More Answers-1
Critic:-
Re: "The Prophethood of Muhammad is authenticated for Muslims by (a) the teaching he brought." - Is this nothing more than self-affirmation? If you hold to the teachings of Islam then how are you supposed to objectively point to the authentication of Muhammad by this means?
Re: "(b) The fact that he devoted his life to the establishment of Islam." - This is no authentication at all. You may as well extol Richard Branson for devoting his life to building the Virgin Empire. Not good enough.
Re: "(c) to his various abilities and achievements." - Which his critics point to as a proof of his false prophethood.
Re: "(d) his impact on the course of world history." - But the same can be said of Jesus, but even more so.
Re: "(e) The early converts followed him because they recognized his extra-ordinary charisma and sincerity." - These do not necessarily show one to be a true prophet of God. There are many cases of charismatic and sincere individuals who have led many astray.
Comment:-
(a) As Jesus said: "He that is of God heareth God's words: ye therefore hear them not, because ye are not of God." John 8:47
You want what you think is objective proof. But Religion is about what affects you. In fact, it is denied that there can be any proof apart from people to whom it is proof. It cannot possibly matter to you, for instance, that the Theory of Relativity has been mathematically proved by Einstein to his own or someone else's satisfaction.
(b) In the case of Richard Branson, it is certainly true that his faith and effort created the fact i.e. the Virgin Empire. The fact stands witness to the truth of his faith. The same is the case with Muhammad (saw). But if you do not see it - so be it.
(c) It is a matter of perception and knowledge and understanding. There is nothing to be done about people who have prejudices.
(d) We do not deny that Jesus was also a Messenger of God.
(e) Correct. But the false ones get found out and their movements fail.
Critic:-
Re: "Did those who followed Jesus require the kind of philosophical proofs the critic is speaking about? Did not Paul tell Christians that though Jews require signs and Greeks want wisdom, these are stumbling blocks and God can destroy the wisdom of the wise? (1 Corinthians 1:19-22)" - The point here is that the Christian message is not based on the same criteria for authentication that Islam is. The Quran demands that it is reasonable, and, therefore, it begs to be read philosophically so that the reader can be convinced of its authenticity. So the philosophical proofs demanded are not only valid, but are actually necessary. To argue otherwise, is to actually deny the Quran itself.
Comment:-
Are you saying that Christianity is inherently unreasonable? In that case anything whatever can be claimed and there could be no argument for or against it.
The Quran demands pondering and meditation. It requires purification from bias and subjectivity. It admits that it can be misunderstood and that people can be made worse by it. We are warned at the very beginning of the Quran that there are people who cannot be convinced by any amount of evidence.
Critic:-
Christians do not need to treat their faith in the same philosophically reasonable manner, in that the proof of authentication in Christianity is totally different. So those who followed Jesus would not have needed philosophical proofs (they wouldn't have understood them anyway) - all they needed to witness was Jesus' miracles. THAT is the proof of Christianity.
Comment:-
Islam is more advanced. It does not accept miracles as proof of the veracity of a doctrine. It requires people to understand the teaching. That is why it is based on the Book rather than a person. Moses performed miracles before Pharaoh but Pharaoh was not converted because his magicians could reproduce these through hypnosis. People can and do rationalize away any miracles they see or are gullible enough to accept tricks and illusions as miracles. Satan too can do miracles.
Critic:-
If the teachings of Islam should not include things that are "irrelevant", then why include miracles in the Quran? Are they not there for a reason? I have little doubt that Muhammad would have been rather less than impressed at your opinion of miracles. Are not Miracles a demonstration of God's power and dominion? Are they not a display of his care for those who fear Him? Are they not a witness to Prophethood too? How else could Moses have been shown to be a true prophet before Pharaoh?
Comment:-
They are not irrelevant to the purpose for which they are included. They do point to a world which transcends the ordinary one. (The modern world based on electronics is certainly a world which transcends the world known in the past). But they do not facilitate understanding of the teaching as shown by Pharaoh's continued skepticism.
Critic:-
However, the Islamic claim of an Original Universal Religion still remains unproved. The above answer is no more than assertion, and does not answer the problem of the failure of third-party witness to the truth of Islam. All Islam has to prove itself true is itself. There IS no independent witness.
Comment:-
I do not know what you will accept as proof.
It is sufficient proof of the Universality of Islam that it accepts all prophets and affirms that God sent Messengers to all people throughout the ages. This is a fact about Islam. The proof lies in the statements made in the Quran.
Islam means "submission to God" and wherever this is taught there we have Islam.
Stop quibbling about words and understand the meaning.
Critic:-
The Quran is set up precisely to judge the content of the Bible. Is it then not quite reasonable to judge the Quran by the Bible as well as vice versa?
Comment:-
The Quran was sent to guide mankind when a certain historical level was reached. The Quran accepts the Torah and Injil, which refer to the teachings brought by Moses and Jesus. We must distinguish between these teachings and the interpretation of people. These interpretations suffer from the limitations of the minds of the people who interpret them.
Study, discussion meditation etc. can and does improve understanding, but only if fixations on words and dogma are avoided and the mind is freed from subjective desires, self-interest, fantasies, prejudices and superstitions.
Critic:-
The critic makes a very good point about the consequences of believing that God would trick Jesus' disciples into believing that Jesus died when He didn't. The implication then is that God can't be trusted. The reply (that Satan may have deceived them) does not ring true for either Muslim or Christian, does it? There are too many problems with this approach:- If this happened, why does the Quran claim that God "made it appear so to them" (talking about deceiving Jesus' Roman executioners). Is it not blasphemous to claim that Satan was responsible for something done by God?
Comment:-
The Quran does NOT say that God "made it appear so to them". Have you not understood that the Injil refers to teachings sent through Jesus which is not the same as the New Testament. The New Testament contains some of the teachings of Jesus but also reports, interpretations and commentaries by third parties.
I have pointed out what the Quran says and that this does not contradict what happened, i.e. that the Jews did not kill Jesus and that Jesus claimed no one could take his life. I have also said that it could be that there was a time when the idea had a function but the time had come when it was to be superseded.
Critic:-
You wrote:- "When Jesus appeared to the disciples they thought he was a ghost. But he convinced them that he was still with flesh and bones. So he was not dead. Nor did he appear to them three days after the crucifixion."
No; it was the THIRD day after the crucifixion. Friday was day one, Saturday was day two, Sunday was day three. Where's the problem?
Comment:-
The problem lies in this :- "But he answered and said unto them, An evil and adulterous generation seeketh after a sign; and there shall no sign be given to it, but the sign of the prophet Jonas: For as Jonas was three days and three nights in the whale's belly; so shall the Son of man be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth." Matthew 12:39-40
And Jonas did not die and was not resurrected, though it appeared so to people who thought he had died.
Critic:-
Re: "Luke was not one of the Apostles and must have got his report from others."
He was Paul's helper, and he got his report from Paul and the other apostles, who were obviously too busy and not educated enough to write down their own testimonies, and so used those who could. Is this not exactly what Muhammad did with his revelations? The only difference is not the method of communication from prophet/apostle to scribe, but the method in which the writing is collated and titled.
Comment:-
Paul never met Jesus either.
The words Muhammad uttered were written down immediately word for word.
But if you want to cite what Muhammad did as evidence for the veracity of Luke then you must first admit the veracity of the Quran.
Critic:-
I am a little surprised that you differentiate between Jesus and Christ. I thought it was obvious from Luke's own Gospel, let alone the rest of the NT, just who was meant by the "Christ". Muslims are supposed to believe that Jesus was the Christ too, aren't they?
Comment:-
Yes Jesus was Christ. But we are speaking about title "the Son of Man". If we say Elizabeth is Queen of England, or Bush is President of the USA, we still know the difference between the person and the office. A person does not normally speak impersonally:- One does not hear Bush say about his action "The president says such and such."
Critic:-
Re: "Has the critic read the Gospel of Thomas which denies that Jesus was crucified?"
Do you mean this Gospel of Thomas: "Blessed the lion the man will eat, for the lion will become human, but cursed the man the lion will eat, and the lion will still become human" and you want us to take notice of this Gnostic rubbish?
Comment:-
You wish to deny the Old Testament or the Book of Revelations where similar ideas are found?
You wish to pick and choose according to your prejudices and limits of understanding, as no doubt the compilers of the Bible in the past did!
Another Critic:-
What is chiefly alleged here is a discontinuity between Paul and Jesus, between Judaism and "Pauline" Christianity. In Matthew 5:17ff Jesus said that he had not come to abolish the law but to fulfill it. In Romans 2:13 Paul wrote, "For it is not those who hear the law who are righteous in God's sight, but it is those who obey the law who will be declared righteous."
In these two passages we see Paul agreeing with Jesus that the law stands in the New Testament as it did in the Old Testament. There was no discontinuity between Jesus and Paul. Both affirmed the validity of the law. Both affirmed that we are obligated before God to obey the law. And both affirmed that we are not saved by obeying the law because no one is able to do so perfectly.
Comment:-
Yes I have noticed the similarity and that is why I think that many Christians have misunderstood Paul also and abandoned the Law. My argument is about the difference between Christian belief and the teachings of Jesus.
Critic:-
Immediately after affirming that the law will not be abolished Jesus explained how utterly powerless we are to obey it. We think that we are righteous because we have not taken someone else's life, but Jesus said if we hate someone we are guilty of murder. We think we are righteous because we have not committed adultery, but Jesus said if we lust after a woman we have already committed adultery. We think we are righteous because we follow the law regarding divorce, but Jesus said that anyone who divorces his wife without just cause (marital unfaithfulness) is guilty of making her into an adulteress. We think we are righteous because we love our brothers and hate only our enemies, but Jesus said if you want to be children of God you will love your enemies, just as God is good to both the righteous and the unrighteous. (Matthew 5:21-48)
Comment:-
You think Jesus said we were powerless to obey the Law? Is that why the Law was given by Moses and explained by Jesus?
But how does the crucifixion of Jesus cause the abolition of sin when Jesus himself tells us that we must obey the Commandments of God? (Matthew 7:21-23) In any case it is God who will do the forgiving.
Islam agrees that God sent messengers who devote their life to a mission, the purpose of which is to bring salvation to mankind and they are willing to sacrifice their life to this mission. But it seems a superstition to us to interpret this as meaning that the death of the Messenger brings salvation. It is also contrary to the teaching of the Messenger.
Critic:-
What Jesus was saying is that although the righteousness God demands is contained in the law, it also goes far beyond the law. And we are in grave danger if we think that God demands merely obedience to the law. What God's righteousness demands is obedience to the law in every particular detail, at absolutely every moment of life from the cradle to the grave, and all from a pure heart motivated only by a deep and abiding love for God and our fellow man. Anyone who falls short of that standard by so much as a whisker has earned eternal damnation in hell. This is the message of Jesus as well as the message of Paul.
Comment:-
Yes we know that the action is judged by the motive and the motive by correct understanding - Islam differentiates between law, faith and righteousness, i.e. between action, motive and being.
Religion has a function. From the Islamic point of view, it is to transform man, to set him on the ascending Straight Path to the destination from which he fell. Islam teaches that people will be rewarded according to the way they become modified. This is also the teaching of Paul. Jesus did not teach eternal damnation for those who fall short by a whisker as you claim.
The instruction to love God and one's neighbour as oneself refers to a motive. Whereas, it is possible to obey an instruction to an action, it is not normally possible to love on order. The purpose of religious law is to create a set of practices and a way of life, which will facilitate the development of man and of the correct motives. It is a question of actualizing what is already in man as a potentiality. That is why the Law is important. It is also important in creating a form or vessel in which the spirit of the law can be contained and stop man from sliding down.
Critic:-
The idea that the teachings of Paul and the teachings of Jesus are somehow incongruent is a common Muslim misconception. Paul said many things affirming the importance of the law and Jesus said many things supporting the idea that we are not saved by our good efforts to obey the law. But given that a Muslim is permitted to pick and choose which passages from the New Testament accurately represent the sentiments of Jesus or Paul or anyone else, this is not a question that can be readily discussed. Unless we agree to accept the representations of the texts in the New Testament as accurate, we are only wrestling in quicksand -- for there is really no other source in which to find the sentiments of those two men.
Comment:-
The impression that there is a difference of opinion between Jesus and Paul has been noticed by many people other than Muslims. It refers mainly to how they are interpreted.
I have had discussions with many Christians and do not pick and choose. I discuss what the Christians have picked and chosen. It is the Islamic position that it is this selectivity which corrupts religion. (5:14) It has done so in the past religions and it has happened to Islam also. I am pointing out that there is a difference between what Christians believe and what Jesus teaches for those who want to criticize Islam from the standpoint of their belief. Otherwise I would not have bothered. They can believe what they like.
Christian:-
It is no surprise that Muslims and Christians (especially) differ on the matter of what is or is not or does or does not constitute a book of Allah. I get the idea that a lot (many? most? all?) of Muslims seem to think that the only acceptable format for a divine book is that of the Qur'an, as if a book of Allah must be a sort of divine stenography. The New Testament does not have this format; ergo, it is impossible for the New Testament in its totality to be a book of Allah. To a lot of Muslims, this seems to be all that needs saying, as if they are taking the position that Allah only reveals himself in a book only by one modality. I am not enough of a scholar to be able to compare and contrast comparable Christian and Muslim ideas of revelation and inspiration. However, it seems to me that at times they are talking past each other because they are working from different notions of what a divine book must or may be like.
Comment:-
There is truth in this.
However, the Quran is not the only format in which God reveals Himself. He sends Messengers with teachings in the form the people to whom they are sent will understand. The created world is also a revelation. The Quran is a reminder to Creation.
The Muslim position is:-
A Messenger of God is one who receives a message from God and "speaks as he hears". This applied to Moses, Jesus and Muhammad (peace be on all of them). Muslims accept Jesus as the Word of God as do Christians. They also accept the Quran as the Word of God. In other words, Revelations refers to that which the Messengers become aware of owing to a higher, non-mundane consciousness, by reason of which they are in closer contact with Reality (Allah) than ordinary human beings. The Quran is, therefore, regarded in the same way as the real world, a fact of nature created by Allah. There is a difference between it and human opinions about it just as there is a difference between the real world and human descriptions of it.
Human beings and others (even bees) can be inspired to various degrees, but they all have their limitations. Allah is the creator and Truth is only that which He creates. That which is not the Word of God does not have certainty. It is human interpretation and speculation and should not be confused with Truth.
I am glad there is a Christian who agrees that the New Testament is not a Book of Allah. The problem with admitting this is that all other human interpretations and speculations are admitted as valid for religion. This is, of course, necessary to admit such doctrines as Trinity and vicarious atonement and homosexual marriages in the Church and so on.
This difference in attitude creates another fundamental difference between Islam and Christianity.
Critic:-
As many already know, about two years ago Denis Giron wrote an article on the Quran that most Muslims were unimpressed with, yet it became a cult classic among the cyber-kuffaar. That article, "Qur'an: A Work of Multiple Hands?" can be seen on the Internet. Of course, it is not absolute proof in any sense. But evidence in favour of it comes from the following:-
According to the Quran, there was a conversation that took place between Allah and Iblis after the latter rejected the former's command to prostrate before Adam. I have asked many times what the exact conversation was:-
According to the Qur'an, when Iblis refused to prostrate before Adam did Allah say:- "O Iblis! What ails thee that thou art not among the prostrate?" 15:32
Or did He say:- "O Iblis! What prevented thee from doing obeisance to him whom I created with My two hands? Art thou too proud or art thou of the Exalted Ones?" 38:76
And according to the Qur'an, what was Iblis' response? Was it:- "Why should I prostrate myself before a mortal whom Thou hast created from potter's (sound emitting) clay of black mud wrought into form." 15:33
Or was it:- "I am better than he; Thou hast created me of Fire, and him Thou didst create of dust (or clay)." 38:77
Comment:-
This naiveté is amazing. Particularly because the unbeliever, though intelligent, cannot see this and has made great efforts to rationalize away something which he could have simply ignored if he did not understand it or agree with.
Does he think that the when the Quran was made into a book and read by millions of people over more than a millennium, this has never been noticed before without building absurd theories about it? Why does he need the exact literal conversation? Why not go by the meaning and the context? Does he think that this was a literal conversation, a historical event? And why can not both versions be extracts from the same conversation for different purposes?
The Quran is a book on spiritual matters not on history. These are teaching stories about types of psychological and social events. One is supposed to learn something from them. This cannot be done by means of a negative attitude. These criticisms are, therefore, completely off the point.
Critic:-
Consider another case, this time between human beings:-
FIRST VERSION
"Pharaoh said: Did you (the magicians) believe in him (Moses) without my permission? This must be a conspiracy you schemed in the city, in order to take its people away. You will surely find out. I will cut your hands and feet on alternate sides, then I will crucify you all." 7:123-124
Comment:-
We are told about the arrogance of Pharaoh, which leads him to think that there is a conspiracy against him. A person who cultivates some self-awareness will find the same mechanism within himself and will also recognize it in others and in the social and political events. They will recognize that Pharaoh represents the Ego within them, Moses represents the Spirit of God and the Magicians refer to the intellect.
Critic:-
SECOND VERSION
"He said: Did you believe in him without my permission? He must be your chief; the one who taught you magic. I will surely sever your hands and feet on alternate sides. I will crucify you on the palm trunks. You will find out which of us can inflict the worst retribution, and who outlasts whom." 20:71
Comment:-
Here the arrogance leads Pharaoh to threaten a worse punishment than God can deliver and that he can outlast God. Apart from making himself greater than God he also conveys the idea that evil is greater than good and pain is a greater deterrent than the promise of joy is an incentive. Temper makes him exaggerate his powers.
Again we see that this conversation could refer to something conducted within anyone's mind. When put in context the verse indicates that great spiritual strength is required to overcome such fear of external things. The story when taken in, strengthens a person spiritually because he aligns himself with these repentant, converted magicians.
Critic:-
THIRD VERSION
"He said: Did you believe with him before I give you permission? He must be your teacher, who taught you magic. You will surely find out. I will sever your hands and feet on alternate sides. I will crucify you all." 26:49
Comment:-
Here Pharaoh does not say "without my permission" but "before I give you permission" and he assumes that Moses had taught the magicians. Have you not observed this kind of argument? Do not people suppose that their opponents have been brain washed by someone? Is it not also often true? And do they not acquire murderous thoughts against their opponents? And do they not sometimes torture them in actuality either physically or in verbal and other ways?
There is, of course, more to be learnt from this by meditation, but this will suffice to make the point.
Critic:-
It is here that I would like to quote a passage from Cook and Crone, written 25 years ago:
"[The Qur'an] is strikingly lacking in overall structure, frequently obscure and inconsequential in both language and content, perfunctory in its linking of disparate materials, and given to the repetition of whole passages in variant versions. On this basis it can plausibly be argued that the book is the product of belated and imperfect editing of materials from a plurality of traditions." [Patricia Crone and Michael Cook, "Hagarism: The Making of the Islamic World," (Cambridge, 1977) p. 18]
Comment:-
Crook and Crone, like the present critic tell us about their own understanding or lack of it and present this as if it was objective fact. This is obviously false. They assume that the Quran is an ordinary book and criticize it according to their prejudices of what a book should be. Muslims reject this idea.
Critic:-
We could conclude many things from these differences. We could conclude that maybe God's plan was to present the quotes in different fashions so that they would have different meanings. Maybe there is a numerical miracle woven into the variant versions. Or maybe the book we call "al-Quran" is really just a compilation of traditions pulled from a plurality of sources. In that last possibility, we would have a scenario where the stories were on the lips and minds of the early community, and when the Qur'an was written/compiled, it was pulled from these people. Some people had slightly different versions, and variants were woven into the text.
I, personally, lean towards a multiple hands theory, while I'm sure all the Muslims lean away from it. I would be curious as to recommendations on possible methodologies for determining what is the most probable cause of this interesting Quranic literary structure. Obviously no one can prove their version of history beyond all doubt, but maybe there is a way for determining the most likely one? Occam's razor perhaps? I'm open to suggestions.
Comment:-
There are three ways of arguing:-
(1) You start from certain known premises P, which have been independently verified and make your inferences I, according to valid rules R. The inferences are then proved valid or true.
(2) You start with certain premises P that you assume and make inferences I, according valid rules R and test these for validity. If these are true, useful and make sense by being consistent with your experiences then the premises can be regarded as true.
(3) The third possibility is that given valid premises P and inferences I, one can create rules R which will then be regarded as valid. These can then be combined with either the Premises to produce Inferences or combined with Inferences to justify Premises. Or the Rules may be given to you.
However, several different rules can be constructed and it is not necessary that anyone of them will apply to all things. The context or Field F, where the whole argument applies must also be considered.
As indicated above I do not think the Quran, as Muslims understand it, is the same Field F as these secular critics understand it. There is no connection between these two views. Therefore, the rules applied to interpret and understand the Quran are quite different. For Muslims, the Quran is understood by inspiration, meditation and application, not by literary criticism and verbal logic.
----------<O>----------