من هناك
06-01-2006, 11:20 AM
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 behaviour 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 numericd. 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 "over specified" - 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.
OVER SPECIFICATION
In the over specified 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 over specify
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
favourite 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 behaviour 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.
http://www.missionislam.com/discover/missionary.htm
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 behaviour 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 numericd. 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 "over specified" - 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.
OVER SPECIFICATION
In the over specified 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 over specify
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
favourite 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 behaviour 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.
http://www.missionislam.com/discover/missionary.htm