Answering "answering-islam.org"

Part 5

Objections (continued)

 

Critic:-

Sura An Nahl 16:63-64 reads: "By God, We (also) sent (Our apostles) to peoples before thee; but Satan made, (to the wicked) their own acts seem alluring: he is also their patron today, but they shall have a most grievous penalty. And We sent down the Book to thee for the express purpose, that thou shouldst make clear to them those things in which they differ, and that it should be a guide and a mercy to those who believe."

The Book [Qur'an] seems to be sent down for the "express purpose" to make clear those things on which there are different opinions (verse 64) between those who have received apostles (and books) at an earlier time (Jews and Christians) but to whom their own acts (and desires) were more alluring than God's word (verse 63) (and who therefore changed [corrupted] the earlier message). Especially, it is to clear up the areas of difference between the Jews and the Christians. In this article I want to investigate whether this claim is met or whether the Qur'an confuses the issues even more.

Also Sura Yusuf 12:111 (see also 16:89) reads: "There is, in their stories, instruction for men endued with understanding. It (the Qur'an) is not a tale invented, but a confirmation of what went before it (the earlier scriptures),- a detailed exposition of all things, and a guide and a mercy to any such as believe."

Even if one doesn't want to stretch this verse (though some Muslims apparently do so) that the Qur'an literally explains EVERYTHING, the context makes clear that the Qur'an supposedly gives a detailed exposition of all things that might not yet be clear from the earlier revelation. Is that a fair interpretation? I think so. Tell me if not and show me from the text why it means something else if you disagree with it. There are a number of doctrinal issues where we have to ask if the Qur'an gives the promised clarification or does only add to the perceived confusion.

The Cross: Both Jews and Christians are in agreement that the crucifixion happened. There was absolutely no disagreement and no confusion about this. The Qur'an is producing confusion where there was none before. The Qur'an denies the crucifixion but does not give any evidence for what happened. It does not give any explanation. The one and only Quranic passage on this issue reads: "That they said (in boast): We killed Christ Jesus the son of Mary the Apostle of Allah; but they killed him not nor crucified him but so it was made to appear to them and those who differ therein are full of doubts with no (certain) knowledge but only conjecture to follow for of a surety they killed him not. Nay Allah raised him up unto Himself; and Allah is Exalted in Power, Wise. And there is none of the People of the Book but must believe in him before his death; and on the Day of Judgment He will be a witness against them." 4:157-159

Since I cannot see any evidence why God would be the author of the Qur'an I will assume in the following that Muhammad is this author. But it could be any other source other than God himself and the observations below would still make sense.

Answer:-

If you assume something the Quran denies then you will inevitably come to the wrong conclusion and confuse yourself. People can agree on a falsehood but that will not make it true.

There is some misunderstanding about the words translated as "so it was made to appear to them". This could be translated as "the reality was obscure". A distinction is being made here between what really happened and the appearance. The implication is that Christians have gone by the appearance rather than the significance. The Quranic position is clear enough. Muslims do not accept that the Word of God was destroyed by the crucifixion of Jesus or that it causes forgiveness of sins. The confusion is entirely in the mind of the Critic.

Critic:-

Somehow Muhammad seems to try to incorporate arguments from Jews and Christians into one theory. He takes from the Christian side that God is victorious - (Colossians 2:15 speaks of triumphal victory through the cross!) combined with our faith that he is the Messiah, i.e. sent by God, and from the Jewish side that the cross means a curse from God and defeat (Deuteronomy 21:23, but see Galatians 3:13!). Combining "he is the Messiah" (Christians) and "because he was crucified he cannot be the Messiah"

Answer:-

The Critic thinks that there is a contradiction between the Old and New Testaments and Christians are required to accept both. Why then does he wish to reject a solution to this problem? If we are speaking of truth then it cannot have contradictions. The Critic continues to make the error of confusing truth with opinions. The desire is not to combine Christian faith ("our faith" as the Critic puts it) with Jewish views, but to clarify by resolving contradictions.

Critic:-

The Messiah: One of the most contentious points between Jews and Christians is the question on whether Jesus is the promised Messiah or not. How does the Qur'an fare in clarifying this issue? The Qur'an affirms the Christian that Jesus is indeed the Messiah by calling Jesus "al-Masihu Isa." But on the other side, the Qur'an takes away all the meaning that the concept of "Messiah" has in the Bible, both Old and New Testament. The Qur'an retains the title but does not know its implications. Could it be that God suddenly forgot all that he had given through prophecy about the Messiah earlier on? Had Muhammad known what the concept of the Messiah means, he would have understood that Jews and Christians cannot accept him as a prophet from this same God who made the Messiah the focal point of Biblical prophecy.

The clearest verse giving evidence that the Qur'an has no understanding for the title of "Messiah" but uses the word instead as an ordinary name is Sura 5:75: "The messiah, son of Mary, was no other than a messenger, messengers (the like of whom) had passed away before him. And his mother was a saintly woman. And they both used to eat (earthly) food."

Answer:-

Christians appear to have invented fantasies about the word "Messiah" or "Christ" which are not found in their Scriptures. It refers to one anointed by the Spirit. A Messenger is obviously one who carries the Message or Word of God and is guided by the Spirit. The Quran accepts that Jesus was a Word and Spirit from God. The Islamic position can be understood from the following verse:-

"O ye people of the Book! Do not commit excesses in your religion, nor say against Allah anything save the truth. The Messiah, Jesus the son of Mary, was but the messenger of Allah and His Word, which He cast into Mary and a Spirit from Him; believe then in Allah and His messengers, and say not "Three." Desist! it is better for you. Allah is only one Allah, Glory be to Him, too Exalted is He that He should beget a Son! To Him belongs all that is in the heavens and that is in the earth, and Allah sufficeth as Defender." 4:171

Critic:-

The Trinity: In several passages the Qur'an speaks out specifically against "some kind of trinity" [e.g. Sura 5:72-73 and 5:116-118] and believing in it is supposedly one of the worst sins you can commit [shirk = joining other gods with Allah] and it is so bad, that it leads with certainty to hell fire without escape [5:72].

Christians believe that the doctrine of the Trinity is clearly based on the Biblical revelation only....But even if it were a corruption and not Biblical revelation, - or a doctrine based on a corrupted Bible - the doctrine of the Trinity was finally and clearly formulated about 325 A.D. at the Council of Nicea in the Nicean creed. Since then it has been well publicized and is still the same today. This means especially that doctrine of the Trinity was clearly spelled out about 300 years before Muhammad and the appearance of the Qur'an.

For any religion, it is obviously of utmost importance to be right on the nature of God. Therefore, if it is God's intention to correct the Christian corruption and heretical aberrations of the true understanding of Himself by this new revelation through the Qur'an, why does the Qur'an get it so woefully wrong? Why is the Qur'an so concerned to condemn a "tri-theism of God, Mary and Jesus", which no Christian believes in anyway, instead of clarifying the mistake in regard to the true Christian doctrine being the "Trinity of God Father, Son and Holy Spirit"? Why condemn something that is just as blasphemous to Christians as it is to Muslims? The Christian Church has never believed in that. There seem to be some traces of the existence of a heretical group who did believe that Mary was divine which existed in Arabia in the 6th - 7th century. But they were a very small and insignificant group and it is very hard to get much detail about them at all. There is some information about them in the book "God is One in the Holy Trinity" by Zachariah Butros.[1] But in the relationship to the total of Christianity which was the dominant religion this sectarian group was negligible and was to disappear soon. The question we have to ask is: Why would God choose to speak out in his final and universal revelation against some absolutely insignificant heretical group while totally ignoring the related central doctrine of the largest religion on earth [in Muhammad's time and today] and at the same time give the impression that he speaks to correct the errors of the CHRISTIANS?

Answer:-

The verse Quran 4:171 is not condemning the Trinity as understood by some people but the idea that there are three gods in a Godhead and that Jesus, a man is one of these. The verse does not say that the trinity consisted of God, Mary and Jesus. But Christians did and many still do understand Jesus to be a literal son of God and Christians did and do worship Mary, and call her "Mother of God" and her statue exists in many Churches. There are icons that show the trinity as Mary holding the Baby Jesus and the disc of the Sun, representing the Father, behind them. The Quran is concerned with the reality of the misconceptions people hold rather than with the intricate doctrines that some theologians hold. The notion of begetting a son implies to most people that something has been produced like the original and independent of it. It is perfectly possible that the group the Critic calls "an insignificant group" could have expanded and taken the dominant position but for Islam - all groups start small and some are nipped in the bud. There is little doubt that the concept of Trinity has created great confusion and reduced the concept of God into a superstition. Islam does not recognize anything as Allah, which is sent by God and is required to obey and speak as he hears from God. To do so would be a loose use of the word and a blasphemy.

It is necessary to understand that Islam is not condemning the symbolic idea of "Son of God" when it means a person led by the Spirit or Word of God. (John 1:12-13, Romans 8:14, John 3:5-7, John 10:34-35). But owing to the misinterpretation of this phrase, Islam abolishes it and the notion of "Vicegerent" and "Slave of Allah" replace it. Controversies about this are then only about words rather than what they refer to.

Critic:-

It appears to me, we again only have the choice between a Qur'an coming from a confused God or a confused Qur'an that is not coming from the true and all-knowing God. The first option is obviously a blasphemous thought. God indeed is the All-knowing. I can only think of the following possible and (more or less) reasonable explanations to account for this seemingly "confused revelation": The Qur'an has been changed and corrupted. The Qur'an indeed corrected the "real but false Christian doctrine" with clear words but some evil people [Christians?] did change the Qur'an to cover it up in order to render the Qur'an ineffective against Christianity. The Qur'an is unchanged but it did not originate from the all-knowing God in the first place but instead from a source that was indeed not well-informed in regard to the true doctrine of the Trinity. But since the Qur'an seemingly is pretty well preserved and God is definitely not confused, the only sensible explanation seems to be that the author was just not well informed in regard to the true Christian doctrine of the Trinity and nature of Christ. This is (in my eyes) the most natural explanation. Muhammad has spoken out against a bad misunderstanding of the doctrine of the Trinity (which might or might not be just his own misunderstanding.) He was justified to be appalled by it. He spoke out against this heretical understanding and was right to do so. But he has not answered to true Christianity. On this basis I can acknowledge Muhammad's sincerity in speaking out against idolatry, but I cannot accept him as speaking with a message from God. Muhammad had a good grasp of "what cannot be true", but he didn't understand what the Bible says "is true". I tend to believe the last paragraph is the best explanation of those alternatives I can see and which have listed above, but since I heard another one just recently, I want to include it for completeness sake.

This other possibility is that Muhammad did indeed understand the Christian doctrine, but uses the time honored approach of building up a straw man which is so much easier to knock down than the true teaching of Christianity: Ridicule the other side and collect "the cheering crowd" as your followers. This is the successful method of politicians who say, that the effort needed to present good arguments is a waste of time, because most people wouldn't even be able to follow a deep argument [and therefore not vote for the one who is so clearly "not understanding 'the common man'"]. Since the vote of an uncritical follower is worth just as much as the vote of a deeply thinking one [at least in a democracy], so let's go for the method that appeals to the masses. And that sadly is "knocking down straw men" as everybody can observe daily on TV. And strangely enough, also today many Muslims say their doctrine of God is true because it is easier than the "complicated" doctrine of the Trinity. But simplicity or complexity is not a Criterion for truth in itself, or all the straw man arguments would be satisfactory.

But, using straw man arguments does not say that the one who uses a "stupid argument" is stupid himself [most politicians are intelligent], but it does show that he thinks the audience is stupid enough so that he can get away with it. But I will not fall for straw man arguments. Whether deliberately or out of ignorance, Islam has not answered to Christianity, but knocked down a self-built straw man and I am not impressed. Nevertheless, as I said, I don't have that bad an impression of Muhammad's character and currently don't feel the straw man hypothesis to be as good an explanation as the one stated before it.

Answer:-

But the more obvious alternatives that the Critic has not understood things correctly has been ignored!

Can the Critic really justify to himself the implication that the Prophet Muhammad was a self deceiving fool who devoted his life to the service of Islam. And that he and his followers when they prayed, fasted, did charitable works and carried out the other pious activities based on faith, were insincere or were serving Satan? But the Critic and those who agree with him are serving God and will alone be "saved". This idea can be reversed with equal justification.

Critic:-

The Qur'an states: "They do blaspheme who say: Allah is Christ the son of Mary." But said Christ: O children of Israel! Worship Allah my Lord and your Lord. Whoever joins other gods with Allah will forbid him the garden and the Fire will be his abode. There will for the wrong-doers be no one to help." 5:72

"They do blaspheme who say: Allah is one of three [in a Trinity]', for there is no god except One Allah. If they desist not from their word (of blasphemy) verily a grievous penalty will befall the blasphemers among them. " 5:73

"And when Allah said: O Jesus, son of Mary! Did you say unto mankind: Take me and my mother for two gods beside Allah? He said: Be You glorified. It was not mine to utter that to which I had no right. If I used to say it, then You knew it. You know what is in my [innermost] self but I know not what is in Yours. Truly! You, only You are the Knower of things hidden. I spoke unto them only that which You commanded me, (saying): Worship Allah, my Lord and your Lord, and I was a witness over them while I dwelt among them, and when You took me You were the Watcher over them, and You are Witness over all things." 5:116-117.

It seems clear to me that (the author of) the Qur'an has or presents the understanding that the followers of Christ believe that Jesus and Mary are two other separate gods which are elevated to the level of God. The Qur'an is wrong about the Christian doctrine in several points:

* The Qur'an accuses Christians of saying "God is one OF three" [5:73], but Christians say that "God is one IN three" [two letters making an extremely important difference].

* The Qur'an speaks out against "Tri-theism" [three gods - 5:116,72,73], but Christians believe in (and the Bible teaches) "the Trinity" - ONE God, who reveals Himself [not: themselves] in three persons. There is only ONE God and not "three gods".

* The Qur'an denounces the "tri-theistic" group of "God, Jesus and Mary" [5:116], but the Trinity consists of "Father, Son and Holy Spirit".

* The Qur'an gives the impression that Christians elevated Mary to a divine status, but no Christian has ever said that Mary is anything more than a human being. The Bible says no such thing. All true Christian doctrine is based on the Bible as the word of God.

* The Qur'an speaks out against "deification" which is "elevating a human being to the status of a god" which I think is the meaning of "take me as a god beside Allah" [5:116], but the Bible speaks about "incarnation" which is "God taking on human nature in Jesus", i.e. - The Qur'an speaks against: "Jesus taking on divine nature" [or better: "Ascribing divine nature to Jesus" since it is done to him by others and not his own doing according to the Qur'an] - The Bible teaches: "(Part of) God taking on human nature"

* According to the Qur'an Christians say "God is Jesus" [5:72], but we say "Jesus is God" [which is a subtle but very important difference]. More details on this.

Answer:-

This Critic is quibbling with words instead of trying to understand:-

* "God is one of three". Allah is what Jesus calls Father, therefore, read "Allah is one of three".

* The Quran speaks against Tritheism. Correct. Christians believe in one God who reveals himself in three persons. To say three separate persons is Tritheism. It sounds like a committee. The Quran is right in removing such impressions.

* Quran 5:116 does not make Mary one of the three, but denounces the worship of Mary - whatever people worship IS a god for them by definition.

* Christians did and do worship Mary and call her "Mother of God". How many people think that this does not mean that Jesus is a god or that a mother of god is not a god.

* Anything which people worship is defined as a god. The Quran condemns the worship of anything but Allah. The Spirit of God is in man (32:9) so it could be said that Allah is within man or is incarnated in all human beings. This does not make them into gods and does not divide God.

* Christians do not say "God is Jesus" but "Jesus is God". There is no difference between these statements because Christians think that Jesus is equal with the Father. This Jesus denies (John 14:28). What is more Jesus cannot be God if God is a trinity, containing two others.

In fact, Jesus was known as Emanuel, which means "God with us". That is, he represents God on earth, as a judge might represent the Law or an Ambassador might represent the King.. The Quran also tells us not to make distinctions between Allah and the Messengers, but Muslims do not then fall into the superstition that the Messengers are Allah, but only that they represent Him - they are one in purpose.

Critic:-

Re: 16:64 - In respect to the Christian doctrine of the Trinity, the Qur'an certainly has failed its own promise to make things clear.

Answer:-

On the contrary, the doctrine of the Trinity is full of contradictions and confusion. The Quran makes things clear by rejecting some of its implications and insisting on the Unity of Allah.

Critic:-

Flexibility. Islam claims to be the universal, God-given religion for all times and for all of mankind. Let us look at this claim to universality in regard to two areas: A universal claim needs to be supported with universally verifiable evidence for its truth.

To be universal, a system must be flexible (adaptable) to the many different circumstances and cultures it is supposed to be apply to. But I detect much of rigidity in Islam and the tendency to force specific cultural behavior of 7th century Arabia on all believers everywhere, and not the flexibility to adapt the principles to an appropriate local application. This and related questions will be the focus of the present article.

Answer:-

There is a distinction between general rules and specific applications as there is a difference between the Laws of the Universe and local conditions. There is also a difference between the teachings of a religion and the applications made by people. Nevertheless, Islam spread to many countries and each country has its own adaptations of Islam.

Critic:-

Let me start off with one philosophical problem I see in a claim of Islam to be a universal message for all mankind and for all times. Do you think there ever was a time where God gave imperfect or faulty revelation? What do you think really is the "language of God" and His revelation? Even though the Qur'an speaks of many earlier prophets, it only seems to speak of 5(?) books given through prophets.

Answer:-

We think that Islam is perfect and without faults, though people have limitations. The language of God is the events in the Universe. They are all His revelations. The written Quran is a small book and cannot contain all details about everything. So it contains general concepts and examples. As things belong to classes or sets, it is not necessary to give all details but only examples. When you know the general rule then you can give it many different specific applications.

Critic:-

(Re: Torah, Zabur, Injil) These earlier available books (before Jesus) are written in Hebrew and Hebrew was the language of these prophets (Jesus also spoke Aramaic and possibly Greek). Hebrew was obviously good enough to convey God's perfect Word and Will. And God spoke through His prophets in this language for about 1500 years since Moses lived around 1450 BC and Jesus died about 30 AD Or 2000 years if we go back to Abraham.

Even according to the Qur'an therefore, God spoke revelation in Arabic for only 23 years in comparison to at least 1500 years of Hebrew. Or 1100 years from the first to the last prophet in the Old Testament, looking at the available scripture, as the New was written down in Greek -- the world language of the day (similar to the role English has now) for maximum distribution and comprehension everywhere.

On what basis then do Muslims claim that Arabic is God's only holy language? Muslims claim, that if you really want to understand God and His will you need to understand Arabic.

Answer:-

This is naïve nonsense. The Quran says:- "We never sent a Messenger save with the language of his people, that he might clarify the message to them. Then Allah leads whom He will astray, and guides whom He will; and He is the Mighty, the Wise." 14:4

Critic:-

Even the Jews have translated their Holy Scriptures into other languages (specifically Greek in around 200 BC) and especially Christians have translated their Scriptures from the earliest time [first century] onwards. Why so? This is based on the clear understanding of the miracle that God did on Pentecost, clearly showing that He wants all people to hear the good news of salvation in their own language [so that they can truly and thoroughly understand it] and all languages are equally good means to praise God for His greatness and in a way that is pleasing to Him. [Please read all of Acts 2 on this topic and see if that is not a proper conclusion of what God is doing there.

Hebrew or Greek was untranslatable and therefore they would have been so much more useful for conveying God's message to all people! And why did He make the only test for the "divine origin of the Qur'an" something which is absolutely unverifiable to at least 90% of the world's population, since hardly any non-Arabic speakers will ever reach a fluency sufficient to appreciate this claim of "inimitable eloquence" in the Qur'an at all?

Answer:-

Peter tells us in Acts 2:14-21 that this event at Pentecost was in fulfillment of a Prophecy about the Last Days. And there were other events connected with this e.g. The sun will turn into darkness and moon into blood. Was all this literally true? Were those the Last Days? Or was this event similar to what would happen in the Last Days? Most people knows that things cannot be wholly translated from language into another because the experiences of people and their use of language differ. It does not only consist of words and grammar but also rhythms, idioms, associations, similes and metaphors etc. The Quran like other scriptures has been translated into many languages but it is also necessary to interpret and explain. This is also true about other scriptures. But there is a difference between the Quran and other scriptures in that the Quran is a record of direct inspiration - it is first hand, while the other scriptures are reports by third parties about the doings and sayings of their Prophets. They are, therefore, interpretations by human beings and not the same thing as the original. As we know, several different interpretations of the same reality are possible. The Islamic position is that we should not confuse the reality with human interpretations.

Critic:-

[1} The Gospel itself has a clear universal claim in Acts 2 and is not only for the Jews! So, I can not accept that the Gospel was only of local and temporal significance, as Muslims like to say - and my detailed exposition on Matthew 15 on this group recently has shown the same thing. And there are many further passages all throughout the Bible which make clear that God always had all the earth in mind.

[2] Or how should I understand the "quality" of Arabic being "untranslatable" and the instruction that I cannot understand God's word if I do not first of all learn Arabic?

Answer:-

Jesus made it clear that he had come only for the Jews (Matthew 10:6, and 15:24) He sent his disciples to the rest of the world.

"Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost. Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you always, even unto the end of the world. Amen." Matthew 28:19-20. Note that the verse does not say that these three make God into a Trinity.

This is similar to the mission of Israel - they too were placed in the world to influence the rest of the world. Jesus (saw) was a Prophet within Israel. Muhammad (saw) was not. Religion broke out of its confines and became universalized with him.

The Quran is a recitation and it is the effects which are significant rather than the bare words. The meaning and significance can be conveyed by suitable teachers, those in whom the effects have become realized.

Critic:-

The center of any religion is the (right) worship of God. Islam demands that the recital of the Qur'an be done in Arabic and the ritual prayers be done in Arabic as the most important part of Islamic worship. And that holds for the majority of Muslims whose knowledge of Arabic is very scant. Most Muslims are expected to perform what is supposed to be a "meeting with their Creator" in a language they are not comfortable with if they even understand anything at all. This is exactly NOT the same for everybody, but for some it is their mother tongue and it is meaningful while for others it is just a sequence of sounds. In contrast, Christianity (not always, but usually) has emphasized, that all cultures and languages are equally created by God and equally acceptable to Him. And that we should and are allowed to approach God in a way that is really "us", including the use of the "heart language" for our worship in public as well as in private. In this it seems to me, Islam demands "provincial" rigidity, while Christianity offers truly universal flexibility without losing any content of faith. And who would argue that God doesn't speak all languages equally well? Is there really any need for God or for us that worship be performed in Arabic?

Answer:-

For most Christians it is the priests of the Church who perform the religious duties for people. The people were not allowed to read their scriptures but were required to obey the Church. I am sure that the critic also knows that until recently Church services were conducted in Latin. Islam, on the other hand, does not have an organized Church and priesthood and each person is directly responsible for the welfare of his own soul. This means that he has to acquire knowledge, understand the teaching and what is required of him and do it. There is no compulsion that his worship should be done in Arabic. If he does, then he must know what the words mean. The fact that many do not is a failing in them and not in Islam. It is certainly true that the original Arabic is much richer in meaning, but this would be ineffective unless effort is made to learn. This can be done through good teachers, and to some extent through good books.

Critic:-

I know there are sure reasons that one can advance for the positive side of all Muslims praying the same way…. But if we look around in creation, don't we see that God delights in variety? Aren't all plants and all animals worshipping their creator differently in various sounds, colors and each according to its own kind? If Creation is any indication of God's will this should make one think why God does seemingly talk "variety" in creation and "uniformity" in his book/religion?

Answer:-

Certainly there is variety but also similarity. There is not only a difference between cats and dogs, but there are also many cats and they behave more or less identically. Did not the Christian Church impose uniformity because people through their own whims, prejudices, ulterior motives, ignorance, superstition etc. were led astray and caused much confusion and conflict? When there is an efficient technique by which desired results can be obtained, is there any virtue in altering them? Does personal whims and idiosyncrasies lead to correct knowledge or objective results? If there is a straight path to a destination, is it recommended to wander off it?

However, though the outer form may seem uniform and correct the inner dimension might not be so. Conversely, the same inner state might be achieved by a variety of outer forms depending on the nature of people, but it will require a knowledgeable expert to achieve this. The effectiveness of a spiritual technique depends on the mental state - on the feeling, motive, thought and state of consciousness - but an appropriate physical state facilitate or hinder it.

It is necessary to understand that Islam does not have an organized Church and Priesthood to dictate matters, because this power has been abused and led to corruption. Instead, another method had to be found to prevent erosion of religion. The uniformity of worship is such a method. But it also carries a risk - that of emphasis on form rather than inner states. This ought to be counteracted by an appropriate educational system.

Regards variety, has the critic not come across the verse in the Quran which affirms that a variety in religious formulations and practices is valid?:-

"Unto every nation have We given sacred rites which they are to perform; so let them not then dispute about the matter, but summon thou unto thy Lord; verily, thou (Muhammad) indeed followest right guidance." 22:67

"For each of you have We appointed a Law and a traced out Path. Had Allah pleased He would have made you one nation, but that He may try you by that which He has given you. Therefore, vie with one another in virtue. Unto Allah will you all return, and He will then inform you concerning that wherein ye dispute." 5:48

But these applied to all the people concerned.

Critic:-

But it isn't only about the worship, "most" aspects of the life of Muhammad are taken by many Muslims to be the model par excellence. Most every act and habit of Muhammad, formed by this specific small cultural corner of the Quraish tribe, becomes the model all other cultures are supposed to adjust themselves to. In form of dress, of hair (beard) style, of "how to go to the bathroom" [that is what one Imam told us in his presentation of Islam], on which side you sleep etc. The "Sunna", the tradition (practice) of the Prophet is the second important element after the Qur'an for the majority of Muslims. I have the impression that Islam in many ways is stuck in "Arabism" and provinciality with its insistence on 7th century desert tribe rules, clothing, and other "important items" of outward behavior. These are just cultural expressions of the time of Muhammad, but have nothing to do with God's word (as I understand it). And note, I don't say these values and customs are bad. I only say this restriction doesn't mesh with the claim for universality in Islam. I could add a lot of detailed examples, but it isn't about one or two specific things, it is about the principle of rigidity inherent in the Sunna that is in tension with the claim for universality.

Answer:-

There are certainly people who wished to imitate the Prophet for reasons of piety and in the hope of becoming like him in nearness to God. But surely the critic knows that this was also the case with many Christians in the past who also wanted to imitate Jesus. In fact there is a famous book on the "Imitation of Christ". But there is no instruction in the Quran or Sunna to do this. The obligations for a Muslim are few in number and these are incorporated in what is known as the Five Pillars of Islam and some dietary and moral restrictions. It is integral to Islam that everything is permitted that is not expressly forbidden, though some things are recommended and some disapproved of. In fact, the Quran forbids making unlawful anything that has been made lawful by Allah (5:87, 16:116). It does not impose difficulties on people (2:185), but frees them from the burdens imposed in previous religions (7:157). Though there are many recommendations, the Quran asks us to do only as much as we can (64:16). This allows considerable cultural freedom and variation. The narrowness in practice is not due to Islam but a matter of culture.

There are certainly numerous different cultures in the world, and even in Muslim nations, and the people living under them are mostly quite comfortable in them. This shows that human beings are widely adaptable. There is really no difficulty for them if they are brought up under one culture rather than another. In fact, there is a diffusion of cultural influences. Elements of Chinese, Japanese, Indian and Middle Eastern culture have found their way into Europe and Western culture is certainly spreading throughout the World. The only problems that arises is that some cultural elements may not be compatible with the development of science and technologies or the commercial and economic systems and may obstruct them. Or vice versa, these developments may harm the social and cultural system, the physical environment and the psychological and spiritual welfare of people. Co-ordination, consistency and unification of all aspects of life is necessary and the cultivation of this is an important feature of Islam.

Critic:-

Comparing Bible and Qur'an facts and the way the two speak about culture, it speaks against the claim of Islam to be "universal" and Christianity to be "local" and "temporal" in outlook. Christianity seems to have a much higher cultural adaptability than Islam. Just as you would expect it from a truly universal faith given by God. And I agree, there are also many bad practices in Christianity, which don't always lend themselves as good illustrations of what I said here.

Answer:-

The practice of Islam does vary in different countries. Cultural features that do not contradict Islamic moral principles and spiritual practices are permitted. The illusion of inflexibility is caused by the fact that the majority of Muslims live in non-European countries and cultures. The "cultural adaptability" of Christianity seems to Muslims to be gradual erosion of morality and religion, and the abandonment of the teachings of Jesus. Cases in point are the modification of their attitude towards sexual morality, divorce and homosexuality.

Critic:-

Muslims acknowledge that there have been many prophets, but they claim that Muhammad is the only universal prophet, that he is the last prophet and his message is for all times. The other prophets have only been of local or temporal significance. Muhammad is not the only one who has claimed to be a messenger of God. There are many people who claim(ed) to be "prophets" or "messengers" even right up to our own times. Some of them even came "out of Islam" itself like Baha'ullah, Mirza Ghulam Ahmad, Rashad Khalifa. Others have proclaimed messages with superficial similarity to Christianity like Joseph Smith, the founder of the Mormons. These men and their messages are rejected by the majority of Muslims and Christians alike. Obviously we need some "standard" against which we can test whether somebody claiming to be a messenger from God is an impostor or really does have an authentic message from God. And it has to be a "test of Prophethood" which is reasonable, which can be verified by anybody who is serious to do so. And it has to be a test that all true prophets pass and all wrong prophets fail. We cannot just make up a new test for every new prophet. Otherwise it would just be arbitrariness and every group will devise a test which lets "their" prophet pass [on whose authenticity they have decided beforehand] and as such it is not a real test at all. It has to be an unambiguous test, and an objective test. If the message is only intended for a certain restricted group of people, it might be okay to give an authentication for the message that is meaningful to only this group. But if the message is intended to be universal, then the test has to be universal as well, and that means it must be intelligible to all people.

Answer:-

And who will create this criterion? The Jews, the Christians or Muslims or their various sects? And what of Buddhists and Hindus? Will their ideas of the Enlightened World Teacher, a Buddha or an Avatar be rejected? On what grounds? And when a criterion has been created will this ensure that everyone will adhere to it? If they apply other criteria will they be persecuted? Will God approve and adhere to these criteria?

(Continued in next article)

----------<O>----------

Answering-AIorg-06..........Contents