Anti Islaamic Sites
List of anti Islamic sites and Exposé of 3 sites posting false convert stories
Exposé of three sites posting false convert stories
http://www.muslimjourneytohope.com
This site has posted fake stories of how Muslims converted to Christianity. How do I know? Read the following excerpt from one of the stories:
First the ‘convert’ says: (emphasis added)
In the end, I managed to convince my mother, as it was for Allah and I joined the Islamic College. Having graduated as an ustaz, I was soon posted to my neighbourhood…
And then:
My trip to Mecca for the Haj (pilgrimage) was tiring but eventful. I did not have the rare opportunity to see inside the holy Kabah and the holy idols inside, which Prophet Muhammud had helped to place, as explained in Bukhari’s Hadith
An Ustaz (scholar) in Islaamic Studies is saying that there are idols inside the Kabah and that too placed by Muhammad (saw) himself!?!?!
This clearly shows that the author is deliberately trying to spread misinformation about Islaam and wants to convey to possible reverts to Islaam that it is religion of idol worship.
In fact most of the Christian sites use this tactic of false convert stories but it’s not always possible to prove it
2. http://www.faithfreedom.org/
AlhamduliLlaah I was able to catch another site posting fake stories of Muslims leaving Islaam. See the false information imparted here. That the attempt is deliberate is known through the claim that the ‘convert’ has done detailed study about the topic.
For Islamic Education, I had to study about marriage in detail to do well. So, I learnt all the stuff and got the highest grade anyone can get for Islamic Education. And guess what? Because I know it so well, I know that there is a lot of discrimination against women in Islam. Things like a father and grandfather can marry a girl/woman to whomever they want even if the girl/woman doesn’t want to marry that person… In addition, I learned things like women couldn’t be witnesses in Syariah Courts and things like that
The first point here is a total lie whereas the second is a distorted version of the truth.
3. http://www.answering-islam.org/Testimonies/younathan.html
Here’s yet another extract from a false convert story aimed at spreading misinformation about Islaam.
As I started thinking about my life and the Quran, I realized all Muslims, even the prophet Muhammad, would go to Hell for certain sins they committed in their lifetime.
This is a common ploy of the Christian Missionaries. They first inform gullible victims that Jesus (God) is Love and just by believing in the Crucifixion, you will be assured of Paradise. Whereas the concept of God in Islaam is so harsh that no one will be spared from Hell and that even Prophet Muhammad (saw) was not sure of where he would end up. For this purpose they quote an ayat of the Qur’aan out of context. Here there have gone a step further by saying that even our beloved Prophet (saw) would have to go through hell. Nothing could be further from the truth.
Anti Islaamic Sites under misleading names
7. http://www.muhammadanism.com/
8. http://thespiritofislam.com/index.html
9. http://www.abrahamic-faith.com/
11. http://www.knowislam.info/drupal/mno
14. http://www.Allahassurance.com
16. http://thespiritofislam.com/index.html
Anti Islaamic Sites apparent even by name
18. http://www.islam-exposed.org/
19. http://answering-islam.org.uk/
20. http://www.answeringinfidels.com
21. http://www.islamundressed.com/
22. http://www.studytoanswer.net/myths_ch1.html
23. http://www.challenging-islam.org/submissions/shariah.htm
25. http://www.islamundressed.com
27. http://www.answeringinfidels.com
30. http://www.chick.com/information/religions/islam/
32. http://www.apostatesofislam.com/
33. http://www.secularislam.org/
34. http://www.muslim-refusenik.com/
36. http://www.hesetsfree.org/
37. http://www.letusreason.org/Islamdir.htm
38. http://www.kafirnation.com/
40. http://www.anti-cair-net.org/
41. http://apostatesofislam.com/
42. http://challenging-islam.org/
____________________________________________________________________________________________________________
The Fallacies of Interfaith Dialogues
Interfaith, according to its Christian innovators, refers to dialogue or activities involving persons of different religions in the struggle to comprehend the relationship between them. The “modern” interfaith dialogue movement was started at the world missionary conference in Edinburgh 1910. Interfaith dialogue is held separately from debate and dawa. It involves meetings between representatives of two or more religions in which discourse on some components of the religions but conflicting claims to truth are not debated.
Some believe that adherents of various religious practices can cause people to converge (come together and unite) on common social issues (e.g. fighting poverty or drug addiction), without coming to a consensus on Aqeedah belief issues. Others believe that various religions can converge on social issues and (eventually) accept each others doctrines as valid (regardless of conflicting claims to truth).
Recent times have seen Interfaith become a tool in the War against Islam in which Islam’s claim to exclusive truth is being attacked as intolerance and Muslims are urged to accept falsehood under the banner of Interfaith. Apologetic Muslims have adopted it as a tool to come closer to people of other religions where they have ceased to tell them that their current paths will lead them to hell and instead to guide them to Islam. To work, it relies on Muslims ignoring our differences, for example remaining silent over the Christian claim that Jesus is God and that God is three!!!
The target of Interfaith is Islam as it aims to degrade Islam to the same lowly levels of other religions. Islam is far superior because it is an ideology complete with a comprehensive Aqeedah which can be proven to be factual and provides solutions for all of man’s problems in society as well as systems by which they are implemented, the Aqeedah is protected and the ideology is carried to the world. If they succeeded in reforming Islam into one of the religions, then Islam will not be a threat to the West and rival its ideology, Capitalism.
There is no such thing as Interfaith dialogue in Islam. Instead, there is dawa to all people including those of other religions to establish that their beliefs, whether trinity or secularism, are false and proving that Islam’s belief is correct.
There is no common ground to seek with them as Allah has already declared that “Anyone who chooses a deen other than Islam, it will never be accepted from him and in the hereafter, he will be amongst the losers” TMQ Al-Imran:85.
Call people to the way of your lord with hikma and best advice, and reason with them, if you have to, in the most courteous manner. (TMQ An-Nahl 25)
We are commanded to call people to the Deen of Allah, not to expound our efforts in finding common ground in religious text in an attempt to mix them. And mix not truth with falsehood, nor conceal the truth while you know (the truth). (TMQ Baqara 42)
Furthermore, we are commanded to carry the ideology of Islam to the whole world.
Ibn ‘Umar narrated that Allah’s Messenger said: I have been ordered to fight the people until they testify La illaha illallaha Muhammad ar-RasulAllah, and offer the Salaat and give the Zakaat, so if they perform all that, then they save their lives and property from me except from Islamic laws, and then their reckoning (accounts) will be done by Allah. (Bukhari)
O believers, fight them until there is no more mischief and the Deen of Allah is established completely. (TMQ Anfal 39)
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Exposing Christian Evangelism in the Third World
Taken from the 20th issue of Nida ‘ul Islam Magazine.
This article sheds some light on where the extremist views from the Muslim world come from. In Muslim countries there is no free press, and the state run media is filled with this kind of propaganda. There is also no shortage of similar articles on the internet and similar views are taught in Islamic schools. Most Christians would be shocked to know what is being taught about their beliefs, missionary work, and lifestyles in Islamic schools, newspapers, and magazines around the world.
In the Washington Post, February 22nd, the CIA admitted a “controversial loophole” that permits the agency to “employ clerics and missionaries for clandestine work overseas”. During famines, you will find them swarming to our lands under the cloak of ‘aid’ or ‘relief’ work. They will bring aid and relief but it isn’t given to the Muslims for free – it does have a price.
If you go to a missionary church in a typical African country you’ll find that it resembles a mosque more than the archetypal church. The worshippers stand in rows during prayer and sit on the ground in circles during classes… When reciting the bible they even use a style of recitation exactly the same as the Qura’nic Tajweed. It’s all a calculated deception… Perhaps the most insidious method used by the missionaries is to kidnap Muslim children from war-torn countries and sell them to non-Muslims to raise as disbelievers.
“And from those who call themselves Christians, We took their covenant, but they have abandoned a good part of the Message that was sent to them. So We planted amongst them enmity and hatred till the Day of Resurrection (when they discarded Allah’s Book, disobeyed Allah’s Messengers and His Orders and transgressed beyond bounds in Allah’s disobedience), and Allah will inform them of what they used to do.” [5: 14]
THE 10/40 WINDOW
In evangelical jargon they call it the 10/40 window. The 10/40 window is the rectangle with boundaries of latitudes 10 and 40 degrees north of the equator. To the modern day crusaders of the Christian missions it is exactly what China is to the Coca Cola company – one billion people just dying to hear the message. The 10/40 window takes in the newly independent states of Central Asia, Malaysia, Indonesia, the Middle East and part of Africa.
This region has become the target of unprecedented efforts by Christian missionaries to convert the Muslims to their religion. Like a cancerous growth, we are seeing Christians gain a foothold in the lands of the believers. The first time these crusading forces came with swords and suits of armor, this time they arrive with credit cards and million-dollar aid cheques. Employing Faustian machinations, these human shayateen are converting many Muslims to their false religion and serving to inject a virulent poison into the stream of the Ummah. The Muslim world is under attack.
Alhamdulillah, Islam has spread all over the world rapidly and with amazing acceptance. As such, the shirk and kufr of Christianity is under threat. In response, they are ‘fighting back’ through escalated missionary activity. Christian Aid provides an excellent insight into ‘why they do it’ in their pamphlet documenting missionary efforts in Nigeria:
“Folake left a successful career in journalism to answer God’s call to take the gospel to women in purdah–the practice of keeping Muslim women from being seen by any man other than their husbands. They are practically prisoners in their houses. If they go out, they must be completely covered except for their eyes.”
As can be seen from this quote, they are motivated by their desire to mislead our brothers and sisters. They want our sisters to walk around exposing themselves shamelessly in the same manner that kafir women do. They want our sisters to leave their homes and wander the streets. They want us to disbelieve in the Revelation and they want to extinguish the light of truth that is Islam. They are calling us to the worship of Taghoot and thus they are calling us to hellfire.
These missionary groups are present in every corner of the Muslim world. World Vision is perhaps one of the most prolific and probably the organisation with which most Australians are familiar, thanks to their sappy media campaign. Many will remember their work during the Somalian famine in which they showed images revealing the Awra of emaciated Muslims and pleaded with us to give them money. Alhamdulillah, the Muslim is kind-hearted and many Muslims donated money to this fund under the illusion it would be used to provide food for the needy. Rest assured that World Vision is not the altruistic humanitarian organisation they would have us believe, but rather a kafir missionary organisation. Their mission is not to alleviate the suffering of those afflicted with hardship, but rather to convert them. In their mission statement, World Vision describe themselves as “an international partnership of Christians whose mission is to follow our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ”. World Vision’s “Changing Lives” document provides the best insight into their true agenda and should serve as ample warning to the global Muslim community. “We preach Christ crucified not only through the words we share, but through our deeds… (We are) acting as the hand and feet of Jesus… In many cases, new churches are emerging where none existed before, and others are being strengthened.” In addition to the many millions of dollars tricked out of the public, this organisation also receives annually over US$30 million from the US government, United Nations and other multilateral agencies to support their evangelism.
“MUSLIMS: IT’S THEIR TURN”
Almost all of the world’s missionary organisations are targeting Muslims. Frontiers, for example, is a major mission group devoted completely to converting believers. They boast that “through creative approaches, patient sowing, and fearless proclamation, more Muslims have come to Christ in the last 25 years than in the previous 1,400 years combined!” The Mesa, Arizona-based group claims to have 500 missionaries in 30 countries, or about 20% of all North American Protestant missionaries serving among Muslims. Frontiers seeks missionaries for the 90’s with the motto: “Muslims. It’s their turn. It’s all we do. Whatever it takes.”
What does it take and what are these “creative approaches”? Murder, sexual assault, kidnapping and calculated deception are a few. More on this later.
Without a doubt however, the Christians are paying their closest attention to Africa, Indonesia and Malaysia. Africa in particular is a major target. The Catholic Pope himself has visited Africa on seven separate occasions as part of his announced plan to transform Africa into a Christian continent by the year 2000. Has the plan of our enemies worked? Well, the Council of Muslims in Africa says that in Malawi, for example, the percentage of Muslims has dropped from 66% to 17% in half a century. Similar figures are found in many other African states. In 1900, there were just 9 million Christians in Africa (9% of the population). In 1980, the population had grown to over 200 million! At this current rate of growth, it can be predicted that by the year 2000, there will be 390 million Christians in Africa, or 48% of the population.
METHODOLOGY OF THE MISSIONARY
“O you who believe! Take not as your Bitanah (supporters) those outside your religion since they will not fail to do their best to corrupt you. They desire to harm you severely. Hatred has already appeared from their mouths, but what their breasts conceal is far worse. Indeed, we have made plain to you the ayat if you understand.” [3:118]
The methodology of the Chrismiss is reflective of the hatred and contempt they hold for Allah and His religion. For instance, when natural disasters or war affects the Muslims, we will find the missionaries salivating at the mouths at the opportunity to convert more believers to their false religion. During famines, you will find them swarming to our lands under the cloak of ‘aid’ or ‘relief’ work. They will bring aid and relief but it isn’t given to the Muslims for free – it does have a price. The price is commit apostasy and join the fold of Christianity.
It is also a well-known fact that the missionary organisations work in close conjunction with the CIA in a ‘you scratch our back, we’ll scratch yours’ capacity. In the Washington Post, February 22nd, the CIA admitted a “controversial loophole” that permits the agency to “employ clerics and missionaries for clandestine work overseas”. This said, one can only imagine what evil the two have perpetrated against humanity over the years! It certainly doesn’t fit with the image of the Christian as ‘meek and mild’, does it?
By far, the most popular long-term method has been to establish front export businesses in order to gain access to the target country. Alhamdulillah, many Muslim nations still do not openly allow missionary organisations in. However, often the Kufar work around this by starting branch offices of companies overseas or enter as consultants. Cindy Brown, an American kafir missionary, speaks with pride of her husband who set up a fake landscaping business in Atlanta, USA: “It’s real tough getting into Malaysia because it’s such a closed Muslim nation. But the good Lord has been opening doors. We couldn’t openly go for a while but then Mike got hired as a consultant with permanent resident status there.”
Their photo album shows Mike Bowen landscaping for the Agrigrine Machine &Landscaping Company of Petaling Jaya, Malaysia.
“The company that hired us is owned by Muslims, but there are some Christians on the Board of Directors who helped us get in. It’s kinda funny that a Muslim-owned company has opened the way for us to spread the Gospel in Malaysia. You gotta love the wicked!”
Ahmad Baharrudin of the Malaysian Islamic Study Group, a leading Muslim student organisation, says that the problem of apostasy amongst Muslim Malays, especially young sisters, is alarming. “Every year, the Department of Religious Affairs changes many Muslim names to Christian names”, says Baharrudin.
THE TOOLS OF THE TRADE
Good old-fashioned Christian deception forms the basis of their evangelism and the inspiration of their weapons in the war against Islam.
If you go to a missionary church in a typical African country you’ll find that it resembles a mosque more than the archetypal church. The worshippers stand in rows during prayer and sit on the ground in circles during classes. The traditional pulpit of the preacher has given way to the minbar. When reciting the bible they even use a style of recitation exactly the same as the Qura’nic Tajweed. It’s all a calculated deception to ensnare the unsuspecting Muslim into thinking that Christianity is ‘not so bad’ and ‘is just like Islam’.
They have developed material specifically targeting Muslims, for instance the widely distributed “Shahadat Al-Qur’an” book. In this and other books, they quote the Qura’nic verse [An-Nisaa: 171] referring to Jesus (AS) as a Prophet, a Word and a Spirit. They then apply their own satanic tafseer and claim that this refers to the trinity! Of course, this is a lie because Allah blew in Adam (AS) and gave His Word to others besides Jesus (AS) such as Muhammad (s.a.w.). In addition, they publish fabricated stories of Muslims who ‘discovered the truth’ and became Christian. These stories are distributed in pamphlets and also via radio stations and act to weaken the Iman of the Muslim community.
The Christian missionaries are also attempting to draw many Muslims into their trap through redefining Christianity to something more acceptable to the norms of the believers. In Africa especially, they have made some startling concessions to try and confuse and ensnare the ignorant. For instance, they hold their services on Fridays (Jumu’ah) and they even allow polygamy. You will also find the missionaries use Islamic expressions such as “bismillah” “Jesus Alaihi Salam” and “Allah Subhanah” to decieve the Muslims. They might even go so far as to say that Islam is indeed a religion from God, however Christianity was not abrogated!
It should not be surprising that many Muslims who fall into these traps do not even realize it. For instance, the Christian missionaries are taught not to inform the Muslims that they believe Jesus (AS) is the son of Allah. Instead they might say he is the “spirit of Allah” which is closer to the Islamic understanding.
The “educational aid” provided by these “humanitarian” organisations is a myth. World Vision’s “education aid” consists of, according to their documentation, “Bible studies, Christian literature, Sunday School classes, and spiritual counseling”. A course in Kufr! Of course, they also give a few classes in conventional subjects such as English (albeit only to such a level that the young Muslim can succumb to the manipulation of Western media), maths, et al. However, the overall thrust of this educational experience is not to produce educated individuals, so much as it is to produce obedient Christians.
In its most extreme form, the Christian church has developed institutions within schools and universities to ensnare Muslims. In recent years, Egyptian Muslims have had a problem with some American missionary organisations capturing young Muslim girls and pressuring them to participate in immoral activities and then photographing them. They then use these photos to blackmail the sisters into taking part in Christian activities such as Sunday school, camps, and so forth. There are now Christian terrorist groups in Egypt that operate with the tacit approval of the state and the funding of the American and European missions; these are usually spread in the country areas with large Christian concentrations.
Perhaps the most insidious method used by the missionaries is to kidnap Muslim children from war-torn countries and sell them to non-Muslims to raise as disbelievers. This problem reached endemic proportions in Bosnia where Christian aid organisations were kidnapping young Muslim children with alarming frequency. Currently, there is a fight in England where Hassan Keranovic, a Bosnian, has attempted to reclaim his grand-daughter, Edita, who was kidnapped. She was then sent to England to be raised to pray to a man who, on the day of judgement, will weep that so many took him as a God. Even though the court ruled the adoption as invalid, they still ordered the child to stay with her adoptive parents because of the ‘trauma’ of losing her ‘new family’. Usually these children are under 3 years old so they are not old enough to know anything about their religion (Islam) and thus accept Christianity and grow up praying to the cross and idols. A similar incident occurred some years ago in Albania where a missionary group bought an orphanage of Muslim children in order to turn them into disbelievers.
CONCLUSION
“If a good befalls you, it grieves them, but if some evil overtakes you, they rejoice at it. But if you remain patient and become Al-Muttaqun not the least harm will their cunning do to you. Surely, Allah surrounds all that they do.” [2:120]
The root of the problem is a failure on our part – a failure to implement Islam correctly on a personal and governmental level. An exposition of this problem is really an article in itself, however, I will attempt to address some of these weaknesses succinctly.
Our personal failures to practice Islam have meant that many Muslims have been easily led astray by the Shaytan. In Africa and Indonesia, for instance, the belief of the common Muslim is a mesh of Islam and paganism. This lack of understanding of true Islam has meant that the well-read Christian missionary could use his or her superior knowledge of our religion to present ‘evidences’ from our own sources. This evidence naturallytwisted and contorted, however, to the ignorant Muslim it is often highly convincing and casts serious doubt into their hearts. Evidence has come to surface recently in the form of training manuals for Christian missionaries that detail how to do just this.
As an Ummah we have failed many of our brothers and sisters in Islam. The fact that there are many sections of the Muslim community with vast wealth and many sections in abject poverty is an indication of this failure. It sets a scene whereby the Christian missionary can come in and ’save’ the Muslim from poverty and destitution by providing food, money, clothing and so forth. Of course the price for this is kufr, but when your family is starving, then that price begins to look more and more like a bargain. Muslims need to support the development of parallel aid organisations that can work instead of the kafir groups bringing Muslim aid to our brothers and sisters in need. By doing so we can force the kafir “out of the market” and ensure that our brothers and sisters are given Muslim aid and Muslim da’wah insha’Allah.
Muslims have been tricked by the emotive pleas for funds issued by World Vision and their ilk. Unknown to most believers who contribute to these groups, they are contributing money to turn their brothers and sisters into apostates. Muslims must be made aware that the Red Cross, World Vision, Salvation Army, Christian Aid, and others are simply evangelist groups. As such it is incumbent on us not to support them, and to work in every way possible to halt the damage they’re doing.
On a governmental level there is an incumbent duty for the Islamic State to protect the religion of Islam from attack. The state’s foreign policies should prohibit the visitation of missionaries and severe measures should be taken against those caught calling to taghoot. Of course many governments are working in conjunction with the Christian missionaries and kafir powers. For example, the Egyptian apostate regime of Mubarak was pressured by the Coptic minority to remove Qur’an and Hadith from curiculm of the school-system. Another state that has been working in cooperation with our enemies is Uzbekistan. In fact the Uzbek government has shamelessly revealed itself as an open enemy of Allah and the truth. It is truly hard to believe that Uzbekistan is the same land that gave birth to both Imam Bukhari and Tirmidhi. Straight from the horse’s mouth (Christian Aid) we hear:
“In fact, when radical Muslim missionaries began coming into Uzbekistan in 1991 to forment change and revolution, the government arrested them as subversives. As of January, 71 were still in jail, but there are no Christians in prison for their faith. Uzbek authorities seem interested in maintaining religious tolerance and don’t want one group to get dominance of the other.”
In terms of deterrent, the biggest deterrent is to come down hard on these kufar. Just like drug dealers pushing drugs in our neighborhoods, the missionaries are pushing kufr. Weigh the effects of drugs against the effects of apostasy and one finds that whilst the effects of drugs are limited to Dunia, the effects of apostasy will carry a person all the way to the Hellfire.
References:
� Christian Missionaries sweeping the world, Salman Al-Awdah
� Christian Aid Appeal Annual Report and Information Pack
� Christian Aid Report on Nigeria
� Christian Aid Report on Uzbekistan
� WorldVision Annual Report
� Methodologies in missionary work to Muslim countries
____________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Answering Missionaries: Missionary Christianity – A Muslim’s Analysis
By Dr. Gary Miller
INTRODUCTION
Let there be no misunderstanding of our intentions. This booklet is not an assault on Christianity. Instead, we intend to clarify vagueness, supply neglected information, and finish incomplete thoughts found in the usual presentation of the Christian missionary. The Qur’an encourages the discussion of religious matters but according to a vital principle: both sides are supposed to discuss truth. (Qur’an 3:61). Where the missionary has left matters vague or has hidden some information, or has not finished a thought the truth has not been presented.
Since our goal is a careful analysis, let the reader consider his own response carefully. Any disagreement must be specified as a disagreement with something actually stated in the following material . It must also be said that nothing written here can be applied to all Christians. Christian belief covers a wide range. We are concerned with the style described in the first paragraph.
CHRISTIAN OBJECTIONS
Consider first some common Christian objections to Islam. The Christian points to corruption and bad behavior in so-called Muslim lands; he cites the warfare Muhammad waged; he denounces polygamy. In response, it must be said that bad Muslims condemn Islam only if bad Christians condemn Christianity; warfare disqualifies Muhammad as God’s spokesman only if it also disqualifies Joshua; polygamy condemns Islam only if it condemns Christianity. (It is Christian culture, not the Christian religion, which has prohibited polygamy. In the Bible Paul has recommended monogamy for bishops and Jesus has spoken of the sanctity of the union but no Bible verse prohibits the practice.)
Most Christian objections are of this nature. They are the same kind of charges that national groups or political parties might make against each other. They are built on those things which one person dislikes about another person. The attacker does not ask the other man to justify his position. He simply announces his disgust. By contrast, a Muslim is concerned that the Christian should justify his position.
MUSLIM OBJECTIONS
Christians say that God is “immutable”, i.e. unchanging. How then can it be said that He passed through the state of death? How could He grow in knowledge? (Luke 2:52). When we forgive a debt it means that we expect no payment. “The Lord’s Prayer” asks God to forgive our debts the way we forgive our debtors. Why then does Jesus’ have to pay a price for our sins? The usual answers: The many paradoxes of a God-man, a being simultaneously mortal and immortal are said to be resolved by the phrase “with God all things are possible.” The “debt of sin” is explained as a misunderstood term so that the crucifixion was not so much a payment as a necessary demonstration of God’s justice.
BASIC POINT
As will be shown, these responses illustrate the Christian difficulty: while he seems to respond to every question, there is no way to form an explanation consistent with all those things he has said. Instead, the total of the answers is a contradictory system. This fact is itself incorporated into the total. That is, where a logical investigation finds a conflict, this is covered over by insisting that the love of God is more important, doubt is a dangerous tendency, and these difficulties are “divine mysteries” If a person is satisfied with this kind of rationale, no logical presentation is likely to change his mind. However, for those who would be motivated by exposure to facts, this booklet describes the situation in brief. If the Christian feels that a logical discussion is more than we should expect when considering religious matters, let him be encouraged by the Biblical passage at Isaiah 1:16: ” . . . come let us reason together.”
DEMONSTRATING THE POINT
Now consider the responses, the second then the first. The missionary is most concerned that the non-Christian “take advantage” of the “ransom sacrifice” of Jesus – otherwise a man is “lost”. But this urgency is based on a price being paid. If we acknowledge that God is just, we do not need a demonstration of His justice. But the Christian insists that we must acknowledge the crucifixion itself, not God’s justice, or be lost. Despite his answer, we are required to acknowledge a debt as paid not forgiven. Even though the phrase “with God all things are possible” are from the words of Jesus in the Bible, this proposition actually turns against Christian belief. It is self-destructive because it says that God can do “un-Godly” things (act foolishly for example). It demolishes arguments where it is used. For example:
Christian: “The true nature of God is a Trinity.”
Muslim: “How can 1+1+1=1?”
Christian: “With God all things are possible.”
Muslim: “Then the Trinity is not His nature, how He must be. It is an option. He could have been 3, 5, 9 or whatever.”
THE PATTERN
These are two examples of the difficulties which we promised to expose. In general the pattern is this: A question is asked and an answer is given. But the answer conflicts with another article of faith or practice. So, in fact, the original question is not really answered because the response has not come from Christian belief. Instead it has come from something in conflict with Christian teaching.
EXPLANATION VERSUS PROOF
There is a more basic issue than all that has been discussed so far. If we are only concerned with the analysis of explanations, we have skipped a point. The fact is, explanation is not proof. Ask a man why he believes something and he will usually respond by explaining his belief – not why it must be true. Whatever a missionary explains to a Muslim, our first question is really: “Where did you get your explanations?” On this matter, the missionary almost always holds a minority view among Christians. The majority of Christians believe the same as Muslims regarding the Bible.
THE STATUS OF THE BIBLE
We believe that the Bible contains the words of God and other material besides. The “fundamentalist” Christian insists that: all of the Bible comes from God, without error, at least in the “original manuscripts”. So the Muslim does not attack “God’s Word”. Rather, he rejects attributing the status of “God’s Word” to writings which do not qualify. In recent years the missionary has sometimes tried to fool the Muslim on this point. The Qur’an talks about “the Book” of the Christian and Jews. The missionary has told us that this Book is the Bible.
AN IMPORTANT QUR’ANIC VERSE ON THE SUBJECT
In fact, the Qur’an refers to the authentic scriptures and the forgeries in their possession (See Qur’an 3:77). At least one Qur’anic verse has been misquoted in missionary literature. By quoting the first half of Qur’an 5:48 they hope to convince Muslims that we must accept the total Bible. The verse in its entirety refers to the Qur’an as a confirmation of previous scriptures and a control. The word translated control is used to describe quality control in normal Arabic. This involves rejection of the disqualified. The Qur’an is called the criterion for judging the false in other scriptures (Qur’an 3:3). Another verse which is complimentary to those that charge forgery is, the verse which explains that the Qur’an will make clear much of that which Christians have concealed or passed over (Qur’an 5:15).
BIBLE MIRACLES?
Some attempts have been made to prove the divine origin of the Bible. These fall into two categories: an appeal to accuracy and an appeal to miracles. In the first case we are given a number of historical or scientific points mentioned in Bible verses. What is left vague is why accurate statements should imply the work of God. The Bible makes contact with reality, but so do works of fiction. In fact, a man has to tell us some truth before he can lie to us. We do not mean to label the Bible as totally fictitious, but only to point out the weakness of an argument for divine origin of the Bible which is based on assorted accurate statements made in Bible verses. There are attempts made to dazzle us into belief by those who cite miracles performed by the Bible! For example, Ivan Panin spent 50 years writing over 43,000 pages investigating Bible numerics. There are however, basic flaws in such an approach. First, Panin builds schemes around the numbers seven and eleven, and he the position value of letters and other devices. But the Bible does not state that these things have any relevance. Nowhere has God said: “Behold the miracle of seven and eleven!” Second, “numerical miracles” are cited especially in regard to their the Bible “perfectly preserved” accuracy. Yet the Bible also contains numerical inconsistencies. Various statistics in the Biblical books of Samuel, Kings, Chronicles, Ezra, and Nehemiah are in conflict and this is excused as being only minor details which were lost over the years. Preservation of numbers is praised while the lack of preservation is excused. Third, the “discoveries” of these researchers tend to be self-reinforcing. For example, Panin himself revised the New Testament based on his ideas. Where some text is faulty or doubtful, he decides on the basis of that which fits his scheme. One author of “theomatics” maintained that the anonymous book of Hebrews was written by Paul because this would mean the total number of books in the Bible credited to Paul would then be equal to fourteen -a multiple of seven.
And there is the “miracle” of personal experience: “The Bible is true because it changed my life.” Of course, any piece of literature is supposed to change the life of a thoughtful reader. To be fair, believers in the dazzling sort of miracle are less common than those who appeal on grounds resembling personal experience. In any case the “miracles” are unrelated to the conclusion that they are supposed to establish – the divine origin of the entire Bible. Meanwhile, the appeal to accuracy is also an insufficient premise to establish this conclusion.
WHAT IS THE BIBLE?
As it happens, the title “Bible” is a name not found in the Bible. Nowhere does the Bible name itself as a unit. Actually it is at least 66 separate writings which have been bound as one book. The earlier catalogue of contents that agrees with the present text dates from the fourth century. This indicates that the Bible has no internal claim of unity. Of course, the writings speak of other writings, scriptures and books but not as the unit of today’s collection. Almost the last verse in the Bible commands that “nothing should be added to or subtracted from this book”. While this has been quoted as a unifying statement, any Christian source will verify that the last book in the Bible was not the last book written. Thus the statement can only apply to this particular small book of the Bible’s 66.
A MISSING CLAIM
Nowhere does the Bible sum itself up as totally God’s word. However, the missionary argument proceeds this way. At 2 Timothy 3:16, Paul says that all scripture is inspired of God. In 2 Peter 3:15-16, Peter says that Paul is correct because Paul too is a writer of scripture. Surely this is not supposed to convince anyone! “Paul says so and Peter says he is right.” This kind of argument would not satisfy us if we were investigating any matter. Moreover, we have Paul’s denial of his own total inspiration at 1 Corinthians 7:25. Here he states that he writes without God’s inspiration on a subject.
About one third of the books in the Bible claim to be divine revelations while the others make no such comment. Because of this lack, the Fundamentalist type of Christian has tried to find other justification for maintaining his claim, as mentioned above.
AN ARTICLE OF FAITH
The Fundamentalist professes: “I believe the Bible to be totally inspired of God, inerrant in the original manuscripts.” On the one hand, this is a statement of his belief, while on the other hand it is the basis of his belief: the first because this is said to be his conviction; the second, because the miraculous aspect of the Bible’s inerrancy convinces him that God is the author. However, the statement cannot do either job. First, he believes that God ordered the writing of all the Bible. This must include 1 Corinthians 7:25 where Paul writes without the command of God – a contradiction. Second, the miraculous inerrancy of the Bible is something he has never seen. Many Biblical errors are excused as being copying errors. That is, the original manuscripts, which are lost forever, are said, to be inerrant but not those manuscripts which we have today. The statement (intended to serve as both an article of faith and the justification for such faith) fails because it is not universally applied in the first usage and it cites evidence which cannot be produced in the second usage.
Many of the verses in the Bible seem to contradict each other. However, these are often matters that can be reconciled by better understanding of translation and context. This kind of reconciliation is the subject of many Christian books and is a healthy process. But some have deceived themselves into thinking that this means every Biblical contradiction is only apparent and can be explained. Actually there is another category of contradictions which is not explainable by consideration of translation or context. It is the existence of this type of discrepancy that has caused the words “in the original manuscripts” to be added to any claim that the Bible is free of error. These are the so-called copying mistakes (e.g. Ezra 2 and Nehemiah 7). Here again the believer in total Bible inspiration neglects to apply his belief universally. At Isaiah 40:8, the Bible states that God’s word stands forever – it does not get lost in the re-copying. If the Christian takes this part of the Bible as inspired how can he admit that other portion have not stood till now, let alone forever?
At this point the Christian redefines exactly what he means by God’s word. He says that it is not so much the individual words of the Bible, these were chosen by the human writers, but the message which is God’s word. So small statistical errors do not invalidate the Bible’s totally divine authority. Once more we have an answer which opposes a previous claim: it was the supposed amazing accuracy of the individual words themselves that testified to the divine quality of the Bible. Now these words are said to be only human efforts under a more vague “in breathing” (inspiration) of God.
WORDS AND MESSAGE
Jesus outlined a principle of reliability at Luke 16:10, “He who is faithful in a very little thing is faithful also in much: and he who is unrighteous in a very little thing is unrighteous also in much.” Now the missionary excuses small mistakes while maintaining that there are no big mistakes in the Bible. But Jesus’ words do not allow for this separation of small and big errors. So the last Christian answer is used again: the missionary says that the message is one subject and it contains no errors big or small, but the actual words of the Bible might possibly contain error. Both the Muslim and the Christian should take note of this distinction. The Qur’an talks about the Injeel of Jesus, meaning the particular message he delivered. Both the missionary and the careless Muslim may believe that this Injeel is the same as the four gospels – the Biblical accounts of the life of Jesus. The Muslim should realize and the Christian should be ready to admit that the exact words of the four gospel accounts are not the same as the message of Jesus. The gospels narrate the events of his life and at times quote him. More correctly, the words of Jesus are paraphrased in the gospels. His sayings are recast but not directly quoted necessarily. In fact, the famous “Lord’s Prayer” will be found in two different versions at Matthew 6 and Luke 11. In a similar way, the Qur’an mentions the Torah of Moses. Again, it must not be imagined that the message of Moses survives verbatim in today’s Bible. A claim like this was made in the prophet Jeremiah’s day, but we read: “How can you say, ‘We are wise, and the law of the LORD is with us’? Rut behold, the lying pen of the scribes has made it into a lie.” (Jeremiah 8:8): In the following, we are concerned with the words of Jesus, not with the things people wrote about him. We do not pick and choose from the Bible according to what we like, but grant that the fundamentalist Christian likes all of the Bible. Therefore he should be willing to discuss any quotation made here, although the Muslim is not conceding any authenticity.
OUR METHOD
We intend to use the methods already illustrated to deal with the most basic issue between Christians and Muslims. The method has been to clarify what is vague, to expose neglected information, and to finish incomplete thoughts. This method enables us to turn to the words attributed to Jesus in the Bible and we can then determine where his words have been “overspecified” – made to say more than they mean – or where his words have been “twice sold” – given two interpretations.
OUR ISSUE
The primary issue is finally, not whether Jesus was divine, but whether he said that he was. Let us illustrate and then summarize the method of investigating the missionary’s claim.
OVERSPECIFICATION
In the overspecified category we have such passages as John Chapter 6, John 3:16 and the tenth chapter of John. At 6:41 Jesus says: “I am the bread that came down out of heaven.” In this chapter, he compares himself to the manna eaten by the Israelites in Moses’ time. Quoting scripture he calls the manna “bread out of heaven”, (Psalm 78:24). The vagueness in this argument is the fact that the Christian has not stated that he intends to make an exact parallel between Jesus and the manna: if one comes from heaven, so does the other. The information he has neglected involves the origin of the manna. Of course it was not prepared in heaven and then transported to earth. According to Numbers 11:9, it came from the same place as the dew. So a thought must be finished. If the Christian maintains that Jesus literally came out of the heaven where God lives, he forces a literal meaning from the words while allowing a figurative meaning for the same words in the case of the manna out of heaven.
John 3:16 is where the Christian says Jesus claimed status as not just a figurative son of God but as God’s actual “only-begotten” son. Not all Bible translate the passage with this key word because some translators have seen the difficulty this causes. At Hebrews 11:17, the same Greek word is found in the original language. But in this place it refers to Isaac who was at no time, strictly speaking, Abraham’s only-begotten son. In the case of Isaac the Church explains that “only-begotten” is not to be understood strictly but must he modified. However, no such modification is allowed in the case of John 3:16 when it is over-specified as being literally true. In the tenth chapter of John we read about the Jews trying to stone Jesus and saying that he had made himself equal to God. The Christian agrees with the Jews and overlooks Jesus’ reply. He proceeds to tell them that their own scriptures refer to certain evil men as “gods”. Therefore, he argued that it was even more appropriate that one actually sent by God should be called a “son of God”. He had also said that it was appropriate to call a peacemaker a “son of God” (Matthew 5:9). The Jews and Christians overspecify his words when they insist that he has claimed divinity. There is another poorly conceived argument which is related to this. Where the Jews have understood Jesus to blaspheme – i.e. claim divine authority – the Christian says he has proof that Jesus did claim divinity. The incorrect assumption however, is that the Jews understood Jesus. For example, they understood him to seize divine authority when he told a man that his sins were forgiven (Mark 2). But the verse at John 12:49, among others, shows that Jesus denied any personal initiative. He spoke only what God commanded him to say.
THE MESSIAH
Still more badly thought through is an argument based on common Christian misunderstanding. Muslims agree that Jesus was “the Messiah”. Although modern Bible translations hide the fact, many individuals are called “Messiah” in the Bible. Christians have come to believe that there is a connotation of divinity in the word, however. So when they read that Jesus admitted to being the Messiah and the Jewish High Priest declared it blasphemy, they feel that they have still more proof that Jesus claimed divinity. The High Priest could only protest what he thought was a lie – a slander against God. The Jews were awaiting the Messiah. Were they also ready to kill the first man who said that he was the Messiah because such a claim is blasphemous?
TWICE SOLD
In the “twice sold” category, we have verses like John 10:30 and 14:9. The first one reads: “I and the Father are one.” The Christian leaves vague exactly what this sentence itself leaves vague: one what? The overlooked information is found in the Seventeenth Chapter of John where the same idea occurs more than once and includes the disciples of Jesus in this oneness. (See John 17:11, 21-22). The thought that should be finished is this: If Jesus meant to say that being “one” means being divine then are the disciples also divine in the same sense as Jesus since the same expression includes them? As it happens the phrase has been sold twice. The Seventeenth Chapter verses are quoted in support of unity of purpose while the Tenth Chapter verse is used to support the claim that Jesus announced his Godhood.
Many students of the Bible have an understanding of scriptures which is quite reasonable. However, these same students forget their interpretation at times and sell another one to the Muslim. They do not seem to notice this double standard. A clear illustration is the case of John 14:9. Ask where Jesus claimed divinity explicitly and one is most often shown this verse: “He who has seen me has seen the Father.” Clarification of the argument exhibits the difficulties. The Christian means to say that if one’s eyes sees Jesus, they see God because Jesus is God. Even this clarification cannot be stated without trading on something left vague, namely, the Trinitarian distinction between Father and Son. Jesus said that seeing him was seeing the Father, yet Jesus is the Son. So they tell us: “read God for Father.” In any case, the argument is self-defeating. If seeing Jesus is seeing God (or the Father) because they are one and the same then how could Jesus tell people who were looking at him that they had never seen or heard God (the Father)? This is his statement in John 5:37!!! Now the Christian responds to a question which has not been asked! We have not said that John 14:9 is in conflict with 5:37 and asked for an explanation. But he proceeds to explain that the verses are in harmony because they refer to Jesus as one who reveals what God is like. People who did not receive Jesus did not “see” God. But our question is how the first interpretation of John 14:9 can be harmonized with John 5:37. They have provided a second interpretation for John 14:9 and yet the next time someone asks them to show a Bible passage where Jesus claims divinity, be sure that they will go to the first interpretation and quote this favorite verse: “He who has seen me has seen the Father.”
THE STATUS OF THE BIBLE
In such discussions, several things should be noted. First, the Muslim does not have to reinterpret Christian scripture. Our duty is to insist that a man state his case clearly, not in vague terms. We must ask for all information related to the matter (Where else do we find key words and phrases in the Bible?). We must demand that thoughts expressed are carried to their logical conclusion. Let us illustrate again with another familiar example. An all-purpose quotation is John 14:6: “I am the way, and the truth, and the life, no one comes to the Father, but through me.” Exactly what this verse is supposed to prove is left vague. Does it prove the divinity of Jesus? Is it supposed to mean that God listens to no one except Jesus or those who call on Jesus ? If either of these ideas are to be based on the verse, we have to consider all the available information. The dictionary shows that the words “way”, “truth”, and “life” do not automatically carry connotations of divinity. So the Christian insists that the structure of the sentence stresses the way, the truth, and the life, as though Jesus is unique for all time. Bill Clinton may be the American President but he is not the first and probably not the last. So language usage alone does not do the job. Then another thought must be brought to its conclusion. “The life” is said to be a state of affairs: one either has “the life” or not. In this way the verse is used in support of the redeeming power of Jesus. Yet Jesus himself says: “I came that they might have life and have it abundantly.” (John 10:10). In this passage life is not a state of affairs, either positive or negative, with no other possible states. Jesus speaks here of something that can be measured. The verse John 14:6 is used by the missionary with the vaguest of intentions. Ironically enough, when his meaning is questioned, this verse becomes probably the most over-specified of all Bible texts.
NON-ISSUES
Second, there are certain non-issues that cannot be treated as though they were issues. Where the Christian and Muslim agree, there is no argument. For example: the Qur’an states that in spite of appearances the crucifixion of Jesus was unsuccessful, that God saved Jesus. The Christian says that Jesus died and three days later showed himself to be alive. Where the Christian exceeds his authority disagreement begins. He does not have proof that Jesus died. He has some anonymous writings (the Gospels) which say so. However, it was common belief in the first century among Christians that Jesus was not even crucified. But this was only one school of thought. Another is represented in the Bible and it has become the only Christian school of thought on the matter. The only facts that bear up well under historical examination are simply these: Jesus appeared to be crucified but was seen alive a few days later. Insisting that his death is proven is actually ludicrous. On the one hand we are told that this man healed cripples, lepers, the blind, and raised the dead. On the other hand, beating him,, stabbing him and nailing him to a cross is said to be quite sufficient to kill him. While portrayals of the crucifixion today tell of a great civic event, there are Bible references that indicate otherwise. A small gathering in a garden, where his followers were forced to stand at a distance is indicated in Luke 23:49 and John 19:41. The Bible describes his post-crucifixion appearances as an attempt to tell his disciples that in spite of what they had seen he was alive, not a ghost. If the Christian does not try to prove the death of Jesus and the Muslim does not try to prove his own theory of how Jesus avoided death, there is nothing left to disagree upon. This is precisely the point made in the Qur’an at 4:157.
ISSUES
Third, let us not be led into believing that certain issues can be treated as non-issues. More than one missionary has asked Muslims: “What do you gain by denying the divinity of Jesus?” The questioner hopes to evade an issue by treating it as unimportant. The answer to his question was given by Jesus who said, “You shall know the truth and the truth shall make you free” (John 8:32). Spelling out the precise disadvantages of belief in any particular falsehood is a worthwhile exercise, but the general principle of Jesus’ words is sufficient motivation for rejection. The truth is, claiming divinity for Jesus is based on what people said about Jesus not on what Jesus himself said. Here is a place to explain the Muslim view of world religions. Islam is not a competitor among religions. The Qur’an states that in ancient times every nation had its messengers of God. Many peoples possessed the truth, but have to varying degrees added to this knowledge with unsupported claims. So the Muslim believes that virtually any of the old religions stripped of its excessive points any thoughtful person towards Islam.
CONSISTENCY
Fourth, the missionary must be consistent. If he admits that Jesus’ words were expanded into Trinitarian doctrine by later generations, then he is either claiming that Jesus taught his disciples more than is actually recorded in the Bible, or he is saying that God brought us knowledge of the Trinity gradually. The first case cannot be reconciled with Jesus’ words at John 18:20, ” . . . I spoke nothing in secret.” As for the second case, if the Trinity became known only to later generations, then one must not insist that Jesus preached the doctrine.
DEDUCTION
Fifth, deduction cannot increase content. Deduction is a process of seeing more clearly that which was already indicated by the evidence. We cannot deduce more than the evidence contains. This is why we say that the Trinity cannot be deduced from scripture. The definition of the Trinity requires a vocabulary not found on the lips of Jesus. At best, the Christian can point to a verse and say that it is in agreement with his ideas, but no verse is conclusive evidence of the divinity of Jesus. The so-called “fallacy of the converse” is the logical mistake most often made. This means turning the “arrow of implication” backward, e.g. rain means wet streets but wet streets do not mean rain. Another example: the appearance of the horizon on the ocean might be cited as being in harmony with the idea of a flat; earth, but it certainly does not prove the earth to be flat. Similarly, some Bible statements might harmonize with the idea of a divine Jesus but no verse proves the claim.
THE NATURE OF PROOF
“Proof” is a very misused word. Proof refers to the establishment of a proposition. Proof withstands challenges and satisfies tests. But phrases such as “more proof”, “better proof”, or “stronger proof” are abuses of language or misunderstandings. “More proof” is a deceptive phrase that might lead us to believe that proof is measured and that people might have proofs of opposite things, but the winner is the one with more volume of proof. In this case proof has been confused with evidence. We may have another proof, but not more proof. When logicians speak of better proof, they are referring to something called elegance -a quality denoting clarity and simplicity. They do not refer to validity by this word. Proofs are either valid or invalid – or occasionally doubted by some until a more elegant version appears. The expression “stronger proof” describes not the proof but its assumptions. In general, the fewer the initial assumptions, the stronger the proof.
This brief explanation is intended to dispel the notion that proof depends on a man’s ability to say a lot of things which sound plausible. It is content and quality, not appearance and quantity, that really matter. When the missionary produces his “proof” it can be shown to be unsatisfactory. He often concedes this fact but prefers the word “insufficient”. He then claims that God can supply the insufficiencies. This raises three important points:
1) Proof is not the sort of thing that we can simply patch over the gaps with and then call it legitimate. In fact, any valid information contained in an unsatisfactory proof is unrelated to the conclusions that one has attempted to prove. For example, the apparent motion of the planets approximately fits the theory of epicycles which is part of the theory that puts the earth in the center of the universe. But the theory is false, which means the trajectories of the planets in no way support the idea that the earth stands stationary at the center of the universe.
2) When the Christian claims that God will “help one to believe” he argues in a small circle. His claim is based on his proof and his proof is based on his claim. The dialogue is something like this:
Christian: “I have proof.”
Muslim: “But there are gaps in your argument.”
Christian: “Ask God to help you believe.”
Muslim: “Why should I?” (Claim based on proof.)
Christian: “Because of things I, have shown you.”
Muslim: “But these things do not prove anything.” (Proof based on claim.)
3) And finally, once again the Christian puts himself in a position where he must contradict his own behavior. When a preacher claims that he has proof for his beliefs, he should be talking about the kind of thing one man can give to another -the facts and arguments for his case. Instead, he admits that his belief is not built on evidence and analysis, but rests on the faith which God gave him! If faith is a gift from God then it is not something that one man can give another man. Missionary efforts would be more honest if it was stated that the Christian only intends to describe his religion and invite converts. But much of missionary literature suggests that Christian belief is built on the kind of evidence that could win a court case.
CHRISTIAN FAITH
Actually the Christian has two views of “faith”. Faith is said to be a gift of God, but there is another thought he expresses when confronted as in the last paragraph. Speaking from personal experience: We tell a man that his evidence will not stand a thorough examination and he hurls an accusation that we are stubborn. As mentioned already, he carelessly interprets historical accuracy in the Bible as proof that it speaks only the truth on every matter. Turning the confusion backwards, he then says that if we doubt any passage in the Bible, we must doubt every book of history. But history is not our opponent. We are opposed to a particular doctrine built on the interpretation of a very small collection of quotations of Jesus. But before we can make this point, the second view of faith occurs to him. “If all things could be proven, where is the merit in believing?”, he asks. In other words, he does not want final proof. He feels that a pledge of loyalty – a bold leap into belief is actually the act that brings salvation. So having faith means an effort that brings reward and yet faith is a gift from God that we do not deserve. Resolving this irony is the Christian’s business. Our point here is only “honesty in advertising” If the foundations of Christianity are loyalty to the interpretation of scripture, it should not be advertised that Christianity stands on that which has been established in clarity – i.e. proven explicitly.
APPLICATION TO ISLAM
Of course one might ask if the points raised in this article cannot be applied to Islam. So in the same order as above, let us consider Islamic doctrine and the status of the Qur’an subjected to similar arguments.
What could be identified as theology in Islam contains no contradictory mysteries for the simple reason that the Qur’an reveals God by revealing His attributes and His will. That is, descriptions of God and worship given to God are due to Him because of His position as God. There is no incarnation doctrine leading to the combination of Godly and un-Godly attributes in one individual. Islam does not ask one to believe in anything outside of reason. The resurrection of the dead, for example, is no more than today’s researchers in biology have considered. Soviet scientists once reproducing an extinct species of elephant by the use of a microscopic unit of long dead gene material. A subtle point is found in the precise grammar of the Qur’an’s description of God’s power. We do not read: “With God all things are possible.” More correctly, we read instead: “Over all things, God has power.” These things are the things He created. These things include good and evil since these words are relative descriptions. For example, the good of the vulture is good for the vulture, but evil for a man. This is the contrast in Islam between Good and Evil: beneficial versus harmful. All things originate with God including the rules which bring harm on the evildoer. So it is that the Qur’an states that God rewards, but wrong done brings harm on the doer in the settling of accounts.
The Qur’an does not present us with mysteries of faith. Instead it is a guide. Left to ourselves we could not reproduce its contents because our research is largely trial and error. The error would prove disastrous – before we accomplished the project. So while the Qur’an is beyond reasoning, it is not beyond reason – given the guidance, we can verify its truthfulness.
ORIGIN OF THE QUR’AN
Several times the Qur’an announces itself as a sufficient sign (e.g. 29:49). Although the Muslims of Muhammad’s time were a persecuted minority, their opposers never answered the challenge of the Qur’an, as it says: “And if you are in doubt as to what We have revealed from time to time to our servant, then produce a chapter like it. And call your witnesses or helpers besides God if you are correct.” (Qur’an 2:23).
PRESERVATION OF THE QUR’AN
The Qur’an promises its own preservation (15:9). It mentions itself by name about seventy times. The Arabic word “Qur’an” means “recitation”. Reciting the Qur’an is part of a Muslim’s daily prayer. In addition to careful writing of copies, there has always been this double checking of its contents. Gather any small number of sincere Muslims together and it is possible to repeat the Qur’an from their collected memories. Some centuries ago an aberrant group claimed that there was more to the Qur’an than now available. Their embarrassment has been the fact that even in this century there are copies of the Qur’an that date from centuries before the time of this controversy. Recently a prominent missionary dishonestly challenged the authenticity of Qur’anic manuscripts. He claimed that twenty different people, governments or institutions claim to possess the oldest copy of the Qur’an. The thought he wants his audience to finish is that there are twenty versions of the Qur’an. The truth is, all the ancient copies agree letter for letter with today’s text. Which one happens to be the oldest is irrelevant to considerations of authenticity.
WORDS AND MESSAGE
The very words of the Qur’an are the message of the Qur’an. The speaker is God, not His spokesman recasting matters in his own words. Islam was not founded by Muhammad. God’s message was given by prophets in every nation since at least the time of Adam. The particular religious observances of Islam and use of the term Muslim were well known in the time of Abraham. (See the Qur’an at 22:78; 2:135; 3:67-68; 16:123.) While the Prophet Muhammad is said to be a good example for us (33:21) the same is said of Abraham, word for word, at 60:4. The vital point here is that Islam is not the cult following of a man. Muhammad himself was told to make all his judgments by referring to the Qur’an (5:48-51). The Prophet was also told to ask for forgiveness, especially when he knew his death was approaching, for it is God alone that must be called on and asked for forgiveness (Chapter 110 and 40:12). The Prophet himself was corrected by admonitions in the Qur’an (e.g. Chapter 80).
THE CHRISTIAN CHARGE
In spite of an abundance of such considerations that show the Qur’an and the practices of Islam as something separate from the man Muhammad, the Christian insists that the Qur’an was his own invention. They simultaneously maintain that he was a forger and a psychotic – that he deceived and was deceived on the same issue. They say that he lied about being a prophet and yet they say that he himself believed that he was a prophet! Of course, a man cannot be both true and false to himself regarding precisely the same point: If he believes he is a prophet, he does not fool people into believing him. The Qur’an itself denounces forgery (10:15-18).
TWO HYPOTHESES
The Christian difficulty is that they need both hypotheses: the forger and the psychotic, to begin to explain the existence of the Qur’an. They need to name the Prophet as a forger because he had an outside source. For example, the Qur’an recites material unknown to the Arabs and yet recognized as correct by a learned Israelite in the Prophet’s time (11:49; 10:94; 26:197). They need to name the Prophet as a psychotic because he obviously was moved to behave as though he was a prophet. For example, against everyone’s better judgment, the Qur’an announces the behavior of Muhammad’s worst enemy – Abu Lahab. This man used to contradict every item of Islam, but in ten years never seized the chance to contradict the Qur’an’s contents (Chapter 111). Until now there are similar statements in the Qur’an; the very instructions are given to those who wish to demolish the Qur’an; e.g. 5:82 tells Jews how to prove the Qur’an false.
A THIRD HYPOTHESIS
As a last resort, there is a third hypothesis made by the missionary. Given an outside source for the Qur’an and Muhammad’s sincerity, they suggest that he was deceived by Satan. The missionary steps deeper into difficulty with this suggestion. The Qur’an itself tells us that we should seek refuge in God from Satan before reading the Qur’an (16:98). Satan has undone himself here, if he is the author. (Compare Jesus’ words at Mark 3:26). In any case, the biggest complaint against mankind voiced in the Qur’an is his unsupported claims “let them produce their proof” is the repeated admonition. A direct challenge regarding this last hypothesis is found at 4:82: “Have they not carefully considered the Qur’an? If it came from other than God, surely they would have found in it many inconsistencies.”
ACCURACY OF THE QUR’AN
Now the Muslim would not consider using as an excuse that some of the Qur’an has been lost in recopying. He will only insist that the Qur’an is the Arabic text and not a translation. The Arabic text is complete. A small effort has been made to produce contradictions in the Qur’an. The points made are fatuous. We have to wonder about the mental capability or the honesty of those who have brought forward these items. Some examples follow:
* The Bible reports that the Jews sarcastically addressed Jesus as “Messiah” (or the Greek equivalent “Christ”) at the crucifixion (Mark Chapter 15). Despite this, one Toronto group of missionaries has insisted that a Jew would never do this and so the Qur’an must be in error at 4:157!!!
* The Qur’an commands that a man provide equally for each wife should he marry more than one. An active religious propaganda center in Rochester, New York, claims that this contradicts the fact that a man is restricted to four wives at most. They have mistaken the contrapuntal for the contradictory.
* Another common challenge is that the Qur’an states that God does not guide the wrongdoers. This is said to contradict the statement that God guides whom He pleases (28:50; 35:8). Actually the verses are complimentary, telling us that God chooses not to guide the wrongdoers.
MUSLIM MISUNDERSTANDING?
Related to this kind of thing we have the charge made that the Qur’an does not have an understanding of Christianity. As it happens, the Qur’an denounces many beliefs which are considered heretical by Christians. Instead of rejoicing that Muslims reject the same heresies as Christians, the missionary insists that Muslims have been given only a misunderstanding of Christianity. This claim can only be made by deliberate hiding or careless ignoring of the facts. The Qur’an deals in detail with the most precise points of Christian doctrine.
ABROGATION?
Still another misunderstanding concerns the so-called doctrine of abrogation. At: 16:10, “And when We change any Ayah for an Ayah – and God knows best what He reveals – they say: ‘You are only a forger’. Nay, most of them know not.” The word Ayah here can mean sign, message, or verse. So it is that many Christians have imagined that some verses of the Qur’an were changed. Some Muslims seem to agree when they say that some verses cancel other verses. Their difficulty is with language. The Christians misunderstand (or misinterpret) the word cancel (actually the Arabic word “naskh”). For example, the Qur’an commands one not to pray when drunk. Since the Qur’an was revealed gradually over a period of twenty three years, a later verse forbade intoxicants. But this later verse does not cancel the earlier one. Compare restricted drug laws in most countries: There are laws giving penalties for possession, but other laws penalizing those who sell these drugs. Yet the first kind of law does not cancel the second kind. The missionary trades on this misunderstanding, hoping to cause confusion. However, he seizes the opportunity too quickly. All charges of abrogation are said to apply to legal matters. However the verse of 16:101 refers to something that had already happened. Yet this verse was revealed in Mecca. All verses relating to legal matters were revealed later in Medina. There is no inconsistency in the Qur’an – remember, this is the claim of 4:82.
The best explanation of the Qur’an is the Qur’an itself. The clarification of 16:101 is found at 2:106. Here the same thought is expressed but this time the context shows that the Jews were being addressed. The word Ayah refers then to previous messages of the prophets. In particular, some of the Jewish Law was supplanted by the Qur’an. (Compare the words of Jesus reported in the Qur’an at 3:49.)
INTERPRETATION
We discussed interpretation of the Bible. Is the Qur’an subject to misinterpretation? Certainly it is, and for the same reason that the Bible is – namely, the isolating of certain passages from those verses which explain them. Our point was not that the misinterpretation of the Bible was to be blamed on the Bible itself. Rather, the origin of the problem is the carelessness of men.
THE CONCLUDING POINTS
In the preceding section, the first three points have already been addressed to both Christians and Muslims. The fourth and the fifth may be dealt with by simply mentioning two points. First, the only “evolved” item in Islam is judicial decision. New circumstances bring new problems which must be ruled upon by the original principles. This is a body of knowledge that grows. Second, the most intelligent of Muslim scholars have always been ready to admit where they have crossed over into speculation. No mental consideration has ever led to the widespread acceptance of a theological doctrine which was unknown to the Muslims of Muhammad’s time.
THE GOOD NEWS OF ISLAM
Finally, the Muslim really has something that one man can give to another: the Qur’an. This Book speaks to each reader asking him to consider the things that every man must admit. The reader is asked to arrange this collection of facts into a coherent whole and think on it. By reminding us of facts the Qur’an makes contact with reality as the Bible does. But the key difference in Christian and Muslim thought appears in the next step. The facts are not simply a feature of the Qur’an. The things we come to believe in are directly based on these facts, deduced from them in the legitimate sense of the word. The good news of Islam is that a man who loves truth, detests falsehood, and fears only God has moved toward Islam and thus ultimate success.
Christian Missionary Treatment of Islam
The English dictionary defines ‘lie’ as: intentional false statement, imposture, be deceptive, convey a false impression. If one were to say it is the methodology of the Christian missionary to lie about Islam, this claim would have a ring of truth to it. Their endeavours have not only left Islam as a misunderstood religion in the West, but also one that is mistreated. This methodology has as its origin a seldom-publicised statement of Paul in which he is happy to proclaim: ‘If through my falsehood God’s truthfulness abounds to His glory, why am I still being condemned as a sinner.’ (Romans 3:7) Paul felt little reluctance in spreading ‘falsehood’ so long as the end result achieved the greater glory of God. One will never know, therefore, whether his claimed vision of Jesus on the Damascus road, his appointment as preacher to the Gentiles, and the other teachings he propagated in the name of Christianity were all part of this use of ‘falsehood’ or not. He would have done well to take into consideration another Biblical text: ‘A faithful witness does not lie, but a false witness breathes out lies.’ (Proverbs 14:5) Paul, by his own admission, proves himself not to have been a faithful witness. How much better later Christian missionaries fared as ‘faithful witnesses’ will be discussed below. Nevertheless, this does not make for a promising start: Paul, the champion of Christianity, admitting to the use of falsehood.
Missionary efforts in preaching the Gospel are hardly worthy of emulation. In 1795 the London Missionary Society was formed, its immediate attention focused upon the Pacific; two years later a convict ship bound for Australia put the first missionaries ashore on Tahiti. It was four years before any of them learned enough of the local language to be able to preach a sermon to a puzzled though sympathetic audience. The Tahitians built houses for them, fed them, and provided them with servants galore, but after seven years not a single convert to Christianity had been gained. The missionaries opted for a more brutal tactic and gained the upper hand by helping to reduce the local chief to an alcoholic and then offered him backing in a war against other islands chiefs by supplying firearms (the enemy having only wooden clubs to defend themselves). Assistance was provided, however, on the condition that all the islanders would have to accept Christianity once victory had been gained. The whole nation was converted in a day! With their power base firmly established in Tahiti, the missionaries moved swiftly to the outer islands. The methods they employed were as before. A local chieftain would be baptised, crowned king, introduced to large quantities of alcohol and left to the work of converting his own people. Chieftains who put up any form of opposition were quickly shown the might of the missionary forces. Where no resistance was found, a native teacher supported by a half dozen missionary police would take over an island within a week. (Norman Lewis, The Missionaries, Arena 1989, pp.10-15)
The missionaries had little need to take recourse to the use of falsehood in Tahiti. The natives were easy prey for the military strength the missionaries were able to muster. Where, however, the target audience was not so easily convinced or where little or no inroads were being made, it was time once again to make use of Paul’s motto – ‘falsehood’ – in whatever form was most appropriate. The missionary attack on Islam, for the most part, was to follow this strategy.
The earliest Christian reactions to Islam were much the same as they have been in modern times. The approach often takes a severe attitude in condemning whatever a Muslim believes, including the whole of what he believes about God and, in particular, what he believes about Jesus Christ. Regarding some of the early authors who wrote against Islam, Normal Daniel asks: “It is natural to ask how authors whom we can neither patronise as foolish nor condemn as unscrupulous could consistently have misrepresented facts, regularly crediting ridiculous fantasies. This applies particularly to their treatment of the events of Muhammad’s life, but to some extent also to the whole of their attitude to Islam. We cannot just excuse them as ignorant.” (Norman Daniel, Islam and the West, Oneworld Publications 1993, p.255)
It was the works of authors of this calibre that Christianity was to use in its attacks on Islam, authors who ‘misrepresented facts’ and worked within the sphere of ‘ridiculous fantasies’ – Paul’s motto comes to mind yet again! There is very little that the neutral observer can do under such circumstances. Who does he believe?
The methodology used by these authors is further described by Norman Daniel: “All writers tended – more or less – to cling to fantastic tales about Islam and its Prophet… The use of false evidence to attack Islam was all but universal.” (ibid, p.267) He goes on to explain: “At the worst there was the assertion of the fantastic, and its repetition without discrimination; at the best there was the selection of only those facts that served the purpose of controversy.” (ibid, p.268)
All of this comes as no surprise. “Islamic institutions,” Daniel continues, “were treated as selectively as the life of Muhammad… Yet the more sober accounts of Islam resemble the more sober biographies of the Prophet in that actual facts were manipulated by selection and omission, by exaggeration and invention and misapplication.” (ibid, p.269)
A further passage from Islam and the West will help to shed more light on the treatment which was being meted out to Islam: “The Christian canon of Muslim behaviour, that is, the received Christian opinion as to what Muslims actually did, was partly formed by the tendency of misconceptions to snowball, and to confirm as well as to add to one another. Mere repetition is enough to bring unshakeable conviction; and once it had been asserted that Islamic teaching was sexually lax, every example of laxity would be noticed from that moment, and, once notified, attributed to the doctrine. If we suppose that there were an equal number of similar offences committed by Christians and by Muslims in any given time, in the former case they would be seen as having occurred in spite of the doctrine, so that each individual case would be an exception, and in the latter it would be assumed that doctrine was the cause of whatever happened.” (ibid, p.270)
This is a very acute observation that is still valid today. Whatever a Muslim is seen to be doing, reflects upon Islam itself: terrorism, murder, violence, wherever these occur with possible Muslim involvement, the automatic response is that it is because Islam permits it, rather even encourages it. All of this without onlookers making the slightest referral to the religious teachings of Islam itself. People seem to take it for granted that an alien society (which for many is what Islam is) is dangerous, if not hostile. Apparently (and history has shown this to be the case) under the pressure of their sense of danger, whether real or imagined, a deformed image of their enemy’s beliefs and intentions takes shape in men’s minds. This invariably contrasts with what the other party actually believe and what they say they believe, but by this stage this has little effect in changing people’s preconceived ideas; the enemy must not be allowed to speak for itself. (ibid, p.12, slightly adapted)
Under such circumstances, only those matters favourable to one’s own argument are broadcast and those favourable to the other party either ignored or distorted. Norman Daniel further explains how this occurred in regards to Islam: “Not only in treating the life of Muhammad and the sexual institutions of Islam, but in all aspects of that religion, facts were exaggerated, sometimes out of little or nothing, and were often distorted almost beyond recognition; sound information was regularly discarded for unsound. Only in matters apparently favourable to Christianity was a very high degree of accuracy achieved, as, for example, in treating the Qur’anic beliefs about Christ and his mother.” (ibid, p.270)
To misrepresent another religion for fear of people converting is one thing, but to do so to one’s own in the hope of gaining converts is another. Christian missionaries, unable to convince the Panare Indians of the Colorado valley to accept faith in Jesus Christ took to compiling books for the natives to read in their mother tongue, this was accomplished during 1975 and 1976. It was soon realised, however, that before the Indians could be made to accept repentance and salvation one had to give them something to feel guilty about. The missionaries came up with an ingenious, yet underhand, solution – translate the New Testament in such a way so as to implicate the Panare Indians in Jesus’ death! Gone from the Bible were Judas’s betrayal, the Romans, the trial, and Pontius Pilate. The text now read at the appropriate places: “The Panare killed Jesus Christ, because they were wicked. Let’s kill Jesus Christ, said the Panare… They laid a cross on the ground…” etc. The New Testament continued: “God will burn you all… God will exterminate the Panare by throwing them on the fire… ‘Do you want to be roasted in the fire?’ asks God. ‘Do you have something to pay me with so that I won’t roast you in the fire? What is it you’re going to pay me?’” One does not have to think hard in order to realise what payment was being demanded; namely, unquestioning submission to the missionaries’ demands, the abandonment of their traditional lives and their customs, and the acceptance of Christianity. The Indians were terrified. The first Indian woman came forward and said: “I don’t want to burn in the big fire. I love Jesus.” (Adapted from Norman Lewis, The Missionaries, Arena 1989, pp.188-192)
The end had justified the means and, as far as the missionaries were concerned, the Indians had attained salvation in Jesus. The fact that they had to distort their own Bible to achieve their goal was of no consequence. Interestingly, we are not told whether they continued to use the very same distorted Bible when further teaching the Indians – if so, the Panare Indians would certainly have had a very unique and warped understanding of the life of Jesus. Paul’s motto springs to mind!
“they came to Africa holding the bibles and spread their doctrine, telling people to close their eyes when worshiping God. Africa did so and when they opened their eyes, they found out that the Europeans were holding the bibles and the soil. “ Jomo Kenyatta- first president of Kenya
4 responses so far ↓
Jaymes // January 8, 2008 at 7:16 am |
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. John 1:1 Yes the Bible does refer to itself.
Jaymes // January 8, 2008 at 7:19 am |
In fact if you read the Bible you quickly realize the whole entire Biblle is about Jesus and what he did at the Cross for you.
Anonymous // January 8, 2008 at 1:41 pm |
If i read the BIBLE, I will find nothing but contradictions and alterations
Abdulaziz Aragie // May 19, 2008 at 4:00 pm |
Jezakumullah kheyren dear brothers and sisters in Islam for your successful effort in defending misconceptions about Islam .Please relase/spreadthes misleading websites through differen well known Islamic websites.Please please
Islam is the solution for humanity !!!