned by name in the Qur’an. Most, but not all, of these are men who are mentioned in the Bible. Typical lists can be found in 6:84-86 and 4:163-65, which mention Noah, Abraham, Lot, Ishmael, Isaac, Jacob and the Tribes, Joseph, Job, Moses, Aaron, David, Solomon, Jonah, John, Jesus, and Elias, though not in that order. Others are named who are not found in the Bible. Five or six of the prophets are placed in the highest ranks of the prophets, including Adam, Noah, Abraham, Moses, Jesus, and Muhammad. The Qur’an seems to make Abraham the greatest of the prophets, but Islamic theology clearly makes Muhammad the last and greatest of the prophets. The Prophet Jesus in Islam His Nature Although Jesus is esteemed as one of the great prophets, The Qur’an stresses that he was only a human being, and pointedly denies his deity. The Qur’an affirms the virgin birth of Jesus (19:16-21 and 3:37-45), but this unique conception does not have any purpose other than to serve as a sign. In Islam, Jesus is not the Son of God. A typical passage is 5:75, “Christ the son of Mary was no more than an apostle; many were the apostles that passed away before him. His mother was a woman of truth. They had both to eat their (daily) food. See how Allah doth make His signs clear to them; yet see in what ways they are deluded away from the truth!”41

38

Norman Geisler, Answering Islam: The Crescent in the Light of the Cross (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 1993), pg. 50. Much of the information in this section is taken from this book. 39 From the translation of the Qur’an by Abdullah Yusuf Ali 40 Geisler, pg. 53 41 The rest of the quotations of the Qur’an in this lesson are taken from the translation of Abdullah Yusuf Ali, as found on the Web site, www.islam.org

22

The Qur’an insists that it is demeaning to Allah’s glory to even think that he could have begotten a son. For example, 19:35 states: “It is not befitting to (the majesty of) Allah that He should beget a son. Glory be to Him! when He determines a matter, He only says to it, "Be", and it is.” And in 10:68-70: 68. They say: "(Allah) hath begotten a son!" - Glory be to Him! He is self-sufficient! His are all things in the heavens and on earth! No warrant have ye for this! say ye about Allah what ye know not? 69. Say: "Those who invent a lie against Allah will never prosper." 70. A little enjoyment in this world!- and then, to Us will be their return, then shall We make them taste the severest penalty for their blasphemies.

Muslims take the idea of Allah begetting a son very literally, so as to imply that it would require his having a wife, which is of course a straw man easily demolished. Thus, in 72:3 we read, “‘And Exalted is the Majesty of our Lord: He has taken neither a wife nor a son.’” His Mission Although Jesus is depicted as a great miracle worker, and is even called the Messiah, he is portrayed as only a human prophet to Israel. His mission was basically to confirm and revise the Mosaic covenant (5:46-47); to call upon his people to worship the one God, Allah (5:72); and to prophesy the coming of Muhammad (61:6). His Death One of the strangest doctrines of the Qur’an, from the Christian perspective, is that Jesus did not die on the cross. In 4:157-58 we read, 157. That they said (in boast), "We killed Christ Jesus the son of Mary, the Messenger of Allah.;- but they killed him not, nor crucified him, but so it was made to appear to them, and those who differ therein are full of doubts, with no (certain) knowledge, but only conjecture to follow, for of a surety they killed him not:158. Nay, Allah raised him up unto Himself; and Allah is Exalted in Power, Wise;-

As to the meaning of “so it was made to appear to them,” perhaps the most popular view today is one that was popularized by The Gospel of Barnabas, an apocryphal forgery probably dating from medieval times which Muslims view as the most authentic gospel.42 The theory is that at the last minute, the likeness of Jesus was cast upon Judas, and Judas was then mistakenly crucified. As to what happened to Jesus, perhaps the majority of Muslims believe that he was taken up bodily into heaven, based on 3:55. Many believe that Jesus will return to earth during the end-times, that he will have a ministry of some sort, and will then die a natural death. Some Muslims believe that after escaping from the cross, Jesus found refuge in Kashmir, where he lived many years and died a natural death. In spite of variations on some of these details, Muslims seem to be virtually unanimous in saying that Jesus did not die on the cross. Why is this denial of Jesus’ death such an important point in Islam? Perhaps partially, as an argument against Jesus’ death being an atoning sacrifice for sins, which is central to Christianity. But more directly, it is a revision of history made necessary by the Islamic belief that in all cases, though God’s prophets were opposed in the beginning of their ministries, they were always vindicated and triumphant in the end. For Jesus to have died such a shameful death at the hands of his enemies would mean that God had failed, and that is unthinkable. It is obvious that the Qur’an contradicts and denies the New Testament on matters that are central to the gospel, and that leads us directly to a consideration of how such contradictions are explained, in view of the unity of the prophets message.

42

I hope to examine the evidence for and against the authenticity of The Gospel of Barnabas in a future lesson.

23

The Qur’anic Position On Earlier Scriptures As we have seen, the unity of the prophets’ messages is an important Islamic belief. According to the Qur’an, “Say ye, ‘We believe in Allah, and the revelation given to us, and to Abraham, Isma’il, Isaac, Jacob, and the Tribes, and that given to Moses and Jesus, and that given to (all) prophets from their Lord: we make no difference between one and another of them: and we submit to Allah.’” (2:136) The fact that the major religions of the world have substantial differences in their doctrines is said to be the result of people distorting and corrupting the teachings of their prophets. “...variations of space and time, acculturation by alien influences, and human whims and passions caused people to slip from the truth. The result was that the religions of history all erred more or less from the truth because none has preserved the original text of its revelation.”43 That the Qur’an makes this claim is clear. And yet, the Qur’anic position is not that clear upon a closer examination. In fact, seemingly contradictory statements are made in the Qur’an about the Scriptures of the Jews and Christians, i.e., the Old and New Testaments. To many readers, the Qur’an seems to be inconsistent in this matter. The Bible Is A Sure Guidance On the one hand, some verses in the Qur’an seem to suggest that the Bible is the Word of God, and those who follow it will have sure guidance. For example, 5:46-48: 46. And in their footsteps We sent Jesus the son of Mary, confirming the Law that had come before him: We sent him the Gospel: therein was guidance and light, and confirmation of the Law that had come before him: a guidance and an admonition to those who fear Allah. 47. Let the people of the Gospel judge by what Allah hath revealed therein. If any do fail to judge by (the light of) what Allah hath revealed, they are (no better than) those who rebel. 48. To thee We sent the Scripture in truth, confirming the scripture that came before it, and guarding it in safety: so judge between them by what Allah hath revealed, and follow not their vain desires, diverging from the Truth that hath come to thee....

Also, in 5:68: 68. Say: "O People of the Book! ye have no ground to stand upon unless ye stand fast by the Law, the Gospel, and all the revelation that has come to you from your Lord."

Again, in 10:94: 94. If thou wert in doubt as to what We have revealed unto thee, then ask those who have been reading the Book from before thee: the Truth hath indeed come to thee from thy Lord: so be in no wise of those in doubt.

These verses seem to indicate that the Old and New Testaments were confirmed as Divine Scripture, and that those who have them can learn the truth from them. Accordingly, the Qur’an seems to teach in 2:62 that Muslims, Jews and Christians may all be saved by following their respective Scriptures: 62. Those who believe (in the Qur'an), and those who follow the Jewish (scriptures), and the Christians and the Sabians,44 - any who believe in Allah and the Last Day, and work righteousness, shall have their reward with their Lord; on them shall be no fear, nor shall they grieve.

43 44

Geisler, pg. 55, quoting Isma’il R. Al Faruqi It is thought that the Sabians were a “semi-Christian” sect in Babylonia.

24

The Bible A Corrupted Book On the other hand, many other verses in the Qur’an clearly contradict important Biblical doctrines, and often the claim is made that the reason this is so is that Jews and Christians distorted and perverted their Scriptures. Thus, in 2:75, 79: 75. Can ye (o ye men of Faith) entertain the hope that they will believe in you?- Seeing that a party of them heard the Word of Allah, and perverted it knowingly after they understood it. 79. Then woe to those who write the Book with their own hands, and then say: "This is from Allah," to traffic with it for miserable price!- Woe to them for what their hands do write, and for the gain they make thereby.

And in 3:71 & 78: 71. Ye People of the Book! Why do ye clothe Truth with falsehood, and conceal the Truth, while ye have knowledge? 78. There is among them a section who distort the Book with their tongues: (As they read) you would think it is a part of the Book, but it is no part of the Book; and they say, "That is from Allah," but it is not from Allah. It is they who tell a lie against Allah, and (well) they know it!

And in 5:13 & 41: 13. But because of their breach of their covenant, We cursed them, and made their hearts grow hard; they change the words from their (right) places and forget a good part of the message that was sent them, nor wilt thou cease to find them- barring a few - ever bent on (new) deceits: but forgive them, and overlook (their misdeeds): for Allah loveth those who are kind. 41. ...They change the words from their (right) times and places:...

And 4:46: 46. Of the Jews there are those who displace words from their (right) places.... Accordingly, the conclusion in the Qur’an is that those who believe the Bible where it contradicts the Qur’an, and who therefore reject Islam, are in error and are bound for destruction. Thus, in 3:85: 85. If anyone desires a religion other than Islam (submission to Allah), never will it be accepted of him; and in the Hereafter He will be in the ranks of those who have lost (All spiritual good).

(Note: the seemingly tolerant and cosmopolitan nature of Islam as set forth in 3:84 – 84. Say: "We believe in Allah, and in what has been revealed to us and what was revealed to Abraham, Isma'il, Isaac, Jacob, and the Tribes, and in (the Books) given to Moses, Jesus, and the prophets, from their Lord: We make no distinction between one and another among them, and to Allah do we bow our will (in Islam)" – must be understood in light of the clear statement of verse 85. Thus, the Qur’an appears to its critics to offer inconsistent, contradictory views of the Bible, and of Christians and Jews. If this is so, what is the explanation for it? One explanation offered by a critic of Islam45 is that at the time of his earlier revelations, Muhammad thought that the Jews and Christians would accept him as a prophet, and so he was favorably disposed both to the Jews and Christians and to their scriptures (and perhaps partially ignorant of what is in the Bible). But as time went on and Muhammad was eventually rejected as a prophet by most of the Jews and Christians, and as he learned more about the contents of the Bible, his revelations regarding these matters became more negative. However, orthodox Muslims reject this explanation, and attempt to harmonize all the passages dealing with this topic.

45

Geisler, 56-58

25

Perhaps it is true that some or most of the “contradictions” listed above are only apparent. But one passage stands out to this writer as being very difficult to explain away. As quoted above, 5:46-48 states that Jesus confirmed the Law that had come before Him (the Law of Moses), and was given the Gospel which contained guidance and light. The people of the Gospel (Christians) are then to judge by what Allah hath revealed therein. Grammatically and contextually, the phrase hath revealed therein must refer to the gospel. But if the gospel is a standard by which we are to judge, then it must have integrity as God’s word. If the gospel has been corrupted, it would lose its value as a standard by which we are to judge. The Muslim response to this is that it was the original gospel preached by Jesus that is referred to, not the New Testament scriptures which supposedly are a perversion of what Jesus really taught. But here is the difficulty: How could Christians living in Muhammad’s time judge by what is revealed in Jesus’ gospel, unless they had access to an accurate account of that gospel? The fact is, the New Testament in use in the time of Muhammad is essentially the same New Testament we have today. If the Christians of Muhammad’s time did what the Qur’an directs them to do in 5:47, they would have judged Muhammad’s claims by the standard of the New Testament scriptures they had, and in doing so, they would have decided that Muhammad was a false prophet, because his message denied and contradicted basic New Testament teaching. It would seem that either one of two things must be true. Either, 1. The New Testament in use in Muhammad’s time was a corrupted book. In that case, Muhammad’s revelation directed Christians to use a corrupted book as their standard by which to judge when it could not possibly guide them rightly on major issues such as the deity of Christ. If Muhammad knew at that point that the New Testament was corrupted, it was deceitful and misleading for him to urge Christians to use it to judge. On the other hand, if he did not know at that point that the New Testament was corrupted, surely God knew. Why did Allah direct His prophet to hold up a corrupted book as a standard for judgment? In either case, it argues against Muhammad being a true prophet of God. Or, 2. The New Testament in use in Muhammad’s time was the true Word of God. In that case, anyone judging by what God “hath revealed therein” (5:47) will judge that Muhammad was a false prophet. That is because Muhammad’s teaching contradicted the standard, that which is “revealed therein.” “By this we know the spirit of truth and the spirit of error.” See I Jn. 4:1-6. Questions For Discussion 1. Does it seem reasonable that God would have sent prophets to every nation or every culture throughout the ages? If so, does it seem reasonable that every single nation would corrupt their scriptures except for the people of Muhammad?

2. If the Old and New Testaments are in fact not corrupted, what is another possible explanation of the contradictions between the Bible and the Qur’an?

3. Why is it absolutely essential for Islam to deny the deity of Jesus, if it is to maintain Islam as a separate religion with Muhammad as its prophet? In other words, why couldn’t Muhammad have confirmed the deity of Jesus?

26

27

Lesson 6 Response to Islamic Charges Against the Bible We have seen in Lesson 5 that in order to prove that Muhammad was God’s prophet and that the Qur’an is God’s Word, it is absolutely essential that the integrity of the Bible be undermined, both Old and New Testaments. This is so, not simply because the Bible contradicts the Qur’an on many points, but especially because the central theme of the gospel (that Jesus is God’s Son who died for the sins of the world and that His message of redemption is for the whole world till the end of time) is denied by Muhammad and the Qur’an. If our New Testament is a trustworthy account of the faith which was once for all delivered to the saints (Jude 3), and if the New Testament faithfully preserves everything pertaining to life and godliness through the true knowledge of Christ (2 Pet. 1:3), and if it is an accurate account of “all the truth” that Jesus promised the apostles would receive from the Holy Spirit (Jn. 16:13), then the revelations claimed by Muhammad are unnecessary, and many of them set forth heresy. Muhammad would therefore be a false prophet. So, Muslims today almost uniformly argue that the Old and New Testaments have been corrupted. For example, when I requested a free copy of the Qur’an in response to a newspaper ad placed by the Islamic Society of Greater Houston, I also received a booklet, A Brief, Illustrated Guide To Understanding Islam, in which the author states that the Bible we have today “is not the original scriptures that were revealed by God. They underwent alterations, additions, and omissions.”46 It is interesting that this charge has not always been made by Muslim authors. “In the first four centuries after Muhammad (600 - 1000 AD) no Muslim theologian seriously contended that the Gospel texts were not authentic. They might accuse Christians of giving a wrong interpretation to the words; they would not dispute the words themselves. As studies of Muslim apologetics have shown it was only with Ibn-Khazem who died at Cordoba in 1064, that the charge of falsification was born.” 47 In fact, in a treatise entitled “Muhammad and the Bible,”48 the author shows evidence from the Qur’an, the hadith, and the sira, that neither Muhammad nor the Qur’an ever charged the text of the Bible with being corrupted. The author’s conclusion is that the Qur’anic passages often quoted to establish the charge of textual corruption (such as those quoted in lesson 5 of this study) actually charge Jews and Christians with misinterpreting the Bible, or deceiving people about its contents, but not actually tampering with or corrupting the text. Be that as it may, the consistent charge of Muslims today is that the Bible has been corrupted. What evidence is presented to establish the charge? Quotations From Liberal Critics A common argument is to quote liberal critics of the Bible, such as those in the modern “Jesus Seminar.” The basic presupposition of these critics is that all that is “supernatural” in the Bible is actually myth that grew up long after the events supposedly happened. According to these scholars, the Jesus of the N. T. is not the same as the “historical” Jesus, which is almost exactly what Muslims want to hear. I say almost because these scholars also do not believe that Jesus was a prophet in the Qur’anic or Biblical sense. Nor would their bias allow them to believe that Muhammad was such a prophet. The point is, that “the views of these critics are based on an antisupernatural bias that, if applied to the Qur’an and the hadith, would destroy basic Muslim beliefs as well. Muslims cannot appeal to [such] criticisms..., unless they wish to undermine their own faith.”49 It is also interesting to note that the theories of higher criticism that were so popular among liberal scholars in the 1800’s have now been largely discredited due to the discovery of much linguistic and archeological evidence that supports the historicity of the Bible, and a number of liberal critics have repudiated their former views.50 46

I. A. Ibrahim, A Brief Illustrated Guide To Understanding Islam (Houston, Texas: Darussalam, 1997), pg. 59 Can we trust the Gospels? by Hans Wijngaards, 1985, Catholic Truth Society, 192 Vauxhall Bridge Road, London. The author documents his statement with several references. 48 Written by “Silas,” taken from the Web site answering-islam.org/Silas/bible.htm. 49 Norman Geisler & Abdul Saleeb, Answering Islam: The Crescent in the Light of the Cross (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 1993), pg. 214 50 Ibid., 236-237 47

28

Textual Criticism Another, related argument is based on selective quotations taken from the field of Biblical “textual criticism.” Based on the significant number of “textual variants” in Bible manuscripts and similar problems, the claim is made that we do not have an accurate reproduction of what the original Biblical writers actually wrote. In other words, the Bible is basically untrustworthy. For example, in the booklet mentioned above, A Brief, Illustrated Guide To Understanding Islam, to support his claim that the Bible we have today is not the same as that revealed by God, the author quotes from the preface of the Revised Standard Version of the Bible, “Sometimes it is evident that the text has suffered in transmission, but none of the versions provides a satisfactory restoration. Here we can only follow the best judgment of competent scholars as to the most probable reconstruction of the original text.”51

The Revised Standard Version has not generally been well received by conservative Christians. It does represent some of the more liberal scholarship of our time. But if the above quotation is read in the context of the entire preface52, it will be seen that it does not support the claim being made by Mr. Ibrahim. To show this, I have copied a few more parts of the preface, and made some explanatory comments. Source: Preface to the Revised Standard Version (1971, on the occasion of the second edition of the New Testament)

The immediate context had to do with Old Testament manuscripts. A contrast is made with New Testament manuscripts: “The problem of establishing the correct Hebrew and Aramaic text of the Old Testament is very different from the corresponding problem in the New Testament. For the New Testament we have a large number of Greek manuscripts, preserving many variant forms of the text. Some of them were made only two or three centuries later than the original composition of the books. For the Old Testament, only late manuscripts survive, all (with the exception of the Dead Sea texts of Isaiah and Habakkuk and some fragments of other books) based on a standardized form of the text established many centuries after the books were written....”

Then we find the quotation used by Ibrahim above. As the preface continues, the point of many of the comments made is that we are now in a much better position than ever before, to know the exact reading of the original: “The discovery of the meaning of the text, once the best readings have been established, is aided by many new resources for understanding the original languages. Much progress has been made in the historical and comparative study of these languages. A vast quantity of writings in related Semitic languages, some of them only recently discovered, has greatly enlarged our knowledge of the vocabulary and grammar of Biblical Hebrew and Aramaic...”

Regarding the New Testament, after pointing out that the King James Version was based on only the limited number of medieval manuscripts that were available at the time of translation (1611), the preface continues: “We now possess many more ancient manuscripts of the New Testament, and are far better equipped to seek to recover the original wording of the Greek text. The evidence for the text of the books of the New Testament is better than for any other ancient book, both in the number of extant manuscripts and in the nearness of the date of some of these manuscripts to the date when the book was originally written.” (Italics are mine.)

The preface continues by pointing out yet another advance in the study of the Biblical text: “...An amazing body of Greek papyri has been unearthed in Egypt since the 1870's—private letters, official reports, wills, business accounts, petitions, and other such trivial, everyday recordings of the activities of human beings. In 1895 appeared the first of Adolf Deissmann's studies of these ordinary materials. He proved that many words which had hitherto been assumed to belong to what was called "Biblical Greek" were current in the spoken vernacular of the first century A.D. The 51 52

See Ibrahim, pg. 59 You may read the entire preface at www.ncccusa.org/newbtu/aboutrsv.html.

29 New Testament was written in the Koiné, the common Greek which was spoken and understood practically everywhere throughout the Roman Empire in the early centuries of the Christian era. This development in the study of New Testament Greek has come since the work on the English Revised Version and the American Standard Version was done, and at many points sheds new light upon the meaning of the Greek text.”

The preface continues by giving examples of modifications made in the text since the last revision: “Two passages, the longer ending of Mark (16.9-20) and the account of the woman caught in adultery (Jn 7.53-8.11), are restored to the text, separated from it by a blank space and accompanied by informative notes describing the various arrangements of the text in the ancient authorities. With new manuscript support, two passages, Lk 22.19b-20 and 24.51b, are restored to the text, and one passage, Lk 22.43-44, is placed in the note, as is a phrase in Lk 12.39. Notes are added which indicate significant variations, additions, or omissions in the ancient authorities (Mt 9.34; Mk 3.16; 7.4; Lk 24.32,51, etc.)....” (This last sentence is also quoted by Mr. Ibrahim.)

Two points especially need to be made about this information. 1) It is essential to understand that the textual variants come from having an abundance of manuscript evidence to study, the very fact which increases the likelihood of our being as close to the original as possible. If an early Christian leader had had the authority and inclination to order all manuscripts burned except those based on one version (as Uthman, the third Muslim Caliph did), we might not have as many variants. But we also would not have as good a chance of knowing the precise original. Norman Geisler summarizes the significance of textual variants by referring to the words of several scholars.53 He points out that, as to the large number of variant readings, if a word is misplaced or misspelled exactly the same way in 3,000 manuscripts, that counts as 3,000 variants. According to the textual scholars Westcott and Hort, only about one-sixtieth of these rise above “trivialities.” That leaves a text that is 98.33 percent pure. Another scholar, A. T. Robertson, said that the real concern is only with a “thousandth part of the entire text.” Church historian Philip Schaff calculated that of the 150,000 variants known in his day, only 400 affected the meaning of the passage, only 50 were of real significance, and not even one affected “an article of faith or a precept of duty which is not abundantly sustained by other and undoubted passages....” 2) It is clear to this writer that the problems that exist with the transmission, preservation and translation of Hebrew and Greek manuscripts of the Bible do not even begin to provide a foundation for the Muslim contention that, if we had the “original gospel delivered by Jesus,” we would have essentially the same message preached by Muhammad. We do not have the evidence of heretics scheming to support their heresies by a massive campaign of forgery, but of common human error in transcribing copies. Toss out every New Testament verse disputed because of manuscript variants, and what is left is the same gospel, which proclaims Jesus as the Son of God, and His death on the cross and resurrection from the dead as the basis of man’s redemption from sin. And apparently, that is also the conclusion of the revision committee of the Revised Standard Version, for the concluding paragraph of their Preface (the same preface quoted by Muslims to undermine the Bible’s integrity), includes the following statement. “The Bible is more than a historical document to be preserved. And it is more than a classic of English literature to be cherished and admired. It is a record of God's dealing with men, of God's revelation of Himself and His will. It records the life and work of Him in whom the Word of God became flesh and dwelt among men. The Bible carries its full message, not to those who regard it simply as a heritage of the past or praise its literary style, but to those who read it that they may discern and understand God's Word to men. (Italics mine.) That Word must not be disguised in phrases that are no longer clear, or hidden under words that have changed or lost their meaning. It must stand forth in language that is direct and plain and meaningful to people today. It is our hope and our earnest prayer that this Revised Standard Version of the Bible may be used by God to speak to men in these momentous times, and to help them to understand and believe and obey his Word.”

Since textual criticism is a field that most of us are unfamiliar with, and it is therefore easy to get wrong impressions from critics, I’m including some more information on this subject. A good summary of the situation

53

Ibid., pg. 233

30

as it relates to Islam is found in “Can we trust the Gospels? A letter to my Muslim brothers,” by Hans Wijngaards MHM.54 I will quote extensively from his good article to increase our understanding of this subject. “The text of the Gospels” “...Can we find out what the original text was, the precise words of the inspired writings as they were written down in the period between 50 and 90 AD?....The science of 'text criticism' has studied many ancient writings, among them the books of the New Testament. I shall endeavour to explain in a few paragraphs what is, in actual fact a complicated and painstaking procedure. “In Christ's time all books and letters had to be written out by hand. When the New Testament writings had been completed, they could only be spread to the various Christian communities by taking hand-written copies of them. Such a copy is called a `manuscript'.... The material used in those days was papyrus, an inferior quality of paper made of reed. Because the sacred writings would be handled frequently...the original text and the earliest copies would soon be tattered and worn. They were being replaced continuously by new copies. “In the fourth century AD a better material was found, namely parchment....When scientists find an ancient manuscript they first determine its age, then transcribe it as faithfully as possible and study all its characteristics. The text preserved in a particular manuscript is then compared to that found in other ones. “To study the New Testament writings, scientists have a wealth of material at their disposal. Of the Greek text (remember that the New Testament was written in Greek) there are no less than 4680 manuscripts....Then there are more than 6000 manuscripts of ancient translations in such languages as Latin, Syriac, Coptic, Gothic, Armenian, Ethiopic, Georgian, Nubian Arabic, Persian and Slavonic. A third source for comparison are quotations of scriptural texts found with more than 220 Church Fathers and theologians. “Some of these texts are very old. One of the papyri known as P52, contains fragments of St John's Gospel. It has been dated as 130 AD, which means that this copy of the Gospel was written hardly forty years after the original. Another famous example is the Codex Sinaiticus, which was written in about 350 AD in Egypt. 347 of its leaves have been preserved which cover practically the whole New Testament....

“The nature of the evidence” “To compare these thousands of manuscripts and other sources which range roughly from the second to the fourteenth century is a gargantuan task. But it has been done. The repeated copying of the text through the centuries, by different scribes in widely separated places, resulted in small variations creeping into the text. They are known as `variant readings'. Once such a variant reading had been incorporated, further copies would obviously contain the same variation. By analysing these small differences, scientists have been able to group many manuscripts together, showing that they derive from common ancestor manuscripts. In this way very early versions of the text can be reconstructed with great precision. We know what the text was like at the end of the third century in four streams of transmission the Alexandrian, Western, Caesarian and Antiochian families. By projecting this further back into the past the original text that must have antedated these recensions can be arrived at. “The outcome of all these studies has been to establish beyond doubt the authenticity of the New Testament text. We can be absolutely sure that the text we possess is essentially identical to the original writings. Or, to put it in quantitative terms: the small variations that have crept into the text over all these centuries affect only one and a half per cent of the text (one of every sixty words); they rarely make any doctrinal difference. Ninety-eight and a half per cent of the text is certain beyond reasonable doubt. “This proves that the text has not been falsified. Indeed, if anybody at any time had attempted such a falsification, this could immediately be detected. Imagine that a wealthy banker in Singapore wrote a last will describing how his property should be divided after fifty years. Imagine that he had five children, each of whom made a copy of this will and had it with him while migrating to different parts of the world - London, Cape Town, Los Angeles, Sydney and Rio de Janeiro. Each of these children again had five children who all made copies of the document possessed by their parents. Again, they too had five children each, who in turn made copies of the document. Now even supposing that the original will of their greatgrandfather in Singapore was lost by a comparison of the many copies that had been made in so many different places the original text could with certainty be established. If any of the children or grandchildren had tried to change the text his deception would immediately be exposed by its deviation from what the other copies showed. In the same way, any attempt 54

The article may be found on the Internet at http://answering-islam.org/Bible/Text/wijngaards.html.

31 at falsifying the Gospel text would immediately show up in its discrepancy from the many thousands of manuscripts that retain independent copies. “H. K Moulton, who spent more than forty years studying the manuscripts, may be quoted by way of summary at this point. After stating that the smaller variations between texts do in no single case mean a loss of Christian doctrine, he says: “When all the documents have been sifted and rigidly examined, we find that essentially they agree ... The textual critic leads us back from our present printed Scripture through long and sometimes round-about paths to the New Testament writers themselves. He gives us substantially what they wrote, rigorously tested and objectively approved ... No book has ever had its text so vigorously examined as the New Testament has. No fabrication could have survived such thorough testing without falling apart ... We can trust our Source-Book, it has been weighed in the balance and not found wanting.”

Wijngaards concludes his discussion with this statement: “Many of the great Muslim thinkers have, indeed, accepted the authenticity of the New Testament text. Listing the names of these men seems a fitting conclusion to this essay. Their testimony proves that Christian-Muslim dialogue need not for ever be stymied by the allegation introduced by Ibn-Khazem. Two great historians, Al-Mas'udi (died 956) and Ibn-Khaldun (died 1406), held the authenticity of the Gospel text. Four well-known theologians agreed with this: Ali at-Tabari (died 855), Qasim al-Khasani (died 860), 'Amr al-Ghakhiz (died 869) and, last but not least, the famous Al-Ghazzali (died 1111).14 Their view is shared by Abu Ali Husain Ibn Sina, who is known in the West as Avicenna (died 1037). Bukhari (died 870), who acquired a great name by his collection of early traditions, quoted the Qur'an itself (Sura 3:72,78) to prove that the text of the Bible was not falsified.15 Finally, Muhammad Abduh Sayyid Ahmad Khan, a religious and social reformer of modem times (died 1905), accepted the findings of modern science. He said: ‘As far as the text of the Bible is concerned. it has not been altered ... No attempt was made to present a diverging text as the authentic one.’”

Another Good Discussion Another good discussion of this subject is entitled “Historicity of the Bible.”55 Again, I will quote extensively. The author discusses three lines of evidence to establish that what we have today is substantially what the N. T. writers actually wrote.

1. The Time Gap - the time gap between the original writing of the New Testament and oldest existing manuscripts of the New Testament, as compared to other writings from the ancient world. He provides the following chart, describing the time gap of other ancient authors, and the number of manuscript copies which are extant: Author Caesar Tacitus Pliny (History) Herodotus (History) Aristotle

When Written 100 - 44 BC AD 100 AD 61 - 113

Earliest Copy 900 AD 1,100 AD 850 AD

Time Span 1,000 years 1,000 years 750 years

# of copies 10 20 7

480 - 425 BC

900 AD

1,300 years

8

384 - 322 BC

1,100 AD

1,400 years

5

Then he makes the following comparison with New Testament documents: “How does the time gap of the New Testament compare to these works? There are a number of manuscripts of the New Testament which, for all practical purposes, eliminates any significant time gap. The John Ryland Manuscript, located in the John Ryland Library of Manchester, England and the oldest known fragment of the New Testament, is dated AD 130, within 40 years of the original. It contains fragments of the gospel of John. “Other, more extensive, copies of the New Testament include the Chester Beatty Papyri, containing major portions of the New Testament and dated early 3rd century, the Bodmer Papyrus, dated late 2nd century, the Codex Sinaiticus, dated AD 350, and the Codex Vaticanus, dated AD 325 - AD 350. Some of the codices contain the entire New Testament. It can be

55

Copyright © 1994 by The Issachar Institute, P.O. Box 241583, Charlotte, NC 28224. Taken from the Web site, answeringislam.org/Case/case1.html

32 seen that, as far as the time gap between the original writing of the New Testament and the earliest extant manuscripts, there is no work from the ancient world which can compare to the New Testament. As Sir Frederic Kenyon says The net result of this discovery [of the Chester Beatty Papyri] ... is, in fact, to reduce the gap between the earlier manuscripts and the traditional dates of the New Testament books so far that it becomes negligible in any discussion of their authenticity. No other ancient book has anything like such an early and plentiful testimony to its text. Kenyon goes on to rightly conclude ... no unbiased scholar would deny that the text that has come down to us is substantially sound.”

2. The Number of Manuscripts - the number of existing manuscripts of the New Testament, as compared to other writings from the ancient world. After discussing the large number of manuscripts available for comparison, the author give the following illustration to show the significance of textual variants in the manuscripts: “The significance of having a larger number of manuscripts as far as confirming the integrity of the text is this: the greater the number of manuscripts of an ancient document, the more certain the reading of the original can be ascertained. “Suppose someone gave you a copy of a telegram written to you which said “You have won one million #ollars!" “As you read the copy you feel quite certain that what you have won is one million dollars, and that the number sign was merely a copyist's error. However, suppose that you received another copy of the telegram which read "You have won one &illion dollars!" “With this additional copy you are more certain of your conclusion about the original telegram, since the 'd' is present in the second copy where it was missing from the first, and the 'm' is present in the first where it is missing from the second. It is in this manner that literary scholars ascertain the reading of the original writing of an ancient document. Obviously, the more manuscripts in existence to cross reference, the more reliable your reading of the original can be.

3. Quotes - quotes of the New Testament from early Christian writings. “During the first generation of Christian leaders, referred to as the Church Fathers, we find numerous quotes of the New Testament from their personal correspondence. For example, Clement of Alexandria, who lived about AD 150 - AD 212, has 2,406 quotes from all but three books of the New Testament. Tertullian, who was an elder of the church in Carthage and who lived around AD 160 - AD 220, quotes the New Testament 7,258 times. Of these quotes, around 3,800 are from the gospels. Other quotes from Church fathers include Justin Martyr, 330 quotes; Irenaeus, 1,819 quotes; Origen, 17,922 quotes, Hippolytus, 1,378 quotes; and Eusebius, 5,176 quotes, making a total of 36,289 quotes of the New Testament. “What is interesting and significant about these numerous quotes of the New Testament is that you could destroy all the manuscripts of the New Testament, and destroy all the New Testaments in existence in the world, and you could reproduce all but eleven verses of the New Testament from these quotes of the Church Fathers. His conclusion: “Thus, when it comes to checking and cross checking the readings of the New Testament, it stands as the most historically attested to work of the ancient world.”

This discussion of textual criticism is only one small part of the question of the Bible’s integrity. But it is an important part of our investigation of Islam, since Muslims today are making such wide use of quotations taken from the field of Biblical criticism, and since this is so crucial to their position. Always remember these two points: 1) In using the writings of a scholar, we must view his analysis of historical information in light of his philosophical biases. In the case of many of the critical scholars quoted by Muslims, their biases would undermine the case for Islam just as surely as for Christianity.

33

2) It is important to take note not only of the facts, but also the significance of the facts. In the case of textual criticism, the significance of the facts is to strengthen the Bible’s integrity, not to weaken it. I’ll close this lesson with an observation on the contrast between the conduct of textual criticism in Christianity, and textual criticism in Islam. “Many Muslims try to capitalize in their debates on the fact that there are variant readings of Biblical text in the many manuscripts we have of it.... In a certain sense Muslims have the "advantage" that Christians have carefully documented these variants in scholarly journals and monographs. Christian and secular scholars are openly discussing these problems in the discipline of textual criticism. “On the other hand, Muslims have the well known propaganda statement that there are no variants in the Qur'an at all and the Qur'an has been the same text even to the detail of each single letter and that this was so from the very beginning. More educated Muslims know that this is not true, but the average Muslim is made to believe this objectively wrong claim. “In particular, let us ask why some of the oldest manuscripts are not photographically reproduced and made available to the public and the scholars. Why not start with the Topkapi manuscript in Istambul, the Taschkent manuscript, and the two old manuscripts in Cairo and Damascus. They are not Uthmanic manuscripts as some believe, but they are quite old. And then, publish them together in a format that makes it easy to compare them, or even better, listing all the differences between the texts, like it is done for the critical editions of the Bible text. “Until Muslim scholarship will become serious and honest about a critical investigation of the old Qur'anic manuscripts, we are mainly left with guessing, apart from a few documented facts.... But making access to the Qur'an manuscripts difficult is not inspiring much confidence in the claims of textual preservation of the Qur'an.”56

Questions For Discussion 1. In a reference edition of the New American Standard Bible, you will find several footnotes regarding textual variants. For example, at Acts 8:37, the footnote states, “Many mss. do not contain this v.” What do you suppose is the significance of a verse not having such a footnote? Do you know how many verses do not have such footnotes?

2. If it is true that no Muslim theologian in the first four centuries after Muhammad ever seriously contended that the Gospel texts were not authentic, how could that be explained, and what would be the significance?

3. Can you give examples from other fields of a person’s philosophical bias coloring his interpretation of factual evidence?

4. Can you find an example of a New Testament textual variant that would affect a basic doctrine of the gospel?

56

Taken from http://answering-islam.org/Quran/Text/criticaltext.html

34

35

Lesson 7 Response to Islamic Charges Against the Bible (2) The Canon of Scripture and the Gospel of Barnabas In the last lesson we gave evidence from the field of textual criticism that establishes the trustworthiness of the Greek manuscripts that form the basis of our New Testament. We can be confident that what we have today is essentially the same as that which was penned by the original writers, in spite of the textual variants that exist. But granting that the books we have are accurate copies, are they really inspired writings which faithfully set forth the work and message of Jesus, or are they humanly devised documents that set forth the views of heretics? Were the true records suppressed and destroyed by early church leaders? Did the apostle Paul introduce heresies and pagan concepts which were accepted by Gentile Christians, who therefore accepted his writings and others that agreed with him, while rejecting the writings that set forth the true teaching of Jesus? These are allegations commonly made by Muslim writers, and so the question of the New Testament canon becomes an important part of our introduction to Islam. Have Christians been misled in thinking that the truth is preserved in the New Testament? Or have Muslims been misled? We must become acquainted with the historical facts before we can judge the significance of those facts. Part 1: The Canon of Scripture The Greek word “kanon” meant a rod, ruler, staff or measuring rod. From this meaning, the word came to mean the rule of faith. The “Canon of Scripture” therefore is that group of books which are believed to be inspired Scripture. A book’s “canonicity” refers to its right to be recognized as part of the Canon. A widespread misconception, not only among Muslims but also Roman Catholics, is that the canonicity of the various books of the Bible was determined by church councils in the 4th Century. It would be closer to the truth to say that, aside from a few exceptions, those church councils simply recognized and placed an “official” stamp of approval on what was already the general consensus of the churches. An important distinction to keep in mind is that it is a book’s inspiration by God that makes it authoritative as Scripture, not its recognition by some council of uninspired men. So the real question is, how did the people of God come to recognize which books were inspired by God. The Old Testament Canon By the nature of the case, the Old Testament canon was developed gradually, as prophets were raised among the Jews over the centuries. Books would have been recognized as inspired by God in the generation in which they were written, so that books were added to the Canon over a period of over 1,000 years. The miracles performed through Moses were proof that God was working through Him (Ex. 4:1-9), so the books written by Moses (The Torah, or Pentateuch, i.e., the first five books of the O. T.) would have been immediately recognized as inspired and accepted as Scripture. There is evidence in the O. T. of a succession of prophets, who recognized the writings of the prophets who had come before them, and whose own writings were accepted as Scripture as they were delivered. For example, Daniel had a collection of books (Dan. 9:2), which included the Law of Moses (9:13), various other prophets (vs. 6), and Jeremiah (vs. 2). The Jews believed that the succession of writing prophets ended with Malachi, about 400 B.C. At some point before 200 B.C, the O. T. Scriptures (which were considered complete at that time) were categorized into 3 divisions: the Law, the Prophets, and the Writings (poetry & wisdom literature). Jesus alluded to this 3-fold division in Lk. 24:44, and His statement in Matt. 23:35, listing the martyrs from Abel (Gen. 4) to Zechariah (2 Chron. 24:21), is evidence that the Hebrew canon in use at that time was essentially the same as that in Jewish and Protestant Bibles today.

Note: this fact is highly significant in view of passages in the Qur’an which speak of Jesus “confirming the Law that had come before him” (5:46). It is certainly true that Jesus confirmed the inspiration and canonicity of the Old Testament.

36

The New Testament Canon There is evidence that, as with O. T. books, the N. T. books were recognized as inspired Scripture immediately by their original recipients, and that most (but not all) N. T. books were recognized as inspired and authoritative by the great majority of churches, long before the councils of the 4th Century made “official” pronouncements regarding the Canon. Of course those books written by apostles or prophets would be immediately recognized as inspired and therefore authoritative, by all but heretics. (See Acts 2:42, Lk. 10:16, I Thess. 2:13, I Cor. 14:37.) Remember that the apostles had miraculous signs to confirm the authenticity of their message. (See I Cor. 12:12, Heb. 2:3-4.) Inspired books were to be read by individuals and churches as the Word of God. (See I Thess. 5:27, Rev. 1:3.) Since inspired books were beneficial for all Christians, the books began to be copied by hand and circulated among the churches. (See Col. 4:16, Rev. 1:11.) Collections of more than one book began to circulated very early, for example, the epistles of Paul. (See 2 Pet. 3:15-16.) Those books regarded as Scripture would be quoted as such, both in other N. T. books (see Jude 17-18, and I Tim. 5:18 as compared with Lk. 10:7), and by teachers in the following years. It can be shown that by the middle of the 2nd Century, Christian writers had quoted from every one of the 27 books of our N. T., presumably as authoritative and canonical. (See the section on Quotes, pg. 32 of this study.) This was long before the official pronouncements of church councils. Islam and the Old and New Testament Canons These short summaries of the development of the Old and New Testament canons are interpretations of the historical data, from a conservative viewpoint. Of course there are problems that may be exploited by those who do not fully believe in the Bible, whether they be liberal “Christian” critics, or Muslims. In his translation of the Qur’an, Yusuf Ali has an appendix on the Tawrah (Torah), and also an appendix on the “Injil” (Gospel), in which he makes use of some of these problems in an effort to show that the Old and New Testaments are not to be identified with the original Torah (Law of Moses) and Gospel of Jesus. Without going into detail, it is sufficient to say that some of the “problems” cited are nothing more than subjective opinions, and that the real problems have all been sufficiently dealt with by conservative scholars. It is especially important to understand that the “problems” are a small part of the data, affecting only a few books, and that there was never any question about the canonicity of the majority of New Testament books. Focusing especially on the New Testament, let us consider some of the historical data, and what bearing it may have on the study of Islam. Early Christian writers, in discussing the question of canonicity, divided various religious books written by Jews or Christians into several categories according to the views taken of their canonicity. 1) There were those accepted by all, never seriously questioned by anyone. These included 34 of the 39 O. T. books, and 20 of the 27 N. T. books. 2) Those disputed by some. Though generally accepted by most from the beginning, questions were raised by some regarding these books, but all questions were eventually put to rest and they were therefore accepted as canonical. These included Song of Solomon, Ecclesiastes, Esther, Ezekiel and Proverbs in the O. T.; and Hebrews, James, 2 Peter, 2 & 3 John, Jude and Revelation in the N. T. 3) Those rejected by all. These were books claiming to have been written by O. T. authors but actually written between 200 B.C. and A.D. 200; and books which claimed to have been written by apostles or other disciples of Christ, but which did not bear the marks of authenticity, containing fanciful or heretical material. These were never seriously considered as canonical. 4) Those accepted by some. There were a few books which were accepted by some portion of the church for a period of time, but which were later declared uncanonical by a consensus. Some of these from the O. T. period were eventually declared canonical by the Catholic Church at the Council of Trent, in 1546. Many Muslim writers seem to have the impression that the church councils of the 4th Century arbitrarily (and perhaps conspiratorially) decided to grant canonicity to the books that supported what they wanted to believe, and that they banned the books that contradicted their pet doctrines. But this thesis is simply not supported by the historical evidence. Rather, the evidence is that long before those councils met, various Christian scholars and churches had already formed their impressions of the various books according to the categories described above,

37

and the agreements were far more significant than the disagreements. The councils simply ratified what was believed by all, and gave a decision on the disputed books. Consider the following information.57 Bruce Metzger writes in "The Canon of the New Testament, its Origin, Development, and Significance", page 160: "By way of summary, [just after 200 A.D.], Tertullian cites all the writings of the New Testament except 2 Peter, James, and 2 and 3 John. .... Tertullian regarded the Scriptures of the Old Testament as divinely given and he attributed to the four Gospels and the apostolic Epistles an authority equal to that of the Law and the Prophets. The orally transmitted "rule of faith" and the written Scriptures were mutually appealed to, and any writing that did not conform to the rule of faith could not be accepted as Scripture." The "Interpreter's Dictionary of the Bible", pages 529 - , states that the early church father Origen traveled to different countries and visited the various churches [during the early 200s]. It records: "Origen had traveled widely - to Rome, and in Greece and Asia Minor as well as in Egypt and Palestine - and had observed both the agreements and the differences among churches of different regions in their attitude toward the several New Testament writings; he was well aware that the views of his own church were not identical with those of other churches everywhere. Without attempting to lay down a judgment of his own, he makes note of the practice of the church, classifying the books as "acknowledged" or "disputed"; besides these, there are a number which are simply "false". Among the "acknowledged" he includes the four gospels, the Pauline letters, (fourteen, including Hebrews, even though he knows that it is not by Paul and is not accepted everywhere), Acts, 1 John, 1 Peter, and Revelation. ... The books which he most rigorously excludes are the numerous un-canonical gospels, which he adjudges heretical; in this area he finds no disagreement among the churches. "The church has four gospels; the heretics have many [here he gives the titles of some of them]. Four gospels only are approved, out of which he must bring forth points of teaching under the person of our Lord and Savior .... We approve nothing else but that which the Church approves, that is, four gospels only as proper to be received". (Hom. In Luc. 1). And again he speaks of "the four gospels which alone are uncontroverted in the church of God which is spread under heaven." (Euseb. Hist. VI.xxv.4). What Origen found during the early 200s was the canon of the New Testament was already becoming fixed. It was later that different churches formally approved their official canons. Origen found that all of them included the four gospels and Paul's letters. Bruce writes on page 215: "The earliest New Testament in the Syriac churches comprised the four gospels (either the Diatesseron [a harmony of the four gospels]58 or the separated gospels), Acts, and the Pauline epistles (evidently including the Pastoral Epistles and Hebrews). From the early part of the fifth century [early 400s] the common Syriac version, the Peshitta, included the three major catholic epistles as well." The "Interpreter's Dictionary of the Bible", continues on page 531: "The history of the canon in the Syriac speaking churches remains obscure until the beginning of the fifth century and the making of the Peshitta. Until that time, they used Tatian's Diatesseron almost exclusively in place of the four gospel collection which had so early become dominant in the Greek and Latin churches....It is not known when the book of Acts and the Pauline letters were first translated into Syriac, but it must have been before the end of the third century and may even have been done in the late second century, by Tatian. At all events, it is clear that in the fourth century the Syriac canon consisted of the Diatesseron, Acts, and the Pauline letters....The Peshitta, by far the most enduring and influential of oriental versions, was made under the direction of Bishop Rabbula of Edessa in the first quarter of the fifth century (425). It adopted the canon of Antioch: the four "separated" gospels, Acts, fourteen Pauline letters, and three Catholic letters - James, 1 Peter, and 1 John....The Nestorian churches continued to hold to the original canon the Peshitta, which was the base also of the oldest Persian and Arabic versions....

57

The following information is taken from http://answering-islam.org/Silas/bible.htm, where the documentation may be found as well. 58 A good discussion of the Diatesseron may be found in F. F. Bruce, The Books and the Parchments (Old Tappan, New Jersey: Fleming H. Revell Co., 1984), 184-187. Bruce argues that since the Diatesseron was a synthesis of the four canonical gospels, this is evidence that the four gospels were already recognized as canonical by A.D. 170.

38

This last reference to the Peshitta is especially interesting in view of a quotation found in Usuf Ali’s appendix on the gospel, mentioned above. Ali states: "It is probable that the Peshitta was the version (or an Arabic form of it) used by the Christians in Arabia in the time of the prophet. The final form of the New Testament canon for the West was fixed in the fourth century A.C. (say, about 367 A.C.) by Athanasius and the Nicene creed." If this is so (and the point

about the Peshitta probably is), then it seems to be a confirmation of the point made in lesson 5 of this study, on page 25. There I quoted from the Qur’an, 5:46-47, “Let the People of the Gospel judge by what Allah hath revealed therein.” I made the point that the Gospel that Christians had at that time was essentially the same as what we have today. That is more precisely true of the canon recognized in the Western churches. But the canon on which the Peshitta was based included our four gospels, the epistles of Paul, I Peter, and I John. Here is the point: those books firmly establish the central doctrines of Christianity that are rejected by Islam, such as the Sonship and Deity of Jesus and His vicarious death on the cross. So I still maintain that if Christians using the Peshitta in Muhammad’s day had done what 5:47 directs them to do, they would have judged Muhammad to be a false prophet. To summarize, while the “problem” areas of the development of the canon may be troubling to Christians, though the problems are not insurmountable; on the other hand, the part of the Biblical canon that is not problematic – those books that were universally “accepted by all” – seems to me to be absolutely devastating to the claims of Islam. *** Another question that should be explored in this study is, if the true gospel of Jesus was lost or suppressed by the early church, how do we know what that true gospel contained? Where is the evidence that would show us that the so-called true gospel was really compatible with Islam? My impression is that the Muslim answer is that it must have been compatible with the Qur’an, based on no documentary evidence, but only on the a priori assumption that since the Qur’an is true, all earlier prophets must have been Muslims. But this is assuming what needs to be proved. People of the Gospel are to judge by what is revealed in the gospel, but we are told that the gospel by which we must judge is one that must be assumed to agree with Muhammad. We have thousands of manuscripts showing that the gospel early Christians believed in contradicted the Qur’an. Where are the documents demonstrating otherwise? Perhaps the answer is in “The Gospel of Barnabas.” Part 2: The Gospel of Barnabas I will give special attention to this book because of the use being made of it by Muslim writers. The claim is made that it was written by a disciple who traveled with Jesus during His personal ministry, in the first century. It is supposedly the most authentic of the gospels, but was later suppressed by the Church. The reason why the Gospel of Barnabas is so popular with Muslims is that it sets forth an account of the life and teachings of Jesus which supports many key Islamic doctrines. A summary of some of these points follows.59 a/ The Son of God. Contrary to the Bible the Qur'an teaches that Jesus is not the son of God (Qur'an 9:30). In The Gospel of Barnabas we see that its author has altered [Jesus’ response to] Peter's confession [Matt. 16:16-17] to conform with what the Qur'an says: (Jesus) asked his disciples, saying: "What do men say of me?" They said: "Some say that thou art Elijah, others Jeremiah, and others one of the old prophets." Jesus answered, "And Ye; what say ye that I am?" Peter answered: "Thou art Christ, son of God." Then was Jesus angry, and with anger rebuked him saying: "Begone and depart from me" (chap. 70)

b/ The Death of Jesus. The Bible clearly teaches that Jesus was crucified and died. Contrary to the Bible the Qur'an teaches that Jesus was not crucified and did not die on the cross (Qur'an 4:156-157). Again, in The Gospel of Barnabas we see that its author has altered Jesus' crucifixion to conform with what the Qur'an says:

59

From Samuel Green, The Gospel of Barnabas. The article can be found at www.answering-Islam.org.

39 God acted wonderfully, insomuch that Judas was so changed in speech and in face to be like Jesus. The soldiers took Judas and bound him ... So they led him to Mount Calvary, where they used to hang malefactors, and there they crucified him (chap. 216-217).

c/ Jesus and Muhammad. The Qur'an says that Muhammad was predicted by Jesus in the Gospel (Qur'an 7:157, 61:6). However there is no such prediction in any of the Gospels in the Bible. Jesus did predict the coming of the Holy Spirit [Jn. 14:26, 16:13] but Muhammad is not the Holy Spirit. In The Gospel of Barnabas we see the author fill this gap and make Jesus foretell the coming of Muhammad: Then said the Priest: "How shall the Messiah be called ..." Jesus answered: "The name of the Messiah is admirable ... Mohammed is his blessed name (chap 97).

According to Muslim writers, the early church suppressed the Gospel of Barnabas. A good example of this charge is the following quotation taken from a Muslim web site:60 (The numbers in brackets have been added; they correspond to my comments following the quotation.) The Gospel of Barnabas was accepted as a Canonical Gospel in the Churches of Alexandria till 325 C.E. [1] Iranaeus (130-200) wrote in support of pure monotheism and [2] opposed Paul for injecting into Christianity doctrines of the pagan Roman religion and Platonic philosophy. [3] He had quoted extensively from the Gospel of Barnabas in support of his views. This shows that the Gospel of Barnabas was in circulation in the first and second centuries of Christianity. In 325 C.E., the Nicene Council was held, where it was ordered that all original Gospels in Hebrew script should be destroyed. An Edict was issued that any one in possession of these Gospels will be put to death. [4] In 383 C.E., the Pope secured a copy of the Gospel of Barnabas and kept it in his private library. [5] In the fourth year of Emperor Zeno (478 C.E. ), the remains of Barnabas were discovered and there was found on his breast a copy of the Gospel of Barnabas written by his own hand. (Acia Sanctorum Boland Junii Tom II, Pages 422 and 450. Antwerp 1698). [6] The famous Vulgate Bible appears to be based on this Gospel. [7] Pope Sixtus (1585-90) had a friend, Fra Marino. He found the Gospel of Barnabas in the private library of the Pope. Fra Marino was interested because he had read the writings of Iranaeus where Barnabas had been profusely quoted…

The preceding quote contains so many errors, fabrications, and absurdities that it would be humorous if we were not dealing with such a serious subject. Consider the following points: [1] It is truly ironic that Irenaeus would be quoted as an advocate of “pure monotheism” (in the Islamic sense) and as an opponent of Paul, when the fact is that Irenaeus is one of the best early witnesses both to the doctrine of the deity of Jesus and to the accepted canon of his day, including the epistles of Paul. According to F. F. Bruce,61 “The importance of his evidence lies in his link with the apostolic age and in his ecumenical associations. Brought up in Asia Minor at the feet of Polycarp, the disciple of John, he became bishop of Lyons in Gaul, A. D. 180. His writings attest the canonical recognition of the fourfold Gospel and Acts, of Romans, I and 2 Corinthians, Galatians, Ephesians, Philippians, Colossians, I and 2 Thessalonians, 1 and 2 Timothy and Titus, of I Peter and I John, and of the Revelation.” Perhaps Irenaeus is best known for his monumental work combating the heresies of his day, the title of which is usually shortened to “Against Heresies.” One of the heresies he wrote against was Gnosticism. He defends the Scriptural doctrine of the deity of Jesus. Following are some quotations from that work which show the absurdity of supposing that he quoted approvingly from a work that denied the deity of Jesus. “But he Jesus is himself in his own right, beyond all men who ever lived, God, Lord, and king eternal, and the incarnate word, proclaimed by all the prophets, the apostles …The Scriptures would not have borne witness to these things concerning Him, if, like everyone else, He were mere man.” (Against Heresies 3:19.1-2)62 "For with Him were always present the Word and Wisdom, the Son and the Spirit, by whom and in whom, freely and spontaneously, He made all things, to whom also He speaks, saying, 'Let us make man after our image and likeness'".( Against Heresies, 4:10) 60

Taken from www.Barnabas.net/how_survived.htm, which was a link on www.answering-Christianity.com. I have seen a quotation taken from an appendix to a modern translation of the Gospel of Barnabas, written by M. A. Rahim, which coincides with part of the quotation on this web site. That is the source for at least part of this quotation. 61 F. F. Bruce, The Books and the Parchments, (Old Tappan, New Jersey: Fleming H. Revell Co., 1984), pg. 100 62 Taken from www.exchangedlife.com. The next two quotations are also from this source.

40 "The Church, though dispersed throughout the whole world, even to the ends of the earth, has received from the apostles and their disciples this faith: ...one God, the Father Almighty, Maker of heaven, and earth, and the sea, and all things that are in them; and in one Christ Jesus, the Son of God, who became incarnate for our salvation; and in the Holy Spirit, who proclaimed through the prophets the dispensations of God, and the advents, and the birth from a virgin, and the passion, and the resurrection from the dead, and the ascension into heaven in the flesh of the beloved Christ Jesus, our Lord, and His manifestation from heaven in the glory of the Father ‘to gather all things in one,' and to raise up anew all flesh of the whole human race, in order that to Christ Jesus, our Lord, and God, and Savior, and King, according to the will of the invisible Father, ‘every knee should bow, of things in heaven, and things in earth, and things under the earth, and that every tongue should confess; to him, and that He should execute just judgment towards all...'" (Against Heresies X. l)

Also, “Iranaeus gave the Church two statements which have continued in its creeds: (1) Filius dei filius hominis factus, "The Son of God [has] become a son of man, (Earl Cairns Christianity Through the Centuries, Zondervan, 1981, pg.110) and Jesus Christus vere homo, vere deus, "Jesus Christ, true man and true God." (Harold Brown Heresies, Zondervan, 1989, pg.84)” 63 [2] I invite anyone who believes that Irenaeus opposed the apostle Paul to give some examples from Irenaeus’ writings. [3] Likewise, show us some examples of these quotations from the Gospel of Barnabas. The fact is that although there are literally thousands of quotations from various N. T. books in the writings of the so-called “Church Fathers,” there are no quotations from the gospel of Barnabas in these writings. There is therefore no evidence from quotations that the Gospel of Barnabas was in circulation in the first and second centuries. [4] If there truly was such an edict by the Council of Nicaea (documentation?), does it not seem strange that just a few years later a Pope (?) would want to procure a copy for his personal library? [5] This is taken directly from Rahim (see footnote #2.) One who has read the source cited has this to say: “However, the record actually says that a copy of the gospel according to Matthew, copied by Barnabas himself, written in his own hand, was found on his breast. This deliberate alteration of the record reflects little credit on Rahim's integrity. He omitted the words "according to Matthew, copied by Barnabas himself" and instead inserted "Gospel of Barnabas"64. [6] The Vulgate is a Latin version of the entire Bible, translated from the original Hebrew and Greek by Jerome at the end of the 4th century A. D., and is the authorized version of the Roman Catholic Church. To say that any translation of the entire Bible is based on a Gospel (any Gospel) doesn’t make any sense. As for what Gospels Jerome used, of course he would have used the four Gospels recognized as canonical in his time – Matthew, Mark, Luke and John. For all of its faults, the Catholic Church does defend the deity of Jesus. To say that their authorized version of the Bible is based on a gospel that denies the deity of Jesus makes no sense at all. (However, there is a connection between the Vulgate and the Gospel of Barnabas. See point 8 in the next section.) [7] To say that the Gospel of Barnabas was “discovered” where it had been lying unnoticed in the Pope’s library for 12 centuries is obviously a fantasy, but ironically, we are now close to the truth. The opinion of most scholars who have studied this document is that it is a forgery dating from medieval times. I will now list some of the evidence against the view that the Gospel of Barnabas is a first century gospel written by a disciple of Jesus, and in favor of the view that it is a medieval forgery.65 1) The earliest extant reference to any “Gospel of Barnabas” is from the fifth century, referring to a book that was rejected as spurious. But there is no manuscript evidence that identifies that rejected gospel with the work we know today as the Gospel of Barnabas. Indeed, a medieval forger could have gotten the title for his own work from the fifth century document, which was published soon after the printing press was invented in the 1400’s. 63

From www.letusreason.org. From http://islam.itl.org.uk/barnabas. (This looks like a very good site.) 65 These points are summarized from Norman Geisler & Abdul Saleeb, Answering Islam: The Crescent in the Light of the Cross (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 1993), 296-299. 64

41

2) The earliest manuscript of the Gospel of Barnabas is an Italian manuscript which scholars say belongs to the 15th or 16th Century. 3) Though the book is widely quoted today by Muslim apologists, there is no reference to it by any Muslim author before the 15th or 16th Centuries. 4) No Christian writer quotes from this work from the 1st to the 15th Centuries. Had it been in existence and considered authentic by even part of the church, someone would have quoted it. (All the N. T. books are quoted extensively by early writers.) Had it even been in existence, surely someone would have quoted it, whether it was considered authentic or not. 5) Sometimes this Gospel of Barnabas is confused with an apocryphal work called the Epistle of Barnabas, which does date from the first century but which is an entirely different book. 6) The Gospel of Barnabas, which has no manuscript history, is refuted by the testimony of first century eyewitnesses, whose testimony is supported by thousands of manuscripts, i.e., the New Testament documents. 7) If the Gospel of Barnabas were proven to be authentic, it would be a mixed blessing for Muslims, because although it supports some Muslim beliefs, it clearly contradicts the Qur’an on some points. For example, whereas the Qur’an calls Jesus the “Christ,” which means “Messiah,” (5:75), the Gospel of Barnabas has Jesus denying that He is the Messiah. 8) The book contains anachronisms revealing that it was most likely written after the 14th Century. For example, the Gospel of Barnabas refers to the Year of Jubilee occurring every 100 years instead of every 50 years as in the Bible. The change was made by the decree of Pope Boniface, in A. D. 1343. Again, the Gospel of Barnabas uses the text of the Latin Vulgate, which dates from the 4th Century, even though “Barnabas” supposedly wrote in the 1st Century (see the point about the Vulgate, above). Again, “Barnabas” refers to a vassal who owes a share of his crop to his lord (a practice of medieval feudalism). It contains a reference to wooden wine casks, rather than to wine skins as were used in the first century. Again, “Barnabas” shows an acquaintance with Dante’s The Divine Comedy, written in the 14th Century. 9) “Barnabas” makes historical mistakes, such as saying that Jesus was born when Pilate was governor (Pilate became governor in 26 or 27 A. D.) “Barnabas” makes geographical mistakes, such as stating that Jesus sailed to Nazareth (Nazareth was in the mountains, not the seashore.) I will conclude this review of the Gospel of Barnabas with a quotation from the Muslim scholar Cyril Glassé, in The Concise Encyclopedia of Islam, Harper & Row, 1989, p. 64: As regards the "Gospel of Barnabas" itself, there is no question that it is a medieval forgery. A complete Italian manuscript exists which appears to be a translation from a Spanish original (which exists in part), written to curry favor with Muslims of the time. It contains anachronisms which can date only from the Middle Ages and not before, and shows a garbled comprehension of Islamic doctrines, calling the Prophet "the Messiah", which Islam does not claim for him. Besides its farcical notion of sacred history, stylistically it is a mediocre parody of the Gospels, as the writings of Baha'Allah are of the Koran. So even many Muslim scholars reject the Gospel of Barnabas as a forgery. But why do many other Muslims eagerly embrace it as the “most authentic” gospel? Surely it is because of the problem I posed at the beginning of this section. There is absolutely no documentary evidence to establish what the “true gospel” of Jesus must have been, if our New Testament doesn’t preserve that gospel. That problem remains, and I believe it to be a significant one for Muslims to grapple with. In the absence of real evidence, some will grasp at anything. As for Christians, we can’t be expected to judge the truth of Islam by a gospel that is only assumed to agree with Islam, for which there is no evidence outside of the claims of Islam itself.

42

43

Lesson 8 Major Themes of the Qur’an (3) Death and the Grave, the End Times, Resurrection, Judgment, Hell and Paradise Lesson 5 of this study summarized the Qur’anic teaching regarding the prophets and earlier Scriptures, especially the teaching about Jesus and the Bible. Lessons 6 and 7 were responses to certain charges made against the Bible. In this lesson we return to our survey of major themes of the Qur’an.66 Death and the Grave The Qur’an emphasizes the mortality of man, and warns repeatedly of the Day of Judgment (3:185) . The event of death, especially for unbelievers, is described in fearful terms. “If thou couldst see, when the angels take the souls of the unbelievers (at death), (how) they smite their faces and their backs, (saying): taste the penalty of the fire” (8:50). See also 6:93; 56:83. Though the Qur’an doesn’t give much detail about the abode of death, or “life in the grave” before the resurrection, the hadiths give graphic details of the pains suffered there. Based on “hadiths of strong and not-so-strong chains of transmission,” it is believed by many (though denied by others), that while in the grave, all souls are tormented to some extent. The torment of unbelievers prefigures their eternal condition, but the torment of believers, less intense than that of unbelievers, is thought to have a purging effect on the soul (it brings to mind the Catholic doctrine of Purgatory). But many modern Muslims give a metaphorical interpretation of much of the language understood literally by classical Islam. The End Times The Qur’an teaches that the time of the last day is unknown to man (20:15; 33:63). But, much like Bible believers of the “premillennial” persuasion, many Muslims have interpreted certain statements in the Qur’an as giving “hints,” and Islamic tradition has filled in many of the gaps. Perhaps a majority of Muslims believe that the “signs” of the end described in the Qur’an such as cataclysmic disturbances of the natural order (82:1-5; 81:1-3, 6, 14) will be preceded by widespread moral decadence in the world. According to many hadiths and Muslim commentators, one of the most significant “signs” is that Jesus will return from heaven, destroy the “Anti-Christ” (Dajjal), and establish peace and righteousness (Islam) on the earth. In connection with that event is the battle with “Gog and Magog.” After living for a time on earth, Jesus will then die and be buried beside Muhammad, and after that, the resurrection will take place. This is a popular tradition among Sunni Muslims. However, most Shi’ites believe that instead of Jesus, it is the Mahdi (the twelfth Imam, or successor and descendant of Muhammad), who will return in this role. Resurrection of the Dead The picture given in the Qur’an seems to be that there will be two trumpet blasts. At the first blast, the earth is destroyed and all who are then living will die, or at least lose consciousness. At the second trumpet blast, the dead will be raised (69:13-16; 39:68). Muhammad strongly emphasized and defended the teaching of a bodily resurrection, in the face of much ridicule at first (46:33; 36:78-79). After all have been raised, they will be gathered before Allah’s throne, and will have ample time before the judgment (either 1,000 or 50,000 years – 70:4; 32:5) to contemplate the coming recompense. During this time, unbelievers will be filled with terror and grief, their faces black and dust stained (37:18-21), while true believers will laughing and rejoicing, with no fear (21:103). See also 80:33-42. When at length, the command is given to all to “bow in adoration,” only believers will be able to do so.

66

This lesson draws heavily from Norman Geisler, Answering Islam: The Crescent in the Light of the Cross (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 1993), 107-128

44

The Day of Judgment According to Islam, all will be judged on the scale of absolute justice. Tradition states that each person has two angels observing his entire life, one recording his good deeds and intentions, the other recording his evil deeds and intentions. Each individual then will be shown his book of deeds, and when the unworthy read and realize what is in the book, they will be filled with terror, realizing they have verified the justness of their condemnation (18:49; 17:13-14). The imagery of a balance is used, with the weight of good versus evil deeds being the determining factor in a person’s judgment (23:102-103). The outcome is described graphically in 69:18-32. The final phase of judgment is crossing the bridge over hell. Those who successfully cross are taken to heaven (paradise). But the condemned are unable to cross successfully, and fall into the abyss of hell (36:66; 37:23-24). The obscurity of the Qur’anic references is made up for by Islamic tradition. Though the Qur’an seems to deny that anyone’s intercession will avail with Allah (2:48; 6:51), popular Islamic belief often puts Muhammad in the role of an intercessor on the day of judgment. His intercession is so effective with Allah that even many of those condemned to hell are released and taken to heaven. In fact, many believe that God will show mercy to the extent that only unbelievers will remain in hell. Heaven (Paradise) and Hell The Qur’an is very graphic in its descriptions of hell. From hell can be heard the fury of a raging fire. The condemned are given boiling fetid water to drink, and boiling water will also be poured over their heads, which will melt their insides as well as their skins. But their skins are constantly exchanged for new ones so that they can taste the torment again and again. They wear pitch for clothing. They are begging for death but are not allowed to die. The sounds of sighing and wailing are all around. Hooks of iron will drag them back when they try to escape. See 11:106; 14:16-17, 49-50; 22:19-22; 25:12-13; 55:44; 56:42-43; 67:7-8; 69:30-32). On the other hand, heaven is usually described as “Gardens of Felicity,” where believers find what their hearts desire. They will drink from a clear-flowing fountain, and also from a shining stream of delicious wine, from which they will suffer no intoxicating aftereffects. The faithful will recline with ease in the shade, on thrones of dignity. They will have the companionship of young, pure, beautiful women, with big, beautiful, lustrous eyes. Everyone is content, peaceful and secure. They wear armlets of gold and pearls, and embroidered robes of the finest silk. See 37:43-48; 44:51-55; 52:17-24; 55:46-77; 56:11-40. As to whether these descriptions should be understood literally or symbolically, there seems to be a mixture of opinion or interpretation. Most Muslims have believed in the corporeal nature of the rewards, and have affirmed the reality of physical torment and pleasure in the future life. Even so, the recompense has generally been understood to have a reality beyond what we are now able to comprehend, and many believe the descriptions should not be thought of as equal to what we would experience on earth in this life. There are also some who believe the pleasures and torments are entirely spiritual in nature. As to the duration of heaven, Muslims are unanimous in affirming its eternity, as the Qur’an states (3:198; 4:57; 50:34; 25:15). While most Muslims believe that the punishment of hell is also eternal (10:52; 32:14; 41:28; 43:74), some contemporary Muslims believe the Qur’an leaves open the possibility that, at least for some, hell will not last forever, based on passages such as 78:23, 11:107, and 6:128.

45

The Nature of and Means to Salvation Islam does not believe in “original sin,” or the inherited depravity of nature that is such a common feature of most Catholic and Protestant theology. Therefore Islam doesn’t have the concept of a “conversion experience” in which God supposedly regenerates a sinner in a miraculous way. Rather, Islam views man as fundamentally good, but prone to wrong actions due to weakness and forgetfulness. “Salvation” is a word that doesn’t occur very often in the Qur’an. To the Muslim, salvation consists primarily in the forgiveness of his past sins and deliverance from hell, as well as gaining God’s favor and entrance into heaven. Since I and my brethren also reject the concept of original sin and inherited depravity, it may be that our views on the nature of salvation are similar to those of Muslims. But even if that is so, it remains true that our differences are fundamental. Our belief that redemption requires the atoning death of Jesus, the Son of God; and that the object of our faith must be Jesus as the Son of God, makes our belief systems mutually exclusive, even though they may share certain features. As for Islam’s teaching regarding the means (or conditions) of salvation on the human side, they may be summed up with the two concepts of belief or faith, and action. The Qur’an states, “To those who believe and do deeds of righteousness hath Allah promised forgiveness and a great reward.” (5:9) As for what must be believed, there are at least three essentials: that God is one (Allah), that Muhammad is His last prophet, and that there is a life after death with rewards and punishments. Traditional Muslim theology more particularly lists either five or six essential articles of faith: belief in God and his attributes, the prophets and their virtues, the angels, the sacred books, the day of resurrection, and Qadar, the belief that God decrees everything that happens, though some Muslims do not consider this last item to be an article of faith. But Islam teaches that right belief is not enough. It is also required that one have the right actions. The actions that are essential for entrance into heaven include the “five pillars of Islam”: the confession, prayer, fasting, almsgiving, and the pilgrimage to Mecca if one is able. Some would include jihad, or exertion in the cause of Allah. According to one Muslim scholar,67 “Islamic devotions are of two types, namely obligatory and supererogatory....Ritual prayer is obligatory five times a day; more than this is supererogatory. [etc.]....The ‘saving’ merit of the four obligatory devotions accrues from their perfect performance, which, of course, is impossible in the case of most people....Imperfections in the obligatory devotions...can be made good by occasional performance of them as supererogatory devotions....In the case of gross imperfections, there is a severe need of their performance as supererogatory, otherwise salvation will be impossible.” One way to understand this is that Islam believes that heaven may be earned by the good works of the believer as long as he is careful to fulfill his religious obligations and makes up for his shortcomings by performing other, “extra” good deeds and religious devotions. The Qur’an states, “Then those whose balance (of good deeds) is heavy – they will attain salvation: But those whose balance is light, will be those who have lost their souls; in Hell will they abide.” Again, one may live so as to “earn the pleasure of Allah” (2:207). On the other hand, Muslims do not believe that heaven is attainable apart from the mercy and forgiveness of Allah. The Qur’an states, “Say: O my Servants who have transgressed against their souls! Despair not of the Mercy of Allah: for Allah forgives all sins for He is Oft-Forgiving, Most Merciful.” (39:53) We must remember when we read reviews of Islam by Protestants such as Geisler, that their concept of the gospel is that salvation is by “faith only.” They accuse Muslims of believing in “works righteousness,” and of believing that they can “earn their way to heaven,” but they would likely make similar accusations against us, since we reject the Protestant doctrine of salvation by faith only, and accept the New Testament teaching that saving faith is an obedient faith (Ja. 2:14-26), and that Jesus is the source of salvation to those who obey Him (Heb. 5:9). A similar qualification is needed regarding the criticism that in Islam, “there is no assurance of salvation.” Muslims may be quoted who were reticent to even claim that they were believers “in the sight of God,” since it remains for God to make that judgment, and that “religious justification is thus the Muslims’ eternal hope, never their complacent certainty....”68 But for one who believes in salvation by “faith only,” and “once saved, always saved,” assurance of salvation is much easier to have than for one who rejects those doctrines, such as myself. However, I believe that such assurance is false assurance, based as it is on an erroneous understanding of Scripture. So, although the Muslim’s 67 68

Abul Quasem, as quoted by Geisler, pg. 124-125 Geisler, 126

46

concept of the necessity of action and his lack of assurance may be weak points in his religion, to say more would require further study on my part. As for the question of whether believers in God who are not Muslims (such as Christians and Jews) can be saved, many contemporary Muslims claim that anyone, regardless of his particular faith, may be saved if he has been a doer of good. But the ecumenical or humanitarian spirit that may be behind such thoughts is not a true representation of Islam or of the Qur’an, so far as I’ve been able to determine. Qur’anic verses such as 2:111-112 and 2:62, which are often used to support that view, must be understood in light of what it truly means to “believe in Allah” and “submit to Allah.” In practical terms, those phrases require having Islam as one’s religion. Thus, 3:85 states, “If anyone desires a religion other than Islam (submission to Allah), never will it be accepted of him; and in the Hereafter he will be in the ranks of those who have lost (all spiritual good).”

47

Lesson 9 Was Jesus Crucified For The Sins Of The World? No, According To Islam We have seen in Lesson 8 that although there are some points of agreement between the Bible and the Qur’an on the doctrine of salvation from sin, there are fundamental disagreements which make the two religions mutually exclusive on this important issue. This lesson will focus on the conditions of salvation, and especially, the basis of forgiveness. The Atonement One of the fundamental doctrines of the gospel is that Jesus, the Son of God, willingly laid down his life as an atonement for the sins of the world. This is taught not only in Paul’s epistles (I Cor. 15:3, etc.) but also in the epistles of John (I Jn. 4:10) and Peter (I Pet. 1:18-19; 2:24), the Revelation given to John (Rev. 1:5; 5:9), the book of Hebrews (Heb. 9:11-28; 10:10-14), and the four Gospels (Matt. 20:28, 26:26-28; Mk. 14:22-24; Lk. 22:19-20; Jn. 10:11,17). The Islamic charge that these New Testament documents were chosen to be canonical by the church after Paul’s “blasphemous doctrine” had gained the upper hand in early Christian debates has already been answered (see Lesson 7). As we have seen, the New Testament used by Arabian Christians at the time of Muhammad would most likely have been the Peshitta, or an Arabic translation of it.69 This Bible version contained the four Gospels, Acts, Paul’s epistles, Hebrews, James, I Peter & I John. If Muhammad’s Arabian contemporaries had done as Surah 5:47 commands (“Let the people of the Gospel judge by what Allah hath revealed therein.”), this is the version of the Gospel they most likely would have used. The Qur’an thus indirectly confirms the truth of the atoning death of Jesus, although it denies this doctrine elsewhere. But not only does the doctrine of the atoning death of Jesus fill the pages of the New Testament, it is also prophesied in the Old Testament, and as we have seen, the Qur’an teaches that Jesus confirmed “the Law that had come before Him” (5:46). As we saw in Lesson 7, the Law that Jesus confirmed was the same as our Old Testament today. The Law of Moses contains instructions about animal sacrifices, one purpose of which was to provide an atonement for sin (see for example, Lev. 16:11, 15-19; 17:11). Of course from the Christian perspective, these animal sacrifices in the Old Testament were simply a prophetic foreshadowing of the one Sacrifice which would be truly efficacious in atoning for sin. That was the death of the Messiah, clearly prophesied by Isaiah some 700 years before the coming of Jesus (Isa. 53). This couldn’t have been added by Christians after the fact, because it was part of the Septuagint translation of the Hebrew Scriptures into Greek, about 250 B.C. The doctrine of an innocent One offering his life as a substitute, to suffer the punishment that others deserve so that they might be forgiven and delivered from that punishment, is clearly taught here. The Just Nature of God’s Judgment But Muslims have a problem squaring the concept of blood atonement with the infinite justice of God. Surah 17:15 is often quoted, “...who goeth astray doth so to his own loss: no bearer of burdens can bear the burden of another.” In his comment on this verse, Yusuf Ali writes, “The doctrine of vicarious atonement is condemned. Salvation for the wicked cannot be attained by the punishment of the innocent. One man cannot bear the burden of another: that would be unjust. Every man must bear his own personal responsibility.”70 Of course it is certainly true that each person is responsible for his own sins, and the Bible stresses this truth. Thus, the apostle Paul writes, “But let each one examine his own work....For each one shall bear his own load.” (Galatians 6:4-5) This truth is stated even more explicitly in the Old Testament, in Ezekiel 18:20: “The person who sins will die. The son will not bear the punishment for the father’s iniquity, nor will the father bear the punishment for the son’s iniquity....” But if God is perfectly just, as the Bible and the Qur’an both insist, how can that justice be harmonized with forgiving one’s sins so that he doesn’t have to pay the penalty? The Lord went on to say in Eze. 18 that if a wicked man turns from his sins and practices righteousness, he will then not die, but will be forgiven (vss. 21-22). This statement would, in itself, be compatible with Qur’anic promises of forgiveness. But how can a perfectly just God simply ignore sins that have been committed? The Biblical teaching is that the sins are atoned for by means 69 70

According to Abdullah Yusuf Ali, in Appendix III of his translation of the Qur’an, pg. 291. footnote 2191, on page 678 of his translation of the Qur’an.

48

of vicarious sacrifice. The statement in Ezekiel is found in the writings of a prophet who was also a priest (Eze. 1:3). The temple, where animal sacrifices were offered, had been destroyed by the Babylonians and the Jews were living in exile, but Ezekiel writes of the rebuilding of the temple and restoration of animal sacrifices (Eze. 43:1327). So vicarious sacrifice is still connected with the forgiveness promised to repentant sinners in the Bible, and the doctrine of personal responsibility for sin (stressed in Eze. 18) is not considered incompatible with vicarious sacrifice. As stated before, the Christian position is that these animal sacrifices prefigured the sacrifice of Jesus. The Fall of Adam The Qur’an itself recognizes the principle that one person’s actions may have consequences for others, either good or ill. The case of Adam & Eve’s fall from the garden is an example. Consider Surah 2:35-36: “We said: ‘Oh Adam! dwell thou and thy wife in the Garden; and eat of the bountiful things therein as (where and when) ye will; but approach not this tree, or ye run into harm and transgression.’ Then did Satan make them slip from the (Garden), and get them out of the state (of felicity) in which they had been. We said: ‘Get ye down, all (ye people), with enmity between yourselves. On earth will be your dwelling place and your means of livelihood – for a time.’”

At least three Muslim commentators may be quoted (Muhammad Pickthal, Muhammad Asad, and Yusuf Ali), agreeing that the tense of the verbs changes from the dual in vs. 35, where Adam and his wife are addressed, to the plural in vs. 36, where Adam is seen as representing the entire human race that will come from him.71 The point is that Adam’s transgression had an effect on the entire human race. Unlike Adam, we all spend our entire lives (until death), living not in a perfect Garden, but in a sin-cursed environment filled with evil and pain of all kinds. We endure this, not because of what we have done, but because of what Adam did. Although there are some differences in the accounts, on this point the Qur’an agrees with the Biblical record in Gen. 3. Notice also, that although Islam teaches that Adam’s offence was something easily forgiven by God, Adam was never let back into the Garden. This should tell us that sin is a serious matter in God’s sight, that can’t simply be overlooked. Indeed, sin creates a separation between the sinner and God (Isa. 59:1-2). The apostle Paul draws a comparison between the effects of what Adam did and the effects of what Christ did, in Romans 5:12-19. The point of this much misunderstood passage seems to be simply that, as the sin of Adam had the effect of bringing a type of condemnation on the entire human race, the obedience of Christ to the point of death had the effect of bringing justification (forgiveness) to the entire human race. In neither case does an individual automatically receive either condemnation or justification. In the case of Adam, we are not condemned to hell because of Adam’s sin; but because of Adam’s sin we are condemned to living in a sinful, suffering environment, which makes it so much more likely that we will commit sin and thus bring condemnation upon ourselves (“...so death spread to all men, because all sinned....”, vs. 12). In the case of Christ, we do not automatically receive the gift of righteousness because of what He did, but His atoning sacrifice makes it possible for us unjust sinners to be declared just in God’s sight. We participate in Adam’s condemnation when we commit personal sin. Likewise, we participate in Christ’s righteousness when we choose to believe in Him, repent of sins and obey the gospel. In this way (by accepting the death of His Son as an atoning sacrifice), God is able to be both just and merciful when He forgives sin (Rom. 3:24-26). If a Muslim can accept the fact taught by the Qur’an that we suffer because of what Adam did, why should he not be able to accept that we may be blessed by what Christ did? Muslims usually ask: What was the need of Christ's sacrifice and atonement? Could God not have given salvation without giving Christ's life? We know that God is both merciful and just. If Christ had promised salvation without giving his life, the demand of mercy may have been fulfilled, but in order to fulfil the demands of justice also, Christ paid the ransom (fidya) which was his precious blood. In this way God revealed his love for us. No wonder, one of the disciples of Christ said, "This is love: not that we loved God, but that he loved us and sent his Son as an atoning sacrifice for our sins" (1 John 4:10).72

71

Ali’s comment may be found on page 26 of his translation, note 53. The other two references may be found in an article entitled “Substitution,” taken from http://islam.itl.org.uk. 72 Ibid.

49

However, in Islam, when God decides to forgive one’s sins, He simply decides to forgive them, without any satisfaction of His just nature. His just demand for punishment is never met. "If any one does evil or wrongs his own soul but afterwards seeks Allah's forgiveness, he will find Allah Oft-forgiving, Most Merciful." ( Sura 4:110) "Say: 'O my servants who have transgressed against their souls! Despair not of the Mercy of Allah: for Allah forgives all sins: for He is Oft-Forgiving, Most Merciful.'" (Sura 39:53) How God can truly be just while ignoring and forgetting sins against His law is never explained. Why Jesus? Another way in which it is true that “no bearer of burdens can bear the burden of another” (Surah 17:15), is that no sinner can pay the debt of sin for another, since each sinner has his own debt to pay. But that is one difference between Jesus and all other men. Whereas “all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God (Rom. 3:23), Jesus was perfectly sinless (2 Cor. 5:20; Heb. 4:15; I Pet. 2:22). Therefore, He could bear our sins, since He had no sins of his own to bear (I Pet. 2:24). Another difference between Jesus and other men that has a bearing on why His death could atone for sins while no one else’s death could have that power, is that He was the Son of God, and He came to earth for the express purpose of living as a man, and dying as a man for the world’s sins. Jesus taught that He would ascend to heaven, because He had descended from there and would simply return to where He had come from (Jn. 3:13; 16:28). Most Muslims believe that Jesus did not die on the cross, but was rescued by God and taken immediately to heaven. Why, of all the men who have ever lived, was Jesus the only one taken immediately to heaven? Because He was not just a man. He was returning to the glory that He left when He came to earth (Jn. 17:1-5). “Jesus was alive in heavenly glory before Muhammad was ever born, remained so throughout [Muhammad’s] life, and has remained alive in the same glory for fourteen centuries since Muhammad died and was buried in Arabian soil.”73 Permission To Sin? Muslims sometimes object to the doctrine of atonement on the basis that it makes forgiveness too easy. “If Christ died for all your sins, past, present and future, then you can sin freely. Is this not why the Western world today is so corrupt? You just have to ask for forgiveness and you have it!” Of course this objection is based on a misconception. Romans chapter 6 directly addresses this issue. “What shall we say then? Are we to continue in sin that grace might increase? May it never be. How shall we who died to sin still live in it?” (Rom. 6:1-2). The chapter goes on to show that in baptism, the old man of sin dies with Christ, that the new man might live with Him, in righteousness (vss. 4-13). Further, whereas one was a slave of sin before his conversion to Christ, he now must be a slave of righteousness (vss. 16-22). Even so, salvation is still a gift, not something we earn (vs. 23), because once we have sinned, there is no amount of good we could do to atone for that. It is only through the atonement of Christ that we are forgiven. The “Substitution Theory” of the Qur’an Apparently there is only one passage in the Qur’an that mentions the death of Jesus, and in that passage His death by crucifixion is denied. “That they said (in boast), ‘We killed Christ Jesus the son of Mary, the Messenger of Allah’ – But they killed him not, nor crucified him, but so it was made to appear to them....” (Surah 4:157). This vague passage has been interpreted in different ways. The generally accepted Muslim view is that Jesus did not die the usual human death, but was taken immediately to heaven. A popular view is that the likeness of Jesus was cast upon another man, who was mistakenly crucified. Many believe that man to have been Judas, but the Qur’an does not state this. Although Muslims believe that the doctrine of atonement as taught in the gospel is inconsistent with the justice of God, their own “substitution theory” has serious problems in that regard. First, if God caused someone else to be crucified for whatever crimes Jesus was charged with, that is clearly not just. The choice of Judas seems to be an effort to escape this obvious point, but the Bible is clear in its description of Judas’ suicide (Matt. 27:5). 73

John Gilchrist, in “The Crucifixion and the Atonement,” found at www.answering-Islam.org.

50

Second, think of the effect this deception would have had on Jesus’ mother Mary, who is revered in Islam and is the only woman mentioned by name in the Qur’an (not to mention the other disciples who were at the cross). According to this theory, the person crucified not only was made to look like Jesus, he was also made to talk like Jesus. In fact, he addressed Mary as his mother, and referred to himself as her son (Jn. 19:26-27). How just was it of God to put the people who were closest to Jesus through the agony of thinking they were watching him die, when in fact it was all a deception of God’s own making? Third, if the Muslim theory is true, then Christianity was not only founded upon a hoax, but it was a hoax of God’s own making. The disciples of Jesus turned the world upside down preaching the crucifixion (and resurrection) of Jesus. How could they be blamed for preaching Christ crucified, if God Himself had made it to appear that way? “The substitution theory makes God out to be the source of the greatest deception in religious history.”74 Which Should We Believe? So, we have two different explanations of the end of Jesus’ earthly life, and two viewpoints on the “how” and “why” of forgiveness of sins. The Biblical account is that God so loved the sinful world, He provided a way of redemption consistent with His justice and mercy, based on the sacrificial death of His sinless Son, who would pay the penalty of sin for those who would choose to accept the gift. The Qur’anic account is that God simply chooses to forgive “whom He pleaseth” (Surah 4:116). Which of the two accounts should we believe? Surah 5:47 stills sounds like good advice: “Let the People of the Gospel judge by what Allah hath revealed therein.”

74

Ibid.

51

Lesson 10 The “Miracle of the Qur’an” Evaluation of Islamic Evidences (1) In this lesson we begin the task of examining some of the evidence that is put forth by Muslims to support their belief that the Qur’an is not a human product, but a direct revelation from God. As we saw in lessons two and three, Muslims believe that the angel Gabriel revealed the Qur’an to Muhammad word for word, over a period of 23 years. Even the present arrangement of the verses is believed by many to have been dictated by the angel, in keeping with what was eternally in the mind of God. What evidence is put forth to support these claims? The Qur’an itself is said to be the best evidence of its divine nature, and of the prophethood of Muhammad. In the words of the Classical Muslim theologian Al-Baqillani, “...the prophetic office of the Prophet – upon whom be peace – is built upon this miracle.”75 The features of the Qur’an that are thought to demonstrate its divine nature include its unique literary style coupled with Muhammad’s illiteracy, its perfect preservation, fulfilled prophecies, unity, scientific accuracy, and the changed lives it has produced. The argument from unique literary style Statements from Muslims include the following: “...so exalted in its literary elegance as to be beyond what any mere creature could attain.” “No human composition could contain the beauty, power, and spiritual insight of the Qur’an.” “...the greatest wonder among the wonders of the world....”76 These statements echo the claims made in the Qur’an itself. “This Qur’an is not such as can be produced by other than Allah....” (10:37) “Say: If the whole of mankind and Jinns77 were to gather together to produce the like of this Qur’an they could not produce the like thereof, even if they backed up each other with help and support.” (17:88) Thus we are challenged, “And if ye are in doubt as to what We have revealed from time to time to Our servant, then produce a Surah like thereunto....” (2:23) How would we judge such a claim? Whatever conclusion we came to after reading the Qur’an, would it not be a subjective judgment, conditioned on our own personal background, taste and prejudice? In contrast, the miracles of Jesus (which the Qur’an acknowledges) were objective, observable demonstrations of supernatural power. For example, though most would probably have agreed with the subjective opinion of the headwaiter that the wine Jesus made was “good” in comparison with other wine (John 2:9-10), perhaps some would have disagreed. After all, taste preferences vary. The “goodness” of the wine did not make its production miraculous. What could not be disputed, was that only by the supernatural power of God could one immediately change water into wine (whether good or not so good) without the ordinary processes of nature being involved. This is a miracle. To say that one book is more eloquent than all others no more proves its miraculous divine origin than to say that one wine is “better” than all others proves that it was produced by a miracle. Eloquence of speech and quality of wine are both gifts that ultimately come from God, as all gifts do. But neither requires a miracle. We are told that the eloquence and power of the Qur’an can be fully appreciated only by those who know the Arabic language, and who can thus read the Qur’an in the original Arabic. This must be true, for many who read the English versions find it to be very tedious and confusing. According to Karen Armstrong, “Western people find the Koran a difficult book, and this is largely a problem of translation....Muslims often say that when they read the Koran in a translation, they feel that they are reading a different book because nothing of the beauty of the Arabic has been conveyed.”78 She continues, “Muslims say that when they hear the Koran chanted in the mosque they feel enveloped in a divine dimension of sound....” She goes on to give examples of early Muslims who were converted immediately when they first heard the Qur’an recited, because of the “extraordinary beauty of the language.” Of one convert’s experience she writes, “The beauty of the words had reached through his reserves of hatred and prejudice to a core of receptivity that he had not been conscious of.” But then she (perhaps 75

As quoted by Norman Geisler & Abdul Saleeb, Answering Islam: The Crescent in the Light of the Cross (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 1993), pg. 180. 76 Ibid, 181 77 Jinns are defined in footnote 929, pg. 323 of Yusuf Ali’s translation of the Qur’an, as spirits, personalized beings created out of fire who enjoy a certain amount of free will and thus will be called to account. 78 Karen Armstrong, A History of God (New York: Ballantine Books, 1993), pg. 144.

52

unwittingly?) reveals the fact that such experiences have little value as evidence of divine origin, when she writes, “We have all had a similar experience, when a poem touches a chord of recognition that lies at a level deeper than the rational.”79 Exactly. Any kind of art, literature or music has that potential, depending on the background and experiences of the one reading or listening. Personally, I can be deeply moved by many different kinds of music, but that hardly proves the divine origin of any of those works. And the fact that an Arabic speaking person can more fully appreciate the beauty of the Qur’an than one who reads a translation does not prove the divine origin of the Qur’an, just as the fact that one trained in classical music may more fully appreciate the beauty of a work by Mozart than one who doesn’t have a classical background does not prove Mozart’s divine inspiration. But again, even among Arabic scholars there is not universal agreement that the Qur’an is the most eloquent and perfect book ever written in Arabic. According to the Islamic scholar C. G. Pfander, “...it is by no means the universal opinion of unprejudiced Arabic scholars that the literary style of the Qur’an is superior to that of all other books in the Arabic language.”80 According to the Iranian Shi’ite scholar Ali Dashti, The Qur’an contains numerous grammatical irregularities which have resulted in critics denying the eloquence of the Qur’an.81 So, the claim of unparalleled eloquence is denied even by some Muslims. Regardless, eloquence does not prove divine origin. The argument from Muhammad’s illiteracy Muhammad is called “the unlettered Prophet” (7:157), and the common belief is that he was illiterate. This point is made to reinforced the previous argument about the eloquence and beauty of the Qur’an. It is said to be inconceivable that an illiterate man could have composed a work of such beauty, containing such wisdom and power. First, in 62:2, the word rendered “unlettered” is applied to the Arabic people in general. In Yusuf Ali’s footnote on this word in 62:2, he says that “as applied to a people, it refers to the Arabs, in comparison with the People of the Book, who had a longer tradition of learning....As applied to individuals, it means that Allah’s Revelation is for the benefit of all men, whether they have worldly learning or not.” The Arabic people of the time were called “unlettered,” though they were certainly not all illiterate. In that context at least, the word means a relative lack of education, not necessarily illiterate in the strictest sense. It could have the same meaning in 7:157. Apparently, there is historical evidence that Muhammad was not completely illiterate.82 But regardless of that debate, it is known that for the first 20 years of his adult life Muhammad was a successful business man and community leader, so he was obviously an intelligent man. Furthermore, the Arabs were known for their long tradition of poetry that was transmitted orally. Given his background and native intelligence, it is certainly conceivable that Muhammad could have been the source of the Qur’an without a direct revelation from God, even if he lacked formal training. The argument from the perfect preservation of the Qur’an It is claimed by many Muslims that there is only one Qur’an in all the world, without the slightest variation in any of the texts, and that this perfect preservation of the Qur’an without any corruption for so many centuries is a sign of divine intervention. Indeed, Allah states in 15:9, “We have, without doubt, sent down the Message; and We will assuredly guard it (from corruption).” However, Norman Geisler gives seven lines of evidence that show there is room for doubt regarding the claim of perfect preservation.83 I will summarize 5 of these.

79

Ibid., 145. See Geisler, pg. 187. 81 Ibid. 82 Ibid., pg. 190. 83 Ibid., 191-194. 80

53

ƒ

ƒ

ƒ

ƒ ƒ

According to archaeologist Arthur Jefferey, there were several different versions of the Qur’an in use before the text was standardized by the order of the third Muslim Caliph, Uthman, and there were wide divergences between these texts. The texts that differed from the Uthmanic recension were ordered to be burned. It took Jeffery 94 pages to show the variations between the Ibn Masud Codex (Sunni Muslims accept the Sahih tradition of Masud, who was authorized by Muhammad to teach the Qur’an), and the Uthmanic recension. The variant readings often involved whole clauses and sentences, so were not merely a matter of dialectical differences. Jefferey notes that “there is grave suspicion that Uthman may have seriously edited the text he canonized.” Widely accepted Islamic tradition holds that some things were originally in the Qur’an that are not today. For example, Umar stated that “...the Verse of Stoning was part of what God Most high sent Down...in the Book of God stoning is the adulterer’s due.” But the Qur’an presently states that one hundred stripes should be the punishment of adultery (24:2), and there is no mention of stoning. Even in the present Qur’an, examples of variant readings have been documented. Shi’ite Muslims claim that Uthman intentionally eliminated many verses from the Qur’an.

So, the claim of perfect preservation is open to objection. The Uthmanic recension has apparently been preserved quite well. But there is reasonable doubt as to whether this version was a perfection representation of every recitation that originally came from Muhammad. However, even if it could be proved that the Qur’an has been perfectly preserved through the centuries, this would not prove the divine origin of the Qur’an. It would only prove that Muslims have been very careful in their transmission of it. The argument from prophecies in the Qur’an One of the evidences of the Bible’s inspiration is the many fulfilled prophecies it contains (in the sense of predictions of future events), in many cases the fulfillment being hundreds of years after the prophecy. Muslims likewise point to certain predictions made by Muhammad as evidence that he was the Prophet of Allah. One source has counted 22 such predictions in the Qur’an. We will consider their evidential value under three headings. 1. Predictions Of Muslim Military Victories For example, 54:45 states, “Soon will their multitude be put to flight, and they will show their backs.” This is said to be an early Meccan Surah (which puts the date at some time after A.D. 610), at a time when Muhammad’s followers were few and weak in comparison with the Quraysh, who were rejecting and persecuting him. The fulfillment is said to be at the battle of Badr, which took place in the year 624, after the flight to Yathrib (Medina). A force of around 300 Muslims defeated an army from Mecca of over 900. About 45 Meccans were killed and 70 taken prisoner. Muhammad considered the victory to be a vindication of his Prophethood. After this, the Muslims suffered a significant defeat at the battle of Uhud. However, more victories came, and eventually the city of Mecca and the entire Arabian peninsula submitted to Muhammad’s power. Certainly, if Muhammad’s movement had been squelched, his claims to be a prophet would have died with him. On the other hand, do his predictions of victory necessarily prove him to be a prophet? After all, what military leader is not going to predict victory to encourage his troops? (For example, President Bush is presently saying that if the USA must fight against the Iraqi regime of Saddam Husein, we will certainly prevail.) As for Muhammad’s victories, are there other possible explanations other than their being acts of God by which God vindicated Muhammad’s claims? A skeptic might attribute these victories to a combination of factors, including good military strategy, and the zeal of the fighters brought on by Muhammad’s promise of Paradise for those who die fighting in Allah’s Way (3:156-158; 169-171). Also, as the Muslims grew stronger, the punishment decreed for those who waged war against Allah and His Messenger84 may have influenced the outcome of many battles. 84

“The punishment of those who wage war against Allah and His Messenger, and strive with might and main for mischief through the land is: execution, or crucifixion, or the cutting off of hands and feet from opposite sides, or exile from the land: that is their disgrace in this world, and a heavy punishment is theirs in the Hereafter.” (Surah 5:33)

54

Since they may be explained by other factors, Muhammad’s predictions of victory are not convincing as proof of divine revelation. 2. Predictions of the Perfect Preservation of the Qur’an As we have already seen, there is substantial evidence to challenge the assumption that the original recitations of Muhammad have all been preserved perfectly (see above). So if that fact is in doubt, a prophecy that predicts the perfect preservation of the Qur’an could actually be an example of a false prophecy. 3. Prediction of the Roman (Byzantine) victory over the Persians. Surah 30:2-4 states, “The Roman Empire has been defeated – in a land close by: But they, (even) after (this) defeat of theirs, will soon be victorious – within a few years....” This is believed to have been recited shortly after the Persians defeated the Romans (actually, the Byzantines) at Jerusalem in about 614-615. A Muslim tradition states that the expression “a few years” was defined by Muhammad as meaning from 3 to 9 years. In 622, about 7 or 8 years after Muhammad’s prediction, the Byzantines under Heraclius won a battle against the Persians at Issus. This was the beginning of a counteroffensive which eventually resulted in a complete and permanent Roman victory over Persia in 627-628. Great stress is laid on this prediction by Muslim apologists, since it is one of the few predictions in the Qur’an that comes close to meeting the criteria of a genuine fulfilled prophecy. However, a closer inspection of the evidence leaves room for doubt. First, it should be remembered that any prediction of the winner of a contest, whether a battle, a ball game, or a race, has some chance of being correct, even if it is just a lucky guess. Various factors might give observers a good idea of who is going to win, but things may turn out differently than some suppose. One reason gambling on such contests is popular is that regardless of the outcome of the contest, somebody always wins the bet (and a supposedly reliable Muslim tradition, which is used to prove the date of the prediction, states that bets were placed on the outcome). This is why predictions such as this have only a limited value as evidence of divine inspiration. But again, it can be questioned whether the prediction was actually fulfilled. Muslims seem to be in agreement that the “few years” was defined as meaning between 3 and 9 years. The Byzantine victory at Issus came within that time frame, but that was just one battle in a campaign that lasted several years. The final Roman victory was by no means assured at that point. According to Yusuf Ali, in Appendix VIII of his translation of the Qur’an, after the Roman victory at Issus in 622, The Persians....had still a large force in Asia Minor, which they could have brought into play against the Romans if Heraclius had not made another and equally unexpected dash by sea from the north. He returned to Constantinople by sea, made a treaty with the Avars, and with this help kept the Persians at bay round the capital. Then he led three campaigns, in 623, 624 and 625, along the southern shore of the Black Sea and took the Persians again in the rear in the region round Trebizond and Kars. Through Armenia he penetrated into Persia and got into Mesopotamia. He was now in a position to strike at the very heart of the Persian Empire. A decisive battle was fought on the Tigris near the city of Mosul in December 627.

Note that the “decisive battle” was not fought until 627. This would have been at least 12 years after the prediction. This presents a dilemma for Muslims. On the one hand, if the prediction referred to the complete Roman victory over Persia, it did not happen in the “few years,” defined by Muhammad himself as between 3 and 9 years. On the other hand, if it be argued that the one victory in 622 is what was predicted, that is hardly an impressive prediction. Surely it was at least likely that in an extended campaign covering many years, the Romans would win at least one battle sometime during the next 9 years. This is hardly convincing as evidence of divine inspiration, especially when this is one of the more impressive “prophecies.” Finally, remember that we are entitled to expect an extremely high level of evidence if we are to believe the claims of a man whose teaching contradicted the New Testament, which had already been confirmed by scores of clear prophecies and numerous miracles of divine power.

55

Lesson 11 Evaluation of Islamic Evidences (2) “Modern Discoveries of Science Previously Revealed in the Qur’an” In the last 30 years or so, it has become a very popular Muslim apologetic to claim that in the Qur’an, Allah revealed information that has only recently been discovered by modern science; information that could not possibly have been known by the Arabians at the time of Muhammad. This is said to prove the divine authorship of the Qur’an. For example, in A Brief Illustrated Guide to Understanding Islam, by I. A. Ibrahim, the author states, “It is beyond reason that anyone fourteen hundred years ago would have known these facts discovered or proven only recently with advanced equipment and sophisticated scientific methods.” Therefore, this proves that “...the Qur’an was not authored by Muhammad or by any other human being.” (pg. 6) Of the 36 pages in the chapter devoted to “Some Evidence for the Truth of Islam,” 27 pages are devoted to this topic, with only 9 pages devoted to 6 other lines of evidence. So, at least to Ibrahim, and to the Islamic Society of Greater Houston which is distributing the book, this is an important and convincing line of evidence. Therefore, we will review this evidence carefully, with the help of qualified scholars and scientists. Observable Problems In This Approach, As Used By Muslim Apologists Before reviewing several specific examples of these “scientific miracles,” I would like to suggest some basic problems that are inherent in this approach to evidences, and that are observable in much of the Muslim literature on this subject. We will refer back to these problems as we discuss specific examples of such “evidence.”85 Problem # 1 – Those who use the argument that modern science is found in the Qur’an leave no room for alternate interpretations of the verses in which they see science. Often, it is only one particular interpretation of a verse that suggests foreknowledge of modern science, whereas other, equally valid interpretations do not. Problem # 2 – In many cases, we are told that the passage in question was never truly understood until the modern discoveries of science which now show us what the verse in question meant. In fact, at least one author goes so far as to say that many verses in the Qur’an were never translated correctly until these recent discoveries in science revealed the true meaning. So for 14 centuries Muslims supposedly didn’t have a clue as to the significance of these verses, yet many of the phenomena appealed to were said in the Qur’an to be “clear signs,” even for the generation in which Muhammad lived. Problem # 3 – This approach results in Modern Science being the ultimate judge of the Qur’an, i.e., the ultimate standard of truth. How do we know the Qur’an is true? Because, the argument goes, it agrees in many particulars with Modern Science. This makes modern science the ultimate standard of truth. But what about when modern science contradicts the Qur’an? See Problem # 4. Problem # 4 – This problem consists of the selective and arbitrary interpretation of the Qur’an in order to escape from the consequences of problem # 4. For the Qur’an contains many verses which apparently are contradicted by modern science. These verses are then said to be obviously figurative or allegorical or poetic, or difficult to understand, etc., whereas the verses that seem to be supported by modern science are said to be straightforward, literal statements of physical reality (though only recently understood). Often there is no contextual basis for making such a distinction. With such a method of interpretation, one may prove anything. An approach that may prove anything, actually proves nothing (except the bias of the individual using it). Problem # 5 – This bias is obvious in Muslim authors who discuss both the Bible and the Qur’an in reference to modern science. On the one hand, the Bible is required to speak in the language of the 20th (or 21st ) Century. If a Biblical passage even appears to be in conflict with modern science, no allowance is made for figurative or allegorical language, no room is given for varying interpretations of the text, or accommodations to the understandings of the ancient readers. A completely opposite approach is taken with the Qur’an. In areas of apparent conflict, every device possible is used to find harmony between the Qur’an and modern science. Perhaps this is understandable (and perhaps it also exists in many Christian authors), but we need to be aware of its 85

Adapted from “Can ‘Modern Science’ be found in the Qur’an?” by Andy Bannister, found at www.answering-Islam.org.

56

presence. It definitely undermines the value of the evidence cited in favor of the Qur’an (and nullifies much of the criticism leveled against the Bible by Muslim authors). Problem # 6 – In many cases, the references in the Qur’an that are cited as scientific foreknowledge do not describe facts that have only recently been discovered, but actually reflect the views (in some cases, erroneous views) of educated people of that time. In other cases, they refer to easily observable phenomena that most everyone understood. Examples follow of the use made of “modern scientific discoveries.” We will see illustrations of the above “problems” as we evaluate these evidences. Example # 1: Human Reproduction and Embryonic Development After quoting from the Qur’an (23:12-14), I. A. Ibrahim expounds upon the passage at length, saying that it describes four stages of embryonic development that correspond exactly with the findings of modern science. He then asks, “How could Muhammad...have possibly known all this 1400 years ago, when scientists have only recently discovered this using advanced equipment and powerful microscopes which did not exist at that time?”86 Since this book currently being distributed devotes more space to embryonic development than any other single example of “scientific foreknowledge,” we will examine it carefully. The translation of 23:12-14 given in the book (he doesn’t say what translation he’s using) reads like this: “We created man from an extract of clay. Then We made him as a drop in a place of settlement, firmly fixed. Then We made the drop into an alaqah (leech, suspended thing, and blood clot), then We made the alaqah into a mudghah (chewed-like substance)....” (Note that he doesn’t finish the verse. We will come back to this later.) Briefly, the argument is that 1) at one stage of development, a human embryo resembles both a leech and a blood clot, and is suspended within the mother’s womb, and that the word alaqah could be translated to refer to either or all of these (photographs and drawings are provided for support), and 2) at the next stage of development, the embryo resembles a piece of gum that has been chewed, and the word mudghad appropriately describes a “chewed like substance.” (The passage actually describes 4 or 5 stages, but Ibrahim only discusses 2 of them.) He then quotes from Dr. Keith Moore, a medical doctor and university professor, to confirm his conclusions. Now, to an untrained layman such as myself, such an argument might seem convincing. But further research reveals several serious problems with this argument. The Problem of Translation and Interpretation First, there is the problem of translation and interpretation of the passage. (See problems 1 and 2, on pg. 55.) Ibrahim gives 3 translations of alaqah (leech, suspended thing, and blood clot). But according to recognized translators, the word in question, in all contexts dealing with human development, should be translated by the word “clot.” The word is found in 75:37-39, 40:67, 22:5, and 23:12-14. In the translations of Yusuf Ali, Pickthal, and Shakir, the word is most often translated “clot,” once as “clot of congealed blood,” once as “clot of blood,” and three times as “leech-like clot.” Muslim commentator Sahih Al-Bukhari uses the phrase, “a piece of thick coagulated blood.” Dr. William Campbell provides the following chart87: • • • • • 86

Over the last 100 plus years this word ‘alaqa has been translated as follows: French, un grumeau de sang (a small lump of blood) - Kasimirski, 1948 (last Ed. during life of author was 1887) a leech-like clot - Yusuf Ali, (translation of 1938) 1946 a clot - Pickthall, (translation of 1940) 1977 a clot - Maulana Muhammad Ali, 1951 a clot - Muhammad Zafrulla Khan, 1971

I. A. Ibrahim, A Brief Illustrated Guide To Understanding Islam (Houston, Darussalam, Publishers, 1997), pg. 8 Several chapters of Dr. Campbell’s book, The Qur'an and the Bible in the Light of History & Science, may be found at www.answering-Islam.org.

87

• • • • • • •

57 French, de caillot de sang (clot of blood) - Hamidullah, 1981 French, un caillot de sang - Masson, 1967 a clot of blood - N. J. Dawood, 1980 Approved by the Supreme Sunni and Shii Councils of the Republic of Lebanon Indonesian, segumpal darah (lump of or clot of blood) - Indonesian Department of Religious Affairs, 1984 Farsi, khoon basteh (a clot of blood) - Mehdi Elahi Ghomshehi Chinese, xue kuai (blood clot) Malay, darah beku (blood clot)

So only one of Ibrahim’s translations (“clot”) is widely supported by translators, with one translation also using the expression “leech-like,” describing the appearance of a clot, which brings us right back to “clot.” This becomes very interesting when we read the work of one of the most oft-quoted Muslim apologists today, Dr. Maurice Bucaille, a French doctor and author who came to the conclusion that the Qur’an is supported by modern science, while the Bible is contradicted by modern science.88 In Dr. Bucaille’s discussion of the word alaqah, he states that “something which clings” is the “original meaning” of the word.89 He goes on to state that “A meaning derived from it, ‘blood clot,’ often figures in translation; it is a mistake against which one should guard: man has never passed through the state of being a ‘blood clot.’” (Emphasis mine.) This is an example of something found several times in Bucaille’s book. His background as a medical doctor tells him that “clot” doesn’t agree with modern science (which contradicts what he is trying to prove). So he searches for other translations that will work better with his thesis. The problem is that the translators are as much experts in the Arabic language as Dr. Bucaille is an expert in medicine. For some reason, in all of the relevant texts, they all say “clot” or “clot of blood” or something similar. Dr. Campbell gives some insight into the situation in the following comment on the word as found in 96:1-2 (yes, another medical doctor, but Campbell has the advantage of having all the translators on his side): “Here the word is in the collective plural. This word form can have other meanings because ‘alaq is also the derived verbal noun of the verb ‘aliqa which means "to hang, be suspended, dangle, to stick, cling, cleave, adhere, and to be attached". The verbal noun usually corresponds to the gerund in English as in the sentence "Swimming is fun". Therefore we could expect it to mean hanging, clinging, adhering, etc. In addition the verbal noun can have other meanings established by usage. But the twelve translators listed above have all considered this the collective plural of ‘alaqa rather than a verbal noun and used "clot" or "congealed blood" in this verse too, and Fazlur Rahman also uses "congealed blood" for this verse in his well-known book Islam first published in 1966. Maulana Muhammad Ali explains why in Note 2770 on this verse. He says,

" ‘Alaq signifies a clot of blood as well as attachment and love. The former significance is the one generally adopted, because of the mention of ‘alaqa in the process of the creation of man in other places in the Holy Qur'an, and it indicates the insignificance of man's origin." In other words the meaning of the singular form is controlling the plural, even though there is great attraction to understand and use a different word which would avoid the scientific difficulty.”

If you feel confused, don’t feel too badly. Translation of important texts can often be a very challenging task. That’s why, in most cases, it’s best to go with the majority of reputable translators. This is true in studies of the Bible as well, which brings to mind an old saying, “A little knowledge (of Greek, for example) is a dangerous thing.” That’s not to say that translators can never be wrong. But when we reject the consensus of most linguists, because it contradicts the conclusion we are looking for, chances are we are on shaky ground. The point is, the evidence is not very strong if it depends upon a controversial translation. But that’s only the beginning of problems for this particular piece of evidence.

88

Maurice Bucaille, The Bible, The Qur’an and Science (translated from French into English). The copy I am using was loaned to me by a Muslim friend to whom I am grateful, and was published by Darulfikr, Moultan, Cantt, Pakistan. 89 Ibid., pg. 204.

58

The Problem of Contradiction By Modern Science If Muslim apologists want to use modern science to confirm the divine origin of the Qur’an, it does indeed present a problem for them when the Qur’an makes statements that do not agree with modern science. (See problems 3 and 4, on pg. 55.) We’ve already alluded to one of these contradictions, the fact that man’s being formed from a blood clot is, in Dr. Bucaille’s words, “totally unacceptable to scientists specializing in this field.”90 An alternate translation was offered in order to get around this fact. But, as can be demonstrated, a clot of congealed blood is exactly the way Muhammad and his contemporaries understood the word. More on this later. (By the way, Dr. Campbell states in his book, in reference to Dr. Keith Moore, who is widely quoted by Muslims as an expert witness, “Dr. Moore does not know Arabic and said straight out to me in a personal conversation that if the true meaning of ‘alaqa is "clot", then there is no such stage in the development of an embryo.”)

But there are more contradictions between the Qur’an and science in this area. Recall the unfinished translation of 23:12-14 in Ibrahim’s book (see above, pg. 56). The passage goes on to say, “...then We made out of that lump [“chewed like substance” in Ibrahim’s translation] bones and clothed the bones with flesh...” (Yusuf Ali). Perhaps the only reason Ibrahim didn’t finish the quotation was to conserve space, but I do find it interesting that the phrase he omitted clearly contradicts what modern science has learned about the developing embryo, according to the testimony of qualified scientists. Dr. Campbell has a good discussion of this point. He notes that while the Qur’an gives “the impression that first the skeleton is formed, and then it is clothed with flesh,” the fact is that “the muscles and the cartilage precursors of the bones start forming...at the same time. At the end of the eighth week, there are only a few centers of ossification started but the fetus is already capable of some muscular movement.” He quotes from Dr. T. W. Sadler, a professor of anatomy at the University of North Carolina, in confirmation of this. But he doesn’t stop there. He also refers to information in The Developing Human, by Dr. Keith Moore (who has written advocating that the Qur’an is confirmed by modern embryology), to the effect that “the limb musculature develops simultaneously in situ from the mesenchyme surrounding the developing bones.” Dr. Campbell’s conclusion is that “there is no time when calcified bones have been formed and then the muscles are placed around them. The muscles are there several weeks before there are calcified bones, rather than being added around previously formed bones as the Qur'an states.” Apparently, the Qur’an is in error on this point. The Problem of What the Ancients Believed To establish the case that “modern discoveries of science were previously revealed in the Qur’an,” it must be established that the statements made in the Qur’an were not simply the reflections of ideas held by contemporaries of Muhammad, or easily observable phenomena. (See problem # 6, pg. 56.) In the case of many of the “signs” appealed to in the Qur’an, it is undeniably the case that the appeal is for men to simply take note of facts they are acquainted with, and for them to see Allah behind these phenomena, and to see spiritual lessons in them. For example, 39:21 states, “Seest thou not that Allah sends down rain from the sky, and leads it through springs in the earth? Then He causes to grow, therewith, produce of various colours: then it withers; Thou wilt see it grow yellow; then He makes it dry up and crumble away. Truly, in this, is a message of remembrance to men of understanding.” Is it not possible that this is also the case with the “proof texts” being used today to show “prescientific knowledge”? Remember, Muslims thought they understood these passages, hundreds of years before modern science came along. Just what did the ancients believe about the development of the embryo at the time of Muhammad? Dr. Campbell has some very intriguing information on this question (confirmed also by other sources). Consider the following, gleaned from his book91:

90 91

Ibid., pg. 200. The following is taken almost verbatim from Campbell’s book. See footnote 3.

59

Hippocrates, born about 460 B.C., taught that there were stages in embryonic development. His stages are summarized as follows: STAGES OF PRENATAL DEVELOPMENT ACCORDING TO HIPPOCRATES STAGE 1. sperm

STAGE 2. mother's blood descends around the membrane STAGE 3. flesh, fed through umbilicus STAGE 4. bones

Aristotle, around 350 B.C., gave his stages of prenatal development: STAGES OF PRENATAL DEVELOPMENT ACCORDING TO ARISTOTLE STAGE 1. sperm STAGE 2. catamenia -- menstrual blood STAGE 3. flesh STAGE 4. bones

STAGE 5. around the bones grow the fleshy parts The third witness is not as familiar to modern ears as the first two, a man by the name of Galen, who was born in A.D. 131 in Pergamum (in modern day Turkey). Galen’s writings were extremely influential at the time of Muhammad. His teaching on the subject is summarized thusly: GALEN'S STAGES OF PRENATAL DEVELOPMENT STAGE 1. The two semens STAGE 1b. plus menstrual blood STAGE 2. unshaped flesh STAGE 3. bones STAGE 3b. flesh grows on and around the bones

The parallels with the Qur’an are striking: QURANIC STAGES OF PRENATAL DEVELOPMENT STAGE 1. nutfa -- sperm STAGE 2. ‘alaqa -- clot STAGE 3. mudagha -- piece or lump of flesh

STAGE 4. ‘adaam -- bones STAGE 5. dressing the bones with muscles

Of course there are some inaccuracies in the teachings of Hippocrates, Aristotle and Galen, as well as some correct ideas. But this gives us a picture of what some believed in the centuries leading up to Muhammad. But would Muhammad, an illiterate man from Arabia, have had opportunity to be familiar with the ideas of Galen? Consider that Galen was so important in medicine at the time of Muhammad, that just about the time of Muhammad’s flight from Mecca, four leading medical men in Alexandria, Egypt decided to form a medical school using 16 books of Galen as the basis of the studies. Also during this time, Sergius al-ras Ayni, (died in Constantinople in 536 AD), one of the earliest and greatest translators from Greek into Syriac (Aramaic), translated various works on medicine, including 26 books of Galen's works into Syriac. This made them available in the Kingdom of Khosru I and to the Ghassan Tribe whose influence extended to the outskirts of Medina. Khosru I, (Arabic Kisra) King of Persia from 531-579, was known as Khosru the Great. His troops conquered areas as far away as Yemen. He also loved learning and started several schools. The school of Jundi-Shapur became, during Khosru I's long reign of 48 years, the greatest intellectual center of the time. Within its walls Greek, Jewish, Nestorian, Persian and Hindu thought and experience were freely exchanged. Teaching was done largely in Syriac from Syriac translations of Greek texts. This meant that Aristotle, Hippocrates, and Galen were readily available when the medical school at Jundi-Shapur was operating during his reign.

60

Concerning the local medical situation during Muhammad's life, we know there were physicians living in Arabia during this period. Harith ben Kalada was the best-educated physician trained in the healing art. He was born about the middle of the sixth century, at Ta'if, in the tribe of Banu Thaqif. He traveled through Yemen and then Persia where he received his education in the medical sciences at the great medical school of Jundi-Shapur and thus was intimately acquainted with the medical teachings of Aristotle, Hippocrates and Galen. He came back to Arabia about the beginning of Islam and settled down at Ta'if. Summarizing the situation in a few words in his book Histoire de la Médecine Arabe, Dr. Lucien LeClerc writes, "Harith ben Kalada studied medicine at Jandi-Shapur and Muhammad owed to Harith a part of his medical knowledge. Thus, with the one as well as the other, we easily recognize the traces of Greek (medicine)." "Sometimes Muhammad treated the sick but in the difficult cases he would send the patients to Harith." This all shows that there was ample opportunity for Muhammad and the people around him to have heard of the embryological theories of Aristotle, Hippocrates and Galen when they went to seek treatment from Harith ben Kalada and other local doctors. Thus when the Qur'an says in the Late Meccan Sura of the Believer (Al-Mu'min) 40:67, "He it is Who created you from dust, then from a sperm-drop, then from a leech-like clot (‘alaqa) ... THAT PERHAPS YOU MAY UNDERSTAND," And when the Sura of the Pilgrimage (Al-Hajj) 22:5 starts out, "O mankind! if you have doubt about the resurrection (consider) that We have created you from dust, then from a drop of seed, then from a clot (‘alaqa), etc..." Is it not then correct for us to ask again, what were they to understand? What were they to consider? When we look at the Quranic stages again the answer is very clear. They were understanding and considering that which was common knowledge--the embryological stages as taught by the Greek physicians. I do not mean that Muhammad's listeners all knew the names of the Greek physicians, but they knew the embryological stages of the Greek physicians. Allah in the Qur'an was using that common knowledge as a sign encouraging the listeners and readers to turn to Him. But, this was not scientific truth only discovered recently, it was the partially erroneous understanding of men of that time. With this insight, we are in a better position to judge the value of these verses as evidence for a divine origin of the Qur’an. In the next lesson we will continue our evaluation of verses offered as examples of “pre-scientific knowledge.”

61

Lesson 12 Evaluation of Islamic Evidences (3) More “Modern Discoveries of Science Previously Revealed in the Qur’an” A Brief Illustrated Guide To Understanding Islam mentions several “scientific miracles” as evidence that the Qur’an was revealed by God, not composed by a human author or authors. These are supposedly scientific facts which were only discovered by science in modern times, but which are contained in the Qur’an. I believe we will see in our discussion of mountains and cosmology in this lesson, the same kinds of problems that were observed in our discussion of embryonic development in Lesson 11. In the examples that I have researched so far, I have observed several things: ƒ ƒ

ƒ

Many of the physical and biological phenomena described in the Qur’an are easily observable and have been commonly known for centuries. Muhammad used these in a way similar to the way Jesus used parables, i.e., to teach spiritual lessons by the use of things their listeners were familiar with. In many other cases, a Qur’anic verse would clearly contradict the teachings of modern science if taken in a literal sense, but might be acceptable if taken in a poetic or allegorical sense. In most cases there is no real basis for making an apparently literal statement figurative, except to bring it in line with modern science. Likewise, there is usually no basis for taking an apparently figurative statement literally, unless doing so would give an impression of pre-scientific insight. Many of the Qur’anic references used are difficult passages subject to more than one interpretation or translation. The evidential value of these verses is highly questionable, since at least one valid interpretation would coincide with ancient, sometimes erroneous views of the world.

We will take note of several examples in this lesson. It will be seen that there are problems associated with all of the examples cited. 1. MOUNTAINS The Qur’an states, “He created the heavens without any pillars that ye can see; He set on the earth mountains standing firm, lest it should shake with you....” (31:10). Several other verses make similar statements. Another point about mountains is made in 78:6-7, “Have We not made the earth as a wide expanse, and the mountains as pegs?” Dr. Maurice Bucaille comments, “These verses express the idea that the way the mountains are laid out ensures stability and is in complete agreement with geological data.”92 I. A. Ibrahim agrees that modern science has shown that mountains have “roots” that go beneath the surface, and that mountains “play an important role in stabilizing the crust of the earth.”93 Dr. William Campbell summarizes some problems: From these pictures it is clear that Muhammad's followers understood that the Mountains were thrown down (a) like tent pegs to keep a tent in place. (b) like an anchor to hold a ship in place. (c) to stop the earth from moving. i.e. limit earthquakes, But, in fact, this is false. Earthquakes are common events associated with the forming of mountains. Since these verses present a definite problem, after quoting several of the above verses about mountains Dr. Bucaille says, "Modern geologists describe the folds in the Earth as giving foundations to the mountains, and their dimensions go roughly one mile to roughly 10 miles. The stability of the Earth's crust results from the phenomenon of these folds."

92 93

Maurice Bucaille, The Bible, The Qur’an and Science (Darulfikr, Moultan, Cantt, Pakistan, 1976), pg. 182. I. A. Ibrahim, A Brief Illustrated Guide To Understanding Islam (Houston, Darussalam, Publishers, 1997), pg. 13.

62 But is this true? Commenting on Dr. Bucaille's statement, Professor of Geology Dr. David A. Young says, "While it is true that many mountain ranges are composed of folded rocks (and the folds may be of large scale) it is not true that the folds render the crust stable. The very existence of the folds is evidence of instability in the crust." In other words, Mountains don't keep the earth from shaking. Their formation caused and still causes the surface of the earth to shake.

After discussing plate tectonics and volcanic mountains, Dr. Campbell states, We can conclude from this information that Mountains were formed originally with movement and shaking of the earth's crust; and that now, in the present, many earthquakes are caused by their continued formation. When the plates buckle over each other there are earthquakes. When volcanoes erupt associated earthquakes may occur. Throwing the mountains down onto the earth may be poetry, but to say that mountains keep the earth from shaking is a "severe difficulty" which is out of step with modern science.94

Sam Shamoun is a geologist, and he suggests that we “please check the University of Edinburgh's Global Earthquake Map. Notice that nearly ALL of the recent seismic activity is in mountainous areas. If the mountains are ‘firmly fixed’ and are supposed to prevent the earth from shaking, then I suggest that they are doing a very poor job!” In fact, even one of the scientists quoted in the Muslim video on this subject, “It Is Truth,” when asked “whether the mountains have a function in establishing the crust of the earth...said that this has not yet been discovered and established by scientists.”95 It’s interesting, that one of their own witnesses in effect disproves the point he was asked to verify. A couple of points should be made regarding the mountains having “roots” going deep into the earth. First, this is not true of all mountains. But more importantly, the Qur’an doesn’t actually say this; it simply describes the mountains as “pegs.” It’s true that a large portion of a tent peg will be beneath the surface, so a deduction could be made about mountains from the fact that they were called pegs, but is this really a point the Qur’an intended to make? In other words, how much should we read into such statements? If every deduction or inference that might be made from a Qur’anic statement is to harmonize with modern science, surely that will prove troublesome as often as it proves advantageous from the Muslim standpoint. For example, since the Qur’an states, “And Allah has made the earth for you as a carpet (spread out)” (71:19), and since all of our experience with carpets is that they are spread out over a flat surface, wouldn’t a fair deduction from this picture be that the earth is flat, or would that be reading too much into the text? And, since the Qur’an describes a certain man travelling, “Until, when he reached the setting of the sun, he found it set in a spring of murky water....” (18:86), wouldn’t a fair deduction be that the sun sets each evening in a spring of murky water? (Actually, this wouldn’t be a deduction, it would simply be quoting exactly what the Qur’an states.) Quotations from the Hadith and older Muslim commentators show that Muhammad and his companions did in fact believe that the sun sets each day in a muddy spring! Many examples of this could be given. So when we get a broad view of the whole field of evidence (not just the few verses that seem to foretell modern science), the specific examples of apparent harmony between the Qur’an and modern science are not that impressive. One could object that verses such as that describing the sun setting in a murky spring are not to be taken literally, and perhaps in some cases that is so, but we need to be consistent. If such verses are not to be taken literally, then neither should those verses which apparently harmonize with modern science. They are only poetic or allegorical. In that case of course, they prove nothing about “pre-scientific knowledge.” This is an important point. If we are to gather scientific information from the precise meaning of each verse that describes physical or biological phenomena, this will prove troublesome as often as it proves advantageous for the Muslim apologist.

94

Several chapters of Dr. Campbell’s book, The Qur'an and the Bible in the Light of History & Science, may be found at www.answering-Islam.org. 95 Sam Shamoun, Responses to “It is Truth,” ch. 12. An excellent series also found at www.answering-Islam.org.

63

2. THE QUR’AN ON THE ORIGIN OF THE UNIVERSE According to Muslim apologists, the modern science of cosmology agrees perfectly with Qur’anic statements regarding the creation, formation and composition of the universe. Referring to the scientific theory that the universe was at one time a gaseous mass, out of which stars were eventually formed, Ibrahim references this statement in the Qur’an, “Then He turned to the heaven when it was smoke...” (41:11)96. Then he writes, “Because the earth and the heavens above...have been formed from this same ‘smoke,’ we conclude that the earth and the heavens were one connected entity. Then out of this homogeneous ‘smoke,’ they formed and separated from each other.” Then the Qur’an is quoted as in agreement, “Have not those who disbelieved known that the heavens and the earth were one connected entity, then We separated them?....” (21:30). A scientist is then quoted who thinks it impossible that Muhammad could have known this before the discoveries of modern scientists. I suppose a scientist may be impressed when he sees his view of the universe expressed in Qur’anic verses that are pointed out to him. But again, a closer look reveals numerous problems here. To begin with, the statement in 21:30 is expressed as something unbelievers in Muhammad’s day should have known. Whatever is meant by the verse, it seems to refer to what was commonly known (or supposed) at that time, not something which would someday be discovered. Also, there is an obvious problem of chronology. The passage above (41:11), is quoted as though it is a Qur’anic reference to an early period in the history of the universe, when, according to the theories of science, all was a nebulous mixture of gases. Scientists tell us that was billions of years before the earth was formed. Yet the verse preceding this description (vs. 10) speaks of the mountains being set on the earth. So the earth had already been created at the time when the “heavens” were in the condition of an early primordial gaseous state. That doesn’t coincide with current scientific theory. Some translators (including Yusuf Ali) apparently try to avoid this difficulty by translating “moreover” instead of “then” to remove the impression of sequence. The problem with this is that there are many hadiths which clearly show how the early Muslims (including Muhammad if the hadiths are reliable) took these accounts. Sam Shamoun, in the article previously referenced, provides several examples, including the following: According to Sahih Muslim, Chapter MCLV, The beginning of creation and the creation of Adam, Hadith No. 6707: "Abu Huraira reported that Allah's Messenger (mpbuh) took hold of my hands and said: Allah the Exalted and Glorious, created the clay on Saturday and He created the mountains on Sunday and He created the trees on Monday and He created the things entailing labour on Tuesday and created light on Wednesday....” and He caused animals to spread on Thursday and created Adam (pbuh) after 'Asr on Friday; the last creation at the last hour of the hours of Friday, ie. Between afternoon and night." Muhammad believed that vegetation preceded the formation of light, i.e. the sun. We must emphasize that Sahih Muslim is considered the second most reliable source of hadith collections. Another example: The following traditions are taken entirely from The History of al-Tabari, Volume 1- General Introduction and from the Creation to the Flood (trans. Franz Rosenthal, State University of New York Press, Albany 1989), pp. 187-193: "...there is (also) a sound tradition from the Messenger of God told us by Hannad b. al-Sari, who also said that he read all of the hadith (to Abu Bakr)....The Jews came to the Prophet and asked him about the creation of the heavens and the earth. He said: God created the earth on Sunday and Monday. He created the mountains and the uses they possess on Tuesday. On Wednesday, He created trees, water, cities and the cultivated barren land. These are four (days). He continued (citing the Qur'an): `Say: Do you really not believe in the One Who created the earth in two days, and set up others like Him? That is the Lord of the worlds. He made it firmly anchored (mountains) above it and blessed it and decreed that it contain the amount of food it provides, (all) in four days, equally for those asking'- for those who ask. On Thursday, He created heaven. On Friday, He created the stars, the sun, the moon, and the angels, until three hours remained. In the first of these three hours He created the terms (of human life), who would live and who would die. In the second, He cast harm upon everything that is useful for mankind.

96

Ibrahim, pg. 14.

64

That clearly contradicts modern science, since it states that the earth was created before the stars and sun (aside from it being in one week). But the matter is further complicated by the fact that the Qur’an seems to contradict itself. In 79:28 the canopy of the heaven is raised and given perfection, then in vs. 30 the earth is “extended” or “spread out.” This may or may not mean that the heavens were created before the earth. Such apparent contradictions occupied early Muslim scholars. Shamoun quotes al-Tabari to the effect that there were some differences between the early Muslim scholars on some details. One quotation is especially interesting: According to `Ali b. Dawud- Abu Salih (`Abdallah b. Salih)- Mu'awiyah (b. Salih)- `Ali b. Abi Talhah- Ibn Abbas, commenting on God's word when He mentioned the creation of the earth before heaven and then mentioned heaven before earth: (It is explained by the fact that) He created the earth with the food it provides before heaven, without spreading it out. "Then He stretched out straight toward heaven and fashioned it into seven heavens." Thereafter, he spread out the earth. This is meant by God's word: "And it was the earth that He spread out thereafter." According to Muhammad b. Sa'd- his father- his paternal uncle- his father- his father- Ibn `Abbas, commenting on: "And it was the earth that He spread out thereafter. He brought forth from it its water and its pasture, and the mountains He anchored firmly." It means that he created the heavens and the earth. When he had finished with heaven before creating food of the earth, He spread the food on it after creating heaven. And He firmly anchored the mountains. This is meant by "spreading it out."

In other words, the explanation is that Allah did indeed create the earth before the heavens (as the hadith clearly teach), but then He did something else to the earth, namely He “spread it out.” (Again, Yusuf Ali’s translation seeks to avoid the difficulty by translating “moreover,” but Pickthal and Shakir both say “after that.” Al-Tabari says, “The meaning of ‘after’ generally known in Arabic speech, as we have said, is that of the opposite of ‘before,’ and not simultaneous with." Another problem is an apparent contradiction between 21:30 and the last part of 41:11, the very two verses quoted by Ibrahim. (Once again, he doesn’t quote the problematic part of the verse. See Lesson 11, pg. 56, 58.) The verse quoted (vs. 11) goes on to say that Allah said to it (the sky when it was smoke, or that had been as smoke) and to the earth, “come ye together.” That is an apparent contradiction with 21:30, which is quoted to show that the heavens and the earth were at one time a connected entity and were then separated. This is really only the “hem of the garment” regarding problems in the Qur’anic cosmology. Here is another one. Dr. Bucaille mentions that the science of astronomy believes that every heavenly body is travelling in an orbit, including the earth, the moon, and all the stars. The sun, though stationary in relation to its planets, is itself revolving on its axis, and travelling in an orbit around the center of our galaxy, the Milky Way. This is said to be described in two Qur’anic verses, 21:33 and 36:40: "Each one is travelling in an orbit with its own motion" (as quoted in the video, This Is The Truth). Sounds amazing, since we’ve only discovered this in recent times with advanced equipment! But when we read the passages in context, along with some other considerations, we see that this is not at all amazing. In the first place, the Qur’an never speaks of the earth travelling in an orbit. The sun and moon are both described as they appear from the earth, and their motions are described in reference to their relation to the earth, i.e., as representing Night and Day. The Qur’an clearly presents the picture of a stationary earth, with Sun and Moon travelling around it (or more precisely, across the sky, from one horizon to the other). Notice: 36:37-40 – And a Sign for them is the Night: We withdraw therefrom the Day, and behold they are plunged in darkness; And the Sun runs its course for a period determined for it; that is the decree of (Him), the exalted in Might, the All-Knowing. And the Moon – We have measured for it Mansions (to traverse) till it returns like the old (and withered) lower part of a date stalk. It is not permitted to the Sun to catch up the Moon, nor can the Night outstrip the Day; each (just) swims along in (its own) orbit (according to Law).

65

It’s clear here that the “course” that the Sun runs is from one horizon to the other, from sunrise to sunset, because of the contrast being made between night and day. As for the “orbits” mentioned, its easy enough to read modern concepts into that picture, but the possibility of the Sun catching up with the Moon, or the Moon catching up with the Sun, which is prevented by Allah, shows us that the picture being conveyed is not at all consistent with the true orbits of sun and moon as modern science describes them. Also consider 91:1-2, “By the Sun and its (glorious) splendour; By the Moon as it follows (the Sun);....” To refute the idea that the Qur’an is reflecting ancient views instead of modern, scientific views, Bucaille quotes the tenth century Muslim commentator Tabari, discussing the “orbits” of sun and moon, “It is our duty to keep silent when we do not know” (XVII, 15). Dr. Bucaille comments, "This shows just how incapable men were of understanding this concept of the sun's and moon's orbit. It is obvious that if the word had expressed an astronomical concept common in Muhammad's day, it would not have been so difficult to interpret these verses. A new concept therefore existed in the Qur'an that was not explained until centuries later.”97 But, as Shamoun points out, though there may have been some difficulties surrounding the translation of a particular word, early Muslim scholars had no doubt about the meaning of the passage. They simply followed the interpretation given by Muhammad himself, as reported in the hadith. Here are examples given by Shamoun: "Narrated Abu Dharr: The prophet asked me at sunset, ‘Do you know where the sun goes (at the time of sunset)?’ I replied, ‘Allah and his messenger know better.’ He said, ‘It goes (i.e. travels) till it prostrates itself underneath the throne, and takes the permission to rise again, and it is permitted and then (a time will come when) it will be about to prostrate itself but its prostration will not be accepted, and it will ask permission to go on its course, but it will not be permitted, but it will be ordered to return whence it has come and so it will rise in the West. And that is the interpretation of the statement of Allah: "‘And the sun runs on its fixed course for a term appointed). This is the decree of (Allah) the All-Mighty, the All-Knowing."’" (Sahih al-Bukhari, Volume 4, Number 421) Al-Zamakhshari remarks in his book, Al-Kash-shaf: "Abu Dharr (one of Muhammad's close companions) was with Muhammad during the sunset. Muhammad asked him: ‘Do you know, O Abu Dharr where this sets?’ He answered: ‘God and His apostle know better.’ Muhammad said: ‘It sets in a spring of slimy water.’" (3rd Edition, Volume 2, p. 743, 1987) Hence, Muhammad believed that the sun literally sets in a spring. In his book, The Lights of Revelation (p. 399), alBaidawi indicates, "The sun sets in a slimy spring; that is, a well which contains mud. Some of the readers of the Qur'an read it, ‘... a hot spring’, thus the spring combines the two descriptions. It was said that Ibn 'Abbas found Mu'awiya reading it (as) hot. He told him, ‘It is muddy.’ Mu'awiya sent to Ka'b al-Ahbar and asked him, ‘Where does the sun set?’ He said in water and mud and there were some people. So he agreed with the statement of Ibn al-'Abbas. And there was a man who composed a few verses of poetry about the setting of the sun in the slimy spring."

Again, we are struck by the fact that even though modern scientific concepts may be read into a few isolated verses of the Qur’an, the problems quickly multiply, once we begin to take a closer look. If you read the works of Campbell, Shamoun and others, you will quickly see that I’ve only scratched the surface in this lesson. Other examples of such problems in the Qur’anic cosmology include: The moon is in the midst of the seven heavens, which probably means that it’s “orbit” takes it among the stars of various constellations (71:15-16). “Shooting stars,” or meteors and meteorites, are missiles in the lower heaven that Allah uses to keep the evil spirits from overhearing what is being discussed in the “Exalted Assembly” (i.e., the Court of the Most High, Allah and His angels) (67:5; 37:6-10). I believe that what we have seen in our discussions of embryonic development, the mountains, and cosmology would be repeated with every example of “pre-scientific knowledge” given by Muslim apologists. But there is one more factor to consider.

97

Bucaille, pg. 159.

66

But What About The Scientists? They Are Experts In Their Fields. I have no reason to question the scientific credentials of those who are quoted in the Muslim literature I have seen. But there seem to be several assumptions underlying the use being made of these quotations. One assumption is that scientists are always, in every situation, totally objective, and totally unresponsive to any pressure that might be placed on them to arrive at certain conclusions. That is simply not the case. Another assumption seems to be that because a man is an expert in a field of science, he will also be a careful student of history, and he will be able to correctly relate his specialized knowledge to a religious book such as the Qur’an. That is not necessarily the case, and I believe it is obviously not the case in many of those quoted by Muslim apologists. I found some very interesting information regarding several of the scientists quoted in A Brief Illustrated Guide To Understanding Islam, in an article titled “Western Scholars Play Key Role In Touting ‘Science’ of the Qur’an,” by Daniel Golden, a staff reporter for the Wall Street Journal. Golden gives some background about the circumstances that led to several of these scientists being involved in a series of conferences in the Middle East, at which they were each shown a verse from the Qur’an and asked to evaluate it in light of their expertise. Then he gives some quotations from interviews he held with some of these scientists. All of the following men were quoted in A Brief Illustrated Guide To Understanding Islam, apparently supporting the view that the Qur’an must have come from God. Marine scientist William Hay, then at the University of Colorado, was assigned a passage likening the minds of unbelievers to "the darkness in a deep sea ... covered by waves, above which are waves." As the videotape rolled, Mr. Zindani pressed Prof. Hay to admit that Muhammad couldn't have known about internal waves caused by varying densities in ocean depths. When Prof. Hay suggested Muhammad could have learned about the phenomenon from sailors, Mr. Zindani insisted that the prophet never visited a seaport. Prof. Hay, a Methodist, says he then raised other hypotheses that Mr. Zindani also dismissed. Finally, Prof. Hay conceded that the inspiration for the reference to internal waves "must be the divine being," a statement now trumpeted on Islamic Web sites. "I fell into that trap and then warned other people to watch out for it," says Prof. Hay, now at a German marine institute. Prof. Gerald Goeringer, an embryologist retired from Georgetown University, says he urged the commission to try some verification: hire an independent scholar to see whether the Quran's statements could have been taken from Aristotle, the Greek philosopher-scientist who preceded the book by nearly 1,000 years. After his request was denied, Prof. Goeringer says, he stopped going to the conferences for fear of being associated with fanaticism. "It was mutual manipulation," he says. "We got to go places we wouldn't otherwise go to. They wanted to add some respectability to what they were publishing." Joe Leigh Simpson, chairman of obstetrics and gynecology at Baylor College of Medicine in Houston, is a churchgoing Presbyterian. But thanks to a few conferences he attended back in the 1980s, he is known in parts of the Muslim world as a champion of the doctrine that the Quran, Islam's holy book, is historically and scientifically correct in every detail. Dr. Simpson now says he made some comments that sound "silly and embarrassing" taken out of context, but no matter: Mideast television shows, Muslim books and Web sites still quote him as saying the Quran must have been "derived from God," because it foresaw modern discoveries in embryology and genetics. Prof. Simpson -- who attended conferences in Saudi Arabia, Cairo and Islamabad -- recalls being asked to analyze an anecdote from the Sunnah, an Islamic holy book recording the acts and words of the prophet, in view of modern genetics. In this passage -- apparently intended to discourage unjustified accusations of adultery -- a Bedouin complained to Muhammad that his wife had given birth to a black child. Muhammed inquired about the nomad's camels, and was told that some were tinged with red, but one was dusky in color. The prophet then likened the child to the dusky camel, saying both could have inherited their hues from ancestors. At the urging of conference organizers, Prof. Simpson attested that this passage was consistent with the way recessive genes pass on traits not obvious in parents. But he says that the parallels -- while striking -- aren't necessarily evidence of divine inspiration. University of Pennsylvania historian S. Nomanul Haq, a leading critic of Bucailleism, says the notion of inheriting traits from ancestors was commonplace in Muhammad's time.

67

Regarding Dr. Keith Moore, one of the foremost witnesses widely quoted in Islamic sources, Golden relates the following: Prof. Moore sanctioned a special 1983 edition of his textbook, "The Developing Human," for the Islamic world, that was co-written by Mr. Zindani. It alternates chapters of standard science with Mr. Zindani's "Islamic additions" on the Quran. In its acknowledgments, among "distinguished scholars" who gave "full support in their personal and official capacities," Mr. Zindani lists Sheikh Osama bin Laden, alongside Dr. Simpson and other Western scientists. Prof. El-Naggar, the Egyptian geology professor who taught Mr. Zindani, says Mr. bin Laden became intrigued by Bucailleism in his college days after hearing Mr. Zindani lecture, and helped pay for the book's publication. Now a professor emeritus, Prof. Moore declined to be interviewed. Reached in Toronto, he said he was busy revising his textbook and that "it's been 10 or 11 years since I was involved in the Quran."

Also, regarding Dr. Moore’s book, the Internet Web site, answering-Islam.org, notes the following: Because of his influential position, many Muslims thought that scientific information on embryology has vindicated the Qur'an. Interestingly, however, Dr. Moore has not risked his reputation in the medical establishment by publishing his findings except in Islamic journals. The Islamic edition of his textbook is not even available in the British Library or the U.S. Library of Congress, nor in the medical libraries in Western countries. It is thus clear that this article does not find its recognition among his peer scientists.

Finally, one source makes the claim that of all the “Western” scientists who are quoted by Muslim apologists in support of the scientific accuracy of the Qur’an, not a single one has become a Muslim, not even Dr. Maurice Bucaille. (I have no way of verifying this claim, and I welcome any documentation to the contrary that Muslims may be able to provide.) As stated above, Dr. Moore had not been involved with the Qur’an in 10 or 11 years. If these scientists were really as convinced as the Muslim apologists want us to believe, it seems that at least some of them would have demonstrated true convictions by converting to Islam. It makes me wonder how much they really believed what they were saying.

68

69

Lesson 13 Evaluation of Islamic Evidences (4) The Unity of the Qur’an and the Doctrine of Abrogation An argument sometimes made to prove the divine origin of the Qur’an is that its internal consistency is evidence that it must have come from God. The Qur’an states, “Do they not consider the Qur’an (with care)? Had it been from other than Allah, they would surely have found therein much discrepancy.” (4:82) A Muslim author asserts that because of “its total consistency from beginning to end...it becomes impossible to ascribe the Qur’an to human authorship.” 98 In the first place, if the Qur’an had in fact been written by one human author without divine assistance over the relatively short span of 23 years, it would not be unreasonable to expect it to be internally consistent. In fact, we would expect such consistency from an intelligent man, and would feel no need to attribute such consistency to divine inspiration. (The expectation of consistency is increased by the fact that there is so much repetition in the Qur’an.) On the other hand, if inconsistency or contradictions are found, that would be grounds for criticism of even a human author. But if such inconsistencies are found in a book claiming to be authored by God, that calls into question either the capabilities of God (which would be blasphemy), or the claim of divine authorship. Now we are aware of the fact that critics of the Bible (including Muslim critics) often call attention to alleged contradictions in the Bible as evidence, either of its not being the Word of God, or of it having been corrupted. We know that most of those alleged contradictions are easily reconciled by an honest student. Others are reconciled with more difficulty. (Of course once those alleged contradictions are reconciled, the unity of the Bible becomes much more significant than the alleged unity of the Qur’an. For in contrast to one man working over a period of 23 years, God used about 40 different men, living over a span of about 1500 years, through whom to reveal the Bible. Whereas we would expect one man such as Muhammad to be consistent with himself, we would not expect such consistency in the case of the Bible writers. But we do find it.) As I have previously stated, many alleged contradictions, both in the Bible and in the Qur’an, turn out not to be contradictory at all, with further study. So we might be willing to grant the Qur’an the benefit of the doubt, and assume that apparent contradictions might be reconcilable, were it not for the existence in Islam of the Doctrine of Abrogation. The Qur’an itself seems to acknowledge internal contradictions (in spite of its claim of no discrepancies in 4:82), and explains some of those on the basis of later revelations abrogating previous revelations. The doctrine of abrogation is apparently a controversial issue among modern Muslims, with some denying it, while others believe it but offer varying explanations of it. Since there are varying Muslim perspectives on this issue, I will not represent all Muslims as believing the same thing. It could certainly be argued that a novice such as myself is not qualified to determine which position is actually intended by the Qur’an itself. But it is still important for us to be aware of the doctrine and attempt an evaluation. Not only is it relevant to the issue of the internal consistency of the Qur’an, but it also figures into discussion about the Islamic doctrine of Jihad, among other issues. Briefly, the Doctrine of Abrogation states that some verses of revelation are abrogated by later revelations. To abrogate is “to abolish, repeal, annul, cancel” (Webster). So according to this doctrine, some revelations of God have canceled previous revelations. Specifically, the idea is that some verses revealed to Muhammad canceled verses previously revealed to him. The doctrine is based on verses in the Qur’an such as the following: “None of Our revelations do We abrogate or cause to be forgotten, but We substitute something better or similar: Knowest thou not that Allah hath power over all things?” (2:106) “When we substitute one revelation for another – and Allah knows best what He reveals (in stages) – They say, ‘Thou art but a forger’: but most of them understand not.” (16:101)

98

Susanne Haneef, as quoted by Norman Geisler & Abdul Saleeb, Answering Islam: The Crescent in the Light of the Cross (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 1993), 184.

70

The historical context of these verses and the meaning of abrogation are explained in the following quotations from Muslim commentators:99 "Wahadi [commenting on 2:106] says that this verse was sent down because the associators said, "Do you not see Muhammad, how he commands his people to do something, then forbids them to do it and commands them to do its opposite? Today he says one thing and tomorrow he changes his mind regarding it. The Qur'an is no more than the words of Muhammad, which he utters from himself. It is composed of words which contradict one another." Thus says Wahidi, God sent down verse 101 of al-Nahl (Q. 16), and this verse (Wahidi, p. 32: see also Zamakhshari, I. p. 303). Tabari interprets abrogation (naskh) broadly as "what we [that is, God] abrogate regarding the precept of a verse which we change, or for which we substitute another, so that what is lawful may become unlawful and what is unlawful may become lawful; what is permitted may become prohibited and what is prohibited may become permitted. This however, can only be done with regard to commands and prohibitions... but as for reports or narratives, they can neither be abrogated nor can they abrogate" (Tabari, II, pp. 471-472; see also Shawkani, I, pp. 125-126). "

Canceling Revelations of Previous Prophets? Some Muslim scholars, especially those in modern times, claim that the verses teaching “abrogation” had reference to scriptures given through previous prophets, such as Moses. Thus, it is argued, Jesus set aside some of the laws given through Moses, and the Qur’an simply continues the process of “progressive revelation” by giving the final laws intended for all mankind. But there are several problems with this comparison. First, if we look at the work of one man, Moses, we see that a consistent law with no contradictions was given through him over the course of 40 years, and that for a thousand years after Moses, all the true prophets living under the Mosaic covenant spoke in harmony. In contrast, Muhammad changed several points in the laws he delivered, over the course of a mere 23 years. Second, the Old Covenant itself prophesied of a New Covenant that was to come (Jer. 31:31-34). The Old Covenant was “fulfilled” by Jesus, not abrogated (Matt. 5:17). True, many of the ordinances in the Old Covenant are no longer in force, since the New Covenant replaced the Old. But a broad understanding of the Bible will lead to appreciation of the fact that the Mosaic economy was intended to be temporary, preparing the way for Christ. See especially Galatians 3. It is also obvious from the New Testament that the revelation given through Christ and His apostles was to be the culmination and completion of the process of revelation, with no additions or changes coming later. (See Galatians 1:6-8; Hebrews 1:1-2; Jude 3.) If anyone had come among Christians claiming to have a revelation abrogating something spoken by Jesus or His apostles, that man would have been a false prophet (I Jn. 4:1-6). Third, though some verses in the Qur’an might be taken in the above sense (though this is debatable), other verses cannot be taken in this sense. Fourth, if all of the verses speaking of abrogation refer to canceling the revelations given through previous prophets, that leaves the problem of explaining the contradictory verses in the Qur’an itself. Fifth, there is too much evidence showing that the orthodox Muslim understanding has historically been that some of Muhammad’s verses were cancelled, or abrogated, by later verses. “Nasikh wa Mansukh” It seems that the abrogation of certain verses in the Qur’an was an accepted part of Muslim orthodoxy in the early centuries. In fact, there was even a particular branch of Muslim scholarship devoted to the determination of which verses were the abrogated verses, and which were the abrogating verses (“Nasikh wa Mansukh” – “the Abrogators and the Abrogated.”)100 One reason this study was so demanding is because of the confusion 99

Taken from an article on Abrogation, by “Silas,” at www.answering-Islam.org. Much of the following information is also taken from the previously mentioned article, at www.answering-Islam.org.

100

71

generated by the non-chronological order in which the text of the Qur’an was arranged. After all, it would seem that a verse could be abrogated only by a verse that was revealed later (though, it seems, such was not always the case). So determination had to be made of the dates of the various verses, and there was not always unanimous agreement on that question. The Muslim scholar Mahmoud Ayoub sums up the situation by saying, “Yet among Muslim scholars there is no general agreement as to what verses are abrogated and by what verses.” Jalalu'd-Din in his 'Itqan' gives a list of 20 verses said to be abrogated, but other lists have run into the hundreds. Here are some of the examples of abrogated verses given by “Silas,” with my comments added: 1) “In sura 2:142-144, we find the change of the ‘Qibla,’ the direction of prayer, from Jerusalem to Mecca.” This change took place about 16 months after the flight from Mecca to Medina. Up to this time, Muhammad and his followers had prayed towards Jerusalem. Various arguments have been given as to the reason for the change, some complimentary to Muhammad and some not. It might be argued that there is no previous verse in the Qur’an commanding prayer towards Jerusalem. But that raises another issue, the question of whether Muhammad had been teaching something that was not authorized by God when he taught his followers to pray towards Jerusalem. 2) “The change of punishment for adulteresses, beginning with life imprisonment, found in sura 4:15, and then changed to 100 strokes by flogging, according to sura 24:2.” Admittedly, there are intricacies of interpretation involved here, and notes in the two translations of the Qur’an I have offer explanations that attempt to reconcile the passages. But Yusuf Ali begins his note on 4:15 by stating, “Most commentators understand this to refer to adultery or fornication: in that case they consider that the punishment was altered to 100 stripes by the later verse, 24:2.” He goes on to present an alternate explanation, and the other translation I have takes yet another position. The problem is complicated by the fact that during Muhammad’s lifetime he prescribed the punishment of death by stoning for adulterers and adulteresses, and an early Muslim caliph, ‘Umar, stated that there had previously been a verse in the Qur’an giving stoning as the punishment, a verse which apparently was removed (though other Muslims dispute this.) At any rate, a significant number of Muslim scholars agree that one verse was abrogated by the other. If this is true, did Allah change his mind? 3) “The fighting ability of victory for Muslims is also abrogated by one verse following the next.... ‘Prophet, rouse the faithful to arms. If there are twenty steadfast men among you, they shall vanquish two hundred; and if there are a hundred, they shall rout a thousand unbelievers, for they are devoid of understanding.’ [8:65] ‘God has now lightened your burden, for He knows that you are weak. If there are a hundred steadfast men among you, they shall vanquish two hundred; and if there are a thousand, they shall, by God's will, defeat two thousand. God is with those that are steadfast.’” [8:66]. In one case, Muslims are told that should fight expecting victory, even if the odds against them are 10 to 1. In the next verse, they are told that in their present weak state, they could expect to prevail if they were outnumbered by two to one. Perhaps it is true that these two verses applied to two different circumstances. Even so, some Muslims apparently used the doctrine of abrogation to explain the difference. 4) “The Sword verses: the Call to ‘fight and slay the pagan (idolaters) wherever you find them’ (sura 9:5); or ‘strike off their heads in battle’ (sura 47:5); or ‘make war on the unbeliever in Allah, until they pay tribute’ (sura 9:29); or ‘Fight then... until the religion be all of it Allah's’ (sura 8:39); or ‘a grievous penalty against those who reject faith’ (sura 9:3). These all contradict ‘There is no compulsion in religion’ (sura 2:256).” According to one former Muslim, “There are at least 114 verses in the Qur’an that speak of love, peace and forgiveness....But when Surah 9:5 was revealed later, it canceled out those previous verses.”101 Those 114 verses are the basis of the modern claim that Islam is a peaceful religion. But many Muslims do in fact believe that the “peace” verses were abrogated by the “sword” verses. Of course many Muslims do not agree with this interpretation, but many others do. On the other hand, there are critical explanations of the change that occurred in Muhammad’s teaching and practice, from the early days when he taught tolerance and endured persecution, to later stages when he urged his followers to take up arms and fight. To one who does not believe Muhammad was a true prophet, the critical explanations make sense, but those arguments assume a human origin for the Qur’an. On the other hand, the Muslim abrogation explanation has Allah changing his mind and giving contradictory commands. In either case, it argues against a divine origin for the Qur’an. 101

Mark A. Gabriel, Islam and Terrorism (Lake Mary, FL: Charisma House, 2002), 30.

72

5) The night prayer performed by reciting the Quran ought to be more or less half the time of the night (Sura 73:2). This was changed to as much as may be easy for you (verse 20). Another acknowledged change was the gradual abolition of intoxicating drink. An early verse states, “They ask thee concerning wine and gambling. Say: In them is great sin, and some benefit, for men; but the sin is greater than the benefit.” (2:19) Thus, alcohol is not absolutely forbidden, but warned against. Later, alcohol was forbidden when it interfered with prayer, in the words, “...Approach not prayers with a mind befogged....” (4:43) Yusuf Ali, in his footnote to this verse, says, “Before the prohibition of intoxicants altogether was promulgated, it was at least unbecoming that people should come to prayers in such a state.” Finally, when Islam had become established, this revelation was given, “...Intoxicants and gambling...are an abomination – of Satan’s handiwork; eschew such...that ye may prosper.” (5:90) From that point, alcoholic beverages were strictly forbidden. So what was at one point only “unbecoming” in prayer, eventually became an “abomination – of Satan’s handiwork.” Again, many will claim today that every one of these apparent contradictions is reconcilable, and I would be inclined to agree regarding some of them, but not all of them. I would be much less inclined to make an issue of these apparent contradictions, were it not for the abundance of evidence showing that the “Companions of the Prophet” accepted the principle that some of Muhammad’s verses abrogated others. For example, I found the following references to abrogation in the Hadith of Bukhari, whose collection is said to be the most reliable collection of all.102 Volume 6, Book 60, Number 33: Narrated Nafi: Ibn 'Umar recited: "They had a choice, either fast or feed a poor for every day.." and added, "This Verse is abrogated." Volume 6, Book 60, Number 34: Narrated Salama: When the Divine Revelation: "For those who can fast, they had a choice either fast, or feed a poor for every day," (2.184) was revealed, it was permissible for one to give a ransom and give up fasting, till the Verse succeeding it was revealed and abrogated it. Volume 6, Book 60, Number 68: Narrated Ibn 'Umar:

This Verse:--"Whether you show what is in your minds or conceal it.." (2.284) was abrogated. Volume 6, Book 60, Number 69: Narrated Marwan Al-Asghar: A man from the companions of Allah's Apostle who I think, was Ibn 'Umar said, "The Verse:--"Whether you show what is in your minds or conceal it...." was abrogated by the Verse following it."

102

This complete collection may be found at www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/fundamentals/hadithsunnah/bukhari.

73

Volume 6, Book 60, Number 53: Narrated Ibn Az-Zubair: I said to 'Uthman bin 'Affan (while he was collecting the Qur'an) regarding the Verse:-- "Those of you who die and leave wives ..." (2.240) "This Verse was abrogated by an other Verse. So why should you write it? (Or leave it in the Qur'an)?" 'Uthman said. "O son of my brother! I will not shift anything of it from its place." Volume 6, Book 60, Number 54: Narrated Mujahi: (regarding the Verse):-- "Those of you who die and leave wives behind. They - (their wives) -- shall wait (as regards their marriage ) for four months and ten days)." (2.234) The widow, according to this Verse, was to spend this period of waiting with her husband's family, so Allah revealed: "Those of you who die and leave wives (i.e. widows) should bequeath for their wives, a year's maintenance and residences without turning them out, but if they leave (their residence), there is no blame on you for what they do with themselves provided it is honorable.' (i.e. lawful marriage) (2.240). So Allah entitled the widow to be bequeathed extra maintenance for seven months and twenty nights, and that is the completion of one year. If she wished she could stay (in her husband's home) according to the will, and she could leave it if she wished, as Allah says: "..without turning them out, but if they leave (the residence), there is no blame on you." So the 'Idda (i.e. four months and ten days as it) is obligatory for her. 'Ata said: Ibn 'Abbas said, "This Verse, i.e. the Statement of Allah: "..without turning them out.." cancelled the obligation of staying for the waiting period in her dead husband's house, and she can complete this period wherever she likes." 'Ata's aid: If she wished, she could complete her 'Idda by staying in her dead husband's residence according to the will or leave it according to Allah's Statement:-"There is no blame on you for what they do with themselves." 'Ata' added: Later the regulations of inheritance came and abrogated the order of the dwelling of the widow (in her dead husband's house), so she could complete the 'Idda wherever she likes. And it was no longer necessary to provide her with a residence. Ibn 'Abbas said, "This Verse abrogated her (i.e. widow's) dwelling in her dead husband's house and she could complete the 'Idda (i.e. four months and ten days) wherever she liked, as Allah's Statement says:--"...without turning them out..." Volume 6, Book 60, Number 114: Narrated Said bin Jubair: The people of Kufa disagreed (disputed) about the above Verse. So I went to Ibn Abbas and asked him about it. He said, "This Verse:-- "And whoever kills a believer intentionally, his recompense is Hell." was revealed last of all (concerning premeditated murder) and nothing abrogated it." Volume 6, Book 60, Number 285: Narrated Al-Qasim bin Abi Bazza: That he asked Said bin Jubair, "Is there any repentance of the one who has murdered a believer intentionally?" Then I recited to him:-"Nor kill such life as Allah has forbidden except for a just cause." Said said, "I recited this very Verse before Ibn 'Abbas as you have recited it before me. Ibn 'Abbas said, 'This Verse was revealed in Mecca and it has been abrogated by a Verse in Surat-An-Nisa which was later revealed in Medina."

Volume 7, Book 70, Number 562:

74

Narrated 'Aisha: During the ailment of the Prophet some people came to visits him. He led them in prayer while sitting. but they prayed standing, so he waved to them to sit down. When he had finished the prayer, he said, "An Imam is to be followed, so when he bows, you should bow. and when he raises his head, you should raise yours, and if he prays sitting. you should pray sitting." Abu Abdullah said Al-Humaidi said, (The order of ) "This narration has been abrogated by the last action of the Prophet as he led the prayer sitting, while the people prayed standing behind him' Even the cases where the hadith says that a certain verse was not abrogated show that abrogation of verses was a commonly accepted fact by those closest to Muhammad. In this context, to affirm that a particular verse was not abrogated implies that other verses were abrogated. On top of that is the fact that, as we have seen, many Muslim commentators speak of abrogation within the Qur’an as an accepted fact. For example, In the “Tafsir ul-Qur'an,” by Maulana Abdul Majid Daryabadi, it comments on 2:106: “There is nothing to be ashamed of in the doctrine of certain laws, temporary or local, being superseded or abrogated by certain other laws, permanent and universal, and enacted by the same law-giver….The course of Quranic Revelation has been avowedly gradual. It took about 23 years to finish and complete the Legislation. Small wonder, then, that certain minor laws, admittedly transitory, were replaced by certain others, lasting and eternal. Even Divine laws may be subject to Divine improvement….” 103

“Silas” continues by pointing out that there have been moderate Muslims who have been willing to honestly evaluate what "abrogation" means in context to an all-knowing God. The Muslim scholar Ali Dashti writes: "It must always be borne in mind that most of the Qor'anic laws and ordinances were formulated in response to random incidents and petitions from aggrieved persons. That is why there are some inconsistencies in them and why there are abrogating and abrogated ordinances....The Qor'anic laws are brief and were insufficient for the needs of the huge Moslem community which came into being in the century and a half after the Prophet's lifetime." Related to Sura 33:52: "In Zamakhshari's opinion, "A'esha's words show that verse 52 was abrogated by custom and by verse 49 ("O Prophet, We have made lawful for you...."). But an abrogating verse ought to come after the abrogated one. Nevertheless Soyuti, in his treatise on Qor'anic problems entitled ol-Etqan, maintains that in this case the earlier verse abrogated the later one." The Qor'an commentators and theologians collected and explained all the cases of abrogation. A previously revealed verse was abrogated by a subsequently revealed verse with a different or contrary meaning. Change of mind after the taking of a decision or making of a plan is a normal and frequent occurrence in the lives of human beings, who cannot at any time know all the relevant facts... It is contrary to reason, however, that God, who is omniscient and omnipotent, should revise His commands...

It is precisely because God is capable of everything that He would not reveal a verse and then abrogate it. Since omniscience and omnipotence are essential attributes of the Creator, He must be able to issue commands which do not need revision. Every thoughtful person who believes in One Almighty God is bound to ask why He should proclaim a command and then revoke it." Conclusion That last thought is the conclusion we should reach in reference to Abrogation in the Qur’an. Far from the “unity” of the Qur’an being an evidence of its divine origin, its inconsistency and contradictions should be seen as evidence of human authorship.

103

From “Silas,” at www.answeringIslam.org.

75

Lesson 14 Evaluation of Islamic Evidences (5) Did Muhammad Perform Miracles? Depending on what source you depend on for the answer to this question, Muhammad either did not perform miraculous signs to confirm his message as a revelation from God, or he did in fact perform many miraculous signs. Which is true? It is a significant question, and we need to examine the evidence carefully. The Place of Miracles in the Bible To put the question in context of the larger issue of Christianity versus Islam, remember that the prophets whose words are preserved in the Bible often performed miraculous signs to confirm their claim of being sent by God. This was particularly true of those prophets who brought new revelations that built upon or modified previous revelations (“progressive revelation”), or who mediated covenants, or whose work was during times of great conflict with the forces of evil. This was especially the case with Moses – Ex. 4:1-9; 7:5; Num. 12:2; Num. 16:28; Elijah and Elisha – I Kings 17:1, 6, 14-16, 21-24; 18:20ff; 2 Kings 5:1-14; Jesus – Jn. 3:1-2, 20:30-31; Matt. 11:2-6; 12:25-28; and the apostles of Christ – Mk. 16:20; Acts 2:1-4; Acts 14:3; 2 Cor. 12:12; Heb. 2:3-4. We don’t have records of all of the Biblical prophets performing miracles. But certainly, one sign that all true prophets would have is that their word, when it involved predictions of future events, would come to pass – Deut. 18:21-22. Should we expect Muhammad to have performed miracles to confirm his claims? Consider that Muhammad claimed to be not just a prophet, but the “seal” of the prophets – God’s final spokesman – not just to a particular nation but to the whole world, for all time. Consider that (according to one interpretation) Muhammad claimed to correct the corruption that had crept into the messages of previous prophets, for example, the claim that Jesus was the Son of God and that He died for our sins. Consider the fact that Islam claims to be the one completely true religion, and that its stated goal is to become the one religion of the entire world, supplanting the religions that are based on the work of previous prophets such as Jesus and Moses. Consider the fact that there is much in the Qur’an that contradicts many things in the Bible, which Islam claims was the word of God but was corrupted by the Jews and Christians. In view of these claims, it is inconceivable that God would have sent a prophet with a mission such as this, and not empower him with miraculous signs to confirm his message and mission. So yes, we have every right to expect abundant proof that Muhammad performed miracles. The Testimony of the Qur’an Regarding Muhammad’s “Signs” A survey of relevant verses in the Qur’an reveals a very different picture than the Biblical accounts of Moses and Jesus (both of whose miracles are acknowledged by the Qur’an). In contrast to the Biblical accounts, the Qur’an’s main emphasis in the matter of miraculous signs consists of responses to Muhammad’s detractors, who were wanting to know why he had no signs to prove his claims. The basic answers were that he needed no signs but the Qur’an itself, that the demands for signs were evidence of perversity, and that unbelievers wouldn’t believe even if signs were given. For example: In Surah 2:118, those without knowledge want to know why a sign hasn’t come to them. The answer is that “We have indeed made clear the signs unto any people who hold firmly to faith,” a general statement that mentions no specific signs. But in vs. 119, “Verily, We have sent thee in truth as a bearer of glad tidings and a warner.” Perhaps Muhammad himself is supposed to be the sign. In Surah 6:37, “They say: ‘Why is not a sign sent down to him from his Lord?’ Say: ‘Allah hath certainly power to send down a sign: but most of them understand not.’” In the context (vss. 33-39), Allah assures Muhammad that those who reject his message are rejecting the “signs of Allah” (33), but again, those signs are not identified. But vs. 35 expresses the idea that if Muhammad were able to bring them a sign, it would do no good anyway. It is then suggested that, if it were his will, Allah could “gather them together unto true guidance,” but apparently, it isn’t his will to do so. Perhaps that’s the reason he gives them no sign.

76

In Surah 6:109-111, the message is similar. The unbelievers swear that if a special sign came to them, they would believe. But Allah assures the Muslims that the unbelievers would not believe, regardless of what signs were sent to them. Yusuf Ali’s translation of vs. 109 leaves the impression that even the Muslims were wondering why no miracles were being performed, thinking that if there were miracles, more people would believe; they are assured that this would not be the case. The footnote makes reference to Jesus’ statement in Matt. 16:4, “An evil and adulterous generation seeks after a sign....” But this statement and the statement in Matt. 12:39 were made in the context of a ministry which had included numerous miracles. In fact, in Matt. 12, the Pharisees had witnessed a miracle but had attributed it to Satan’s power. So those who have witnessed miracles have no excuse for demanding more impressive miracles more to their liking. It is certainly true that God will not honor such perverse demands. Yet Jesus did perform many miracles, and the accounts of these miracles were recorded in the Scriptures for the sake of those who did not have opportunity to witness them firsthand, “...that you may believe...” (Jn. 20:30-31). But in the case of Muhammad, it seems that miracles were never performed in the first place. A similar message is in Surah 6:124, “When there comes to them a sign (from Allah), they say: ‘We shall not believe until we receive one (exactly) like those received by Allah’s messengers.’” But what signs have come to them? It should be understood that the word for “sign” (ayat) also means a verse of the Qur’an, so that in many cases, the “signs” referred to are simply verses of the Qur’an. Thus, in 2:187, the “signs” (verses) of Allah are made clear (explained). In 2:151, the “signs” were “rehearsed” to the people. That begs the question, were there any physical miracles performed? Also, frequently the “signs” referred to are simply the ordinary workings of the laws of nature, given by Allah (2:164). A good example of this is in Surah 13:1-7. The question in vs. 7 shows Muhammad was not performing miracles. So the “signs” mentioned as having been given, often do not refer to the kinds of things that are classed as “miracles.” I’ve not been able to find any records in the Qur’an of Muhammad performing those kinds of “signs.” Surah 10:17 condemns those who deny Allah’s signs, but the context (vs. 15) shows that it is the verses of the Qur’an that are under consideration. On the other hand, the unbelievers are wondering why a sign hasn’t been sent down to Muhammad from his Lord (10:20) – apparently referring to a physical miracle – and the answer is, “The Unseen is only for Allah (to know). Then wait ye: I too will wait with you.” See also Surah 17:88-93, In Surah 28:43-50, the Quraysh (the tribe in Mecca, who initially rejected Muhammad) are under consideration. If a calamity had come upon them as punishment for their deeds, and Muhammad had not been sent to them, they might claim that if a messenger had been sent, they would have followed the signs and been among those who believe (vs. 47). But as it is, when Muhammad has been sent to them, they say, “Why are not (signs) sent to him, like those which were sent to Moses?” (vs. 48) The response is that since they reject the signs that were formerly sent to Moses [which they had not seen], they would have rejected such signs if they had been sent to Muhammad. The assumption behind many such passages seems to be that since Allah knows the hearts of men, he knows they would not believe even if miracles had been sent. Perhaps so, but nevertheless, that establishes the fact that Muhammad did not perform the kind of physical miracles that were performed through Moses and Jesus. Again, Surah 29:49-51 states, “Nay, here are Signs self-evident in the hearts of those endowed with knowledge: and none but the unjust reject our Signs. Yet they say: ‘Why are not signs sent down to him from his Lord?’ Say: ‘The Signs are indeed with Allah: and I am indeed a clear Warner.’ And is it not enough for them that We have sent down to thee the Book which is rehearsed to them? Verily, in it is Mercy and a Reminder to those who believe.” The message is that Muhammad knows Allah has the power to send signs if he wished, and Allah no doubt has his own reasons for not sending miracles through Muhammad, so Muhammad is satisfied to simply be a clear warner. The Qur’an itself should be a sufficient sign for those who believe, and it is only unbelievers who reject this. The concept of physical miracles that confirm that the message spoken by Muhammad is in fact from God, so as to convince honest hearers so that they might believe, seems to be totally absent from the Qur’an.

77

The Battle of Badr In spite of the message of such passages as discussed above, there are at least a couple of verses in the Qur’an that are sometimes appealed to as examples of physical miracles. One is the victory of the Muslims over their enemies from Mecca, at the Battle of Badr. (Surah 3:13 refers to this as a sign.) Yusuf Ali says in his footnote on this verse, “It was impossible, without the miraculous aid of Allah, for such a small and ill-equipped force as was the Muslim band, to defeat the large and well-found force of the enemy.” But in fact, this does not qualify as a miraculous sign, even if it were true that God providentially aided the Muslims. A miracle is an event which is impossible by the operation of the ordinary laws of nature. A miracle represents a direct intervention of God’s power, to accomplish something that would otherwise be impossible. A military victory in the face of overwhelming odds is something that has occurred many times in the history of the world, and can be explained by non-supernatural factors. We might just as well claim that the Israeli victory over the Arabs in the short 1967 war was a miracle confirming Israel as God’s special people (and many “Christian” fundamentalists do make such a claim). If Arabs fail to interpret the Israeli victory as a miraculous sign from God, and as God fulfilling prophecies of Israel being established in its homeland, are we to say that they are “rejecting Allah’s signs”? No Muslim would accept such a conclusion, and they are right. Such military victories are explainable on the basis of natural causes. The Splitting of the Moon Surah 54:1-2 states, The hour (of Judgement) is nigh, and the moon is cleft asunder. But if they see a sign, they turn away, and say, ‘this is (but) transient magic.’” It is sometimes claimed that on this occasion, the moon was literally split into two parts, and that this was a miracle given to Muhammad. This passage is subject to different interpretations, and has been given different interpretations even by Muslims, which certainly diminishes its apologetic value. (Some say it was a literal event, some say that it was a prophecy of an event to be fulfilled just before the Day of Judgment, and some give a metaphorical interpretation). Perhaps the biggest problem with giving this a literal interpretation is that many verses in the Qur’an, as we have seen, state that Allah had chosen not to show miraculous signs through Muhammad. Many of these verses are dated after 54:1. We might speculate that there could have been some naturally caused event that gave the appearance in Mecca of the moon having been split, and that this was interpreted as a sign. But if the moon were literally split into two parts, this would have been widely reported all over the world, and there are no such reports (except in Muslim tradition). In that case, of course, somehow the moon was put back together again leaving no traces (that we can see) of its previous rupture. In view of the dominant picture given in the Qur’an of Muhammad not performing miracles, it is hard to interpret this as even a claim of miraculous power. Miracles In The Hadith But when we turn to the Hadith, the supposedly reliable accounts of Muhammad’s words and actions passed down by the companions of Muhammad, we get a far different picture. The Hadith report that Muhammad performed literally hundreds of miracles, many of which were very similar to the miracles of Jesus. (Others were of a very different nature than those of Jesus.104) When Muslim sources relate the “miracles of Muhammad,” they draw primarily from the Hadith for their proof. For example, a Muslim Web site, thetruereligion.org, lists several of Muhammad’s “miracles,” and gives many quotations from the Hadith to back up the claims. In fact, even the splitting of the moon mentioned in 54:1 is embellished in the Hadith.

104

Such as “trees speaking to Muhammad, saluting him, or moving from him as he passed. Once when Muhammad could not find a private place to relieve himself, two trees are said to have come together to hide him....once Muhammad leaned on a tree and the tree missed his company when he left.” (Norman Geisler & Abdul Saleeb, Answering Islam: The Crescent in the Light of the Cross (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 1993), pg. 164. A Muslim Web site, thetruereligion.org, lists the story of a Christian convert to Islam who later apostatized and spoke evil of Muhammad. Allah caused him to die, and when he was buried, the ground refused to have him and threw his body out. The next morning he was buried again, but overnight the ground threw him out again. This happened three times.

78

But there are several reasons for not placing much confidence in the miracle accounts of the Hadith, some of which I will summarize at this point.105 1) In Islamic theology, the Hadith lack the authority given to the Qur’an, since they are not claimed to be a revelation from God. (In contrast, the records believed by Christians to be inspired Scripture, the New Testament, record the miracles of Jesus.) 2) These alleged miracles follow the same pattern as the apocryphal miracles of Christ from a century or two after His death. They have the appearance of a legendary embellishment of people removed from the original events. 3) The majority of stories from the Hadith are rejected by most Muslim scholars as not being authentic. There is no universal agreement on which ones are authentic. 4) The most generally accepted collections of Hadith were written down about two hundred years after Muhammad’s death. They were supposedly the reliable accounts of eyewitnesses that had been handed down orally for several generations. So none of the Hadith were written by eyewitnesses. (In fact, in the Hadith there are even accounts of Muhammad telling his followers to write none of his words except the Qur’an. If any had written any other of his words, they were to be erased. However, other Hadith contradict this.) 106 5) Some scholars have dated the origin of the stories attributing miracles to Muhammad, to a time following a challenge from Christian apologists, who pointed out that Jesus was superior to Muhammad because Jesus performed miracles. It was after this that the miracle stories began to appear. 6) The miracle stories of the Hadith contradict the general spirit of the Qur’an in its treatment of the demand of unbelievers of signs from Muhammad. 7) “The books of Hadeeth are replete with 'aHadeeth from Abu Hurayra the embezzler, Al-Mughira Ibn-Shu'bah the adulterer, Khalid Ibnil-Waleed the murderer and Amr Ibnil 'Aas the treacherous liar who precipitated the civil war that led to Ali's assassination. Their names are now always followed by the phrase "may God be pleased with them"107. Conclusion In conclusion, it must be admitted that the evidence from the Qur’an is that Muhammad did not perform the kind of physical miracles that Jesus did. The evidence from the Hadith not only contradicts the Qur’an, it is suspect, in itself, for the above reasons. That being the case, and since Muhammad contradicted many of the teachings of Jesus that were confirmed as God’s word by miraculous powers, we still are convinced that Muhammad lacks the credentials of a true prophet of God.

105

See Geisler, 164-169. This is from a Muslim web site, www.submission.ca. This is obviously from a Muslim sect that mainstream Islam would consider heretical. Some of the views of this sect are nonsense, but they have some very extensive and scholarly articles about the Hadith, which they reject. They only accept the Qur’an, and completely reject the Hadith. 107 From 'Hadeeth,' A Critical Evaluation With Argument And Counter-Argument, By Mabrook Ismaeel, found at submission.ca. 106

79

Lesson 15 Muhammad’s Legacy To Women In considering the claims of Islam from a Christian perspective, there are a number of considerations that argue against Muhammad being a true prophet of God. The chief of these would have to be the Qur’an’s denial of several fundamental tenets of the gospel of Christ. Of these, the most important truths are that Jesus is the divine Son of God; and that He willingly suffered a sacrificial death on the cross, that we might be redeemed from sin; and that He was miraculously raised from the dead and appeared to His disciples over a period of 40 days. As long as these facts are firmly established as truth, Christians have no other choice but to reject Muhammad’s claim of prophethood, regardless of whatever good may be found to exist in the religion of Islam, and regardless of what other truths the two religions may hold in common. In our view, the evidences used to support the Qur’an as a revelation from God, and the criticisms of Muslims leveled against the Bible, are insufficient to establish a case that would refute the claims of Jesus. But in addition to this basic problem, there are a number of additional problems that, from a Christian perspective, strengthen the case against Muhammad’s claims and the religion of Islam. This lesson will discuss a few of these problems, especially those relating to Muhammad’s marriages and Islam’s treatment of women. By the nature of the case, this lesson is negative in its assessment of various factors. We have no desire to be unnecessarily disrespectful or judgmental regarding Muhammad. And we understand the importance of separating fact from fiction. Certainly, historical matters are subject to more than one interpretation. But it is necessary to consider some factors that increase the difficulty of accepting Muhammad as a prophet. Muhammad’s Multiple Marriages At the outset, let us acknowledge that several Old Testament characters practiced polygamy, including some who are respected for their faith in God and some who were used by God to write O. T. books. Sarah gave her maid Hagar to Abraham, because she had been childless. Jacob had two wives and two concubines, who together bore the 12 sons whose descendants became the 12 tribes of Israel. King David had many wives, and David’s son Solomon had even more. This was not the norm, however, even in O. T. times. God’s ideal from the beginning was clearly monagamy (Gen. 2:24). But apart from kings being commanded not to multiply wives for themselves in a context that is warning against all kinds of extravagance that might take place in a monarchy (Deut. 17:17), and the condemnation of Solomon’s sin of marrying foreign wives who were idolaters in I Kings 11:1-8 (where the stress is not on polygamy per se, but on the kind of wives Solomon married, i.e., foreign idolaters), the O. T. seems to tolerate polygamy. (Note that in I Kings 11:4-6, Solomon is contrasted with David, who is said to have been wholly devoted to God, and to have fully followed the LORD, even though he practiced polygamy.) Christians understand polygamy to have been a situation that was tolerated by God, even though it was beneath His ideal, until the time when Christ reasserted God’s ideal of permanent monagamy as the binding law for mankind (assuming that what is said of divorce in Matt. 19:7-9 may also be applied to polygamy). Certainly, Christians understand monogamy to be the law of God for all people, at least from the time of Christ. That being the case, if Muhammad had been a Christian, he would not even have met the marital qualifications for being an elder in the Lord’s church after he became a polygamist (I Tim. 3:2). However, Muhammad’s polygamy, per se, is not the main objection raised against him at this point. Rather, it is certain aspects of his polygamy that we will consider. Muhammad was married to one woman, Kahdija, for some 25 years. She was a wealthy widow who was 15 years older than Muhammad. During this time, Muhammad was monogamous by all accounts, and apparently had a good marriage. When Kahdija was 65 years old, and Muhammad 50, Kahdija died. Within two months Muhammad had married a woman named Sauda. Shortly, he betrothed himself to Aisha, the 6 or 7 year old daughter of his best friend, Abu Bakr. Muhammad consumated his marriage to Aishah when she was either 9, 10, or 11 years old (accounts vary, but many reliable accounts put her age at 9 years). During the last 15 years of his life, Muhammad added, on the average, one new wife to his harem each year. He had a total of about 16 wives. It is said that he had 9 wives at the time of his death. We will consider several things about these marriages.

80

The “Revelation” Permitting Muhammad’s Marriages The Qur’an, in Surah 4:3, limits the number of wives a Muslim may have to no more than four. He may have four wives. Yusuf Ali comments on this verse, “The unrestricted number of wives of the “Times of Ignorance” was now strictly limited to a miximum of four, provided you could treat them with equality.” However, Muhammad eventually had about 15 wives, and he received a revelation that made these marriages lawful for him. Surah 33:50 states, “O Prophet! We have made lawful to thee thy wives....” Four different classes of wives that were permissable for Muhammad are then described. Yusuf Ali states that “this introduces no new exemption or privilege,” but it is hard to read it as anything but this. Other Muslims were limited to 4 wives, but Muhammad was not subject to this limitation. This has every appearance of being a self-serving revelation. Sauda and Aisha As stated above, Sauda and Aisha were the first two wives Muhammad married following the death of his first wife. Eventually, Aisha became his favorite wife. She was 18 years old when Muhammad died. Aside from the problematic marriage to a child (which we will discuss in more detail shortly), there is a problem related to Muhammad’s treatment of Sauda and a relevant verse in the Qur’an. At the time when Muhammad’s first wife had died, Sauda had also been recently widowed, and someone suggested to Muhammad that he marry her, which he did. They may have been able to comfort one another at that time. But apparently, with the passing of time and Muhammad’s multiplication of wives, Sauda fell out of favor. More than one Muslim source relates that the reason for this was that Sauda became old, fat and ugly in comparison with Muhammad’s other wives.108 The sources relate that Muhammad wanted to divorce Sauda (some say he had already begun the process, others say that Sauda feared that he was going to). At any rate, Sauda wanted to remain one of Muhammad’s wives, so she worked out an ageement with him to the effect that Aisha could have Sauda’s “turn” if Muhammad would keep up his outward responsibilities to Sauda and not divorce her. So it came about that Muhammad’s “rounds” consisted of one day with each of his wives (except Sauda), and two days with Aisha. In support of this, the Hadith of Bukhari states, “Narrated ‘Aisha that Sauda bint Zam’ah gave up her turn to ‘Aisha, and so the prophet used to give ‘Aisha both her day and the day of Sauda.109 It is said that Surah 4:128-129 was revealed in connection with this. The passage states, “If a wife fears cruelty or desertion on her husband’s part, there is no blame on them if they arrange an amicable settlement between themselves; and such settlement is best; even though men’s souls are swayed by greed.... Ye are never able to be fair and just as between women, even if it is your ardent desire: but turn not away (from a woman) altogether, so as to leave her (as it were) hanging (in the air)....” Following are some comments by Muslim commentators on this passage: (Ibn Kathir): “...this is why, when Sauda bint Zam’ah became old, the Prophet of Allah decided to divorce her. She besought him to keep her in return of giving up her day to ‘Aisha. So he accepted her offer and did not divorce her. ... on the authority of Ibn ‘Abbas who said: Sauda feared that the Prophet of Allah might divorce her, so she said to him: O Prophet of Allah, do not divorce me, and my day shall belong to ‘Aisha. So he did and that verse Q. 4:128 was revealed.” (Razi): "Some said: ‘(Feared)’ meaning ‘knew’, others said: ‘(feared)’ meaning ‘thought’. But all that is ignoring the obvious for no reason. What is meant (by feared) is fear itself. But fear does not happen unless there are signs indicating fear. These signs here are that the man says to his wife you are ugly or you are old and I want to marry a beautiful youthful woman... the (rebelliousness or aversion) of the husband against the rights of the woman is to avoid her, looks angry when looking her in the face, deserts her sexually and mistreats her."

108

An article at answering-Islam.org cites several Muslim sources for this, including Ibn Kathir, Ibn ‘Abbas, Razi, Ibn al‘Arabi, Dr bint ash-Shati’, and Bukhari. 109 The Book of Nikah, Hadith No. 139.

81 (Ibn al-’Arabi):"... when Sauda bint Zam’ah became old, the Prophet of Allah wanted to divorce her. However, she preferred to remain amongst his wives, so she said, ‘Keep me, and my day shall belong to ‘Aisha’, and he did, and thus she died as one of his wives. Ibn Abi Malikah declared that this verse was revealed regarding ‘Aisha. And in this verse is the answer to those light headed fools who say that if a man took the youth of a woman and she became old he cannot replace her. So praise be to Allah who lifted such burden and made an escape from such dilemma.

A Muslim textbook states, “What some men of lust who have no moral values do, in divorcing their wives without a reason, is a thing that is not stated nor approved by Islam. And Allah must take vengeance on such men in this life and the next.”

True, but the same author states a few pages later, "[Divorce is permissible] if the reason was the unsuitability of the woman for enjoyment due to certain defects in her or due to old age or such things."110

It may be that the historical circumstances in this case may be disputed by some Muslims, I do not know. The documentation seems to be sound. What cannot be disputed is that at least some Muslims make use of the Qur’an and the reputed example of their prophet to justify the kind of behavior described above. After all, Muhammad is considered the highest moral example the world has ever known. Even Yusuf Ali, in his footnote on 4:129 states, “Legally more than one wife (up to four) are permissible on the condition that the man can be perfectly fair and just to all. But this is a condition almost impossible to fulfil. If, in the hope that he might be able to fulfil it, a man puts himself in that impossible position, it is only right to insist that he should not discard one but at least fulfil all the outward duties that are incumbent on him in respect of her.” (emphasis mine)

Child Marriage In addition to the problem regarding Sauda, Muhammad’s marriage to Aisha is also problematic to Christians, indeed, to Westerners in general. Aisha was 6 or 7 years old when Muhammad betrothed her to himself, and she was probably 9 years old when the marriage was consummated. This is abundantly documented.111 When Muhammad died 9 years later, Aisha was his favorite wife. She became a widow at the age of 18 and was not permitted to remarry. Apparently, Muhammad was following an accepted cultural norm among Arabs of the time, who believed that a girl became a woman immediately following her first menstrual cycle (this was apparently the case with Aisha). I have read much about the sweeping improvements that Muhammad brought to Arabian society, but in this case, Muhammad accepted the cultural norm of his day, and in fact confirmed it as righteous by his example. Most people in Western countries today find the notion of an old man marrying a 9 year old girl to be highly objectionable, indeed, morally reprehensible. In fact, most Western laws would send a man to prison for such a thing. It might be objected that Muhammad wasn’t living under our laws, and that his action was not considered wrong in the Arab culture, and that does seem to be the case. But the point is, Muhammad was supposedly receiving revelations from God that corrected the backward practices of pagan Arabia. It seems that if there was any practice of the day that should have been corrected by Allah, it would be this one, but Muhammad’s actions did the opposite. His actions and teachings on this point are a major stumblingblock to our believing his claims. 110

'Abd ar-Rahman al-Gaziri, al-Fiqh 'ala al-Mazahib al-Arba'a, Dar al-Kutub al-'Elmeyah, 1990, vol. 4, p. 278, 281. In an article at answering-Islam.org, titled “Muhammad, Aisha, Islam and Child Brides,” the author gives at least 8 quotations from the Hadith, Muslim history books, and encyclopedias. I will provide one quotation, from Aisha herself, in Bukhari Vol. 5, #234: "Narrated Aisha: The prophet engaged me when I was a girl of six. We went to Medina and stayed at the home of Harith Kharzraj. Then I got ill and my hair fell down. Later on my hair grew (again) and my mother, Um Ruman, came to me while I was playing in a swing with some of my girl friends. She called me, and I went to her, not knowing what she wanted to do to me. She caught me by the hand and made me stand at the door of the house. I was breathless then, and when my breathing became all right, she took some water and rubbed my face and head with it. Then she took me into the house. There in the house I saw some Ansari women who said, "Best wishes and Allah's blessing and a good luck." Then she entrusted me to them and they prepared me (for the marriage). Unexpectedly Allah's messenger came to me in the forenoon and my mother handed me over to him, and at that time I was a girl of nine years of age."

111

82

The article referenced above (footnote #4) gives extended documentation from modern science and research on a number of points that should be considered. To begin with, physical, emotional, psychological and intellectual maturation is a process that takes several years. It is not an event that happens immediately at the first menstrual cycle. Indeed, even the ability to become pregnant usually is at least 2 years after the first menstrual cycle. Secondly, such marriages may be harmful in many ways to the girls involved. The possible consequences of such early sexual activity include increased risks of complication in pregnancy, physical damage brought on by sexual activity in a developing child, as well as emotional & psychological damage. In view of the many Muslim claims of “pre-scientific knowledge” in the Qur’an as an evidence of its divine origin (see lessons 11 & 12), it seems that the practice of having child brides would have been ended by a revelation from Allah. Indeed, if the Qur’an gives a pre-scientific view of the developing fetus (as is claimed), it seems that the Qur’an should have given a pre-scientific view of the damage that can occur to child brides, but it did not. As a result, in many Islamic countries, especially underdeveloped countries, such child marriages still occur. Indeed, what else should we expect? After all, the Qur’an states, “Ye have indeed in the Messenger of Allah a beautiful pattern (of conduct)...” (33:21). Why should we be surprised then if Muhammad’s example is followed? From the above referenced article: Sandra Mackey, in "Saudis, Inside the Desert Kingdom" writes on page 161: "Girls are considered marriageable from the time they reach puberty. The lower class marries very young. The ages for marriage and first pregnancy on Tarut Island, off the east coast, were published in a rare study on women that I unearthed from a library. In the group as a whole, the mean age for marriage was fourteen, with the first pregnancy occurring at sixteen. Out of 193 girls, 3 married as young as ten. Among the Bedouins and the rural poor, a girl can be the second of two wives, married to a man older than her father, the mother of several children, and suffering from severe depression by the age of eighteen."

Justifications for Muhammad’s Marriages Muslims offer several arguments to justify Muhammad’s marriage to Aisha.112 One is that, as mentioned above, Muhammad was acting within the generally accepted standards of his culture. But the point is, he had it within his power to change those standards for the better, but in the case of this particular practice, he actually reinforced a bad custom. Another reason sometimes given for the marriage is that it helped to cement relations with Aisha’s father, Abu Bakr. But the fact is, Abu Bakr was already one of Muhammad’s closest friends and staunchest supporters. Their relationship needed no such help. Some of Muhammad’s marriages are defended on the basis of demonstrating that the Muslim community would take care of widows whose husbands were killed in battle, but this was obviously not the case with Aisha. Her parents were still living & she was not in any kind of economic danger. Besides, there are other ways to care for widows than for them to become part of a harem. The example of the benevolence of the Jersusalem church comes to mind (Acts 6). Some Muslims argue that it is unreasonable to assume that Muhammad would have multiplied his wives because of sexual desire, in view of his advanced age. But many men beyond the age of 50 will testify to the invalidity of that argument. Besides, it is disproven by the fact that Muhammad had a son in his later years, and it is obvious from the Hadith that these marriages were not platonic relationships. Maryam (Mariyah) Muhammad’s eighth wife, Maryam, was one of two slave girls who were sisters, given to Muhammad by the governor of Egypt. Muhammad married Maryam and gave the other to another Muslim. It may be claimed that this was only a “political” marriage, but the fact is that Maryam had the status of a concubine until she bore Muhammad a male child, at which time she was raised to the status of a free wife and enjoyed a favored position. In view of this, it can’t be denied that Muhammad had a sexual interest in women at this time of his life.

112

Several of these arguments are found in Haykal, The Life of Muhammad. They are cited and addressed by Ney Rieber, A Resource for the Study of Islam (Fort Worth, Texas: Star Bible Publications, 1993), 85-92.

83

Safiyyah This was a fifteen year old Jewish girl who was widowed during the conquest of Khaybar. According to Dr. Anis Shorrosh, in Islam Revealed, “one of Muhammad’s followers begged to have her for himself, but the prophet, struck with her beauty, threw his mantle over her, and took her to his harem.” Zaynab This is an especially interesting case, but the details are somewhat difficult to follow. It does appear, however, that on two different occasions Muhammad received revelations that justified what he wanted to do. At first, he desired that Zaynab, his cousin and a member of the Meccan aristocracy, should marry his adopted son Zayd, who was an ex-slave. Neither Zaynab or Zayd wanted the marriage, and resisted Muhammad’s efforts. At that time the following revelation was received: “It is not fitting for a believer, man or woman, when a matter has been decided by Allah and His Messenger, to have any option about their decision: If ayone disobeys Allah and His Messenger, he is indeed on a clearly wrong path.” (33:36)

So then, the two parties had no choice. They dutifully married, but the marriage was a dismal failure, and Zayd ended up divorcing Zaynab. There are different accounts as to the reason for the divorce, which I will omit. But regardless of the reasons, the marriage that Muhammad insisted upon, and received a divine revelation to justify, did not work. At that point, Muhammad decided he would marry Zaynab himself. But it was considered immoral, according to Arab custom, for a man to marry his adopted son’s (former) wife. So Muhammad received another revelation: “...Then when Zayd had dissolved (his marriage) with her, with the necessary (formality), We joined her in marriage to thee: In order that (in future) there may be no difficulty to the Believers in (the matter of) marriage with the wives of their adopted sons, when the latter have dissolved with the necessary (formality) (their marriage) with them....There can be no difficulty to the Prophet in what Allah has indicated to him as a duty....” (33:37-38).

Of course the claim is that Muhammad’s marriage to Zaynab was not his idea at all, but Allah’s. The Prophet was merely being submissive to Allah’s will so as to provide an example that would reinforce the abolition of an Arab taboo. More Self-Serving Revelations The conclusion that revelations such as those described above were self-serving might not be warranted if it were only one or two passages that gave this appearance. But to the skeptic, it has the appearance of being a pattern that developed. There are a number of passages that give this appearance. “These passages are those that are specific to a situation in Muhammad’s life, and once given, eliminate a personal problem or justify an unusual course of action....They appear to be self-serving revelations that are more likely to have originated in the mind of Muhammad than the mind of God.”113 For example, when Muhammad’s popularity increased to the point that believers were pressing upon him to get advice or help of some kind, he received a revelation instructing believers to not infringe upon his privacy, nor that of his wives (33:53). (This same verse instructs that none of his widows should be remarried after he had died.) At a time when there was dissension among Muhammad’s wives because of his favoritism toward a certain one, he received a revelation stating that it was permissable for him to defer the turn of any of them if he chose to do so (33:51). (This immediately follows the verse that permitted him to have more than 4 wives.) On another occasion, “...in a spate of jealousy over his visiting over long with Zaynab who was sharing some honey with him, Muhammad’s other wives plotted to embarrass him by saying his breath smelled bad due to the honey. As a consequence, Muhammad vowed never to eat honey again.” (This part of the story is confirmed in several Hadiths.) “When he realized that it was a conspiracy by his wives, Allah revealed to him that it was not necessary

113

Ibid., pg. 152.

84

to keep that oath.” (66:1-2).114 There was also a revelation to curb household gossip among Muhammad’s consorts (66:3-4). Then again, when dissension broke out among Muhammad’s wives because of his paying special attention to Maryam after the birth of their son Ibrahim, Surah 66:5 was revealed, which states, “It may be, if he divorced you (all), tht Allah will give him in exchange Consorts better than you – who submit (their wills), who believe, who are devout, who turn to Allah in repentance....” It does indeed sound “more like the tirade of an angry man than a revelation from God.”115

Muhammad’s Legacy To Women? It is often argued by Western Muslims that the Qur’an greatly elevates the status of women, giving them equality, and demanding that husbands treat their wives justly and kindly. In a sense, the Qur’an does declare the equality of women with men, as to their reward from Allah (3:195; 33:35). On the other hand, The Qur’an places women in a dependent role, and gives the husband the right to discipline his wife by first admonishing her, then refusing to share her bed, and then spanking her (beating her lightly) (4:34). Ney Rieber points out that frequently, “Western Islamic scholars who are not influenced by the Arabic culture claim to find the general practice of Muslims contrary to the Qur’anic principles.”116 It is well known that oppression of women is a common practice in Muslim countries. Whether this is Muhammad’s true legacy for women, or a perversion of Muhammad’s principles, may be subject to debate. Those who wish to know more about this question will find an extensive article titled “The Place of Women in Pure Islam,” by M. Rafiqul-Haqq and P. Newton, at www.members.aol.com/AlHaqq4u/womeng.html. The authors give extensive documentation from the Hadith and Muslim commentators, showing that many Muslims have viewed men as superior to women, women as deficient in intelligence and religion, deficient in gratitude, and deficient as witnesses. Women are described as “toys,” and “crooked like a rib.” The husband’s rights include the right for his sexual desires to be met at once, the right of unquestioning obedience from the wife (obedience to the husband is woman’s key to Paradise), the right to divorce his wife for any reason, and precedence in the custody of children. The prohibition of more than 4 wives did not prohibit a man from having sex with an unlimited number of slave girls, and men in Paradise will enjoy sex with perpetually exquisite virgin women, etc. In their conclusion, the authors state, “The above material...is not the personal opinion of some individuals, but it represents the will of Allah as expressed in the teachings of Qur'an and the Hadith....The Hadith quoted in this booklet is consistent with the spirit of Islam and the teachings of the Qur'an. If the Hadith was not so, it would have been rejected out of hand, as fabricated, from the early centuries of Islam, not thirteen centuries later. On the contrary they have been compiled by the most pious Muslims of their time, quoted in the mothers of all books in Islamic literature, which has been published year after year, for more than a thousand years. In the light of the Qur'an the above Hadith was not condemned and rejected. It is when it is exposed to a different light that it is called into question. The above quotations are not a collection of isolated, eccentric, or uncommon examples, but they are a representation of the main stream of a coherent consistent point of view regarding the place of women in Islam.” Many Western Muslims, and perhaps many in Muslim countries, no doubt reject the views expressed by these Hadith and commentators, but the quotations are there. Are these the predominant views in Muslim countries? If so, it is not a picture of “good fruit” having been born by Muhammad and the Qur’an, but bad fruit. (See Matt. 7:15-20.) Again, the matters discussed in this lesson should not be the main consideration upon which to form one’s opinion of Muhammad’s claim to be a prophet of God. If he were a true prophet of God, then we must accept what God revealed to him, regardless of what we might think about it. More basic is his insistance that Jesus was not the Son of God, and that Jesus did not die for our sins. Since Muhammad denied the gospel, we must reject him as a prophet for that reason. His example in his marriages, and the Muslim traditions that have resulted from that example and from the Qur’an, simply reinforce our conviction that he was not a prophet of God.

114

Ibid., pg. 155. Ibid., pg. 158. 116 Ibid., pg. 163. 115

85

Lesson 16 The Islamic Doctrine of Jihad Before the events of the last few decades, most of the world was blissfully unaware of the Islamic doctrine of Jihad. But the actions of Muslim terrorists have forcefully brought this doctrine to our attention. We are now painfully aware that many Muslims believe that they may advance their cause by violent means. But how much of our understanding of this subject is based on fact, and how much is based on misinformation? A tremendous amount of rhetoric comes from all sides of this issue. How much of it is true information? What does the Qur’an actually teach, and what did Jihad actually mean to Muhammad and his original followers? How do various Muslim groups interpret this doctrine today? This lesson is an effort to separate the truth about Jihad from misinformation and propaganda, so that we will have an accurate understanding of the issue. It would be interesting to delve into historians’ accounts of the battles that were fought several centuries ago when Islam first burst upon the scene and within a short span of time conquered a sizeable portion of the globe. But that would probably not serve our purpose, for most Christians, and most Muslims, are going to accept the version of history that harmonizes with their preconceived ideas, each favoring the historical interpretation that places his own group in the best light. It will probably be conceded by most educated Muslims that there were times when Muslim armies acted ruthlessly, for purposes of personal glory and power or other base motives such as racial or national pride or the acquisition of wealth. But they will say that when that happened, those Muslims were not acting in harmony with the true principles of Islam. They will give verses and historical documentation to prove that Islam is (or at least is supposed to be) a religion of peace and tolerance. Furthermore, they will point to the Catholic “Crusades” of the Middle Ages as evidence that Christianity has been a religion of violence and conquest. And of course we will protest that the Catholics were not true Christians and were not acting in harmony with the true principles of the gospel. When we finish that argument, we will be right back where we started. Instead, we will focus in this lesson on the Qur’an itself, and the interpretations placed on the Qur’an by various Muslims today. I will provide information from two totally different perspectives, represented by two sources that give totally different viewpoints regarding the teaching of “true Islam” on this issue. I will add some additional information from other sources, and make some personal observations. The View That Islam Is A Peaceful Religion, Promoting Human Rights and Religious Freedom We will begin by surveying an article that explains Jihad, taken from a Muslim Web site that presents Islam as a peaceful religion, and condemns acts of terrorism such as happened on Sept. 11, 2001.117 This article presses the point that Islam is not spread by means of conquering and subjugating nations. According to this source, the Arabic word for “Jihad” simply means to struggle or strive. There are other words that would be translated “holy war,” so to represent “Jihad” as “holy war” is not accurate. “According to Islamic teachings, it is UNHOLY to instigate or start war; however, some wars are inevitable and justifiable.” The article continues by giving several different ways in which the Qur’an uses the word “Jihad.” Following is a summary of the ways in which the word “jihad” is used in the Qur’an, according to this article. 1. Recognizing the Creator and loving Him most. Surah 9:23-24 is quoted, along with this comment: “It is indeed a struggle to put Allah ahead of our loved ones, our wealth, our worldly ambitions and our own lives. Especially for a non-Muslim who embraces Islam, it may be a tough struggle due to the opposition of his family, peers and society.” (This would be similar to Matt. 6:33, etc.) 2. Resisting pressure of parents, peers, and society. Surah 25:52 is quoted, with this comment: “Once a person has made up his mind to put the Creator of the Universe above all else, he often comes under intense pressures. It is not easy to resist such pressures and STRIVE to maintain dedication and love of Allah over all else. A person who has turned to Islam from another religion may be subjected to pressures designed to turn him back to the religion of the family.” (Similar thoughts are found in Matt. 10:34-39.)

117

The article is entitled “Jihad Explained,” and is found at www.Islam101.com, a Muslim Web site.

86

3. Staying on the straight path steadfastly. Surahs 22:78, 29:6, 4:97, 2:218, 3:142, & 2:155 are quoted, with the following comments: “As for those who strive and struggle to live as true Muslims whose lives are made difficult due to persecution by their opponents, they are advised to migrate to a more peaceful and tolerant land and continue with their struggle in the cause of Allah.” “Allah tests the believers in their faith and their steadfastness.” So, “We find that the Prophet Muhammad (S) and his clan were boycotted socially and economically for three years to force him to stop his message and compromise with the pagans but he resisted and realized a moral victory.” (Compare I Pet. 4:12-19.) 4. Striving for righteous deeds. Surah 29:69 is quoted, then several Hadith are quoted that describe such things as performing a perfect pilgrimage, serving one’s parents, speaking a word of truth before a ruler, etc., as forms of Jihad. (Passages such as Eph. 6:10-20 describe this kind of spiritual fighting.) 5. Having courage and steadfastness to convey the message of Islam. Surah 49:15 is quoted: “The (true) believers are only those who believe in Allah and his messenger and afterward doubt not, but STRIVE with their wealth and their selves for the cause of Allah. Such are the truthful.” (Here the meaning can apply to both spiritual and carnal warfare, for Muslims can engage in both “with their wealth and their selves.”) 6. Defending Islam and the community. Surah 22:39-40 is quoted: “To those against whom war is made, permission is given (to defend themselves), because they are wronged - and verily, Allah is Most Powerful to give them victory - (they are) those who have been expelled from their homes in defiance of right - (for no cause) except that they say, 'Our Lord is Allah'...” And 2:190, 193: “Fight in the cause of Allah against those who fight against you, but do not transgress limits. Lo! Allah loves not aggressors. ...And fight them until persecution is no more, and religion is for Allah. But if they desist, then let there be no hostility except against transgressors.” 7. Helping allied people who may not be Muslim. (No reference from the Qur’an is given, only an example from Muslim history.) 8. Removing treacherous people from power. Surah 8:58 is quoted: “If you fear treachery from any group, throw back (their treaty) to them, (so as to be) on equal terms. Lo! Allah loves not the treacherous.” Examples are then given from Muhammad’s armed campaigns that fit under this heading. 9. Defending through preemptive strikes. Surah 2:216 is quoted: “Fighting is prescribed upon you, and you dislike it. But it may happen that you dislike a thing which is good for you, and it may happen that you love a thing which is bad for you. And Allah knows and you know not.” Examples from Muhammad’s campaigns are again cited. 10. Gaining freedom to inform, educate and convey the message of Islam in an open and free environment. Two Surahs are quoted: “They ask you (Muhammad) concerning fighting in the Sacred Month. Say, 'Fighting therein is a grave (offense) but graver is it in the sight of Allah to prevent access to the path of Allah, to deny Him, to prevent access to the Sacred Mosque, and drive out its inhabitants. Persecution is worse than killing. Nor will they cease fighting you until they turn you back from your faith, if they can....” (2:217) “And those who, when an oppressive wrong is inflicted on them, (are not cowed but) fight back.” (42:39) This comment follows: “The life of the Prophet Muhammad (S) was full of STRIVING to gain the freedom to inform and convey the message of Islam. During his stay in Makkah he used non-violent methods and after the establishment of his government in Madinah, by the permission of Allah, he used armed struggle against his enemies whenever he found it inevitable.” 11. Freeing people from tyranny. Surah 4:75 is quoted: “And why should you not fight in the cause of Allah and of those who, being weak, are ill-treated (and oppressed)? - Men, women, and children, whose cry is: 'Our Lord! Rescue us from this town, whose people are oppressors; and raise for us from You, one who will protect; and raise for us from You, one who will help.’” (It will be seen from this summary that even moderate Muslims do not deny that Jihad sometimes involves the use of carnal warfare, though the uses are limited to defending the Muslim community, dealing with the treacherous, gaining freedom to teach and practice Islam, etc.)

87

At the end of this numbered list, the following question is asked: “What should Muslims do when they are victorious?” This answer follows: “Muslims should remove tyranny, treachery, bigotry, and ignorance and replace them with justice and equity. We should provide truthful knowledge and free people from the bondage of 'associationism' (SHIRK, or multiple gods), prejudice, superstition and mythology. Muslims remove immorality, fear, crime, exploitation and replace them with divine morality, peace and education.” References from the Qur’an enjoining justice and kindness are then given, such as 4:58, 5:8, 7:181, and 16:90. Then 22:41 is quoted, which commends "Those who, if We give them power in the land, establish prescribed prayers (SALAH) and pay the poor-due (ZAKAH) and enjoin right conduct and forbid evil. And with Allah rests the end (and decision) of (all) affairs." The article closes by answering the question “Did Islam spread by force, swords or guns?” with an emphatic and unequivocal “No.” Surah 2:256 is then quoted: “Let there be no compulsion (or coercion) in the religion (Islam). The right direction is distinctly clear from error.” Then a “Christian missionary” (T. W. Arnold) is quoted to prove that Islam was not spread by force of arms. The first impression one might have from reading this article is that Jihad is primarily a spiritual struggle, and that carnal warfare should be resorted to only in defending against aggressors, or in situations that Western nations might characterize as a “just war.” I will return to this article later, but first I will summarize another viewpoint, from a very different perspective. The View That True Islam Requires That The Entire World Be Conquered for Allah, By Force If Necessary Today there is a sizable segment of the Islamic world that sees the use of violence, even acts of terrorism waged against innocent and unsuspecting civilians, as an integral part of the struggle (jihad) that Muslims should be engaged in. Valuable insight regarding this interpretation of Islam comes from a former Muslim with more inside information than any of us will ever have, Dr. Mark Gabriel, the author of Islam and Terrorism.118 Dr. Gabriel,119 a native of Egypt, was a student, and then a professor, at Al-Azhar University in Cairo, Egypt, perhaps the most prestigious Islamic university in the world. While a professor there, he became troubled by those whom he viewed at the time as being Islamic extremists. On the other hand, he was also having trouble reconciling what he knew was in the Qur’an with the “politically correct” version of Islam presented at the time by the Egyptian government. When he began raising questions of an academic nature in his university setting, he drew the attention of the Islamic “radicals.” In his book, he tells of the Egyptian “secret police” coming to his home in the middle of the night and “kidnapping” him. He was interrogated and tortured for over two weeks. His captors were trying to get him to confess to “converting” to Christianity, and to tell what “pastors” had been influencing him. He was eventually released through the efforts of his uncle, a member of the Egyptian parliament, but his experience in captivity left his faith in Islam severely shaken. Through a series of events, he did eventually convert to some form of Christianity (I do not know which denomination), and when his father found out, he tried to kill him. He was able to escape, and eventually came to America. His book explains the fundamentalist view of the Qur’an, and gives an historical overview of the concept of Jihad in Islam, from Muhammad’s time down to the present day. His conclusion is that true Islam, as practiced by Muhammad and taught in the Qur’an, demands that the entire world submit to Allah, and commands Muslims to establish Islamic states throughout the world, by carnal warfare if necessary. He believes that Islamic terrorism is a natural result of the teaching of the Qur’an and the example of Muhammad. The book is a disturbing, well-documented assessment by one who is well qualified to speak. It is undeniable that various Muslim groups hold both of the above viewpoints today. Is the “militant” viewpoint a perversion of the Qur’an? Have so-called “Muslim extremists” truly “high jacked” Islam, as some claim? Or is it the case that peace loving Muslims have accepted a form of Islam that is not true to the Qur’an? Obviously, it is very difficult for Christians with only a passing knowledge of the Qur’an to arrive at a definitive answer to a question about Islam that even Muslims don’t agree about. But, to keep from misrepresenting our religious neighbors, and to be truly enlightened about what is going on in the world today, we should make an honest effort to understand what the Qur’an truly teaches on this subject. 118

Dr. Mark Gabriel, Islam and Terrorism (Charisma House: Lake Mary, FL, 2002) This man had a Muslim name until after his conversion from Islam to a form of Christianity. He then changed his name to Mark Gabriel. In his book, he gives several reasons for the name change. 119

88

What Does The Qur’an Teach About Jihad? A large portion of the Qur’an deals with this subject, so it will be impossible to give a complete overview in one short lesson. But let’s look at just a few of the Qur’anic references used, first by Dr. Gabriel, and then in the article previously mentioned that gives the opposite viewpoint. There are many such passages; this is only a small sample. “They but wish that ye should reject Faith, as they do, and thus be on the same footing (as they): But take not friends from their ranks until they flee in the way of Allah (From what is forbidden). But if they turn renegades, seize them and slay them wherever ye find them; and (in any case) take no friends or helpers from their ranks.” (4:89, The Noble Qur’an120)

In Yusuf Ali’s footnote on this passage, he says it refers to “…desertion of the hypocrites at Uhud…they were given a chance of making good. If they made a sacrifice for the cause…their conduct purged their previous cowardice…But if they deserted the Muslim community again, they were treated as enemies, with the additional penalty of desertion which is enforced by all nations actually at war.” (One of the challenges of a study such as this is to not take a passage out of its context, so as to misuse it. I’m certain that militant Muslims today apply this verse to more than just deserters during wartime, as we will see shortly. Have they misused the verse?) Note from the following passage that prisoners of war were not to be taken, until a certain number of the enemy were killed. Also notice that this particular translation states that Jihad is to be pursued until the enemy has embraced Islam (or at least has come under your protection). Finally, the implication of the last sentence is that those who die fighting in a holy war will be saved in Paradise. Dr. Gabriel comments that being killed in a holy war is the only way a Muslim can be guaranteed a place in Paradise. “So, when you meet (in fight Jihâd in Allâh's Cause), those who disbelieve smite at their necks till when you have killed and wounded many of them, then bind a bond firmly (on them, i.e. take them as captives). Thereafter (is the time) either for generosity (i.e. free them without ransom), or ransom (according to what benefits Islâm), until the war lays down its burden. Thus [you are ordered by Allâh to continue in carrying out Jihâd against the disbelievers till they embrace Islâm (i.e. are saved from the punishment in the Hell-fire) or at least come under your protection], but if it had been Allâh's Will, He Himself could certainly have punished them (without you). But (He lets you fight), in order to test you, some with others. But those who are killed in the Way of Allâh, He will never let their deeds be lost.” (47:4, The Noble Qur’an)

Yusuf Ali, who presents a rather moderate view of Islam, comments on the following passage, “mealymouthed compromises are not right for soldiers of truth and righteousness.” “O you who believe! Fight those of the disbelievers who are close to you, and let them find harshness in you, and know that Allâh is with those who are the Al-Muttaqûn (the pious - see V.2:2).” (9:123, The Noble Qur’an)

Dr. Gabriel comments concerning the following verse, that it “is considered to be the final revelation from Allah regarding Christians and Jews….” It is easy to see why this verse would be interpreted to mean that Jihad should be continued until the whole world has submitted. “And fight them until there is no more Fitnah (disbelief and polytheism: i.e. worshipping others besides Allâh) and the religion (worship) will all be for Allâh Alone [in the whole of the world]. But if they cease (worshipping others besides Allâh), then certainly, Allâh is All-Seer of what they do.” (8:39, The Noble Qur’an)

Of the following verse (top of page 89), Dr. Gabriel says that the Qur’an commands Muslims to force Christians and Jews to convert to Islam with very strong and direct words. He adds that this translation also has a footnote, which reads, “This Verse is a severe warning to the Jews and Christians, and an absolute obligation that they must believe in Allah’s Messenger Muhammad and in his Message of Islamic Monotheism and in the Quran.” (The online version of this translation doesn’t have footnotes. The note must have been in the book version.)

120

A Summarized Version of At-Tabari, Al-Qurtubi and Ibn Kathir with comments from Sahih Al-Bukhari, by Dr. Muhammad Taqi-ud-Din Al-Hilali, Ph.D. and Dr. Muhammad Muhsin Khan, at www.unn.ac.uk/societies/islamic/quran/naeindex.htm.

89 “O you who have been given the Scripture (Jews and Christians)! Believe in what We have revealed (to Muhammad SAW) confirming what is (already) with you, before We efface faces (by making them like the back of necks; without nose, mouth, eyes, etc.) and turn them hindwards, or curse them as We cursed the Sabbathbreakers. And the Commandment of Allâh is always executed.” (4:47, The Noble Qur’an)

Dr. Gabriel does not claim that all Muslims view the Qur’an in this light, but his conclusion is that it is the true meaning of the Qur’an. He explains that there are different types of Muslims. 1) There are Secular Muslims (the majority), who believe in parts of Islam & accept the cultural trappings, but do not live it out completely. 2) Traditional Muslims, who take Islam seriously, study and practice it, but have a stumbling block with the concept of Jihad, or who are unwilling to practice it because they are concerned about the consequences for themselves and their families. 3) Fundamentalist Muslims, who practice Islam as Muhammad did, the true Islam. I’m glad to know that many Muslims do not agree with the militant views of the fundamentalists, but which version is in fact closer to the Islam practiced by Muhammad and his immediate successors? The answer to that question will have a bearing on our estimation of the validity of Islam as a religion. Understanding the danger of taking passages out of context, it still seems to me that modern day Islamic militants have in the Qur’an a firm basis for at least many of their actions, if indeed the Qur’an is the word of God. Another Look In the interest of a fair examination of the evidence, let us return to the article summarized on pages 85-87, from www.Islam101, the Web site that advances a more moderate view of Islamic Jihad, more consistent with principles of freedom of religion and freedom of speech, which are valued rights in Westerns nations. When we first read the article, we see many statements that we could agree with in principle. Points 1-4 seem parallel to principles in the gospel of Christ. Points 6-11 seem to be positions that would be acceptable for a person to hold in a free society. They seem to express beliefs that would not infringe upon the rights of peace loving neighbors who do not believe in Islam. But upon closer examination, even in this article presenting a “moderate” view of Islam, there are some things to be concerned about, especially when the statements are read in the light of other information. For example, point #6 is that war is to be only in self-defense, i.e., fight when you have first been attacked. And the passages quoted do seem, for the most part, to teach that position. At the same time, one of the verses quoted, 2:193, has been used by some Muslims to support the idea that the true path of Islam is to “strive” by any means necessary until the entire world has been brought under the control of Islamic governments. The basis for this understanding is more easily seen in the translation by Shakir: “And fight with them until there is no persecution, and religion should be only for Allah, but if they desist, then there should be no hostility except against the oppressors.” (Emphasis mine.) Should we interpret that to mean that once the infidels have begun hostilities, Muslims should fight until the entire world has been conquered for Allah? Apparently some Muslims interpret it that way. It might be argued that the passage says to cease fighting if the unbelievers desist, and so it does, “except against the oppressors.” And who are the oppressors? Apparently, in the minds of some, the oppressors include anyone who seeks to convert Muslims to another religion, such as Christianity. For example, in the Houston Chronicle, 11/23/02, a news article described the murder of a young woman, an American missionary who worked as a nurse at a clinic, providing medical care for local people and Palestinian refugees. Investigators believe that a gunman knocked on the front door, and when she opened the door she was shot in the head. The article states, “A Palestinian guerrilla official said the killing was to avenge her Christian evangelist activity in a Muslim town.” So, she was an “oppressor” in the minds of at least some Muslims. Remember, the Qur’an says, “religion should be only for Allah.” Point #1 in the Web article uses 9:23-24 as proof that one form of jihad is simply the effort to put God first, above loved ones, wealth or worldly ambitions, a principle that the New Testament also affirms. This would be a spiritual form of Jihad. Yet just 5 verses later, in 9:29, the Qur’an states, “Fight those who believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, nor hold that forbidden which hath been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger, nor acknowledge the religion of Truth, (even if they are) of the People of the Book, until they pay the Jizya with willing

90

submission, and feel themselves subdued.” The “Jizya” is a tax to be levied on those in conquered lands who choose not to become Muslims. In exchange for the “privilege” of being allowed to live (i.e., to not be put to death), they must pay a tax, signifying their subjection. They become second-class citizens, discriminated against in many ways. Yusuf Ali’s footnote on 9:29 states, “The derived meaning, which became the technical meaning, was a poll-tax levied from those who did not accept Islam, but were willing to live under the protection of Islam, and were thus tacitly willing to submit to its ideals being enforced in the Muslim State.…It was in acknowledgment that those whose religion was tolerated would in their turn not interfere with the preaching and progress of Islam….” Doesn’t the effort to convert Muslims to Christ interfere with the progress of Islam? It should be added that many times, in practice, other religions being “tolerated” has not meant that a religion such as Christianity would be given the “equal protection” of the law. An example of how a significant number of Muslims interpret “tolerance” in an Islamic state may be found in an article by Walter Short entitled “The Jizyah Tax: Equality And Dignity Under Islamic Law?”121 The author documents that on many occasions, in an Islamic state a non-Muslim’s life is not as valuable as that of a Muslim, and that in court a non-Muslim’s testimony is not as valuable as that of a Muslim, and that while Christians and Jews are technically allowed to believe (and to a limited extent, practice) their religion, they are forbidden from attempting to convert Muslims (although Muslims can work to convert them), they are forbidden from building houses of worship (they may only repair existing houses), etc. The author then provides some quotations from Abul 'Ala Mawdudi, Qur'anic exegete and founder of the Islamist Pakistani group Jama'at-i-Islam. These quotations illustrate the concept of Jihad that very many Muslims have today.

“...the Muslims should feel proud of such a humane law as that of Jizya. For it is obvious that a maximum freedom that can be allowed to those who do not adopt the way of Allah but choose to tread the ways of error is that they should be tolerated to lead the life they like.”

The author explains that Mawdudi interprets the Qur'anic imperative to Jihad as having the aim of subjugating non-Muslims, to force them to pay the Jizyah as the defining symbol of their subjection: “... Jews and the Christians ...should be forced to pay Jizya in order to put an end to their independence and supremacy so that they should not remain rulers and sovereigns in the land. These powers should be wrested from them by the followers of the true Faith, who should assume the sovereignty and lead others towards the Right Way.”

The author then explains that Mawdudi’s concept is that in an Islamic State, non-Muslims should be denied Government posts, since the state exists for the Muslims, who alone are true citizens, while the non-Muslims are merely conquered residents, and the Jizyah signifies this: “That is why the Islamic state offers them protection, if they agree to live as Zimmis by paying Jizya, but it can not allow that they should remain supreme rulers in any place and establish wrong ways and establish them on others. As this state of things inevitably produce chaos and disorder, it is the duty of the true Muslims to exert their utmost to bring an end to their wicked rule and bring them under a righteous order.”122

The conclusion is that when Islam conquers a nation and becomes the dominant power, the non-Muslims who remain and who do not convert to Islam become outsiders who are punished for their disbelief in Islam. Their crime – not believing in Islam – is worthy of death. But upon payment of the annual Jizya tax, they are graciously allowed to remain alive, as second-class citizens, subject to numerous forms of discrimination. It may be objected that this is not the view of all Muslims, and the condition described above does not exist in many predominately Muslim countries. But note that the Qur’an requires the Jizya, as we have seen. I’m glad that many moderate Muslims do not consistently carry out all of the Qur’anic commands in this regard, but you can see why the fundamentalist Muslims are saying that the moderates are not true Muslims. The militant Muslims believe that Muslim nations that are not enforcing Islamic law are apostate, and must be taken over by 121

Found at http://debate.org.uk, via a link from answering-Islam.org. The quotations are taken from Mawdudi, S. Abul A'la, The Meaning of the Qur'an (Islamic Publications Ltd., Lahore, 1993 edition), vol. 2. 122

91

revolution (this is what happened in Iran, in the late 1970’s). This is one stage in the overall, worldwide Jihad pursued by many Muslims. An example of action taken by such militants was the assassination of Egyptian president Anwar Sadat, after he signed a peace treaty with the nation of Israel. Sheikh Omar Abdel Rahman, professor of Qur’anic science at Al-Azhar University in Cairo and leader of the al-Jihad movement in Egypt, was suspected of masterminding Sadat’s assassination. (Rahman was a professor in some of Mark Gabriel’s classes, when he was a student there.) Rahman was arrested and tried before the highest military court in Egypt. But he defended the philosophy of the al-Jihad movement on the basis that the highest law, by which all Muslim nations should be governed, is the law of Allah, as revealed in the Qur’an. He argued that Muslims are under no obligation to obey the laws of a nation whose laws are contrary to the Qur’an. He made the case that Sadat was a renegade infidel, guilty of compromising the laws of Allah. (Remember our discussion of Surah 4:89, on page 88.) It was clear that if he had not ordered the assassination of Sadat, he at least was in agreement with his assassination. When the attorney general questioned the sheikh, and challenged his interpretation of Islam, and characterized Jihad as “a spiritual fight against evil, poverty, sickness and sin,” Rahman ridiculed him with the following words: “From where does the attorney general come up with this understanding? Are there verses in the Qur’an that I don’t know about….? Perhaps there is new inspiration from Allah that our attorney general received recently and the rest of the Muslims do not yet know.”123 After the testimony was finished, the court released Rahman, the official reason being that there was not enough evidence to prove that he ordered the killing. After Rahman was released, he eventually came to the United States. He was welcomed by Muslim leaders here, and was invited to speak in many major cities. What did he teach? “He taught the American Muslims the true meaning of jihad…the call for Islam to once again rule the world.”124 When the World Trade Center was bombed in 1993, this man was arrested for being the mastermind behind it. This time, since he was in the United States and broke our laws, he was convicted by our court system and is now in prison. Obviously, there are at least two different views of Jihad in the Muslim world. For our own peace of mind, we would like to believe that the “radicals,” the “militants,” are extremists who have perverted Islam. The “politically correct” message is that Islam is a religion of peace. But the disturbing conclusion I have reached in preparing this lesson is that these two views of Islam are not mutually exclusive. Rather, they express the same philosophy, with different degrees of intensity. The militant version of Islam is contained by implication even in the article expressing a moderate Islam. Return to page 87 and read once again the answer given to the question, “What should Muslims do when they are victorious?” Included in the answer is to “…free people from the bondage of ‘associationism’ (SHIRK, or multiple gods), prejudice, superstition and mythology.” We should understand that those words describe certain aspects of Christianity in the minds of most Muslims. How are you going to “free” people from the “bondage” of their religious convictions? The answer of the gospel is, teach them the truth and allow them to freely choose. I’m afraid that the Muslim answer is much different from that. Again, that Muslims should “remove immorality, fear, crime, exploitation…” and “enjoin right conduct and forbid evil” may sound noble, but in fact it describes a state in which Islamic principles are the law of the land. Perhaps I’m mistaken, but it appears to me that this is the true Islamic ideal. On this particular Web site it is the goal of militant Islam, couched in language that doesn’t seem as extreme but which actually expresses the same goal. I do not claim that all Muslims have this goal. But the principles expressed, when taken to their logical conclusion, will result in the violent subjugation of nations and the suppression of non-Islamic religions by force. Yes, it is true that in the Old Testament, God commanded the Israelites to conquer the land of Palestine, taking it from the idolaters. But this was a particular command, given to a particular nation, that applied to a particular land for a limited amount of time. In contrast to that, Jesus Christ taught that His kingdom is a spiritual kingdom which is not to be advanced or even defended by force of arms (John 18:36). For the first three centuries after His death, Christians did not take the sword in the name of Christ. Thousands upon thousands of Christians were martyred, but Christians did not retaliate with force, and the gospel continued to spread. It is true that when a perverted form of “Christianity” became the official religion of the Roman Empire, and for centuries afterwards, professed Christians fought carnal wars in the name of Christ. But the difference between the bloody history of 123 124

See Gabriel, pg. 160. Ibid, pg. 176.

92

“Christianity” and the bloody history of Islam is simple. In the New Testament, there is not a hint of divine authority for such. But in the Qur’an, enforcing the way of Allah by the sword is an inescapable mandate.

Appendix I Did Jesus Claim To Be The Son of God? We know that Muslims do not believe that Jesus was the Son of God. In fact, they deny that Jesus claimed to be the Son of God, considering such to be blasphemy. This denial is based in part on a misunderstanding of what Christians are affirming when we confess our faith in Jesus as the Son of God. Secondly, their denial of the evidence that supports the claim comes at least partially from demanding a kind of evidence that is really unreasonable to expect. This lesson will seek to accomplish four objectives. 1) To show that according to the gospel records, Jesus did in fact claim to be the Son of God in a unique sense that implied a claim of deity. 2) To explain what this means, and what it doesn’t mean. 3) To touch briefly on one line of evidence that supports the truth of this claim. 4) To address some of the arguments often made by Muslims against the claim, and against the evidence for it. We will notice evidence from various parts of the Bible, but will focus especially on the four Gospels: Matthew, Mark, Luke and John. I. First, a word about the way in which Jesus communicated His claim. A. He didn’t come right out and say, “I am God! Worship me.” 1. This is the kind of statement many Muslims are looking for, and when they don’t find it, they conclude that Jesus never claimed to be anything more than a mere man. 2. But, it is unreasonable to even expect that kind of direct claim. “Suppose a man...comes up to you and says, "I am God, worship me." Would you believe him? Would you worship him? The immediate reaction of any decent monotheistic believer would be to call the person making such a claim an impostor and a blasphemer....Most would declare insane anybody who would make such a statement. Jesus knows about this natural reaction as well as anybody else and saw no reason to make his claims in such a foolish way.” 125

B. But he did make the claim in indirect ways that are just as clear and valid, and we will notice some of those claims in this lesson. II. Second, before we show that Jesus made such claims, it would be helpful to clear up misunderstandings about what “Son of God” implies, and what it doesn’t imply. A. It does not imply procreation by means of a consort. The Qur’an erects a straw man, when it points out that God has no wife, therefore He can have no son. 1. "He is Allah, the One.... He begetteth not nor was begotten...." (Pickthall, The Meaning of the Glorious Koran, surah 112:1-4). This surah clearly states that God has no son and that no son can be God. Why? "How can He have a child, when there is for Him no consort?..." (surah 6:102). As these and other verses suggest, even to imagine that God would have a wife and sexual intercourse with her would be absolute folly. But do these Quranic verses actually address the Biblical meaning of Jesus' Sonship? Does the Bible affirm that God has a wife and through procreation a son, whose name is Jesus? Our response to these questions will become more intelligible after we consider in greater depth the Biblical meaning of "son of God". 126 B. The expression “son of” is used many times in the Bible, and even in the Qur’an, in ways that do not imply procreation. The word “son” expresses a close relationship with someone or some thing. It may indicate “origin from” but not necessarily. The close association or identification may be based on other factors. 1. In many cases it is an “idiomatic expression.” a. Old Testament: Deuteronomy 25:2: "a son of stripes" means "deserves to be beaten." Judges 19:22: "sons of Belial" means "wicked men." Job 41:28: "son of a bow" means "arrow" (NEB). 125 126

From an article at www.answering-Islam.org. No author is given. From Jesus as the Son of God, by Luther Engelbrecht and Ernest Hahn, found at www.answering-Islam.org.

ii b. New Testament: Matthew 9:15: "sons of the bridegroom" means "the guests of the bridegroom." Luke 10:6: "a son of peace" means "a man of peace." Luke 16:8: "the sons of this age" means "the people of this world." Etc. 2. There are personal, yet non-physical, “Father-son" relationships: a. I Samuel 3:6, Eli called Samuel “my son,” but he wasn’t, physically. b. I Samuel 24:16, Saul to David, “my son David.” c. II Kings 2: 12, Elijah was referred to by Elisha as “my father.” 3. Arabic also uses the term “son” in a variety of ways. “Thus, in the Arabic language of the Qur'an "son" need not mean only a direct male issue or descendant. A familiar example is ibnu's sabil ("son of the road"), which means "a traveller". Another example with which many are familiar is "the son of Satan" a vivid descriptive for any mischiefmaker (cf. also Acts 13:10). Obviously Satan does not have a wife in order to have a son! The name implies that the mischief maker is like Satan, an embodiment of Satan, a "Satan with us". Worthy of remembrance is also the Arabic term ummu'l kitab (literally "the mother of the book") the heavenly Scripture from which all Scripture with us on earth is derived, as if each Scripture were her child.

C. Biblical Meaning of "son of God." The term "son of God" too is used in a variety of ways in the Holy Bible. 1. As creator, God is the "Father" of Adam and of all mankind (Luke 3:38; Isaiah 64:8; Malachi 2:10; etc.). 2. However, a more specific "Father-son" relationship is achieved by the gracious choice of the Father and the faithful obedience and service of the son, not by creation and certainly not by procreation. In this sense, the following are some of those referred to as "son(s) of God" in the Bible: a. The people chosen by God (Exodus 4:22, “Israel is My son). b. Those who are being led by the Spirit, Rom. 8:14. c. Those who are saved by faith in Jesus, Gal. 3:26. d. Heavenly beings (Job 1:6). e. Kings and rulers (II Samuel 7:14; Psalm 2:7; 82:6; 89:26f.) f. Pious, godly individuals (Matthew 5:9; Luke 6:35)

D. The purpose of this brief word study has been simply to show that the word is used in a variety of ways, not to affirm that Jesus is only the Son of God in one of these senses. 1. Jesus claimed to be, and Christians believe that He is, more than one of God's chosen people, more than one of His heavenly messengers, more than one who rules on God's behalf on earth, more than one who pleases God, although He is all of those also. 2. But, this word study demonstrates that it is not necessary to assume that “Jesus as the Son of God” implies procreation by means of a wife or consort, as many Muslims assume. Nowhere does the gospel suggest that God takes Mary as a wife, that He procreates, and that Jesus therefore is the Son of God by virtue of His birth to Mary....The Gospel, like the Qur'an, speaks of Jesus as the son of the virgin Mary. 3. Nor does the Gospel sacrifice the fundamental Biblical affirmation that God is one. Nor does it suggest that somehow for Christians Jesus, as the Son of God, is another god associated with God, or that somehow Jesus, as the Son of God, is the second or third of three gods, or that somehow Jesus is elevated from His original position of man and servant to the status of the Son of God and then made to supplant the true God. In no way does the Gospel’s affirmation of Jesus' Sonship transform Biblical monotheism into a subtle form of polytheism. God is one! And Jesus, the Son of God, confirms that God is one! 4. Finally, Christian belief in Jesus as the Son of God simply echoes the constant, insistent and consistent affirmation throughout the Gospel that He is the Son of God. Contrary to what some Muslims suggest, normally with no evidence, Christians, including Paul, did not invent this title. For Christians to deny the Sonship of Jesus would mean that they should expunge all references in the Gospel to this title. If Christians were to do this, then we would be truly guilty of corrupting our Scriptures, just as many Muslims (but not the Qur'an) have accused. The Qur'an tells Christians that they are to judge according to the Gospel (surah 127 5:46,47). It contains no reference to a corrupted or abrogated Gospel.

127

The preceding word study, along with the points just made, are taken from Engelbrecht and Hahn. I have abridged and summarized their points, but I have left most of their language intact. So, the preceding material is not precisely a direct quotation, but almost so. I have chosen to indicate this by a change of font.

iii

III. That brings us to consider: Jesus as the Unique Son of God. We will note some of the claims made by Jesus for Himself, along with some made for Him by His disciples. In the course of this discussion, we will attempt to explain the significance of these claims. A. There were many confessions of Jesus as the Son of God. He never denied these confessions. 1. Matt. 3:17, the Father: “...this is My beloved Son, in whom I am well-pleased.” 2. Matt. 8:29, demons: “What do we have to do with You, Son of God?” 3. Matt. 14:33, the disciples: “You are certainly God’s Son!” 4. Matt. 16:16-17, Peter: “Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God.” 5. Matt. 17:5, the Father: “This is My beloved Son, with whom I am well-pleased; listen to Him!” 6. Jn. 1:49-50, Nathaniel: “Rabbi, You are the Son of God; You are the King of Israel.” 7. Jn. 11:27, Martha: “Yes, Lord; I have believed that You are the Christ, the Son of God, even He who comes into the world.” 8. To these we can add the testimony of the angel Gabriel (whom Muhammad claimed revealed the Qur’an) in Luke 1:32, 35; and John the Baptist in John 1:34. 9. Could double or triple or quadruple the references if we added all that New Testament writers said about Jesus, indicating their acceptance of His claims.

B. It should be understood that in accepting these confessions, Jesus was claiming to be the Son of God in a unique sense, a sense which would be impossible for a mere mortal man, in fact, a sense that would be blasphemous if it were not true. 1. Matt. 11:27, unique & intimate knowledge: “All things have been handed over to Me by My Father; and no one knows the Son, except the Father; nor does anyone know the Father, except the Son, and anyone to whom the Son wills to reveal Him.” 2. In Matt. 28:19, Jesus put the Son on a par with the Father and Holy Spirit.... 3. Miracles were performed both for the glory of God, and that the Son of God might be glorified, John 11:4. 4. Jesus’ prayer was that Father and Son might glorify each other, John 17:1. 5. Even His enemies knew that He claimed to be the Son of God in a unique sense. See Matt. 27:43; John 5:18ff. Cf. Jn. 19:7.

C. Jesus claimed to be the Messiah (Christ). See Matt. 16:16-17; John 4:25-26. That Jesus was the Messiah is acknowledged by the Qur’an. But this actually implies a claim of deity. 1. “His name will be called Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Eternal Father, Prince of Peace” (Isa. 9:6). 2. The Messiah is addressed prophetically in Psalm 45:6, “Thy throne, O God, is forever and ever....” Cf. Heb. 1:8. 3. King David referred to the Messiah as “My Lord,” even though He would be David’s descendant (Psa. 110:1), a fact Jesus called attention to (Matt. 22:43-44). 4. The response of Jesus to the high priest’s question resulted in a charge of blasphemy (Mark 14:61-64).

D. In keeping with His claim to be the unique Son of God and the Messiah, Jesus claimed the prerogatives of Deity.

iv 1. He claimed the right to forgive sin, which, as His enemies rightly said, belongs only to God, Mk. 2:5-7. 2. Jn. 5:19-23; 25-29. Raises the dead and gives them life; gives spiritual life to those who hear His word; He judges; all should honor both Father and Son. Cf. I Sam. 2:6. 3. Thus, Jesus confirmed the charge of His enemies, John 5:18. He didn’t deny their conclusion.

E. Jesus went so far as to identify Himself with “Jehovah” (God) of the O. T. He made statements that could be true only if He shared in the nature and essence of Jehovah. 1. “...glorify Thou Me together with Thyself, Father, with the glory which I had with Thee before the world was.” (Jn. 17:5). Yet, “I am the LORD, that is My name; I will not give My glory to another....” (Isa. 42:8) 2. “I am the good shepherd....” (John 10:11). Cf. Psalm 23:1, “The LORD is my shepherd, I shall not want.” 3. He will be the judge of all men (John 5:27f; Matt. 25:31f). But this is the position of the LORD, for example in Psalm 96:13. 4. In Psalm 27:1, David sang, “The LORD is my light....” But Jesus claimed to be the light of the whole world in John 8:12. 5. In John 8:58, Jesus answered those who questioned whether He had seen Abraham, “Truly, truly I say to you, before Abraham was born, I am.” This is no doubt an allusion to God’s self description in Ex. 3:14, “I am that I am.”

F. The Old Testament forbids worship of any but God (Ex. 20:1-4). Jesus reaffirmed this truth in His temptation (Matt. 4:10). Yet, He accepted such worship on many occasions. 1. Matt. 14:33 is only one of many examples, “And those who were in the boat worshiped Him, saying, ‘You are certainly God’s Son!’” 2. Peter refused such worship, saying that he was only a man (Acts 10:25-26). The angel likewise refused such worship (Rev. 22:8-9). But Jesus never did refuse worship.

IV. If Jesus as the Son of God does not imply procreation by means of a wife or consort, and if it does not imply belief in more than one God, then what is the true significance of Jesus as the Son of God? There is neither time nor space here for a complete discussion of this question, but I will mention two brief points. A. God revealed Himself to mankind by clothing His divine nature in human flesh. Jesus had both a divine nature (which existed eternally) and a human nature (which was created in the womb of the virgin Mary). See John 1:1-3, 14, 18; John 14:7-9. B. Jesus therefore was both human and divine. He possessed all the characteristics inherent in human nature, while also possessing all the traits of deity. C. The teaching of the Bible is not that there is more than one God, but that the Oneness of God exists in three Persons or Personalities: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.

V. Now, the natural response of the Muslim is to reject even the possibility that these claims could be true without even considering the evidence, because they fly in the face of his deeply held convictions about the nature of God. However, the sincere Muslim should be willing to reconsider his position, and honestly examine the evidence that challenges it. A. First, because Islam teaches that the Old and New Testaments are at least partially the Scriptures of true prophets of God. At this point we simply raise the question, where is the evidence that proves Jesus actually made those statements that contradict the Scriptures that had already been confirmed by God, six centuries before Muhammad? The sincere Muslim needs to consider the evidence that shows the Bible was not corrupted, and consider the possibility that it is the Qur’an that misrepresents the truth, not the Bible.

v

B. Second, Muslims need to be careful lest they be in the position of dictating to God what He can and cannot do. 1. “After all, saying that God is not able to come and appear in the form of a man does restrict God’s power, and Muslims believe in an all powerful God.” 2. Of course such a claim would have to be proven by conclusive, unimpeachable evidence, for if we worship somebody who is not God we are guilty of idolatry. 3. “But refusing to worship God when he demands worship is just as great a sin. So if there is clear proof for Jesus’ divine identity, then we must believe in Him, and worship Him, and obey Him as the Son of God.”

VI. What then is the evidence that sustains these incredible claims? There is a wealth of evidence of many different types, but in this lesson I will only briefly mention one particular line of evidence: the miracles that Jesus performed, which even the Qur’an acknowledges. (On the other hand, the testimony of the Qur’an is that Muhammad did not perform miracles. But this issue is to be addressed in another lesson.) A. Many worldly people would simply dismiss the miracle stories in the Gospel as pious myths, but Muslims can’t do that, because the Qur’an acknowledges that Jesus performed miracles. (See Surahs 3:49; 5:110.) B. The miracles, per se, do not prove that Jesus was anything more than a prophet, since other prophets also performed miracles. C. But what must not be missed is that miracles served to verify the claims of the one who performed them. 1. Jesus appealed to His miraculous works on many occasions to verify His claims. See Matt. 11:2-5; John 5:36; 10:37-38; 11:25-26 with 39-45; 14:11. 2. Some might think that the miracles of Jesus only confirmed the conclusion Nicodemus had come to, that Jesus had come from God as a teacher. (John 3:2) 3. But as we have seen, the testimony of Scripture is that Jesus claimed to be the Son of God in a sense that implies His divine nature; a claim that would be blasphemous if it were not true. 4. Other prophets whose claims were verified by miracles, such as Moses, did not make the kind of claims made by Jesus. a. If they had made such claims, they would have been false prophets, and their apparent miracles would have to be attributed to Satan or demons. b. This is the charge some Jews brought against Jesus – Matt. 12:24. 5. But the Qur’an does not accuse Jesus of working His miracles by the power of Satan. The Qur’an acknowledges Jesus as a prophet, and acknowledges His miracles. 6. Neither Christians nor Muslims believe that Jesus performed his miracles by the power of Satan. But if He performed genuine miracles, then His claims were true.

D. Therefore, the conclusion that the informed Muslim should come to is that since Jesus claimed to be the Son of God, and performed genuine miracles by the power of God, His claims were verified. He is in fact, the Son of God.

vi

VII. But, Muslims have many objections to this conclusion. They have heard or read many arguments that in their minds disprove the conclusion we have reached. So we must include a response to some of these arguments made by Muslims against Jesus as the Son of God. These are not arguments based on what the Qur’an teaches, but these are arguments based on the Bible itself. I will attempt to organize these arguments into certain categories, to help in addressing them. A. Efforts to Give Another Meaning to Clear Passages Affirming Jesus’ Deity. 1. Jesus was called "my Lord and my God" (Jn. 20:28). 1) This could have been an expression of excitement, or 2) Thomas may have addressed Jesus as “Lord” (meaning simply “master”), and the Father in Heaven as “God.” (Badawi) 128 Response: 129 “The first suggestion, that Thomas' statement was an exclamation of surprise, much like someone today yelling out "O My God!" at something surprising or shocking, reads back into history a linguistic feature of today, which is a chronological fallacy. A Jew would never use God's name in vain, especially in the manner Badawi suggests (cf. Exodus 20:7) Furthermore, if Thomas had in fact used God's name in this manner Jesus would have rebuked him, yet he did not do so. The idea that Thomas was actually addressing two distinct persons in John 20:28 crumbles upon a closer examination of the biblical evidence. First, the verse clearly states that Thomas was addressing Jesus directly: "Thomas answered him, `My Lord and My God!" Secondly, the phrase "My Lord and My God" (Greek- ho kyrios mou kai ho theos mou), and its various forms, is used elsewhere in relation to one person, not two: "Wake up! Bestir yourself for my defense, for my cause, my God and my Lord! (ho theos mou kai ho kyrios mou)" Psalms 35:23 (As translated in the Greek Septuagint Version [LXX]) "You are worthy, our Lord and God (ho kyrios kai ho theos hemon), to receive glory and honor and power, for you created all things, and by your will they existed and were created." Revelation 4:11 The fact that the phrase is used to refer to one person as opposed to two, along with the fact that Christ blesses Thomas' declaration affirms that John 20:28 is clearly addressing Christ as Lord and God.”

2. Arguing that in John 10:30, Jesus was only affirming that He and the Father were one in purpose, not in essence, and that this statement was not blasphemy (which is the implied reason for the Jews’ attempt to stone Jesus), Badawi says: the Jews were to indict him "by hook or by crook," regardless of what he said. They may have considered him a false "Messiah." Jesus' answer was revealing (Jn. 10:34). In Ps. 82:6, humans are called gods, allegorically, Moses was sent as "God" to the Pharoah (Exod. 7:1). Response: “Jesus' citation in John 10:34 of where Israelite judges are addressed as "gods" in a figurative sense was not a denial of his divinity. In order to understand Jesus' point it is essential to quote Psalm 82:6 and 7: "I say, `Your are gods, children of the Most High, all of you; nevertheless, you shall die like mortals, and fall like any prince." Although these judges are referred to as "gods" and "sons of the Most High" in a figurative sense, they are mere mortals who will die like all men. Yet Jesus not only represents God as did these judges, but is actually able to do what they could not, namely give eternal life: "I GIVE ETERNAL LIFE TO THEM, AND THEY SHALL NEVER PERISH, AND NO ONE SHALL SNATCH THEM OUT OF MY HAND....AND NO ONE IS ABLE TO SNATCH THEM OUT OF THE FATHER'S HAND. I AND THE FATHER ARE ONE." John 10:28-30 Jesus and the Father are one in the sense that the Son is able to preserve believers from perishing and gives them eternal life, something which God alone can do. Hence, oneness does not simply imply one in purpose but one in all things, i.e. nature and power. No Israelite judge could ever claim to have the power to preserve lives from perishing and the ability to give eternal life, since these are claims which only God can make: "See now that I, even I, am he; there is no god beside me. I kill and make alive; I wound and heal; and no one can deliver from my hand." Deuteronomy 32:39 Jesus' usage of Psalms 82:6 was to imply that what the Scriptures call humans allegorically, he was in actuality since he does what only God can do. This point is brought out more clearly in the verses that follow immediately after John 10:34, in vss. 35-39.

128

These arguments are found in Jesus Christ in the Qur’an and Bible, by Dr. Jamal Badawi. Many of the following responses to Badawi’s arguments are taken almost verbatim from articles by Sam Shamoun, found at www.answering-Islam.org. The quotations are adapted, and are therefore not always exact. As before, I’ve indicated these sections by a change in font. 129

vii If anything, Jesus' response served to reinforce to the Jews that Jesus "though, only a human being," was making himself "God." (cf. John 10:33) Amazingly, nowhere does one find Jesus denying the charge by simply coming out and saying that he was not God. Had he not been God he was obligated to do so, yet instead he only reinforces the Jewish accusation.”

B. Arguments that fail to consider that Jesus had a human nature as well as a divine nature, and in various other ways show a failure to understand the doctrine of the Incarnation of Deity, and the so-call “Trinity.” 1. Matt. 4:1-11, the temptation of Jesus, shows Jesus is an obedient mortal and God is the Master and Lord. In vs. 7, Jesus referred to God as the Lord. “How can the Devil even dare such an audacity with God, as ordering Jesus to worship him and tempting him with worldly possessions?” In vs. 10, Jesus correctly said we must worship God, and serve Him only. Vss. 5, 8, the Devil actually carried the Messiah; Can the devil carry God? 130 2. Matt. 14:23, why did Jesus pray? Prayer is always from a submitting, needy and dependent one. Cf. Qur’an 35:15; 19:93. God does not pray to God. 3. Jesus, a Prophet of Allah, was submissive to Allah’s will, Matt. 19:16-17. 4. Matt. 24:36, Jesus’ knowledge is imperfect, like other men; only Allah is Omniscient. 5. Matt. 26:39, Jesus is unaware of Allah’s will and realizes the fact that he is a servant of Allah. a. My response to all of the above arguments is that they betray a lack of understanding of the doctrine of the Incarnation, i.e., that the Word became flesh (Jn. 1:14). To fulfill His mission of human redemption, Jesus became man; He had a human nature. See Heb. 2:9-18, etc. This also involved His emptying Himself, and becoming a servant (Phil. 2:6-8). b. Therefore, it is natural to expect that Jesus would be obedient to the Father’s will, and that His human nature would be limited in knowledge, and that He would pray, and that the devil would attempt (unsuccessfully) to turn Him from His mission. c. This additional point, from Shamoun: “To say that God was tempted and for God to be inclined to act upon that temptation are two different things. James 1:13 is not denying the possibility of anyone trying to tempt God, but rather that there is nothing in the nature of God that would move him to act upon it. The Holy Bible clearly indicates that many tried to tempt God. (cf. Exodus 17:2, 7; Hebrews 3:8-9) In similar fashion, Jesus was tempted yet he was without sin since he was the God-man. (cf. Hebrews 4:15; 7:26)”

6. This argument by Badawi is similar: Jesus said that all authority was given to him (Matt. 28:18). He who gave authority is Greater (i.e. His God). Response: “Badawi forgets to inform his readers that the Bible teaches that Jesus willingly subjected himself while on earth as a servant, setting aside his authority in order to fulfill the plan of salvation: "Let the same mind be in you that was in Christ Jesus, who though he was (Greek- huperchon) in the form of God, did not regard equality with God as something to be exploited, but emptied himself, taking the form of a slave, being born in human likeness. And being found in human form, he humbled himself and became obedient to the point of death—even death on the cross." Philippians 2:5-8 This passage clearly teaches that Jesus of his own accord allowed himself to become man and a servant of God. The Greek term huperchon is a present participle, implying continuous action or existence. Hence, Jesus continued to exist in the form of God even while on earth. The only difference being that his divine form was veiled by the addition of his human nature. By humbling himself, Christ emptied himself of his divine authority and visible glory, but not of his divine attributes. The authority that Christ received was not something that had not been his prior to his coming to the earth as a servant. Rather, it was something that he regained at his exaltation and resurrection. Jesus personally affirms the fact that what he was receiving was something that had already been his prior to the Incarnation:

130

Many of these arguments are made in a work called Jesus and Muhammad In The Bible And The Qur’an, by Dr. M. T. AlHilali, pages 904-909.

viii "So now, Father, glorify me in your own presence with the glory that I had in your own presence before the world existed." John 17:5 In fact, the Bible affirms that in the same way the Father gave to the Son authority to rule over all creation, the Son shall also give all authority to the Father at the consummation of the age: "Then comes the end, when he (Christ) hands over the kingdom to God the Father, after he has destroyed every ruler and every authority (exousian) and power(dunamin)." 1 Corinthians 15:24 Badawi certainly would not say that just because Jesus gives the kingdom to the Father that this then implies that the Father is not God, or that Jesus is a greater God than the Father. Yet, this is precisely what we would logically conclude if Badawi's reasoning is correct.”

7. This is a similar argument from Badawi: Jesus always expressed his subordination to his God and Creator. Examples: 1. DID NOTHING ON HIS OWN AUTHORITY (Jn. 5:30, 14:31, Matt. 20:23). 2. SPOKE NOT ON HIS OWN AUTHORITY (Jn. 14:10, 8:28-29). Response: “The belief in the deity of Christ does not require the fact that Jesus acts on his own authority. Instead, the biblical teaching is that the three Persons of the Godhead do not act independently or on their own authority. Rather, the three Persons work in perfect harmony and unity, since they are one in all things. For them to work independently would imply that they were three separate beings as opposed to three distinct Persons inseparably united in one Being. Hence, these references serve to reinforce, rather than deny, the biblical witness to the tri-unity of God. In fact, this is precisely the whole point of Jesus' discourse in John 5:19-23. Jesus does nothing on his own, but everything that his Father does he can do. Much like his Father, Jesus is able to give eternal life, raise the dead and judge all men. In order for Jesus to be able to do all the works that his Father can do, he must be God since the Father does things that only God can do. This is precisely what Trinitarians believe, that Jesus works in perfect unity with the Father and the Holy Spirit since all three are equally God in nature, having the same infinite power to accomplish all that they purpose to do. (cf. John 16:13) (Note- Are servants essentially inferior because they are subordinate to their masters? Is the vice-president inferior because the president holds a higher office? Something to ponder on.)”

8. Another argument from Badawi: Jesus said that the father is greater than him (Jn. 14:28). Response: “Again, for one to be greater in position does not necessarily imply inferiority of essence since this would mean that the vice-president is inferior as a man to the president since the latter is greater than him. This would also mean that any one holding a greater office is essentially superior and hence bosses are better than their employees, husbands are better than their wives etc. The Father was greater by virtue of his exalted position since Jesus was on earth as a lowly and humble servant. The Father was greater in position, not in essence. This is in fact the point Jesus was making in John 14:28: "You heard me say to you, `I am going away, and I am coming to you.' If you loved me, you would rejoice that I am going to the Father, because the Father is greater than I." Why would Jesus tell his disciples to rejoice in the fact that he was going back to heaven? Very simply because as long as Jesus remained on earth the Father would hold a higher position. Now in heaven Jesus sits at God's right hand, implying equality between them, and is given the name above all names in order that all may give him the same honor that they give to the Father. (cf. Mark 14:61-62; Philippians 2:9-11; Revelation 5:13-14) (Note- God is Spirit [cf. John 4:24] and does not literally have a right hand. Rather, right hand implies the most intimate position one can be at and affirms equality. For Jesus to sit on God's right hand implies that he is equal with God and holds the most intimate position anyone can hold with the Father [cf. John 1:18, 17:24].)”

9. Again, from Badawi: Jesus was subject to change (Lk. 2:21, 52): But God is Immutable. Response: “Badawi's argument presupposes that Christians believe that Jesus was only God. Instead the Holy Bible teaches that Jesus was the God-man, and when he became man he had both a divine consciousness and will alongside a human one. Therefore, Jesus in his human consciousness grew in wisdom and knowledge and did not know all things. Yet in his divine consciousness he was immutable and was omniscient: "Now we know that you know all things and do not need to have anyone to question you; by this we believe that you are from God." John 16:30 The only being who needs no one to question or teach him is God (Romans 11:33-34). Interestingly, Jesus claims to have the same incomprehensible knowledge of the Father as the Father has of Christ (Matthew 11:27). Cf. John. 21:17; Heb. 13:8; Rev. 2:23. Hence, Jesus was both omniscient in relation to his divine nature, and ignorant of things in regards to his humanity.”

ix

10. Again from Badawi: Jesus did not accept to be called good and deferred to God (Mk. 10:18). Response: “Badawi reads too much into the text since Jesus never said he was not good, but questioned the man why he was calling Jesus good. Christ was trying to get the man to realize that to say Jesus was good meant he was God since only God is good. If the man really believed this he should be willing to give everything up for Christ, even his riches, following him wholeheartedly as he would God. When confronted with the reality of having to give up everything for Christ, the man turned away showing that he really did not believe at all what his words were implying. (cf. Mark 10:17-22) Jesus elsewhere affirms that he is absolutely good. How good? Good enough to be called Shepherd, an O.T. epithet of Yahweh God: "I am the GOOD SHEPHERD. The good shepherd lays down his life for the sheep... I am the GOOD SHEPHERD..." John 10:11, 14 (cf. Psalm 23:1, 80:1.)”

11. Again: Jesus made a distinction between himself and the father (Matt. 23:8-10). Response: “Precisely, which Trinitarian said otherwise? The Father and the Son are not one in person, but one in nature; not the same person, but the same in essence.”

12. Jesus was a preacher of Monotheism. In Jn. 20:17, Jesus clearly testified that Allah is his God and their God, making no difference between him and them in the worship of the One Allah.131 Response: This is consistent with Jesus’ role as a human being, yet in no way compromises His deity. The apostle Paul, whom Muslims accuse of introducing the doctrine of the deity of Jesus, saw no inconsistency in speaking of “the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ” (Eph. 1:3), so apparently, Muslims have not understood the doctrine they are opposing.

13. Again, Jesus the Preacher of Monotheism. He clearly confessed that there is only one God (Jn. 17:3; Mk. 12:28-30). He also said that one who confessed that God is one, was not far from the kingdom (Mk. 12:32, 34). Response: This confirms that Christians are not guilty of polytheism. The doctrine of Jesus’ deity is not an affirmation that there is more than one God, but that God exists in more than one person or personality.

C. Arguments based on word meanings, word usage, and translations. 1. “Children of God” or “sons of God” applies to all believers, not only Jesus; and God is the Father of all believers, not only Jesus.132 Response: We have already seen in this lesson (points II & III) that “son of God” has several different meanings, according to context. If it were not used in a unique sense in reference to Jesus, there would be no controversy, no issue to discuss. 2. The argument is made by Badawi (and also by Al-Hilali) that the title “Lord” which is often applied to Jesus does not imply deity, but is only a title of respect. Response: “Badawi seems to imply that the title Lord in reference to Jesus is nothing more than a respectful way of saying master. To back up his assertion, he often cites references in scripture wherein the title is used to refer to certain beings such as Saul (1 Samuel 24:8), or angels (Acts 10:4). The problem with this interpretation is that it presumes that the title Lord only means master, neglecting the fact that this is also commonly used throughout the New Testament as a synonym for Yahweh, the covenant name of God. Two examples demonstrate this point clearly: Jesus answered him, "The first of all commandments is: `Hear, O Israel, the Lord our God, the Lord is one.'" Mark 12:29 The Lord is quoting the Shema found in Deuteronomy 6:4 where the term Lord is being used in place of Yahweh. "Whoever calls upon the name of the Lord shall be saved." Romans 10:13 131 132

Ibid. Ibid.

x Paul is quoting the Greek Septuagint version of Joel 2:32 where the literal Hebrew text reads, "Whoever calls on the name of Yahweh shall be saved." Hence, for Badawi to presume that the title only means or should simply mean master in relation to Jesus is erroneous. "These will wage war against the Lamb, and the Lamb will overcome them, because he is Lord of lords and King of kings..." Revelation 17:14 This can only mean that Jesus is called Lord in the sense that he is God, not just a great master. Compare the title given to Jesus with this reference in 1 Timothy 6:15-16: "which He (God) will bring about at the proper time- He who is the blessed and only Sovereign, the King of kings and Lord of lords who alone possesses immortality and dwells in unapproachable light; whom no man has seen or can see. To him be honor, and eternal dominion. Amen."”

3. The argument is made by Badawi that since Jesus often referred to Himself as the “Son of Man,” He only claimed to be a human being. Also, that although Jesus is called the Son of God, He is never called “God the Son” in Scripture. Response: “Badawi presumes that the title Son of Man is a title that carries no divine connotations. Yet, Jesus as the Son of Man is the Lord of the Sabbath (Matthew 12:8), forgives sins (Mark 2:1-12), judges all flesh (Matthew 25:31-46; John 5:27), sits at God's right hand (Mark 14:62), and reigns forever (Daniel 7:13-14). Badawi erroneously assumes that the title Son of God does not carry the same weight as saying God the Son. Yet, it is the Son who is the image of the invisible God, the exact representation of God's nature and glory, creator of all things, the one who upholds and sustains the entire creation. (cf. Colossians 1:13-17; Hebrews 1:1-3). Finally, scripture calls Jesus both the Son of God as well as God. For example he is "God with us" (Matthew 1:23), "The Word who is God" (John 1:1), Thomas' "Lord and God" (John 20:28), "the Great God and Savior of us" (Titus 2:13), "our God and Savior" (2 Peter 1:1), "the True God and eternal life" (1 John 5:20), and "the Lord God of the spirit of the prophets that sent his angel to testify to his servants" (Revelation 22:6, 16). When we tie in all these references together, we arrive at the fact that Jesus is indeed God the Son, since he is the Son who is distinct from God the Father and the Holy Spirit, while at the same time being fully God by nature.”

D. Arguments that cast doubt on the trustworthiness of the Biblical account.133 1. A Biblical story – Matt. 15:22-28. The following points were seen, which presumably are unworthy of a prophet of Allah and therefore must be human additions to the gospel: “1. Lack of mercy and love charged against Jesus (if the incident is reported correctly). “2. Degraded discrimination in regard to the uplifting of his tribe and not for the others. “3. Tribal pride of descendance and prejudice against others and calling them dogs. “4. An ignorant polytheist woman debated with him and won him over.” 2. Matt. 27:46 – “This is a great insult as such words could only come from unbelievers in Allah. Further, it is incredible that such words should come out from a Prophet of Allah because Allah never breaks His Promises and His Prophets never complained against His Promise.” Response: The charges are baseless, of course. In Matt. 15, Jesus was testing the Canaanite woman (as well as teaching His disciples), and when the woman showed her faith and humility, Jesus rewarded her by healing her daughter. The words of Jesus from the cross in Matt. 27:46 show that He is bearing the sins of the world, and in thus suffering on our behalf, He is feeling the wrath of God. But an even more important response to this argument is that it shows the utter inconsistency of Muslims in using Biblical texts to prove any point at all. They choose the passages they will believe (those that seem to support Islam) and those they will reject (those that are inconsistent with Islam or with their presuppositions), with no evidence for making such distinctions. Such arbitrary usage actually nullifies all arguments they might make from the Bible. VIII. Conclusion Jesus did in fact claim to be the Son of God in a unique sense. He gave abundant evidence to support His claims. No valid arguments to the contrary can be made. 133

Ibid.

xi