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)
Conclusion:
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?
14 comments:
This your blog?
The Quran says the Bible is corrupt:
http://answering-christian-claims.com/The_Quran_1.html
Hi bro
Welcome to my blog. I am very pleased that you wanna dialoge with me about religious matters.
My apologies that I have failed to get back to you; I am quite caught up with with a university application and preparation for my future study.
I have read your article on this matter, I will reply to you article later this week.
But I have to say at this point, I don't think you have sufficiently studied this topic either from a Qur'anic and certainly not from a historical perspective (I don't say that to degrade you, the fact is that effectively to argue these matters requires full-time studies). At the moment you are dependent upon quotes of books based upon a one-sided view, the humanistic view in the particular, while as a muslim you ought to be open toward those who engage in such studies with an openess toward the possibility of revelation, miracles, prophecy and divine interaction. The problem of that matter is obvious, you would then have to accept the present Bible which would challenge your faith in the Qur'an.
Hence in historical study you either are dependent on the non-humanist study, which would undermine the reliability of the Qur'an, or the study of the humanist which would equally undermine your view of the Qur'an.
In fact it highly impossible for a muslim to engage in such studies without jeapordizing his own faith.
You presume e.g. that the muslim use of critical theories and the quotes of those who adhere to such ideas supports the islamic faith, however these theories are based upon secular approaches to faith and religion, its approach to the Bible will greatly undermine the credibility of the Qur'an (I guess most muslims are unaware of this), furthermore, its methods can be utilized equally on the Qur'an, which has been done in the past but which only recently have been seriously applied.
Also, I am not so sure that your claims that these ideas are reconcilable with the Qur'anic view of the Bible are so accurate as you make them be.
But could you please show me (1) from the Qur'an how and when and if the Injeel was corrupted in the first century, and (2) how (based upon the Qur'an) the apostles of Jesus either co-sided in its corruption or how they responded upon it.
At this point I am interested in getting a detailed description on these matters from what you believe is the word of God, which I then assume must give us a detailed and logical account of this process.
Thanks Hogan,
Right now I am swapped with School and work, We'll discuss this later this week.
No need to apologize to me, We are both busy with school.
Right now your one of my favorite Christians.
Thanks
Ehteshaam Gulam
http://www.answering-christian-claims.com
Certainly,
I will try to answer your article
and you can answer the questions I posted
God bless and enjoy your studies
Hi, I had a break and quickly looked into your website, I looked at and read quickly through your review of your debate with Mary Jo Sharp.
Unfortunately I have not had time to listen to the entirety of the debate.
I should probably email this to you rather than write it here. But I hope I can be of help to you and other muslim apologists here.
I sincerely believe that you are a sincere and good guy and I do not intend to humilate you.
But me reading that review and the points your are raising and reasoning behind those argument.
I have to say based upon my daily research which is this very field of study, that you do not have sufficient insight into these matters.
For example your argument that Ignatius had only the New Testament writings and Polycarp was converted in 109; I simply fail to imagine where these ideas derive; you forget that there is a thriving Christian community, you also forget that there is something called succession, you also leave out the transmission aspect and you forget that eyewitnesses of Jesus were alive probably until 110 AD, only to point out a few matters.
I just did a 20.000 word dissertation upon the relationship between the apostles and the early successors dealing with the Christian community and information from AD 30-180.
Unfortunately this information is hardly considered or even mentioned by liberal scholarship; I can therefore encourage you that you have much more reading to do.
You need to consider logic as well, is it likely that a third generation successor would loose or fabricate an entire account, particularly if he is but one who is being controlled by a number of other successors possessing the same information, and particularly if the community controls the successors and the successors control the community? I am at loss how your arguments apply here.
I do understand that you get to your conclusion by applying secular logic which runs away from such information, but I honestly fail to see why a muslim engages in such methodology.
You also (and I have said this before) engage to much with liberal scholarship without realizing the methodology of such reasoning.
Hi Hogan,
Read your article. I have to say I completely disagree with a lot of points. I'll try to respond to all the major points:
First off I want to repsond to various allegations to Prophet Muhammad (p):
As for The Satanic Verses story, its false. You can read it here:
http://www.islamic-awareness.org/Polemics/sverses.html
As for Polygamy, The Bible already allowed it, in fact there are 40 polygamists in the Bible:
http://answering-christian-claims.com/polygamyin.html
And you can't really ignore the Old Testament as a Christian, See Matthew 5:17-18.
As for the Disciples, yes according to the Gospel of Mark (the earliest Gospel), the disciples were slow, dim-witted, etc. The Quran clearly says the New Testament is corrupt all over:
Quran 4:157, 5:13-15, etc.
Thanks
Ehteshaam Gulam
http://www.answering-christian-claims.com
The disciples were simple, honest, and moral, eh? Why then do the gospels so often portray them as unbelieving, disloyal idiots? Jesus constantly rails against their incomprehension and lack of faith. They are depicted by Mark as so dense that they witness a miraculous feeding of 5000 in chapter six and 4000 in chapter eight and are scolded by Jesus because they are still worrying (See Mark 8:14-21)
When Jesus was arrested, the disciples decided that discretion was the better part of valor. In short, they denied him or ran into hiding (Mark 14:50). According to the gospels, only the women followers had enough courage to attempt to honor the body of Jesus.
The Quran praises the Disciples, yet the Gospels seem to put them down. I think the reason why the Quran does so, was Because they followed Jesus-- their prophet of their time, instead of becoming pagans, or following Judaism, etc.
Hi Gulam,
if you like the Big Bang comedy, which I realise you do, I have to recommend to you to get hold on a very typical but very very funny English comedy called Fawlty Towers, which I am glued right now. Never mind how you do it whether you google it or order it, get hold on it and I promise you will drown in laughter.
Gulam wrote:
First off I want to repsond to various allegations to Prophet Muhammad (p):
As for The Satanic Verses story, its false. You can read it here:
http://www.islamic-awareness.org/Polemics/sverses.html
Elijah replies:
I looked at the article but I think if you wanna see a proper debate on this topic, which includes almost the information of Islamic-awareness in its entirety and in which these islamic arguments against this event is refuted, look at the debate between Adnan and David Wood, London 2008.
Gulam wrote:
As for Polygamy, The Bible already allowed it, in fact there are 40 polygamists in the Bible:
http://answering-christian-claims.com/polygamyin.html
Elijah replies:
There is great difference between what the individuals did and what the Law required, Abraham, David and Solomon did not necessarily follow the Law in every matter. For example Abraham's use of his wife's slave women was a typical trend of the time, but hardly Mosaic.
Gulam wrote:
And you can't really ignore the Old Testament as a Christian, See Matthew 5:17-18.
Elijah replies:
I do not ignore the Old Testament, however, the passages you are referring emphasis the fulfilment of the Law, the complete divine standard which is recorded in Matthew 5-6, which is the standard of the Kingdom of God. If you read Matthew 11, you will notice Jesus' teaching on the Law and prophets as ending with the appearance of the Kingdom, which is the New covenant inaugurated by the apperance of Jesus; this is the fulfilment of the Law, if you do study of Isaiah, Jeremia and Ezekiel you get a much more detailed description of this.
Gulam wrote:
As for the Disciples, yes according to the Gospel of Mark (the earliest Gospel), the disciples were slow, dim-witted, etc.
Elijah replies:
Firstly there is no real evidence that Mark was written first, even though I am willing to accept it.
No, the disciples are not more dumb in Mark than the other gospels, you will find that Jesus and the disciples in Mark interact quite brutally with each other, yet such was only a normalcy in first century communication. However I believe I have answered this question of you in the article itself. The occasional referred to immaturity of the disciples in the Synoptics depicts occurances when they were still under discipleship training.
Gulam wrote:
The Quran clearly says the New Testament is corrupt all over:
Quran 4:157, 5:13-15, etc.
Elijah replies:
Sura 4: 157 (I think you got this one from Nadir Ahmed), however this passage says nothing of the corruption of ideas of the Injeel, it merely reveals that Allah allowed corruption or confusion in which he willed Jews and Jesus' disciples to believe that Jesus died. But it says nothing of a literally corrupted Injeel.
The problem here is multiple: 1) if this occured if implies that the apostles failed, 2) the burden is upon the muslim to expound the details of why and when the Christians began to believe that Jesus died and why the apostles failed to protect the truth; 3) it fails to recognise the the Qur'anic account is based upon Greek dualism not Jewish religion. In fact Greek dualism appears in Jewish Gnosticism and by the end of the first century as first century as a docetism implying that Jesus was fully divine and only spiritual and hence avoided physical death; hence the very idea is based upon doctrines that completely contradict the Qur'anic teaching. 4) In fact the passage reveals that it is the Qur'an that depends upon later greek heresy. But I fail to see how the passage even indicates that the New Testament is corrupted.
However, I am a bit confused over your usage of the New Testament here. What do you mean by the corruption of the New Testament? Are you saying that every book and epistle in the New Testament was individually corrupted? I don't think you have thought this properly through. Are you implying that the New Testament was once the true Injeel, but then which part of it was the first injeel and how did the original injeel become the New Testament?
According to modern critics the New Testament is a fabrication which incorporated supernaturalism to a purely human Jewish teacher, not a prophet or a divine being. In that case if you follow this methodology even the Injeel you assume once was the true Injeel is a fabrication.
Notice also here that within Biblical criticism the most original form of Christianity included in particular Jesus' death, resurrection and second coming, it that case the critical methodology you frequently utilize to undermine the New Testament totally refutes Sura 4: 157. Either you need to take that position or reject liberal theology all together.
As to your reference to Sura 5: 13-14, verse 13 speaks about Jews, not Christians changing words from their context, however, we are not told whether this was a literal corruption and how much they corrupted or whether this was a universal corruption.
AS to 14-15 it merely states that Christians forgot a part of something, it does not even state that they forgot part of their scripture, and even if they did, it only refers to a part of scripture; hence scripture was forgotten not corrupted and the remaining part remained intact. Interestingly the Qur'an also declares that the Muslims forgot parts of the Qur'an. Hence if forgetting is corruption, then the Qur'an itself has been corrupted.
Similarly the hiding of Scripture does not imply corruption and certainly not literary corruption but merely the hiding of Scripture.
Hence neither passage confirms or even indicates that the Injeel was changed.
Gulam wrote:
The Quran praises the Disciples, yet the Gospels seem to put them down. I think the reason why the Quran does so, was Because they followed Jesus-- their prophet of their time, instead of becoming pagans, or following Judaism, etc.
Elijah replies:
But if the disciples followed Jesus why was original Christianity not retained then.
If the Qur'an is correct about the apostles being victorious why was Christianity then corrupted, can you provide the historical details for that?
You need to be consistent about these matters.
And I agree with you the apostles were faithful, even Mark agree with that, even the church fathers agree with that; hence the Qur'an and the Christian sources are in agreement. The problem then becomes the claim of corruption. If you are gona apply liberal theology here, then you see, the apostles failed and were corrupted themselves and so were their followers. But then the Qur'an is mistaken.
You seem also to jump into conclusions such as focusing on occasions when the disciples showed their immaturity, and simply leaving out the fact that discipleship is a progressive way to maturity. Nobody is perfect while undergoing a process of discipleship.
But if the disciples followed Jesus why was original Christianity not retained then.
My Response: The followers of Jesus were JEWS. Jesus himself was a Jew. Not Christians. James followed the Jewish Law, etc. My Guess is that Pauline Christianity beat out Jewish Christianity.
As for The Quran on the New Testament, In the Quran 4:157, Surah 4:157 in which is stated the Quran says that the Christians follow nothing but corruption.
(referring to crucifixion) and those who differ therein are full of doubts. They have no (certain) knowledge, they follow nothing but conjecture. For surely; they killed him not [i.e. 'Iesa (Jesus), son of Maryam (Mary) ]: (An-Nisa 4:157)
As for the Quran 5:13-15, the Christians forgot their covenant as in, they made up certain doctrines, such as the divinity of Jesus, physical resurrection, etc. Also the original gospel was the Q Gospel-- which had sayings of Jesus and not the crucifixion or resurrection narratives.
So according to Muslim Scholars-- this points out to the New Testament being corrupted.
BTW-- I have seen Falty Towers-- its a British Classic. I also LOVE the Office (UK). Man, that show was perfect, David Brent was me in high school, lol. The only thing is its pretty depressing.
Ricky Gerivas only good thing he did.
Thanks,
Ehteshaam Gulam
http://www.answering-christian-claims.com
Post a Comment