One day I received an E-mail inviting me to accept Christianity. Here is my response to it:

"Bravo! It is commendable to have faith in your religion, and to seek to spread the word to those who are not aware of the knowledge contained in your belief system.

However, as you know or should know, all of the books that make up the Christian Bible are of uncertain origin and were clearly written, as any Christian scholar would tell you, by unknown sources. These sources came well after the life of Jesus.

Therefore, while faith is commendable - I must ask, how can one believe in words that are attributed to a prophet as great as Jesus, without any certainty as to the validity of those words, as expressed in the Bible? This question is all the more pertinent when one considers that the various books that make up the Bible contain inherent inconsistencies?

Faith would be your expected answer. But, that leads to another question. Faith in what? Faith in God and his "son", or faith in unverifiable sources?

This leads to some very basic questions:

Is it not blasphemous to assert that Jesus said something when there is absolutely no way of attributing those words to Jesus himself?

Is it not presumptuous to dismiss other religious beliefs, especially those faiths that also believe in the oneness of God, without any idea whatsoever as to what those religions believe?

Is God not a fair and just being? Then why would a fair and just being allow others besides himself, his son, or his appointed prophet(s) to determine what faith is? Clearly he would not allow mortals to speak on his behalf, and if he did then he would make sure that there is a chain of verifiable sources as confirmation that these books are divinely inspired.

These are just a sampling of questions that are raised when one engages in blind adherence to certain principles without engaging in intellectual contemplation. After all, God gave us the ability to think. Should we not use that intellect to determine whether or not our own belief systems are inherently consistent?

Certainly God would not expect us to cling to ideas that are inconsistent. To rely on the books of the Bible - which have been changed by man, have been distorted by translations and re-translations all done my man to serve earthly goals - is to do injustice to the message brought by Jesus, a prophet of God.

And that is why God found it necessary to send another messenger with an unchanging message. That messenger is Muhammad (pbuh), and the Qur’an whose verses have remained unchanged since the time of the final Prophet’s Caliphs. This is a fact that any scholar of ANY religion would have to acknowledge.

Jesus was a great prophet, but the religion of Christianity is NOT his message but rather the message of various men that followed him who had the audacity to attribute words to God and to his cherished messenger, Jesus.

I thank you for your efforts to open my eyes to the greatness of Jesus. But you should know that as a Muslim I do not doubt the greatness of Jesus, we believe that he was a prophet of God. However, we cannot believe in a man-made religion - Christianity.

Now I will return your gracious offer to explore Christianity with an offer of my own: pick up the Qur’an and read the word of God as it was sent by God himself. You should have no fear; after all, if the Bible is the word of God and if Christianity is the religion brought by Jesus, then the Qur’an and Islam would pale in comparison.

You will find a level of intelligence that has no equal on Earth. Certainly no mortal creation can compare to a truly inspired source of guidance that is the Qur’an.

Once again, thank you for your attempts to inspire my soul. This is not sarcasm, I am truly grateful that you have done what you believe to be a truly charitable act.

I hope will now contemplate on what I have said, and that you will have the courage to read the Qur’an - the only word of God."
 
 

The author of the invitation chose not to respond himself but instead referred my response to one of his Christian brothers. As a result, two months after I sent the above E-mail I received this response from a Reggie Abraham whose E-mail address is Samuel_john@jpmorgan.com:

"I had the opportunity to read your e-mail the other day and I thank you for your arguments and insights into the matter of religion. I agree with you that it is commendable when people have the desire to share their faith with others. I greatly appreciated your interest in having this discussion and I also was very impressed by your zeal for your religion.

There are many aspects of Islam that I admire and appreciate. For instance, I am always impressed and challenged by the way in which Moslems are devoted to the practice of disciplined prayer. Another thing that I love about Islam is its tremendous reverence for Allah and the respect with which ‘Isa is spoken of in the Qur’an.

As a Christian, I want to make it clear to you at the outset that I believe that ‘Isa is more than just a great prophet. I am convinced that He is Divine. However, the conclusion I have come to on the person of ‘Isa is not simply a matter of "blind" faith. Like you, I believe that it is the responsibility of every individual to arrive at a point of adherence to certain religious principles by thorough intellectual investigation.

As I read through your e-mail, there seemed to be one underlying argument that was repeated exhaustively: the integrity of the Biblical manuscripts.
 

1) Is the Bible made up of books of uncertain origin or unknown sources well after the time of Jesus?

To say that the entire Bible is made up of books made up after the time of ‘Isa is simply not true. In fact, it goes far beyond untruth. Such a statement falls into the category of ignorance. The first 39 books of the Bible (the Hebrew Old Testament) were in existence long before the time of ‘Isa. These 39 books composed the Hebrew Bible long before ‘Isa showed up on the scene of human history...not after.

Regarding the New Testament (the 27 books which were written after ‘Isa’s life on earth), it is important for you to note that there are more than 5,300 known Greek manuscripts of the New Testament. In fact, including other languages besides the Greek, there are over 24,000 manuscripts available of the entire New Testament or portions thereof. No other ancient document can even begin to approach such historic attestation. After the New Testament, the second rank in terms of surviving manuscript evidence is Homer’s "Iliad" with 643 surviving manuscripts. (Obviously, there’s a big difference between 24,000 and 643.)

2) How can one believe in words that are attributed to a prophet as great as Jesus without certainty as to the validity of these words as expressed in the Bible?

The authors of the New Testament were primarily writing as eyewitnesses of the life of ‘Isa. A majority of them were writing down their own experiences with ‘Isa. In a few instances, they were writing down the accounts given to them by other eyewitnesses. As far as documentary investigation goes, eyewitness accounts are the most reliable means of gathering historical data. If you pick up a newspaper or go and sit in a court of law, you will realize that, even in this modern day and age, corroborating eyewitness accounts are the most valuable in establishing a truthful account of events.

So the point is not that words have been attributed to ‘Isa, but WHO has attributed these words to ‘Isa? EYEWITNESSES have done the attributing on the basis of the fact that they have seen and heard and touched and experienced. No evidence exists to refute the claims of these eyewitnesses and establish the contrary.

3) Aren’t there various books in the Bible that contain inherent inconsistencies?

When it comes to the question of inconsistencies, you must realize that a more accurate way of approaching the subject matter is to say "perceived" inconsistencies. The reason I say that is because with the Bible (as with the Qur’an or any other Holy Writ) an outsider looking in may find many things that seem to him to be inconsistencies. But a theologian who is well acquainted with the Bible (or Qur’an or Bhagavad Gita, etc.) can easily and rationally explain the seemingly "inherent inconsistencies".

Actually, I’m glad that you raised this question because it gives me the opportunity to make a very important statement that is in direct antithesis to the point that you were trying to make. The unity of the Bible is actually quite remarkable! It is composed of 66 books (Old and New Testaments) which were written by over 35 authors, living in various cities and villages of the ancient world, over a time span of approximately 1,500 years. The authors represent a cross section of humanity and they came from all walks of life, including kings, fisherman, shepherds, public officials, physicians, teachers, priests, prophets and even one fruit picker. And yet, despite the differences of the authors, places and time periods, the fundamental themes of the Bible are constant, consistent and are remarkable in their unity of expression.

4) You accept the Bible’s inconsistencies on the basis of "faith"...

Faith in God and His "Son" or faith in unverifiable sources? This question I think is an invalid one because its starting point is erroneous, i.e., the inconsistencies of the Bible. The Bible is a lucid and well-integrated collection of books. They need to be understood within the proper contexts and with an understanding of basic literary mechanisms.

Furthermore, it is ludicrous to use condescending terminology such as the term "unverifiable sources". Let me put it this way, there are three fundamental principles of historiography: the bibliographical test, the internal evidence test and the external evidence test. When it comes to the issue of manuscript verification of the Bible, which of these are you questioning?

Finally, I must say that it is not reasonable for you to imply that faith plays no part in the matter of religion. Ultimately all religions, including yours and mine, boil down to a matter of faith - not data.

Isn’t it blasphemy to assert that Jesus said something when there is ABSOLUTELY no way of attributing those words to Jesus Himself? This question leads us down the path of circular reasoning. The underlying implication is that the words of ‘Isa as recorded in the New Testament aren’t accurate records of the "actual" words of ‘Isa. The rational counter-argument for me would be to simply ask "How can you prove that the words of ‘Isa as recorded in the New Testament are not the actual words of ‘Isa?" I understand that one of your fundamental arguments is that the Torah, Zagbur and the Injil are corrupted. If the New Testament is a counterfeit, then you must present the original. If you don’t have an original to present then how can you say that the documents that we do have are counterfeit? It goes against reason and documentary investigation. Then why do you believe it? As an act of faith? (I’m simply begging the question you raised in the previous section.) In fact, the New Testament records the words of ‘Isa as transcribed by personal eyewitnesses of ‘Isa’s life and ministry.

6) Is it not presumptuous to dismiss other religious beliefs (especially those that believe in the oneness of God) without any idea whatsoever as to what those religions believe?

Of course it is presumptuous to dismiss other religious beliefs (particularly monotheistic ones) without any meaningful and rational information in regard to what these religions believe. I agree with you 100%. And this sort of presumption is apparent in every arena of religion.

7) Would God allow mortals to speak on His behalf without providing a chain of verifiable sources?

Allah speaks through nature, through the prophets and through the human conscience. However, it is not incumbent upon Allah to speak only in ways that are acceptable to mere humans such as us. In the Bible, there is even an example of Allah using a donkey to convey His message. Many mortals have spoken on behalf of Allah. The Qur’an records that Adam, Noah, Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Ishmael, David, Solomon, Elijah, Elisha and Jonah (to name a few) all spoke as mortal prophets of Allah. What chain of verifiable sources do you present on behalf of these prophets?

Should we not use our God-given intellect to determine whether or not our own belief systems are inherently consistent? Or should we engage in blind adherence to certain principles without engaging in intellectual contemplation?

Once again, I must agree with you. It is the duty of every adherent of any religion to investigate his belief systems in order to come to conclusions on the consistency and validity of his religious order. Blind adherence without intellectual contemplation leads to shallow devotion and irrational zealousness.

9) Have the books of the Bible been changed by man, i.e. distorted by translations and re-translations?

The books of the Bible have been translated into almost every major language in the world. By 1966, the whole Bible had been translated into 240 languages and dialects. Including portions of the Bible (as opposed to the whole), the Bible had been, by that year, published in a total of 1,280 languages. However, the fundamental message of the Bible has in no way been compromised or distorted by the translators. This is easily verifiable by returning to the original manuscripts. All that is needed is a working knowledge of the ancient Koine Greek, Hebrew and some Aramaic. Furthermore, such a hoax as the one your are implying could not be successfully contrived on the Christian population of the world. Hebrew and Greek scholars have justly criticized the few questionable translations that exist on an international level for their lack of integrity. No well-informed Christian would use such a translation.
 

Has God sent another messenger with an unchanging message after Jesus’ message was "corrupted" by erroneous translations? I know where this question is leading... Of course it is expected that you would say that the Bible has been erroneously transcribed/translated and that Allah sent another and greater prophet, Muhammad, to make up for this deficit. This is a fundamental tenet of Islam. However, I cannot agree with your implication, not out of prejudice, but simply because the manuscripts do not support such an unverifiable claim to the corruption of the Biblical texts.

The message of Muhammad and the Qur’an remain unchanged since the time of the Prophet’s Caliphs. Wouldn’t a scholar of any religion acknowledge this? No. When Ali ibn Abu Talib was elected Khalif in 656, the governor of Syria, Muawiya, son of Abu Sufian, refused to recognize him. A civil war followed. It ended five years later when Ali was killed. Furthermore, on October 10, 680, Hussein, the grandson of Muhammad, was brutally killed by the Omayyids in Kerbela in Iraq. The feud between the Omayyids and Ben Hashim split the Muslim world and this split continues today (i.e. the conflict between the Sunni’s and the Shiites). So I submit to you that the probability of a scholar of ANY religion acknowledging your statement may not be the most accurate representation of the facts.
12) Is the religion of Christianity the message of Jesus? Or is it the message of various men that followed him who had the audacity to attribute words to God and to His cherished messenger Jesus? (i.e. Is Christianity a man-made religion?)

This particular point has gotten very repetitive and trite as it has been addressed various times in this response. Let me ask you something: did Abu Bakr accurately represent the life and teachings of Muhammad? If you believe so, then why is it so difficult to accept that the disciples of ‘Isa faithfully recorded and taught the words of ‘Isa? Is there some subtle predisposition or prejudice that keeps you from accepting this as reality?

Would accepting the integrity of the New Testament possibly dissuade you from minimizing its message? If you read that message without bias, would it possibly speak to you on the levels of both intellect and spirit?

Listen to what the Qur’an says:

"The Messiah, Jesus son of Mary, was only a messenger of Allah, and His word which He conveyed unto Mary, and a spirit from Him" (Surah al-Nisa’ 4:171).

According to this passage, ‘Isa was the messenger and Word of Allah! Now let’s compare that with what the New Testament says, "In the beginning was the Word and the Word was with Allah and the Word was Allah," (John 1:1).

"(And remember) when the angels said: O Mary! Lo! Allah giveth thee glad tidings of a word from Him, whose name is the Messiah, Jesus, son of Mary, illustrious in the world and the Hereafter, and one of those brought near (unto Allah)" (Surah al-Imran 3:45). According to this passage, Allah’s Word manifested was the Messiah, Jesus the Son of Mary... Now let’s once again compare that to the words of the angel Gabriel in the New Testament, "You will be with child and give birth to a son, and you are to give him the name Jesus. He will be great and will be called the Son of the Most

High..." (Luke 1:31 and 32).

13) Wouldn’t Islam pale in comparison to Christianity if that was the religion brought by Jesus? But doesn’t Islam contain a level of intelligence that has no equal on earth?

It depends on your predisposition to the information at hand. The evolutionist believes in his theory of evolution because he is predisposed to assimilate his information and arrive at conclusions that favor his predisposition. The Muslim says that Islam contains the greatest level of intelligence. The Jew says his religion contains the greatest level of intelligence. The Christian says his religion contains the greatest level of intelligence. We are predisposed to arrive at such conclusions. What we need to do is get past the rhetoric and sincerely ask, what is truth? Wherever men sincerely seek for truth (as opposed to a meager defense of their existing religious biases) then I believe that Allah reveals himself to such a person. Allah’s heart is close to those who are seekers of truth.

14) Can any mortal creation compare to a truly inspired source of guidance such as the Qur’an?

This sounds more like a statement of devotion rather than intellect. However, I cannot criticize you for your love for your Holy Book. I, too, love to read the Qur’an. It is a truly beautiful collection of thoughts and ideas. It is melodic, inspirational and I love its reverence for Allah. At the same time, I love the Bible, as well. In the Qur’an I see Allah represented as One who is just and holy, punishing the wicked and executing judgment on those who are enemies of His prophet. However, I would point you in the direction of the New Testament, which shows another side to the nature of Allah. Allah is not only a Person of holiness, but He is a Person of immeasurable grace. His love knows no boundaries or measures. He can love us beyond our comprehension and forgive us of our deepest and darkest sins. Not because we are worthy, but because Allah is great in His compassion. Have you known Allah personally in this way?

I never read the original e-mail, which was sent to you. I don’t know who sent it or what it contained. However, I’m glad that you felt somewhat inspired by it. If you recognize the inspiration contained within the Injil, I encourage you to investigate it further. If for nothing else than to be familiar with what it contains.

Regarding the courage to read the Qur’an, I can only say that reading the Qur’an requires not courage but patience which results in great pleasure. What a beautiful book it is, indeed...one of my personal favorites among all the world’s Sacred Writings."

From, Reggie Abraham

 
 

Here is the sum and substance of my response to Mr. Abraham:

"This is intended for - Reggie Abraham:

I appreciate the response Mr. Abraham. It was very thorough. However, you should be aware of the fact that my questions were directed at a particular author.

The goal behind my line of questioning was simply to raise issues that THAT author clearly did not consider. Nothing I said to that author was meant to be an assertion of fact or a conclusion, but merely the beginning of that author’s exploration of religious thoughts and ideas.

As you have chosen to respond, and I am grateful for the response, I will now discuss the points that I raised in a cursory fashion, and more importantly, the points that you raise.

You state that "there seemed to be one underlying argument that was repeated exhaustively throughout. An argument concerning the integrity of the Biblical manuscripts."

That is absolutely correct. As I believe that God is a just being who would provide a unified source of guidance, then I feel that my focus on the lack on integrity of the Bible is entirely warranted. When you read the thoughts contained herein remember that I am speaking as an individual Muslim and not as the representative of Islam or the Muslim population.

If anything that I am about to say is inaccurate or misleading may God forgive me. To insult Jesus or his message would surely lead to my damnation.

You have segmented your discussion between the Old Testament and the New Testament. As you know the New Testament was composed well after the death of Jesus. As for the Old Testament, it has undergone many translations and re-translations throughout its long history. You are well aware that the language spoken in the Middle East (currently or in the past) cannot be literally translated into English or other European dialects.

Every Muslim knows that to read the Qur’an in English or any language except Arabic necessarily means that you have not fully appreciated it’s content. Only the original transcription in Arabic is reliable and provides the meaning of the words, which transcends mere literal transcriptions - which, in any case, is impossibility. While there are many translations of the Qur’an which is read by Muslims only the Arabic is relied on by Muslims.

The language spoken in the Middle East at the time of Jesus is the only reliable source. Do you have access or know of any version of the Bible that remains from the time of Jesus in the language of Jesus? Certainly you do not.

Furthermore, It is your contention that the existence of many translations of the books that compose the Christian belief is proof of authenticity. Does quantity really assure quality?

I too have read the books of the Bible. You have failed to mention that it is widely known among Christian scholars, not outsiders, that both the Old and New Testament cannot be accurately traced as a result of wars, attempts to wipe out Christianity by pagan enemies, abuses by Popes, ministers, etceteras.

Since the Old Testament preceded Jesus what eyewitnesses of Jesus’ message do you speak of? And since the New Testament came after his death, to what eyewitnesses do you speak of?

You state: "When it comes to the question of inconsistencies, you must realize that a more accurate way of approaching the subject matter is to say "perceived" inconsistencies. The reason I say that is because with the Bible (as with the Qur’an or any other Holy Writ) an outsider looking in may find many things that seem to him to be inconsistencies. But a theologian who is well acquainted with the Bible (or Qur’an or Bhagavad Gita, etc.) can easily and rationally explain the seemingly "inherent inconsistencies."

You consider me an outsider. As a Muslim, I do not consider myself an outsider to the message of Jesus. Since you assert your familiarity with Islam then you well know that Muslims would be followers of Jesus if not for one fact. The fact that those who came after Jesus asserted words to him which he did not speak, or for the fact that NO ONE knows who wrote the New Testament, which is the only source that can even allege to contain his teachings.

You state: "The authors of the New Testament were primarily writing as eyewitnesses of the life of ‘Isa. A majority of them were writing down their own experiences with ‘Isa. In a few instances, they were writing down the accounts given to them by other eyewitnesses. As far as documentary investigation goes, eyewitness accounts are the most reliable means of gathering historical data. If you pick up a newspaper or go and sit in a court of law, you will realize that, even in this modern day and age, corroborating eyewitness accounts are the most valuable in establishing a truthful account of events. So the point is not that words have been attributed to ‘Isa, but WHO has attributed these words to ‘Isa? EYEWITNESSES have done the attributing on the basis of the fact that they have seen and heard and touched and experienced. No evidence exists to refute the claims of these eyewitnesses and establish the contrary."

As a lawyer, and a Muslim, I am entirely familiar with these techniques. I am also familiar with the fact that there must be evidence to SUBSTANTIATE the claims of those who receive their knowledge from these eyewitnesses. If you are a lawyer then you well know that when "no evidence exists to refute the claims of these eyewitnesses and establish the contrary" then subsequent eyewitnesses are deemed unreliable. In essence, I do not challenge the immediate eyewitnesses, but I do challenge the chain of transmission. More importantly, the books of the New Testament were written well after the time that the companions of Jesus could have lived. While most outsiders feel that Christian scholars are being far too generous as to timing, their claims relating to the Gospel are generally as follows:

The Gospels were written at least 40 years after Jesus’ death. The last Gospel was written over 100 years after his death. It is clear that none of the Gospels were meant to be a historic record, rather, the Gospels were designed to gain converts to Christianity, and add gloss to the already spectacular life of Jesus. There is also no indication that Matthew, Mark, John, or Luke were the actual authors of their various texts or if they did author it, that they were the sole authors.

You state: "The Bible is a lucid and well integrated collection of books. They need to be understood within the proper contexts and with an understanding of basic literary mechanisms."

I agree. However, lucidity does not equate to authenticity. And anyone who understands "basic literary mechanism" knows that re-translations affect the substance of the message, and that is why "there seems to be one underlying argument that was repeated exhaustively throughout. An argument concerning the integrity of the Biblical manuscripts."

You state that: "...it is ludicrous to use condescending terminology such as the term "unverifiable sources."

My choice of the terms "unverifiable sources" might be condescending but for the fact that is an accurate use of terminology. More importantly, it was not meant to be condescending, especially in the light of the fact that many Hebrew and Christian scholars openly admit that many sources of the Bible are not accurately traceable. If you feel otherwise, then you are at odds with those who have a qualified belief in Christianity.

You state: "Let me put it this way, there are three fundamental principles of historiography: the bibliographical test, the internal evidence test and the external evidence test. When it comes to the issue of manuscript verification of the Bible, which of these are you questioning?"

These are impressive terms with which I am wholly unfamiliar. But, what bibliographical, internal, or external tests are you referring to that traces the New Testament to Jesus, or that establishes that Jesus adopted the manuscripts of the Old Testament. As for the latter, was it not Jesus’ purpose to bring back the Jews from their fall? Was it not the Jews that believed the majority of what Christians classify as the Old Testament? Clearly, Jesus found the Old Testament flawed. Yet you rely on it for the majority of your assertions. Do you know better than Jesus does?

You state: "If the New Testament is a counterfeit, then you must present the original. If you don’t have an original to present then how can you say that the documents that we do have are counterfeit? It goes against reason and documentary investigation. Then why do you believe it? Is it as an act of faith? (I’m simply begging the question you raised in the previous section.) In fact, the New Testament records the words of ‘Isa as transcribed by personal eyewitnesses of ‘Isa’s life and ministry."

As a Christian it is YOUR responsibility to produce the original, or to establish its authenticity. Secondly, I never stated that the New Testament is counterfeit - it is UNRELIABLE and UNVERIFIABLE. Using eyewitnesses is precisely one of the reasons why the Qur’an can be traced accurately, and why it has not been changed since it’s compilation. NO ONE CAN DISPUTE THIS FACT, others have tried, but even Christian and Jewish scholars have conceded that the Qur’an has been unchanged - ask them. Your assertions as to the authenticity of the New Testament are highly inaccurate.

You state: "I must say that it is not reasonable for you to imply that faith plays no part in the matter of religion. Ultimately all religions, including yours and mine, boil down to a matter of faith - not data."

I never implied "that faith plays no part in the matter of religion." My belief in Islam is based on faith in the existence of God, supplemented by a book that supplies persuasive authority of his existence.

You state: "Allah speaks through nature, through the prophets and through the human conscience. However, it is not incumbent upon Allah to speak only in ways that are acceptable to mere humans such as us. In the Bible, there is even an example of Allah using a donkey to convey His message. Many mortals have spoken on behalf of Allah. The Qur’an records that Adam, Noah, Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Ishmael, David, Solomon, Elijah, Elisha and Jonah (to name a few) all spoke as mortal prophets of Allah. What chain of verifiable sources do you present on behalf of these prophets?"

Your response misses the point completely. As you accurately quoted me in your response, I asked, "would God allow mortals to speak on His behalf without providing a chain of verifiable sources?" The critical point of my statement is the latter half dealing with a verifiable source.

You state: "By 1966, the whole Bible had been translated into 240 languages and dialects. Including portions of the Bible (as opposed to the whole), the Bible had been, by that year, published in a total of 1,280 languages. However, the fundamental message of the Bible has in no way been compromised or distorted by the translators. This is easily verifiable by returning to the original manuscripts. All that is needed is a working knowledge of the ancient Koine Greek, Hebrew and some Aramaic. Furthermore, such a hoax as the one your are implying could not be successfully contrived on the Christian population of the world. Hebrew and Greek scholars have justly criticized the few questionable translations that exist on an international level for their lack of integrity. No well informed Christian would use such a translation."

Thank you for helping me prove my point. I asked the question before as to quantity and quality. Now I will unequivocally state that your reliance on quantity is irrelevant to a search for truth; i.e., quality. The fact that there are many translations proves nothing. Every Bible produced today is derived from past sources, which cannot be relied upon. Furthermore, there are no original manuscripts to return to. I implied no hoax. Where are these manuscripts that you refer to that contain the original eyewitness accounts of Jesus’ life in the language spoken at the time of Jesus?

The fundamental message of the Bible is not challenged by any other Muslim or me. The fundamental message is correct. However, as a perfect being, God should be served by an unchanging message, as the one contained in the Qur’an. If you look at the way God uses analogies and the bringing of consecutive prophets, then you will find that God is educating us both by inspiration and by progressively more detailed knowledge. God is building to something, and that something is the day that man is ready for a unified message which he can understand with his own faculties without the need for miracles and further prophets. This is similar to the way our school system progressively educates our children; we are the children of God. What makes Muhammad (pbuh) special was simply the fact that he was the servant chosen to bring this lasting message; other than that, he is simply a man. Each prophet was special in his own way, and carried out his specific task. Jesus is the only prophet whose mission is not yet complete - he will return.

You state: "Of course it is expected that you would say that the Bible has been erroneously transcribed/translated and that Allah sent another and greater prophet, Muhammad, to make up for this deficit. This is a fundamental tenet of Islam."

I never stated that Muhammad was a greater prophet. THIS IS NOT A FUNDAMENTAL TENET OF ISLAM. For your information, we rely on the Qur’an as the only accurate source of written guidance for all time. And like Christians, we await the return of Jesus to finally resolve all differences.

You state: "’The message of Muhammad and the Qur’an remain unchanged since the time of the Prophet’s Caliphs. Wouldn’t a scholar of any religion acknowledge this?’ No. When Ali ibn Abu Talib was elected Khalif in 656, the governor of Syria, Muawiya, son of Abu Sufian, refused to recognize him. A civil war followed. It ended five years later when Ali was killed. Furthermore, on October 10 680, Hussein, the grandson of Muhammad, was brutally killed by the Omayyids in Kerbela in Iraq. The feud between the Omayyids and Ben Hashim split the Muslim world and this split continues today (i.e. the conflict between the Sunni’s and the Shiites). So I submit to you that the probability of a scholar of ANY religion acknowledging your statement may not be the most accurate representation of the facts.

Your references to what transpired after the compilation of the Qur’an is entirely irrelevant. We do not look to anyone but Muhammad (pbuh) for guidance, and the everlasting book - the Qur’an. I like the term "brutally killed". I’m glad you raised the issue. Our religion, like yours, has suffered from men using religion to satisfy earthly goals. But, unlike Christianity our source of guidance transcends us, and as promised, has not been changed, nor will it ever be changed. THAT IS MY CRITICAL POINT.

And if you rely on this method of analysis, I do not, then how can you avoid the fact that many more people and nations were "brutally killed" in the name of Christianity. And if it is true that "a theologian who is well acquainted with the Bible (or Qur’an or Bhagavad Gita, etc.) can easily and rationally explain the seemingly ‘inherent inconsistencies’" then why is it that there are well over two dozen Christian sects who adhere to different sources of guidance, and accept certain texts as part of the Bible while rejecting others? "Outsiders" did not create this situation, insiders did.

Additionally, it is irrelevant that the Muslim world is split. That split has not affected the Qur’an in any way, shape, or form. Again, the only thing of importance is that the MESSAGE (Qur’an) is unchanged. That is why we are Muslims. We are assured that no matter what we do, or no matter how we interpret the Qur’an it will never be changed - and it has not been changed by anyone who claims to be a Muslim, whether they be Sunni or Shia or otherwise. We (all humanity) are like children who abuse the gifts given to us. It takes time before we can appreciate knowledge. But that would be an impossibility if the source of this knowledge has been changed. You must pay very careful attention to differentiate between the acts of man and God. The Qur’an is God’s message. To be a Sunni or a Shia or a Christian or whatever is a creation of man, and is therefore of no ultimate consequence. As you know, the Qur’an warns us (Muslims) that we would fall into factions and thereby cause enmity amongst ourselves, but God also states that despite this fact we will not change the Qur’an itself.

You state: "Is the religion of Christianity the message of Jesus? Or is it the message of various men that followed him who had the audacity to attribute words to God and to His cherished messenger Jesus? (i.e. Is Christianity a man-made religion?)’ This particular point has gotten very repetitive and trite as it has been addressed various times in this response. Let me ask you something: did Abu Bakr accurately represent the life and teachings of Muhammad? If you believe so, then why is it so difficult to accept that the disciples of ‘Isa faithfully recorded and taught the words of ‘Isa? Is there some subtle predisposition or prejudice that keeps you from accepting this as reality? Would accepting the integrity of the New Testament possibly dissuade you from minimizing its message? If you read that message without bias, would it possibly speak to you on the levels of both intellect and spirit?

First, Abu Bakr is not our source of guidance, as I have previously stated. We view Abu Bakr as a great man, but I will repeat myself again, we only look to Muhammad (pbuh) and the Qur’an for guidance. Second, I (or other Muslims) do not challenge the honesty and sincerity of Jesus’ disciples. However, we do challenge the genuineness of the "saints", popes, priests, etc. who came after these righteous men, and we do take issue with their "transcribing" of the message of God. "Is there some subtle predisposition or prejudice that keeps you from accepting this as reality?"

You seem to take particular issue with my focus on the inaccuracy of the Bible. As a result, I cannot help but conclude that you miss the point entirely. Here it is again; the only reason that Muhammad (pbuh) was sent was because those who came after Jesus corrupted his message.

You state: "The Muslim says that Islam contains the greatest level of intelligence. The Jew says his religion contains the greatest level of intelligence. The Christian says his religion contains the greatest level of intelligence. We are predisposed to arrive at such conclusions. What we need to do is get past the rhetoric and sincerely ask, what is truth? Wherever men sincerely seek for truth (as opposed to a meager defense of their existing religious biases) then I believe that Allah reveals himself to such a person. Allah’s heart is close to those who are seekers of truth."

You may feel that your religion contains the "greatest level of intelligence, but do not allege that I hold similar beliefs. I believe that the Qur’an is the greatest book in existence. What Muslims, non-Muslims, or I do with the knowledge contained therein is irrelevant to my point. I will not know whether my "religion" is on any higher level until I die and receive my judgment.

You state: "This sounds more like a statement of devotion rather than intellect. However, I cannot criticize you for your love for your Holy Book. I, too, love to read the Qur’an. It is a truly beautiful collection of thoughts and ideas. It is melodic, inspirational and I love its reverence for Allah. At the same time, I love the Bible, as well. In the Qur’an I see Allah represented as One who is just and holy, punishing the wicked and executing judgment on those who are enemies of His prophet. However, I would point you in the direction of the New Testament, which shows another side to the nature of Allah. Allah is not only a Person of holiness, but He is a Person of immeasurable grace. His love knows no boundaries or measures. He can love us beyond our comprehension and forgive us of our deepest and darkest sins. Not because we are worthy, but because Allah is great in His compassion. Have you known Allah personally in this way?"

Am I not entitled to devotion? Or is it a character trait that only belongs to some? I love the Qur’an not because it is melodic, but because it is consistent, and reflects the nature of the universe. It appears that you have only conducted a superficial reading of the Qur’an. The reason I can state this with conviction is because the Qur’an is a guidebook. Enjoying it for its beauty is commendable, but it is not the way to true understanding of this book. One must read it as a pamphlet for life, and then determine whether or not it is worthy of adherence.

Generally, have you ever wondered why Jesus did not set out specifically what he deemed to be the religion of God? Have you ever wondered why religion is necessary at all, if Jesus, "the Son of God", did in fact sacrifice his life for mankind? And, are we as humans that important that God would sacrifice his "son" for our redemption? I could list many more questions of this type, but I will leave of this line of inquiry for now.

[These are questions that I raise - they are not conclusions, and you should not endeavor to assume what I think. If Christianity is the way then you should be able to address these points by addressing the questions directly rather than avoiding the points raised by raising counter-points. As I said earlier, I will attempt to clarify any tenets of Islam with which you take issue - to the best of my knowledge. And, I hope that I have sufficiently addressed the points that you raised in your response; if not, then let me know and I will try again].

I have challenged the Bible, and NOT Jesus, his message, or his disciples. Can you similarly challenge any of the basic tenets of Islam or the Qur’an? And if you can, then please do. I will endeavor to respond.

Further discussions on my part will focus specifically on inconsistencies contained in the various books of the Bible, whether it is the Old Testament or the New Testament. I will also offer proof of the unreliability of translations, and how the particular historical transmission of the Old and New Testaments make these books wholly unreliable. Despite the fact that they do represent the basic concepts necessary to qualify as a distant derivative of the teachings of Jesus, Moses, Abraham, etceteras.

Furthermore, it is obvious that you find my assertions as to the inaccuracy and unreliability of the Bible unreliable; for that I cannot fault you. But, you should know that my assertions are not based on allegations made by Muslims, but rather acknowledgments made by Hebrew and Christian scholars. I had considered referring you to some of these scholars, but I do not want to run the risk of biasing your search for knowledge by interjecting my sources. Therefore, I recommend that you contact scholars from Columbia or NYU in the city to explore the truth or falsity of my claims. The television channels A&E and Discovery have regular specials based on the Bible and I know for a fact that they will freely give you a list of contacts for their guests and their other outside sources. Before you disbelieve what I say contact those who use scientific methods, probably some of which you mentioned, and find out the facts for yourself from those who have no reason, since they are believers, to bolster what I say if what I say is untrue or inaccurate.

Most importantly, this has been a wonderful exchange. But I do feel that it is over broad. In the future, should you so desire, we should focus more carefully on addressing points one at a time and in greater detail. Because of the generalized nature of the discussion up to this point, you will notice that this response itself is general in nature; I will focus more carefully in the future, to do otherwise would be an injustice to prophets Muhammad, Jesus, and the other prophets (pbuh).

Also, I am very busy; if you do not hear from me for any extensive period of time do not think that I am ignoring you. Whatever you write will receive a response.

For future discussions you should know the following:

1. Muslims do not take issue with the message of Jesus (or any of the other preceding prophets) or the fact that he was sent by God - he is our prophet too. We challenge the credibility of the books that lay claim to his life and teachings as inaccurate.

2. Islam is NOT a religion. It is a way of life.

3. The Qur’an is the means to success in this life and in the hereafter.

However, failure to adhere to the Qur’an does not mean that one cannot be successful in this life and the hereafter. Muslims boldly claim that the Qur’an is a perfect source of human guidance, but we do not claim that it is the only way to success. We cannot say so because to say so would be in direct contradiction to what we are told in the Qur’an, as you well know.

4. One does not have to call oneself a "Muslim" in order to be a Muslim or to enter paradise. The word Muslim means one who has submitted to God, and we do not know whom among us, whether the individual is a "Muslim" or "non-Muslim", has submitted to God until the day of Resurrection. We simply use the term "Muslim" as an identifying label, and not an assertion of fact as to who we are, since we will never know until God puts his stamp of approval on our lives and our accomplishments in this corporeal world. If you, as a "Christian" enter paradise then you are a Muslim; if I as a "Muslim" do not enter paradise then I am a non-Muslim - i.e., I have not submitted to the will of God.

You have made other erroneous statements relating to Islam and Muslims. However, since neither of us is perfect and since we, and those who listen in on our discussions are seeking knowledge, I cannot hold such genuine efforts at acquiring knowledge against you; I hope that you afford me the same courtesy for my mistakes."

Salaam, M. Fyzul Khan
E-mail address is Fyzul@juno.com
 

[Christianity] [Home] [ Site Map ]