This will be only a short point made on the modern Muslim view on the Biblical-Christian apostles.
I continue to be amazed by the inconsistency of Islamic apologetics and argumentation. I guess Muslims are aware of the danger posed upon Islam by the fact that early Christianity was organised and led by invidiuals who knew Jesus, who were trained by Jesus and appointed by Jesus.
Particularly damaging for Islam is the fact that the teaching and account of Jesus that we possess today (which is the only Gospel=Injeel) derives from these very individuals, the apostles.
Hence when Christians quote Matthew's Gospel or John's Gospel or the Epistle of First Peter, Muslims are often quick to point out that the apostles were failures and therefore unsuitable as candidates for the transmission of Jesus.
Already here, lays the first problem for the religion of Islam, namely that the information that we possess and that has existed in history that transmits the teaching of Jesus was conveyed to us by these very apostles.
Thus if these were unsuitable, we conclude that the Injeel referred to by the Qur'an is not even worthy of consideration. This is obvious considering that the Qur'an is referring to the same Gospel information that Christians have always possessed; for example it is obvious that the Qur'an mistakenly refers to councelor in John 14: 16 as Muhammad, who then existed in Jesus' time, the Muhammad who lived in the apostles, the Muhammad who is omnipresent, the Muhammad who in the same chapter is joined with the Father and the Son, and the Muhammad who was sent by Jesus.
If the Gospels went through seventy years of corruptive process and were embellished as Shabir Ally so often exclaims I find it funny that this very passage is not found in Mark's Gospel but rather in the Gospel to which Muslims ascribe the ultimate corruption (Another serious blunder for the Qur'an and modern Islamic apologists).
Hence we know that the Qur'an is here referring to e.g. John's Gospel, which Muslims consider a fabrication, lol, don't ask me how they manage to thrive in such confusion.
Secondly, Muslims tend to reject the apostles due to their immaturity as described in the Gospels. A Muslim I argued with lately referred to Mark 8: 33 where Jesus says to Peter: 'Get behind me satan...you do not have in mind the things of God but the things of men'.
This particular Muslim assumed that Peter was develish and his epistles and contribution to the Gospel transmission would therefore have to be categorized invalid, after all how are we to take a individual seriously whom Jesus himself has named 'devil'.
Three problem arise here with this methodology:
Firstly, Muhammad himself can hardly be considered mature prior to or while being a prophet of God. He doubted God's revelation, attempted suicide (Al-Bukhari, Volume 9, Book 87, Number 111), received and transmitted revelation from Satan demanding worship of idols (Sura 22: 52-53), not to speak of the illicit behaviour on the maritial and sexual level.
If Muslims have no problem in seeing Muhammad as a valid prophet, I am astonished that they can reject Peter as an apostle of God.
Secondly, the passage describes Peter while still being instructed as a disciple, in other words Peter is still immature and slightly ignorant. In fact the immaturity of the apostles was a favorite argument of the second century Gnostic adheres, an argument that was effectively refuted by Clement of Alexandria, Tertullian and Origin.
Thirdly, why is Peter categorized as a devil in this passage, I guess my Muslim friend failed to read the passage fully. Well, Peter was in this context harshly rebuked by Jesus since he objected to Jesus' death and resurrection which both contradict the teachings of the Qur'an.
In other words the passage describes here every Muslim and any individual who objects to the death and suffering of Jesus. I must say utilizing this argument from a Muslim point of view is shooting the entire foot off.
I remember Ayaz in our Birmingham Debate in 2008 qouted Thomas in John 14, where Thomas appears not to know the way to God. I find it funny that here we have yet another Muslim debater who fails to realize that the disciples of Jesus at this point do not possess the fullness of understanding which they were to possess later.
Fourthly, I guess Muslims not only fail to understand the Bible, they either deliberately or out of ignorance fail to understand their own book, the Qur'an.
According to the Qur'an the Apostles were not at all invalid or unsuccessful or failures; the Qur'an declares that the apostles of Jesus were Muslims:
When Jesus found unbelief on their part, he said: ‘who will be my helpers to (the work of ) Allah?’ Said the disciples: ‘We are Allah’s helpers: we believe in Allah and do you bear witness that we are Muslims. Our Lord! We believe in what you have revealed, and we follow the messenger, then write us down among those who bear witness’ (3: 53-4)
The Apostles according to this passage are those who bear witness and the Gospels we possess today and which the Qur'an (but not the follower of the Qur'an) confirms as valid is their testimony (How can Muslims today reject these previous revelations and still claim to be believers and faithful students devoted to the Qur'an?).
Secondly, the Qur'an declares that the followers of Jesus in contrast to the rest of Israel were victorious:
O you who believe! Be you helpers of Allah: as said Jesus the son of Mary to his disciples, “who will be my helpers (to the work) Allah?” Said the disiciples, “We are Allah’s helpers!” Then a portion of the children of Israel believed, and a portion disbelieved: but we gave power to those who believed, against their enemies, and they became the ones that prevailed (Sura 6: 14)
The apostles when succeeding the Jesus in transmitting his teaching and account had matured in every way in stark contrast to the Gospels
The immaturity of the disciples in the Gospels is tantamount to the adherer of the Islamic doctrine.
The Qur'an praises the contribution of the apostles.
There to my Muslim readers, if you deprive the apostles of Jesus off the status ascribed upon them by both the Bible and the Qur'an you object to the Qur'an. On the other hand if you choose obedience to your book you accept their testimony, which is the Gospels and hence you cannot be a Muslim.
Oh come on, that cant be so difficult or is it?