Home | AboutMSA | Executive | Events | MSA Library | Networking | Quran | Hadith | The Prophet's Companions | Islamic Poems | Email MSA
Muslim Answers to an Inquiring Christian
By Abu Iman Abd ar-Rahman Robert Squires. Based on a response to an email message from David Cunningham. © Muslim Answers
March 21, 1996
RS: 16 Dhu al-Qidah 1416
From: psyclos@vero.com <David Cunningham>
To: rws@kuwait.net
Subject: Prayers for all Muslims
Dear "AbdurRahman",
Hi, I am extremely impressed by your obvious intelligence and eloquence when writing. I appreciate, very much that you replied to my mail, and addressed me with your responses to other articles within your subscribed newsgroup. Please forgive my feeble attempts to express my faith in my Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. I am not the eloquent writer that you are, nor do I confess to be an expert with Biblical or Qur'an teachings. I am grateful for your response, because it further pushes me toward a better understanding of my Lord and Savior Jesus Christ.
RS: Dear "David",
RS: Thanks for the response as well as the compliments. I'm sorry that my first response left you a bit disappointed in some areas. I admit that it was a bit rushed, so this time I'll try to give more details. Before moving on, I would like to say that what we should be working towards here is a better understanding of Almighty God. By limiting yourself to your "Lord and Savior Jesus Christ", at least from a Trinitarian point of view, aren't you selling yourself a little short? From the point of view of Pure Monotheism, you've definitely slipped into relativity and made the finite an end in itself. You see, my Lord, and everyone else's ONLY Lord, whether they admit it to themselves or not, is Almighty God. Your "Lord Jesus", peace be upon him, also had a God (John 20:17), but Almighty God does not have a God that he calls upon. Just a thought which I've included in spite of the fact that you'll probably find a way to rationalize it one way or another. I just hope and pray that Almighty God opens your heart to His Truth and that you begin to rely on Him alone.
RS: Also, why do almost all of the Christians that I correspond with on the Internet include a disclaimer statement at the beginning of what they write? You said: ". . . nor do I confess to be an expert with Biblical or Qur'an teachings." I don't "confess" to be an "expert" either - just a Muslim trying to defend the Truth. But anyway . . . if you feel that you're not up to the task, then you should let the "experts" handle it, otherwise you should drop the disclaimer. Regardless, in regards to "experts" and the like, "the proof is in the pudding" as they say.
I have a few questions for you. First, you side stepped, and completely ignored answering my original question, "How could Islam's teachings reflect Jesus as a great and faultless Prophet, if He lied to all Muslims (insert: and Christians) about being the Divine Son of God? Answer: He did not lie!!". Please respond to this question, with a precise answer. You stated: "Actually, if what you say is true, then God is a liar - as well as Jesus". You neglected to state that the Qur'an is then also a lie, please see below, Sura 3:84.
RS: Well I certainly didn't side-step or ignore anything, but it seems as though you were unable to draw adequate conclusions from the points that I made, possibly due to lack of background knowledge. From what I have read of your thoughts in this letter, you seem to lack a proper understanding of the basic tenets of Islam. However, you're still welcome to still believe that I "side stepped, and completely ignored" your questions, even though I doubt that you'll still believe the same after reading this response. And on this note, I should point out that your feeble attempts to prove to me that I've violated a Qur'anic statement are not only baseless, but offensive as well. I guess if there was any truth to the accusations, the criticism would be more worthy of consideration. In Islam, we are taught not to delve into matters that we know nothing, or very little, about, especially when it comes to judging other people - especially in matters of faith. Before moving on to the point-by-point refutation of your letter which you requested, let me just say that on almost every point that you've tried to make, you've invariably "put the cart before the horse". If you really want to realize the Truth, you need to take a step back and try to take an unbiased look at things. From the sounds of your writings, you've just be reading (or hearing) anti-Islamic propaganda, since your arguments seem neither to be based on facts nor very well thought out. Don't let your Protestant friends and preachers spoon-feed you, go out and read an alternate view written by the people who adhere to it.
RS: First of all, throwing around titles such as "great" or "faultless" is pointless unless one knows how the equivalent Arabic words are used in the Qur'an. Suffice it to say that certain prophets in the Qur'an are given unique titles or distinctions that no one besides that particular prophet is given. For example, the great title "Khaleel" (Friend) is reserved for Abraham, peace be upon them (see 4:125), and Moses is distinguished by the fact that Almighty God spoke directly to him (see 4:164). In regards to the use of the word "faultless" (zakiyaa) for Jesus, peace be upon him, the verse that says this (i.e. 19:19) refers to Qur'an 3:36, which says: " . . . Lo! I have named her Mary, and Lo! I crave Thy protection for her and for her offspring from Satan the outcast." However, even though this descriptive title is used for Jesus, and the fact that both Jesus and Mary were protected from Satan, this does not make Jesus "Divine" in any way. A word from the same root as "zakiyaa" is used in Qur'an 24:21 when describing how the grace and mercy of God purifies (zakaa) the believers in general. Also, in 19:13, John the Baptist (Yahya) is given a unique title. He is referred to as "zakawah", which also comes from the same root as the word "zakiyaa" which is used for Jesus, peace be upon him. Additionally, a young boy in 18:74 is described as "zakiyah" (i.e. innocent), which also comes from the same root. In this verse it refers to being seemingly innocent, not absolutely so. The word used for John means "pure", "righteous" and/or "faultless". We, as Muslims, accept all of these descriptions, but none of them lead to the conclusions that the Christians want. This is because "faultless" doesn't necessarily mean the same thing that Christians take it to mean, i.e. "faultless" in an absolute or "Divine" sense, as the above mentioned verses indicate.
RS: Another point that should be mentioned is the Bible's erroneous portrayal of Jesus, peace be upon him. I know that Christians believe that he was "faultless" and "sinless", but I'm not so sure that the New Testament logically supports that view. I think part of the problem is that each of the so-called "gospel" writers had their own ideas (not "inspirations") about Jesus, and thus made some blunders. For example, in Matthew 5:22 Jesus says: " . . . but whoever says: "You fool!" shall be in danger of hell fire." However, in Luke 11:40, Jesus (allegedly) says about the Pharisees: "Foolish ones! . . ." (See also Luke 12:20 and 24:25.) Many Christians will probably find this rather shocking (and offensive), but keep in mind that I'm only quoting from the Bible. These quotations are NOT taken out of context, so don't accuse me of that. Jesus says that calling someone a "fool" is a sin, but in another verse he does just the same! That seems rather odd to me. In other verses, such as Matthew 12:34 and 23:33, Jesus (allegedly) calls people by names much worse than "fool". Additionally, in Matthew 15:21-28, the (alleged) incident of the woman of Canaan is reported. In this story, Jesus (allegedly) compares the Gentiles (i.e. non-Jews) to "dogs". Mark 7:24-30 reports the same (or similar) incident, even though here the woman is described as a "Greek". Based on this evidence, it seems that the Christians either have to choose between believing in a "sinless" Jesus or believing that everything in the Bible is the "inspired" word of God - since based on the above evidence, both of them can't be true. Personally, I've never heard any explanations from Christians concerning these verses that amount to anything more than a denial (or a quick change of subject). I'll never forget (insha'llah) an incident which I witnessed when a Muslim, who happened to be an African-American, questioned a panel of Christians about these verses. You should have seen the dumb-founded looks! I mean honestly, what could they say? Are you being true to yourself here? Wouldn't you, if you saw someone going around calling people "fool", "dog" "swine" and "viper", consider him to be sinning? Certainly! It should be clarified, so that you don't try to misuse the above statements, that I, as a Muslim, believe that Jesus was "faultless" and reject the notion that he committed any of the above acts. That's why I repeatedly use the word (allegedly) above. So please don't try to use my statements above in order to accuse me of defaming Jesus, as Christians often do to Muslims when faced with this issue. I, as a Muslim, am simply trying to show that it is the Bible that is at fault here, not Jesus, peace be upon him.
RS: Additionally, if Christians want Muslims to start thinking that a sinless (or faultless) man is better than a repentant one, they are going against the direct teachings of Jesus. In Matthew 18:12, we read the 'Story of a Lost Sheep'.: In this story, Jesus says: "If a man has a 100 sheep and one of them has gone astray, does he not leave the 99 on the hills, and go on the search of the one that went astray. And if he finds it, truly I say to you, he rejoices over it more than over the 99 that never went astray." In a statement on this same subject, the Prophet Muhammad, peace be upon him, said: "One who repents from sin is like one without sin." (Reported by Abu 'Ubaidah ibn 'Abdullaah and collected by Ibn Majah. Classified as "hasan" by Shaikh Nasr ad-Deen al-Albaani.) So it seems that Muslims, in their beliefs, are being more true to both the teachings of Jesus AND the teachings of Muhammad, peace be upon them, than their Christian counterparts.
RS: Now on to the next point . . . you seemed to be basing your above statements on a mistaken assumption: You said: ". . . if He lied to all Muslims (insert: and Christians) about being the Divine Son of God". That's a big "if", since who said that he lied? Anyone who says that Jesus, peace be upon him, was a liar is not a Muslim, so don't try to put words into my (our) mouth(s). It seems as though you're trying to say (albeit in a rather indirect and crude manner) that you feel that the Muslim position in regards to Jesus and the Bible must cause us to logically conclude that Jesus, peace be upon him, was either the "Divine Son of God" or a liar. However, before I move on and address this issue in the detail which you requested, let me just say that based on your statement above, I could seemingly accuse you of lying on the behalf of Jesus. This is because Jesus, peace be upon him, is NEVER called the "Divine Son of God" in the Bible, but only the "Son of God". This point in itself is enough to refute your argument! But if we want to really wrap up this issue, a few more points should be made. One thing that should clearly be brought out is the fact that it seems as though you have no qualms about adding words to Biblical descriptions. Aren't the Biblical descriptions good enough? There is no specific text where Jesus claims to be the "Divine Son of God", but only allegorical texts that you interpret (due to pre-conceived notions) to mean that. Certainly, there are texts that call him the "Son of God", but the word "Divine" certainly does not precede this title. It should also be pointed out that the Bible never calls Jesus "God the Son", which insinuates that he is the "Third Person" of the Trinity. The title "God the Son" is a Christian innovation - like most other Trinitarian language.
RS: Moving on . . . the false-dilemma that you bring up above, i.e. Jesus is either the "Divine Son of God or he's a liar" is not a new one - the "Born Agains" have been using (or mis-using) it for years. Sometimes they say that Jesus, peace be upon him, was either "a liar, a lunatic or Lord". This may be a catchy phrase to the simple-minded, but there are two grave errors in this argument: 1) it uncritically assumes that everything attributed to Jesus in the New Testament was actually spoken by him; and 2) it assumes that there is no other option. Concerning the Muslim view of the so-called "gospels", and the Bible in general, I will address that in detail below. But that issue aside, at most the New Testament provides IMPLICIT and AMBIGUOUS support for the so-called "Divinity" of Jesus (especially from the point of view of one who understands Pure Monotheism). Pointing out the fact that he was referred to as the "Son of God" is pointless, because in numerous places in the Old Testament prophets, kings and even entire nations are given this title - and it is not taken to imply "Divinity" in those cases. (For a few examples of the use of the term "son(s) of God" in the Bible, see Genesis 6:2; Exodus 4:22; Deuteronomy 14:1; 1 Chronicles 22:10; Psalm 82:6-7; Job 1:6; Jeremiah 31:9; Matthew 5:9 and Luke 3:38.) So like all other verses that Christians use for justifying their beliefs, there's always another explanation - and usually one that is more true to the text. Maintaining that the term "Son of God" applies uniquely to Jesus, peace be upon him, is just wishful thinking, since this cannot be proven explicitly. Suffice it to say that in formulating their doctrines, Christians not only ignore the EXPLICIT and LOGICAL denials of divinity in the New Testament, but they also interpret the ambiguous phrases to fit their pre-conceived notions. Christians sometimes try to downplay an EXPLICIT DENIAL of divinity by (more-or-less) saying that "we believe Jesus was a human being". However, they miss the simple fact that claiming to be a human-being is one thing, but DENYING that you're God is quite another. (Try to reflect on that point a bit, if you have the time.) And regarding the "other option" . . . Jesus was neither God nor was he a liar, but simply a great prophet sent by God. This can even be strongly supported from the Bible itself, if one simply gives the correct emphasis to the EXPLICIT statements of Jesus, peace be upon him, and interprets IMPLICIT statements in light of the clear and explicit statements - instead of pre-conceived notions. There have been quite a number of Christian denominations throughout history who viewed Jesus as only a human (non-Divine) messenger - and there are still some. One reason for this, as I will discuss below, is that the Biblical evidence is, at best, unclear and indecisive especially to those who understand the meaning of Pure Monotheism (Arabic: Tawheed). Additionally, the New Testament describes Jesus, peace be upon him, as a "prophet" in quite a number of places (See Matthew 21:11; Matthew 21:45; Mark 6:4; Luke 7:16; Luke 13:33 and John 9:17). So basically, my statement "Either Jesus is NOT God or he is a liar" still holds true. If you're interested in reading the details of this discussion, please read the article A Muslim Response to a Christian Response.
RS: As far as your statement that " . . . the Qur'an is then also a lie, please see below, Sura 3:84.", suffice it to say that the pre-conceived notions that lead you to this false conclusion have already been demolished. However, below I will deal with the second aspect of your false-dilemma, i.e. that Muslims must accept everything that is reported in the so-called "gospels".
I recognize the fact that you enjoy using bits and pieces of the Bible to dispute Christian theology. The is seems to me, to be a conflict in itself. The Bible is the inspired Word of God, "All scripture is by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction and righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work. I charge you therefore before God and the Lord Jesus Christ, who will judge the living and the dead at His appearing and His kingdom......For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine, but according to their own desires, because they have itching ears, they will heap up for themselves teachers; and they will turn there ears away from the truth, and be turned aside to fables" 2Tim 3:16-4:4. I am sorry I took that scripture a little further than I probably should have , but I believe it was within the context of my charge. May I also point out, that the referenced scripture does not mention "interpretation" (please see below, your statement). I prefer a word for word adherence to the inspired (by GOD) Word of God (Bible).
RS: I'm so glad that you used the passage from II Timothy above, because it has to be one of the most mis-used passages in the Bible. Suffice it to say that your reasoning (and I use the word loosely) is rather weak and shortsighted. First of all, let me just say (and this might surprise you) that I completely agree that "all scripture is by inspiration of God". However, this is basically a valueless statement because what does the word "scripture" mean? It means Divinely revealed (or "inspired") books that speak the will of God. Thus to say that all "all scripture is by inspiration of God" is the same as saying "all books that were inspired by God were inspired by God". This is pointless double-speak that not only proves NOTHING, but also fails to address the real issue. This issue is whether or not something that people CLAIM to be scripture really is a scripture - in whole or in part. This is not to mention the fact that when this statement was originally made by (St.) Paul, he was referring NOT to the New Testament, but only to the Jewish writings that he (rightly or wrongly) considered to be scripture. As most Protestant Christian apologists usually do, you failed to mention the verse JUST BEFORE the passage which you mention. In II Timothy 3:15, we read: " . . . and from childhood you have known the Holy Scriptures . . ." Obviously, since none of the so-called "gospels", nor the Epistles of (St.) Paul, could have existed in this person's "childhood", the entire New Testament is excluded from this passage. If later Christians came to believe that everything that they claimed was "inspired by God" was really "inspired by God", then that's their mistake. So suffice it to say that I submit to and follow the authentic Word of God, but just because someone CLAIMS that they have been "inspired" doesn't mean that I believe them. Also, since all of the books of the New Testament were deemed "Divinely inspired" by a Church that already had a certain theological point of view, it comes as no surprise that some parts of the books that they selected (at the expense of others) confirm their beliefs. Suffice it to say that even if you could produce an (alleged) statement of Jesus, peace be upon him, in the New Testament in which he explicitly says "I am God, worship me!", this would only prove that the Church had made a mistake in its selection of gospels.
The Qur'an states: "Say, We believe in Allah and that which hath been sent down to us, and that which was sent down to Abraham, and Ishmael, and Isaac, and Jacob, and the tribes, and that which was delivered to Moses, and Jesus, and the Prophets from their Lord; we make no distinction between any of them; and to Him we are resigned" Sura 3:84.
RS: Praise be to Almighty God! What a beautiful verse! Unfortunately for you, it doesn't mean what you seemingly want it to mean. To put it rather simply, I do believe in what Almighty God revealed to Abraham, Moses, Jesus and all of His prophets peace be upon them. However, just because you CLAIM to have what was revealed to Moses or Jesus, peace be upon them, does not mean that your claim is true. That should be easy enough to understand. I'm sure that you're aware of the fact that dozens of "apocryphal" gospels exist, many of which claim to be the inspired word of God. One of the oldest (if not the oldest) known Biblical manuscripts, the Codex Sinaiticus, includes the Epistle of Barnabas and the Shepherd of Hermas. Why don't you consider these two books to be the "Word of God"? Certainly, at one time, many Christians did. If a CLAIM is all it takes, then why don't you accept everything that claims to be "inspired" as actually being so? Actually, following the logic that you've tried to employ above, this is what you should do!
RS: But anyway, in regards to the Muslim view of the Christian scriptures, let me give you some help here . . . most Christians who spend time trying to dupe Muslims into accepting their false beliefs usually quote verses from the Qur'an other than the one that you've used above. (For example, see 3:93, 5:46, 5:50, 5:69, 5:71 and 10:94.). Don't worry, these verses don't cause "problems" for me - I love them! Not only are they full of Divine Truth and succinctly elegant, they are great in exposing the dishonest use of God's True Scripture by Christians like yourself. Due to this fact, and what you've mentioned above, I think a quick analysis of the various Qur'anic verses concerning the subject of the "Tawraat" and the "Injeel", and how they relate to the Bible, is in order. This way, we'll obtain some balance and avoid looking at only one side of the evidence (as you've tended to do). I feel that this is the best way to clarify the reasons behind your observations that I "enjoy using bits and pieces of the Bible to dispute Christian theology" - which I certainly don't deny, by the way!
RS: At the heart of this particular matter is the fact that by dishonestly using various Qur'anic verses (or at a minimum not thinking things through before they use them), Christians hope to trick simple-minded Muslims into accepting the Bible as "Divine Revelation" in toto. Unfortunately, some Muslim apologists (such as Ahmad Deedat), instead of refuting this argument, have decided to play this game with the Christians. This is because, as I have shown in my previous writings, that even if we accept the Bible as a whole (if just for "argument's sake"), Christian doctrines have, at best, contradictory support in the Biblical text. This method of approach, however, is in my opinion of questionable benefit, since it usually keeps going around in circles. But what of the claims that the Qur'an confirms the Bible? I won't dispute that there are two or three complete (or almost complete) Bible manuscripts that pre-date the time of Prophet Muhammad, peace be upon him. There have been some dissenting (non-Muslim) opinions on this, however, for now I'll leave those alone since my upcoming arguments aren't effected by them one way or another. One important point that you may (or may not) already be aware of is the fact that Almighty God describes the Qur'an as "al-Furqaan" (The Criterion), which means it is used to decide "right from wrong" and "truth from falsehood". Additionally, this name implies that there is both truth AND falsehood in the writings of the "Ahl al-Kitaab" (Jews and Christians). If it was ALL true or ALL false, then why would a "Criterion" be needed? Unfortunately for the Christians, however, the Qur'aan never confirms "The Bible" as such, but only the "Injeel" and the "Tawraat" (which are the actual revelations given to Jesus and Moses, peace be upon them). The Qur'an never confirms EVERYTHING that Christians CLAIM to be from God, only that which is REALLY from God. To say that these two things are same is a "leap of faith", to put it mildly.
RS: Additionally, the word "Al-Kitaab" (the Book) as employed in the Qur'aan never specifically means "the Bible", but is variously used to refer to the Qur'an itself, previous revelations and/or revelations in general. Certainly, Christians must accept that just because something claims to be "a gospel" doesn't make it one. There are many apocryphal gospels. The same holds true for each VERSE in the current four (so-called) "gospels". Muslims take them on a case-by-case basis, NOT based on our WHIMS, but based on Qur'anic GUIDANCE. So we can say "Yes, you Christians have "The Gospel", but everything that you CLAIM is "Gospel" is NOT really part of it". This is the point. This point is also consistent with the Qur'an's criticism that Christians have gone astray in their beliefs, in spite of the fact that they have enough of the truth.
RS: In regards to the "The Gospel", what was "the gospel" that Jesus preached according to Matthew 4:23, 9:35, 11:5; Mark: 1:15, 8:35; Luke: 4:18, :7:22, 9:6 and 20:1? Certainly Muslims believe that it was Pure Monotheism and the message that God accepts the repentance of all those who turn to Him - and that none should ever despair of the Mercy of their Lord. This is what the parables of Jesus, peace be upon him, teach too - as well as the Sermon on the Mount. Additionally, when asked DIRECTLY "What do I need to do in order to get into Heaven?" and "What is the greatest commandment?", Jesus gave EXPLICIT and CLEAR answers (besides denying that he was God). How could a prophet doing the work of Almighty God do otherwise? If something such as the "Doctrine of the Trinity" or having Jesus as one's "Lord and Personal Savior" is so important, wouldn't it be unjust - if not criminal - for it not to be an EXPLICIT teaching? It should be kept in mind that Jesus' audience was made up mostly of Jews, so when he mentioned "One God", they certainly understood it in an absolute and non-Trinitarian way. (If you don't already know Jesus', peace be upon him, clear answers to these direct questions, please see Matthew 19:16-17; Mark 10:17 -19; Luke 18:18-20 and Mark 12:28-34; Matthew 22:35-40.) Based on this, and the already mentioned fact that the New Testament says that Jesus, peace be upon him, went around preaching "the gospel", Christians should be able to COMPLETELY derive their doctrines and "Gospel message" from the words of Jesus as reported in the New Testament. However, everyone who has taken a look at the evidence should be able to conclude that Christians certainly cannot do this - they have to appeal to the epistles of Paul and to an innovated Trinitarian vocabulary. So what was this "gospel" that Jesus was preaching? Was it CLEARLY the Divine Incarnation, the Atonement and the Trinity? I think not! It seems as though the God which you believe in doesn't feel that it is necessary to make the Truth clear. Considering that people's Eternal Salvation depends on receiving God's revealed Truth, it doesn't seem too "Loving" or "Merciful" to make it a confusing "stumbling block" especially to those who are firmly grounded in the Pure Monotheism that was the basis for all of His previous revelations. In contrast to the confused muddle of Christianity, Muslims believe that Almighty God sends His prophets with a clear message. In support of this, I should mention that the Prophet Muhammad, peace be upon him, said: "There is not one thing that shall bring you closer to the Paradise and away from the Fire without me having informed you of it, and there is not one thing that will take you away from Paradise and towards the Fire except that I have warned you about it." What more could mankind ask for?
RS: Moving back to our earlier point, based on the Qur'anic verses which we cited earlier, Muslims can (and possibly must) admit that Christians DO have "the Gospel", but this certainly doesn't mean that ALL of the words attributed to Jesus are REALLY his. Muslims use "al-Furqaan" (the Criterion of the Qur'an) to decide that. If Christians say that "There's never been another Gospel" (as they usually do), this statement actually works against them. This is because of the Bible verses cited above which show that Jesus preached "the gospel". Even Christians agree that the so-called "gospels" of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John came later. So who's guilty of coming up with new ones or adding to the words of Jesus, peace be upon him? The true "Gospel" would be completely printed in red letters, if you know what I mean. This is because when the word "gospel" is used in the four "gospels" it refers to the actual words and message that Jesus preached. However, the "gospels" of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John contain a lot of words that are not "in red" - i.e. the words of Jesus (either real or alleged). Thus these words are not really "Gospel" in the pure sense of the word. Anyway, the basic "Good News" (i.e. Gospel) message is certainly still present in the four gospels (especially for those who like to emphasize the explicit over the allegorical). Due to this, Almighty God saw it fit to say that the Christians should follow the "Gospel" (Injeel) that they have, etc., as the verses mentioned above (roughly translated) say. It should also be kept in mind that these Qur'anic verses were revealed knowing that Christians now have access to the Qur'an and the Sunnah, which will clearly show them how to follow the "Injeel" of Jesus. Before closing on this point, I think that I should mention an eloquent Qur'anic criticism, which is the verse: "Therefore woe be unto those who write the Scripture with their hands and then say, 'This is from God'" (2:79). What a more fitting description of the alleged "scriptures" of the "People of the Book" (i.e. Jews and Christians). This verse lends direct support to what I mentioned about how not everything that Christians CLAIM to be from God is really from Him.
RS: And another clarification . . . due to the mistaken views of quite a number of Muslims and Christians, when discussing the Qur'anic view of the Bible, it should be mentioned that "the Bible" (which is a HUMAN collection of a MIXTURE of Divine revelation AND human writings) was not really "corrupted" in the often understood sense. What actually happened was that people neglected part of what was revealed and added human writings to the real Revelation. "God's Word" (i.e. the True Revelation) was never "corrupted" in the sense that something Almighty God wanted to preserve was somehow lost. Muslims certainly don't believe any such blasphemy. The truth is always clear, accessible and manifest, and any revelation (or "inspiration") that God chooses to preserve stays preserved. However, this does not stop people from adding human words to "God's Word" and/or distorting its meaning. This also doesn't mean that some writings that were revealed to some prophets were not lost. This poses no problem, since God can always raise up another prophet. In the case of Muhammad, peace be upon him, who was God's Final Messenger, what was revealed to him will be preserved until the Last Day. Anyway, it should be pointed out that even Christians can't claim that the four "gospels" preserve ALL of Jesus' words, but just the essence of his message. If all of his words were take from the four so-called "gospels", they would barely fill two column in a newspaper! How hypocritical of Christians to accuse Muslims of believing that "God's words" have been lost when they, based on their beliefs, MUST admit the same. Additionally, every word spoken by Jesus, peace be upon him, was not part of the "Injeel", just like not every word spoken by Muhammad, peace be upon him, was not part of the Qur'an. The Qur'an contains the direct words of Almighty God as revealed to Muhammad, peace be upon him, and the Hadeeths contain his "inspired" (i.e. indirectly revealed) sayings.
RS: So suffice it to say that the Qur'an never affirms "the Bible" as such, but only the revelations sent to Moses and Jesus, peace be upon them. In closing, it should be stated that just because I use a Bible verse as evidence does not mean that I am authenticating it as being truly "inspired" or revealed by God. My purpose here is to show you that the Bible which YOU believe in contains evidence contrary to what you claim to believe.
You stated: "Like most versus from the Old Testament that Christians use in order to prop up their beliefs, there are others that contradict the way they understand it (or twist it). Additionally, they always give the versus an interpretation that NO ONE of a purely Jewish or Semitic background EVER gave them prior to the coming of Greek-influenced Trinitarian Christians. Anyone who has studied this issue should be able to see that it was the influence of Greek thought, and putting Semitic texts in the hands of formally pagan peoples, that allowed for new interpretations.". You used this as an argument to Genesis 1:26, 27, Scriptures (GODS) use of terms "OUR IMAGE", and "OUR LIKENESS". May I remind you, as stated above in Scripture and the Qur'an, that you have contradicted your own statement of faith. So, when the Qur'an states "belief" in the Bible, which states "inspired" word of God, why do you not believe either the Bible or the Qur'an?
RS: When you say "(GODS)" above, I assume that you means "GOD'S", i.e. an apostrophe "S". But anyway, the entire point that you try to make has been answered in the previous paragraph. Based on a proper understanding of what the Qur'an says about previously revealed scriptures, and using the Qur'an as "al-Furqaan", I certainly don't have to accept that Almighty God actually used the terms "OUR IMAGE" and "OUR LIKENESS". However, even if I did accept such a thing, these terms don't have to be interpreted in the way that Christians do. Suffice it to say that Jews long before the coming of Jesus, and for about 2000 years since his coming, have not interpreted these phrases in the way Christians do. You should read some of their explanations if you want to maintain a well balanced approach. As I've already said, don't just let your "Evangelical" friends spoon feed you. This having been said, there is no basis for your statement that I have "contradicted" my own "statement of faith". If anyone has contradicted anything, you have contradicted the commandment not to bear false witness which you clearly have done. Anyway, the quotation from me that you included above is a proof against your claim! In that quotation I am saying that even "IF" Genesis 1:26-27 were true, these verses still don't serve as a proof. Thus, on this particular point, I am criticizing the Christian use and interpretation of scripture, not the question of whether it is scripture or not. Even if I was questioning that, that is not the same as "denying God's Word", but simply asking whether or not this is God's word. We have an obligation to be critical in such matters, don't you agree? As far as your statement: "when the Qur'an states "belief" in the Bible", this has already been addressed and refuted above. But since your tendency to untruth seems rather manifest here, I feel that I should ask: Why do you find it so easy to make FALSE statements? You're stating something that is simply NOT true, because I've shown above that the Qur'an NEVER mentions the "Bible", but only the "Tawraat" and the "Injeel". In the future, please try to stick to the facts. If you want to mention what the Qur'an states, then provide the verse that (allegedly) proves your statement.
Will you come back to say, I believe only
in my interpretation of the Old Testament and the Four Gospels?
It seems to me you are doing some twisting yourself. Are we to believe that in your
righteousness you alone have the complete understanding of Gods Word. If so, may I remind
you that Muhammad did not proclaim Himself a Prophet until, approx. 610 A.D.. And that He
did not write the Qur'an. And, that the Qur'an was not written until after His death. It
was remembered and written by the few remaining followers alive who had heard Him speak.
And was written, only after it was realized there were, only a few left. Need I remind you
of how feeble the human memory can be at times. And how often, we, as humans tend to
remember what we want to remember!
RS: Much of the above paragraph, like the majority of your letter, is based upon mistaken assumptions. Not only that, but again you accuse me of something that you have no basis for. I certainly never said that I "alone have the complete understanding of Gods Word". What causes you to make such outrageous accusations? It seems that you're more emotional than logical, and come across as someone who has never taken (or even tried to take) an unbiased look at the Truth. But anyway . . . to answer your question, my understanding of God's word comes from studying the views of people much more knowledgeable than myself, and as such, could only be described as "minimal". However, when I speak of a "correct" or "Orthodox" interpretations, from an Islamic point of view, I am talking about the interpretation of the majority of Sunni scholars (the Ahl al-Sunnah wa al-Jamaa'ah), as supported by the Qur'an and authentic Sunnah of the Messenger of God, peace be upon him. I'm not talking about personal opinions or free-thinking ideas. I believe in Almighty God the way that He revealed Himself - without corruption, modification, intellectualization, qualification, or representation. I also believe that the only way to stay on the Path of Truth is to understand the Qur'an and the Sunnah in the way that it was understood by Prophet Muhammad, peace be upon him, his Companions and the early generations of Muslims. They are the ones who understood the Qur'an in the proper way. By following them, we avoid one of the major pitfalls of Christianity which not only disputes about the texts of its "inspired books", but which lacks a well established "Orthodox" interpretation. One reason for this is that Christianity fell into the hands of pagan peoples and under the influence of Greek thought at a very early stage in its "development". Islam, as such, didn't develop its doctrines - they were revealed.
RS: In regards to your statements about the Qur'an, it sounds as if you've been more indoctrinated that educated! I'm not sure what your biasedly worded statement that "Muhammad did not proclaim Himself a Prophet until, approx. 610 A.D." is supposed to prove. I could just as well say that Jesus, peace be upon him, did not begin his ministry until he was about 30 years old. But what's the point in such a statement? Anyway, Muhammad, peace be upon him, did not just "proclaim" himself a Prophet, but he was chosen as one by Almighty God. You're correct in saying that Muhammad did not write the Qur'an, because he was unable to read and write. This was well known among the people of Mecca, and the Qur'an says much the same (see 29:48 and 7:158). You make a false statement when you say: "And, that the Qur'an was not written until after His death." Can you give me a reference for such a statement? Certainly the authentic Muslim sources don't say such a thing. For sure, the Qur'an was written down after the Prophet's death, as it continues to be written down today, but that doesn't mean that it was the first time that it was written down. Based on the fact that the authentic hadeeth literature of Islam shows that the Qur'an was written down during the lifetime of the Prophet, your statement that it wasn't is just baseless mis-information. Continuing on . . . your statement that "It was remembered and written by the few remaining followers alive who had heard Him speak. And was written, only after it was realized there were, only a few left." is an even greater distortion of the truth. It's hard for me to imagine the gall it takes to make such baseless statements. Gee, David, you wouldn't be trying to distort the truth, would you? I don't know where you came up with the word "few", but you managed to slip it in somehow. According to Muslim sources, dozens of the Companions of the Prophet Muhammad, peace be upon him, memorized the entire Qur'an, and the overwhelming majority of them (numbering at least in the hundreds) memorized at least some of the Qur'an. Possibly, what you are trying to refer to above, albeit in a dishonest way, is the fact that a large number of the memorizers of the Qur'an were killed in the Battle of Yamaama during the reign of the Khaleefah Abu Bakr. However, to say that only a "few remaining followers" of Muhammad, peace be upon him, remained alive at this time is nothing short of a lie. The Qur'an, unlike the Bible, was always in the hands of the Community of Believers as a whole. At the time of the Prophet's death, peace be upon him, his followers numbered in the thousands. Muslim history shows us very clearly that the reason the Qur'an was written down and distributed to various places throughout the Empire was because some (but not all) of the memorizers had been killed, AND the fact that the rapidly expanding Muslim Empire had incorporated many non-Arabic speaking peoples. Due to this, it became necessary to send copies of Qur'an to each part of the Empire in order to quell any disputes between people who were not well versed in the Arabic language.
RS: As far as your critique of the "feeble" human memory, it is speculation at best and reeks of the sound of someone who only knows the environment in which he is raised. It might be hard for you to understand what is meant by the term "oral society", but that is exactly what the Arabs and other Semitic peoples were. Before I embraced Islam, I would have found it rather hard to believe that there are hundreds of thousands of people in the world today who know the entire Qur'an by heart (not to speak of the millions of Muslims who know large portions of it). The Arabs at the time of the Prophet Muhammad, peace be upon him, like other traditional peoples of his era, had minds that were fine-tuned for memorizing. If the Qur'an is preserved in our day and age in the memory of Muslims, isn't it logical that people who were raised in an "oral society" and who were more God-fearing, would be just as capable of doing the same? Memorizing and reciting the Qur'an has always been an integral part of Islamic worship. As a matter of fact, the Prophet Muhammad, peace be upon him, said that reciting and understanding the Qur'an is one of the highest forms of worship. Suffice it to say that Christians certainly do not (and have never) emphasized "memorizing" and "reciting" the Bible as an act of worship. When discussing preservation, as well as how various religions treat their scriptures (either real or alleged), this is an important point. So if you can't accept the fact that the Qur'an can be (and was) perfectly preserved by memorization, then you're simply denying the truth. Additionally, you should consider the fact that it is the Muslim community at large that protects it, not any one individual. Besides, if Almighty God chose to preserve the Qur'an by using human memorizers, He certainly could have. So, as I've already said, you're basically just twisting the truth and then sprinkling it with speculation. You certainly can't show me any evidence that the Qur'an today is any different than the one used in Muhammad's time. Even the majority of Orientalist scholars accept this fact. For more on this subject, see my article Some Thoughts on the Authenticity of the Qur'an.
RS: All too often, Christian missionaries pick and choose only what seems to support their view from the Muslim hadeeth literature. When they come to statements that dispute their claims, or confirm the authenticity of the Qur'an, they reject or ignore them. Suffice it to say that the only way one can do away with the credibility of Muslim hadeeth literature is by accusing all Muslim hadeeth scholars of being conscious liars and fabricators. Even though some Orientalists have tried to portray them as such, this is logically baseless since the overwhelming majority of these men and women were God-fearing and would have never consciously fabricated something in the name of the Prophet, peace be upon him. Sure, there may have been some corrupt individuals, but to accuse the community as a whole of such a thing is ridiculous. This point is backed up by the fact that the hadeeth literature contains all types of reports - even the seemingly scandalous ones that Christian missionaries love to use. If the hadeeth scholars and historians were just a bunch of dishonest and biased fabricators, they could have easily excluded what did not fit their beliefs, pre-conceived notions and personal whims. However, history has recorded that no such thing occurred. This can be seen by the simple fact that all of the historical facts (however distorted) that you tried to use above were based on Muslim sources. If anyone was following their dishonest desires, it was the Orientalist scholars who would produce theories just to reach their pre-established goal - the discrediting of Islam. Additionally, I certainly don't believe that the early Church Fathers intentionally lied about their beliefs, the Bible or Church history. The majority of them were certainly sincere and God-fearing (albeit in a corrupted sense), even though they were misguided in their beliefs. Keeping this in mind, I am perfectly willing to accept what history has recorded about the textual history of the Bible and the development of Christian doctrines. I don't have to lie or distort history in order to show the grave shortcomings of Christianity in this regards, nor do I have to accuse every historian who records something that I don't like of being a liar. It makes the Orientalists seem rather desperate that they had to resort to such a thing. Certainly, you haven't expressed such a thing in this letter, but this methodology is quite common among Christian missionaries. They want to "have their cake and eat it too", as they say.
You stated: "Jesus expressly denied that He was God". You did not provide any scripture to verify this claim. I would appreciate it if you would provide references when making such claims, that I might be able to understand your response. May I share with you one of my favorite Gospel Scriptures "Then they will see the Son of Man coming in the clouds with great power and glory. And He will send HIS angels, and gather HIS elect from the four winds, from the farthest part of the earth to the farthest part of heaven." Mark 13:26, 27. It is a moving Scripture to say the least. Note: the use of "Son of Man", and "His". Does this make you wonder a little?
RS: Certainly, I can provide a quote from your so-called "scripture" to verify my claim. Unlike the majority of your writing, I can back mine up with evidence. I think that it is fair to say that if you were to be held to the same standard that you are attempting to hold me to, with your request for "precise answers" and scriptural quotes, you would be hard pressed to produce anything. However, we're not on that subject now, so I'll move on to fulfilling your request. Actually, in this regard, one gospel incident should suffice, and that is the incident reported in Matthew 19:17, Mark 10:7 and Luke 18:18, in which Jesus says: "Why do you call me good? No one is good but One, that is, God. But if you want to enter into life, keep the commandments." This is rather explicit to say the least. Now keeping in mind that Christianity teaches that Jesus is God and that believing that he is God is necessary for salvation (not to speak of the fact that Protestants reject salvation through "works"), this text raises some very difficult questions. If believing in Christian doctrines is really necessary, isn't Jesus, peace be upon him, guilty of deception? Not only did he deny being God, but he said that the way to get to heaven is to "keep the commandments". How can you continue to say that God is merciful and that He desires salvation for everyone if Jesus said such a thing? How can you also believe that "God is not the author of confusion"? Suffice it to say that even if you try to explain away this text, what it does to your concept of God is simply awful. That is assuming, of course, that you even regularly take this text into consideration. From what I've seem, Christians have a tendency to use certain texts and ignore others, and even then they can't dot every "i" and cross every "t" as far as their "theology" is concerned. Sometimes they explain verses in a manner so that they end up meaning just the opposite of the clear and intended meaning. Before we move on, the difference between an implicit and explicit statement should be clarified. To borrow a quote from Gary Miller: "The difference is, an explicit statement is one which requires no explanation. The meaning is right on the surface of the word. For example, when your gas gauge in your car shows empty, you do not need to ask your passenger to interpret it for you. it is very clear. An implicit statement is a statement where the meaning is carried just beneath the surface of the word. It requires some thought before we determine what was meant by the words. And all quotations that are cited by Christians in order to put in the mouth of Jesus the claim of deity are implicit -- which means interpretation is required. Thus what happens is, when we are told what Jesus said, we are then told what he meant. In other words, they interpret the meaning for us." Also on this point, the verses that I previously mentioned, where Jesus is asked DIRECTLY "What do I need to do in order to get into Heaven?" and "What is the greatest commandment?" should also be reflected upon. Based on the fact that having Jesus as one's "Lord and Personal Saviour" is not included in either of these answers should cause you some concern. How much more clear do you want it? Abandon despairing of the mercy of God and believing that you can't approach Him directly without Jesus. This is the act of faith that you need to make.
RS: As far as other denials of Divinity go, the New Testament in numerous places shows that Jesus, peace be upon him, lacks the necessary qualities of Deity (see Matthew 24:36) and that he is an entity distinct from God (see John 20:17). Also, if one reads the entire incident that is recorded in John 10:30-36, it comes across as more of a denial of "Divinity" than anything else. In this incident, Jesus tries to explain that saying "I and the Father are one" is not a claim to Divinity. When pushed, Jesus tries to explain to them that it doesn't necessarily mean the "blasphemy" what they take it to mean. Additionally, John 17:21-23 further shows that claiming to be "one" with another entity does not mean substantial identification with that entity. If this were the case, the disciples of Jesus would also be God. To look at this from another angle, it should be mentioned that there are certainly parts of the New Testament that seemingly give Divine or semi-Divine qualities to Jesus, peace be upon him. However, many (if not all of these texts) seem to be a result of Greek influenced thought. The first verse of the so-called Gospel of John, which says "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God" certainly reeks of Greek thought. Scholars have proven that statements almost exactly like this were made by Philo of Alexandria, who was a Jewish philosopher. Certainly Jesus, and all prophets, were above the philosophical rubbish of John 1:1. In short, if you look at (St.) Paul's writings, as well as the "Gospel of John", Jesus is portrayed as a angelic-being that bridges the gap between God and man. There are texts that clearly portray Jesus as a distinct entity apart from God (John 1:18). Likewise, I John 4:12 is fairly explicit that "No one has seen God at any time". Additionally, some texts of the Bible portray Jesus as a creature " . . . the first born of all creation" (Colossians 1:15-17) and " . . . the beginning of the creation of God" (Revelation 3:14). Seemingly, in (St.) Paul's view, Jesus rules the universe, but God gave him that position (Philippians 2:9). Need I mention the verses that say Jesus sits "at the right hand of God"? Clear, (St.) Paul's Jesus is patterned after Philo's Greek influenced "logos". In short, Christianity is a watered-down version of Judaism mixed with Greek though in order to fit pagan tastes. The traditional Christian emphasis on "mystery" and "paradox" was certainly Greek, not Jewish, in origin.
RS: Regarding the verses from Mark 13 which you quote, they are seemingly just another example of what happens when a Jewish-Semitic text falls into the hands of pagan people who are under the influence of Greek thought. Most probably, this text was originally written in Greek, which a point against its authenticity. Additionally, to a believer in Pure Monotheism, the fact that the New Testament shows that Jesus has "his angels" and "his elect" further destroys its credibility. Far from being "moving", this text is just an example of the existence of Greek-influenced pagan thought in the New Testament. Also, just because a text "moves" us, doesn't mean that it's true. Suffice it to say that ONLY if the "Son of Man" was clearly and consistently identified with Almighty God (and shown to be absolutely equal with Him in every respect) in 100% of the New Testament texts which mention him would your point be meaningful to a Pure Monotheist. However, since this is not the case, as well as the fact that "There is nothing divine or worthy of being worshipped than Almighty God", we should all know that there is nothing (or no one) that can be identified with Almighty God. If you have been duped into identifying someone with Almighty God, then you've been mislead. For someone who understands Pure Monotheism, a statement that "so-and-so is God" is known to be false without further elaboration, because no one can be God except for God. Let there be no ambiguity in Divinity, since only God is God. I guess you believe that Almighty God, who described Himself as Un-Changing and All-Knowing in the Old Testament, changed and became less than All-Knowing (as the New Testament shows), even though at the same time He was praying to God up in Heaven who still knew everything? And now this same "Incarnate Saviour" sits at the "right hand of God" up in Heaven! Believe me, such beliefs don't come from Almighty God, but only from the misguided minds of men.
RS: To further show the weakness of your point, Mark 13:32, which is only a few verses after the two you quote; show that "the Son" is not equal in knowledge to "the Father". Additionally, numerous New Testament verses show that Jesus was "sent" by God (Matthew 10:40, Mark 9:37, Luke 4:18, John 6:44, John 7:28 and John 8:18), but Almighty God is sent by no one. If the New Testament writers believed that Jesus had his own angels and elect that were assigned to them, that's to their own discredit, but it certainly does not prove that Jesus is God. The only thing it proves is that these writers were influenced by non-Semitic Greek thought and did not understand Pure Monotheism properly. Possibly, in quoting these verses to me, you were following the mistaken assumption that I must accept every verse in your so-called "gospels" as Divine Revelation. Already I have clearly shown that this is not the case, based on Qur'anic evidence, so the verses that you quoted just serve as an example how I can use the Qur'an as a criterion to decide what is true and false in your alleged "gospels".
RS: Before moving on I should address an issue that Christians often bring up in response to statements like some of the ones which I've made above. They basically ask how Muslims can accuse the followers of Jesus, peace be upon him, of being "polytheists" when they were all "monotheistic Jews". At the root of this problem lies the fact that Christians don't really know what "monotheism" means. All of the books, articles and papers that I've read which were written by Christians invariably limit "monotheism" to believing in the existence of "One Sovereign and Creator God" - as opposed to two, three or four. Islam, however, teaches much more than this. Since the pure Islamic concept of Monotheism (Arabic: Tawheed) is not the main subject of this paper, I wont' go into great detail. However, suffice it to say that just because someone claims to be a "monotheistic" Jew, Christian or Muslim, that doesn't keep them from falling into corrupt beliefs. Many people, including some Muslims, claim belief in "One God" even though they've fallen into acts of idolatry. Certainly, many Protestants accuse Roman Catholics of idolatrous practices in regards to the saints and the Virgin Mary. Likewise, the Greek Orthodox Church is considered "idolatrous" by many other Christians because of their use of icons. However, if you ask a Roman Catholic or a Greek Orthodox person if God is "One", they will invariably answer: "Yes!". This lip-service, however, does not stop them from being "creature worshipping" idolaters. Throughout the long history of the "Abrahamic Faiths", there have people who, while believing in "One God", have adopted beliefs and practices that nullify their claim to "monotheism". This is the Muslim view of Christians. We're well aware of the fact that you claim belief in "One God" with your lips, but that doesn't mean you don't nullify your claim in other ways. This is because you simply haven't been taught everything that Pure Monotheism entails. From an Islamic point of view, "monotheism" can be nullified in many ways. For example, simply believing that it is permissible to rule by Western "liberal" and "democratic" laws in lieu of the Divinely Revealed Law of Almighty God makes one a "polytheist". Certainly, a person who does such a thing, whether Jewish, Christian or Muslim, doesn't ever believe that there is another Almighty Creator and Sovereign Lord. However, for all practical purposes, such a person has take another "god", whether they choose to admit it or not. In this way they are associating partners with Almighty God (Arabic: shirk), and thus become a "polytheist" in a practical sense, regardless of their lip-service to "monotheism". For more details on this, including an explanation of the fact that even the pagan Arabs believed in One Supreme Creator, see Section 2 of my Response to Joseph Smith's paper on "Tawhid".
RS: No, the verse you quoted above doesn't make me "wonder a little", since the foundation of my faith is firm. It is not based on free-thinking conjecture, allegorical interpretations of questionable scriptures or a subjective feeling in my heart. There is nothing truer than "There is nothing divine or worthy of being worshipped except for Almighty God". The only thing that I sometimes wonder about is why people refuse to follow clear guidance and worship Almighty God alone. However, I don't speculate on it too much, because this is valueless when compared to the clear Qur'anic description of the causes of disbelief. I recommend that you read all of the verses on this subject in detail.
I have not completely expressed the Christians faith in the Oneness of God in three Persons (Triune God), and will not attempt to do so at this time. But in the future, if you request, I will make an attempt for your better understanding of this Christian/Muslim conflicting issue.
RS: I doubt that your explanation would be anything that I haven't heard before. If you want to read my responses to a Christian explanation of the Trinity which was meant for Muslims, please read my paper Muslim Response to a Christian Response.
As I understand it there is no real mention of certainty of forgiveness or forgiveness by the grace of Allah.
RS: Understand it from who? Certainly Christian missionaries are going to let you know! I feel that I should repeat my statement that you have been well indoctrinated but not educated - at least concerning Islam. Who's been teaching you this stuff anyway? Don't tell me that you've tried to learn about Islam based on books written by Christians. Wouldn't you think me a fool if I only learned about Christianity from Muslims and Hindus? Maybe the Christians are afraid that you may find something that you're NOT looking for! But anyway, as I've said, it seems that you've been misinformed by reading Christian information about Islam, instead of what Muslims themselves believe. In the Qur'an, Almighty God say: "But as for those who believe and do good works We shall bring them into gardens underneath which rivers flow, wherein they will abide for ever. It is a promise from God in truth; and who can be more truthful than God in utterance?" (Chapter 4 - "The Women", Verse 122) This clearly supports a belief in the certainty of forgiveness for those who are true believers. Additionally, the Prophet Muhammad, peace be upon him said: "Do good deeds properly, sincerely and moderately, and rejoice, for no one's good deeds will put him in Paradise. They asked: 'Not even you, Oh Messenger of God?' He replied: "Not even me, unless God bestowed His Pardon and Mercy on me." (Saheeh al-Bukhari, Vol. 8, p. 315, No. 474). Based on this evidence, just the opposite of your statement is true, since Islam teaches that forgiveness is by God's Grace. According to the Qur'an, Almighty God might forgive any sin that He wishes, even if it wasn't repented from, due to His Grace. This is excluding the sin of "shirk" (i.e. associating partners with Almighty God in belief or worship), which He will, by His choice, never forgive. If all forgiveness was earned, such as in the Christian "Atonement" theory, then this isn't Grace. The meaning of Grace and Mercy, at least in the Islamic perspective, is giving something to someone even though they don't really deserve it. Suffice it so say that the often confused and varying explanations of the "Doctrine of Atonement" logically eliminate God's Grace (even though the Old Testament and the parables of Jesus fully support it). In closing this point, I would just like to say that your misconception about the "grace of Allah" is a common one that has been spread by Christian missionaries. They love to misquote the Qur'an as well quote from latter-day 'Asharite speculative-theologians who came to believe that Almighty God was absolutely unknowable, arbitrary and morally irresponsible. However, this is far from Qur'anic Truth and what the early generations of Muslims believed.
RS: By the way, why do you sometimes use "God" and sometimes use "Allah"? I hope that you're not one of those Christians who have been duped into believing Muslims worship a "different God"? If complimenting someone on their "collective and creative dishonesty" were proper, Christian missionaries would deserve it here. For more on this, please read my article Who is Allah?.
How do you get to Heaven then? By Faith and good works, how much? By praying five times a day? What if you miss one? Have you? May I quote: "Those that accept true faith and do good works shall be forgiven and richly rewarded." Sura 35:9. Quite honestly, to me this is a little scary, never knowing for sure whether you've done enough to please Allah. Imagine an eternity without God. It's hard to comprehend, but apparently it's possible with the Muslim faith. What if you have ever done a sinful act? I have, ashamedly so, have you? Will this deter your entrance to heaven. Is that acceptable to Allah? Also, "rewarded" with what? Eternal life? Gold and Silver? What? Is there a mention of eternal life after death? If so, how does that work?
RS: According to the beliefs of the Ahl al-Sunnah wa al-Jamaa'ah (which we can roughly be translated as "Orthodox Sunnis"), the beliefs of which I make every effort to adhere to, faith and actions are interconnected. The Qur'an and Sunnah are clear that faith and actions are inseparable. In regards to faith and works, I suggest that you read James 2:14-26, which contradicts the established Protestant view. Why else did Martin Luther throw the Epistle of James out of the Bible? While you're at it, also read Ephesians 2:10 and 1 John 1:4. Various quotations from Jesus, peace be upon him, in Luke 11:28 and John 14:21 also make it rather clear. Just so that you don't misunderstand me, the reason that I point these verses out is not to justify my own beliefs, which are only based on the Qur'an and Sunnah, but to show you that there's a lot of evidence which you ignore that contradicts your own beliefs. The Roman Catholic and Orthodox Church seem to be a bit closer to the truth than Protestants on this particular issue, even though they have grave problems in other (possibly more serious) areas. In this regard, it should be mentioned that Islam holds a middle-course in regards to "faith and action". We don't believe in faith without actions, but neither do we believe that actions (i.e. sins) nullify faith. We don't deny that all people have sinned (and continue to sin quite often), but we don't to extremes in regards to our analysis of the "human condition', nor do we despair of the mercy of Almighty God. We live our daily lives believing in His Wisdom and Mercy, fearing His Wrath and trusting in His Forgiveness.
RS: In order to present a more balanced and complete view of the Islamic view of "salvation" (for lack of a better term in English), I think that I should quote a few more Qur'anic verses and Prophetic hadeeths. One important verse that relates to your statement above is: "Were it not for God's Grace and Mercy on you all, none of you would ever have become purified; but God purifies whom He pleases." (Qur'an, Chapter 24 - "The Light", Verse 21) This verse serves as further proof that it is God's Grace that ultimately saves man. Another important verses is: "No one despairs of God's Mercy except those who have no faith." (Qur'an, Chapter 12 - "Joseph", Verse 87). From an Islamic perspective, Christians are certainly in violation of this. The fact that Christians, for all practical purposes, despair of the Mercy of God can be demonstrated by the theological devices which they use to convince people that they cannot approach God without Jesus. They go to great lengths to convince people that God demands "perfect Justice", which in the end eliminates Mercy altogether. Muslims certainly believe that Almighty God is Just, but not in the distorted way that Christians teach. God's Justice is tempered by His Mercy, not His Mercy eliminated by His Justice - which is how the Doctrine of the Atonement works out. God ends up looking like a Shylock and Jesus is the hero. No wonder Christianity is so "Christocentric" instead of "Deocentric"! Who wants to be reminded of a God like that! Anyway . . . the view that both God's Mercy and Justice are continuously operative can be supported from the Old Testament and is how Jews have traditionally viewed God. The idea that God is "100% Holy so He can't come in contact with sin" have their origins in Greek philosophy, not Semitic monotheism.
RS: Certainly, Jesus' Parable of the Prodigal Son supports forgiveness through repentance, not atonement. If what Christians believe is true, this parable is basically rendered meaningless. Needless to say, this is a difficult parable for Christians. This is clearly admitted by Jay Smith, a Christian evangelist to Muslims, in his article Who Founded Christianity - Jesus or St. Paul?. In this article, Smith says: "Muslims . . . correctly maintain that there is no teaching of atonement here". Then, in spite of the title of his article, Smith goes on to present a Christian view of atonement built around (St.) Paul's saying that "all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God"! There's scant support from Jesus for the foundation of the whole argument: the NEED for atonement. About the only support for that Smith can get out of Jesus to support Paul's view on atonement are the great prophet's (alleged) statements during the Last Supper. These statements, like other statements of Jesus in the New Testament that allegedly support pagan influenced doctrines, are highly problematic when viewed in light of Jewish belief at the time as well as the Old Testament. Typical of most evangelists, Smith's one-sided presentation of the New Testament's view of atonement even tries to claim support in Jewish belief. This believer in Justification-by-Faith-Alone then goes on to quote the often misused verse "Without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness of sin" and claims that this "principle is found right through the Old Testament". He throws in a quip that "No Jew ever believed that he could attain the forgiveness of sin just by asking for it" and then refers the reader to the Old Testament books of Exodus and Leviticus. In order to prove that what Smith is saying is complete nonsense - both based on the Old Testament AND according to what Jews believe - please take a look at the Book of Leviticus as he requested. Don't take it from me - or Jay Smith - concerning what the Jews believe, but let a Jewish Rabbi tell you. Please read this great article, Insights into Leviticus, which clearly explains, with a great deal of Old Testament support, why the Christian view of "blood sacrifice" atonement is so misguided.
RS: Islam does not teach that man is expected to be perfect, which is wholly unreasonable. The Islamic view of keeping oneself "pure" means being free from major sins, especially - and most importantly - the sin of "shirk" (i.e. associating others with Almighty God in belief and worship.) Almighty God tells us that He "overlooks much" (Qur'an 42:34), and thus does not expect us to be perfect. Another important verses is: "Surely God loves those who constantly turn to Him in repentance and those who keep themselves pure" (Qur'an, Chapter 2 - "The Cow", Verse 222). This verse shows that it is not complete lack of sin that God wants, but true faith, repentance, worship and trust - and keeping one's self "pure" from idolatrous practices.
RS: Additionally, suffice it to say that the Christian doctrine of "Original Sin" is unbalanced. Like many of their other man-made doctrines, Christians can come up with some "proof texts" from the Bible, however they completely disregard, or explain away, texts that say otherwise. For example, (St.) Paul says "All have sinned and fallen short of the Glory of God" (Romans 3:23), but Luke 1:6 tells us that both Zacharia and Elisabeth were "RIGHTEOUS before God, walking in ALL the commandments and ordinances of the Lord BLAMELESS". In writing Romans 3:23, (St.) Paul is actually paraphrasing verses from Psalm 14. Unfortunately, both (St.) Paul and some later Christians, such as (St.) Augustine, take the idea that "all have sinned and fallen short of the Glory of God" in a distorted and absolute sense. They don't balance it with other texts of the Bible. Part of the reason for this is that such texts don't "fit in" to their theology. They had a theological need to believe in the "Original Sin", since in order to need a cure (i.e. an Incarnate Saviour) one must first have a disease (i.e. Original Sin).
RS: Your choice of which Qur'anic verse (35:9) to quote above is rather good, because this verse is very rich in meaning. First of all, it establishes the point that proper belief comes first. Any alleged "good works" that a person does must be preceded by correct faith in Almighty God, otherwise the works are useless. However, the verse also says "AND do good works . . .", so just having "faith" is not enough. The two go hand-in-hand, just like the Epistle of James says: "Faith without works is dead faith" (James 2:20) and "You see that a man is justified by works, and not by faith alone" (James 2:24). However, it is also clear from the teachings of Islam, both in the Qur'an and Sunnah, that no one is "saved" by their deeds, but only by the grace and mercy of Almighty God - "Lest any man should boast" as Paul says (Ephesians 2:9). However, (St.) Paul in formulating his view, goes too far and thus contradicts the more balanced view as established in the Old Testament and the so-called "gospels". If having faith, doing good deeds and hoping that these are accepted by God is necessarily "proud" and "boastful", Almighty God never would have required any of this for anyone. However, He certainly did require this. It is because of such matters that Muslims call Paul the true founder of Christianity. He's then one who builds the framework for their whole mentality and pseudo-mystical outlook. Suffice it to say that very few, if any, of the words of Jesus, peace be upon him, in the so-called "gospels" can be used to justify the prevalent Christian mentality. (St.) Paul's view of things, especially as interpreted as the Protestants, usually leads to despair. Just look how bitter a man Martin Luther was. This is because the Protestant view of salvation logically eliminates man's "free will". From their perspective, man mainly, and most importantly, uses his "free will" in order to sin, but can have no role in his salvation - since this was already (allegedly) accomplished by Christ (and it would be "boastful" to believe otherwise). Unfortunately, this kind of thinking leads to a distorted belief in an absolute type of predestination, which was a logical conclusion in the thought of both Martin Luther and John Calvin. This is because once a person is convinced that they can play no role in regards to their salvation, predestination is the only other logical conclusion. Many Protestants don't even think that man can choose to believe, since this would be playing a role in one's salvation. Believing that one plays a role in one's own salvation, either through faith or works, could lead to being "boastful" and "proud", so they make every effort to eliminate this potential. However, many "Evangelicals" go around trying to get people to accept Jesus as their "Lord and Personal Savior". If one did make this decision, this word be a "work" that one could "boast" of. Thus, the person would be playing a role in his or her salvation, even if they believed in "Justification by faith alone", the person could become "proud" by attributing an act that resulted in their salvation to themselves. This conclusion causes them to go back to the point where we must only believe that it is all predestined and that God did it all, since any participation on a human being's part would be arrogant. That's it in a nutshell. Such is the trap that (some) Protestants have fallen into!
RS: You mentioned that you find relying on actions and not having a guaranteed salvation to be "a little scary". My response to this is that you have to ask yourself whether such fear is necessarily bad. In order to find an answer to such a question, we can't just follow our whims, but turn to Divine Guidance (either real or alleged in this case) for an answer. The Qur'an is clear about the "Fear of God" and, it might surprise you to know, so is the Bible. See Ecclesiastes 8:12 and 12:13 for some good examples, as well as Genesis 42:18, Job 1:9, Psalm 66:16, Luke 23:40 and I Peter 2:17. My question is: Where does the "Fear of God" fit into the Protestant scheme of things? Seemingly nowhere. Logically speaking, if your salvation is "guaranteed", there's no need to have any "Fear of God". The next paragraph will provide some additional examples of why traditional Christianity rejected (or never came up with) the idea that salvation is "guaranteed" for all those who claim to be (or even sincerely feel) that they are "saved".
RS: I think that you should know, in regards to your view of "guaranteed salvation", which you are seemingly pointing to in your paragraph above: it is absolutely un-Biblical. Several verses of the New Testament make it clear that it is possible to fall out of the Christian faith through sin (Hebrews 6:4-6) and that Christian are not fully saved until they enter the heavenly kingdom (1 Peter 1:4-5). So what do you think about that? Just in case these verses aren't enough, here are a few more: "Let him who thinks he stands take care lest he fall" (1 Corinthians 10:12) . . . "Take heed, brethren, lest there be in any one of you an evil heart of disbelief, departing from the living God" (Hebrews 3:12) . . . "For we are partakers of Christ, IF we hold the beginning of our confidence steadfast TO THE END" (Hebrews 3:14) . . " . . again entangled therein . . . " (2 Peter 2:20-1). "Not every one who says to me "Lord, Lord", will enter the kingdom of heaven, but he that DOES THE WILL of my Father who is in heaven" (Matthew 7:21) . . . "STRIVE to make our calling and election SURE" (2 Peter 1:10). How much more evidence do you need? The fact that you have to "STRIVE" in order to make salvation "SURE" leaves no doubt that salvation is NOT by faith alone - nor is it asSUREed. In response to this, the best thing you'll be able to do is bring some writings from (St.) Paul's epistles that contradict the verses that I've just quoted. However, this will only prove one thing: that the Bible has an unclear and contradictory message. Also in regards to the Protestant belief in "guaranteed salvation" (or the "Doctrine of Assurance" as it is sometimes called), it should be pointed out that it is a historical fact that no branch of traditional Christianity held this idea to be true until the Protestant heresy of Martin Luther made it popular. Actually, in bringing up this issue, Protestant "Evangelical" Christians actually cloud the real issue, because according to Islam, a believer who dies in a state of faith and grace, will certainly go to Heaven. The promise of God is True! (Please read Qur'an 4:122 again if you missed it above.) However, what Islam denies (and what the overwhelming majority of Jews and Christians throughout history have also denied) is that a person can infallibly and definitely know whether he/she (or anyone else) is going to heaven. This is because we do not know in what state we will die. Every religion has examples of people who believed, but then changed or abandoned their beliefs. None of us truly knows how or when we will die, nor what our faith will be when we do so, and since only Almighty God knows the future, nothing in regards to our state at the time of death is guaranteed. That's why Muslims pray for God to "Guide us to the Straight Path" in every single prayer. Before closing I would also like to mention that the particular words "Personal Savior" were never said by Jesus, according to the Bible, nor do they appear anywhere in the New Testament. These words, and the emphasis that is put upon them, is just another example of how members of the Protestant heresy have innovated in their beliefs.
RS: Concerning your statement: "Imagine an eternity without God. It's hard to comprehend, but apparently it's possible with the Muslim faith" - it is certainly worthy of some analysis. Muslim's don't believe that anyone is "without God". People may be duped into believing that they are "without God", but they are not without Him. Additionally, Muslims believe that disbelievers will be punished in a true, real, physical and spiritual Hellfire - contrary to what many "modern" Christians believe. It seems that you, in stating "an eternity without God", have accepted the watered-down popular Christian view that "Hell" is simply "separation from God". This may fit nicely into some aspects of Protestant theology, but it denies clear statements in the New Testament that refer to "hellfire". (See Matthew 5:22 and 18:9, as well as Mark 9:47 - taking note of the fact that a physical Hell is clearly implied.) All of this Biblical proof certainly won't stop you from giving allegorical interpretations to the word "hellfire" (you Christians do it with almost every other word), but I simply want to point out the fact that Christians do a lot of moving around, even when it comes to their fundamental beliefs. Anyway, based on the verses dealing with "hellfire", it seems that one could easily say that most Christians are still in the "Denial Stage". It seems they've modified their beliefs so that they appeal to the so-called "sophisticated" and "modern' views of 20th Century mankind.
RS: Your lack of Islamic knowledge is really apparent when you make the following statements: "Also, "rewarded" with what? Eternal life? Gold and Silver? What? Is there a mention of eternal life after death? If so, how does that work?" Only someone who has never read the Qur'an, or even an introductory book on Islam, could seemingly ask such a question. Contrary to the Bible, the Qur'an is full of information about the life hereafter, matters of the unseen and other "eschatological" issues. Yes, Muslims believe that Almighty God will physically resurrect all of humankind on the Day of Judgment - this being easy enough for Him. Based on the fact that we accept this belief, it's no wonder that Muslims have a hard time understanding why Christians make such a big deal about God (allegedly) raising one man - Jesus, peace be upon him. Some Christians often portray the fact that they believe that someone actually could be raised up from the dead by God as a great act of faith. For Muslims, anyone who doubts for a second whether or not Almighty God is capable of raising up all of mankind is a disbeliever. This is because to deny such a thing nullifies any belief in God, since by believing in such a thing a person doesn't believe in Almighty God at all, but just some mental idol. The emphasis on the alleged "Resurrection", which is basically meaningless to a Pure Monotheist, is another indicator that the authors of the gospels and (St.) Paul had come under the influence of Greek thought and the "mystery" religions. The Greeks and other pagans were enchanted by "resurrections" and other such beliefs. By the way, even the Bible is clear that "God raised Jesus", which clearly makes Jesus distinct from Almighty God (see Acts 2:24, 2:32, 4:10, 5:30; Romans 4:24, I Corinthians 6:14 and I Peter 1:21). Notice that it says "God", not the "Father", which makes a Trinitarian interpretation impossible. But anyway, Muslims certainly believe in a true and eternal afterlife in which people will get everything that their hearts desire - the most desirable of which will be closeness to Almighty God. However, we don't believe that we will become "one with God" or any such trash. Christians often use the phrase "God became man so that man can become God", which is nothing but disbelief from the Islamic perspective. I guess that's one of the drawbacks of adhering to a religion that doesn't make a clear distinction between the Creator and the created. By the way, in spite of what many "modern" Christians might think, the New Testament also seemingly supports a heaven that has physical pleasures (see Matthew 26:29, Luke 16:22-24, Mark 14:25 and Luke 22:30.) Food for thought . . .
I hope, I have helped you to a better understanding of my feelings and faith in our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. I will continue to pray for you and all Muslims, that you may come to understand God's mercy and His love for all. And that He alone has provided us with salvation through Himself as our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ.
RS: You seem to mention your "Lord Jesus" a lot more than you mention Almighty God. I don't think that you've even mentioned "the Father" or the "Holy Spirit" in this entire message. Is it right to leave them out? Why don't you tell me about your faith in them? Certainly you don't believe that they are one in the same do you? Have you been duped into worshipping the finite instead of the Infinite? So it seems . . .
May the peace and understanding of our Lord and God be upon you and yours, Bless you.
RS: And to you!
Please reply at: psyclos@vero.com <David Cunningham>
p.s.: Please respond to each question individually, one at a time, it will help me to make a more understandable response to your responses. Please don't ramble, precise questions I gave, and precise answers I would appreciate.
Thanks!!!!
RS: Well I think that I did address all of the issues individually, and if I have failed to address a particular issue, it is certainly unintentional. I certainly hope that this response helps you in making a "more understandable" response. As they say: "Be careful of what you ask for, since you just might get it"! Certainly, it seems as though many questions that I brought up in my first message are still waiting not only for a "precise answer", but any answer at all! Also, please don't confuse addressing an issue in detail with so-called "rambling". I certainly feel that my responses above have been direct, precise and detailed. On that note, I think that you're giving yourself too much credit by calling your questions "precise", not to mention your answers. However, we should let our readers be the judge of that! Thanks for the effort! I look forward to hearing from you . . .
Abu Iman 'Abd ar-Rahman Robert Squires
abu_iman@muslim-answers.org
Home | AboutMSA | Executive | Events | MSA Library | Networking | Quran | Hadith | The Prophet's Companions | Islamic Poems | Email MSA