God of the Old Testament: Jesus or Allah

A debate I had with Samuel Green last night.





In the end, the Muslims were told to read all the prophets.





Given that in my presentation I quoted, in support of my claim that the Old Testament God is the same as the God of the Qur'an and that the description of God in the New Testament is totally different:


Genesis, Exodus, Numbers, 1 & 2 Samuel, Job, Hosea, Jeremiah, Isaiah, Daniel, Psalms, Proverbs, Malachi & Joel.





I'm not sure what prophets I'm missing?





Having said that, I asked on 3 occasions for the bridge between the OT and the NT which must exist through the prophetic books for both to be true to be demonstrated to me. I had no demonstration given.





Perhaps it's our Christian brothers and sisters that should consider reading the Prophets?





I expect video to be available soon, thanks to our Christian hosts and God willing, but until then here is the audio.





Despite the clear issue I have with this repeated, but unsubstantiated claim, that we don't read the prophets, I would like to thank our Christian hosts for the excellence they demonstrated in preparing the event, their hospitality and for committing to assisting my wife and I with some of the costs we incurred in making the trek to the southern reaches of the globe.

Lets continue the discussion...

After they start burning books...

I've been thinking over the past two weeks or so about some of the most over-exaggerated and false Christian claims that are presented in an attempt to
degrade the credibility of Islam and after some of the discussions I've been participating in on another site, I've decided to consider these statements that have come up in the discussions or the recent debate:

"We have some minor manuscript errors because we never burnt all our variant manuscripts."

"Uthman burnt all the variant Qur'ans, but we have never had a wholesale burning of books."

In turn, these statements usually lead into the proposal:

"Christian scholarship is honest as it hides nothing, Islamic scholarship hides things and is therefore dishonest."

So lets consider the facts:

1) According to the hadith literature, Uthman did give an order for all variant Qur'anic manuscripts, in part or full, to be burnt:

So Uthman sent a message to Hafsa saying, 'Send us the manuscripts of the Quran so that we may compile the Quranic materials in perfect copies and return the manuscripts to you'. Hafsa sent it to Uthman. 'Uthman then ordered Zaid bin Thabit, 'Abdullah bin Az-Zubair, Said bin Al-As and Abdur Rahman bin Harith bin Hisham to rewrite the manuscripts in perfect copies. Uthman said to the three Quraishi men, 'In case you disagree with Zaid bin Thabit on any point in the Quran, then write it in their (Quraishi) tongue'. They did so, and when they had written many copies, Uthman sent to every Muslim province one copy of what they had copied and ordered that all the other Quranic materials whether written in fragmentary manuscripts or whole copies, be burnt..." (Sahih al Bukhari: 6:510)

2) However, utilising this hadith as direct fact is a double edged sword for Christian, as ahadith in the collection of Tirmidhi, used to show that variants existed, actually illustrates that not all 'variant' copies were handed over:

Abdullah Ibn Masud said: "O you Muslim people! Avoid copying the Mushaf and recitation of this man. By Allah! When I accepted Islam he was but in the loins of a disbelieving man”—meaning Zaid bin Thabit—and it was regarding this that Abdullah bin Mas’ud said: “O people of Al-Iraq! Keep the Musahif that are with you, and conceal them.” (Tirmidhi: 3104).

3) Moreover, if all these variant copies were burnt in the time of Uthman (650 CE) then why were they all still around to be recorded in the collections of ahadith (850-950 CE) and all extreme reported variants, such as those recorded by the Rafidiah cleric Ahmad ibn Muhammad as-Sayyari in his Kitab al-Qira’at 900 CE, are recorded and referred to in major Sunni tafsir and ahadith collections and, in turn, debunked by those contemporary scholars.

In fact, because the Muslims were always so blatantly honest about what was out there, we have access to it all!

Still today I can buy as-Sayyari's book printed in Arabic, despite the contents not conforming to any sect (including the Shia), even in English translation, if I wish.

I can also purchase language and theology primers for the Qur'an written by the Mutazilah, political commentaries on the Qur'an written by the Shia and the whole range of Sunni Qur'anic exegetical texts refer to these heterodox opinions on the Qur'an if I really want to read them.

We've never hidden or deleted a reported Qur'anic variant. In fact, we have embraced them from the very beginning and debunked them with quality scholarship. Scholarship so confident, that we have even allowed the original variant texts to continue to be published.

So, it seems Uthman did send an order for variants to be destroyed, but clearly not all were. How did Islamic scholars deal with these variants? By analysing them - not merely wiping them off the face of the Earth.

Lets compare this to the Christian experience using two examples (there are many more, but for time's sake, we need to limit it).

1) What happened to the texts of Marcion?
Marcion of Sinope (85-160CE) was a major heterodox Christian leader in the first and second Christian century, who's teachings are believed to have become as widespread and had as many followers as the Roman Church in the following centuries (Blackman, 2004).

Marcion had his own Christian Scripture canon list, his own Gospel account (called the Gospel of the Lord) and even his own theology. In short, Marcion believed that the Jewish God and the Old Testament were not related to the Heavenly Father, Jesus and the New Testament, i.e. that there were two gods and Judaism and Christianity had no common roots.

So Marcion was a prolific writer, who had many followers over a few centuries to spread the writings around. Therefore, we would assume something of his writings would survive to this day, if Christians never destroyed heterodox texts.

In fact, as with many heterodox Christian groups, few or no actual writings survive. All we have are the commentaries and responsas written by the early proto-Orthodox Church Fathers - and from that scholars have made reconstructions.

To be completely fair, some scholars suggest a 3rd Century fragment of the Gospel according to Luke, P69, may in fact be a fragment of Marcion's Gospel.

So a prolific writer, who the Church Fathers testify in their own books had many followers for at least a century, and all we have left are reponsas and, maybe, a tiny fragment of a single page. What happened to all the rest?

Perhaps, you may say, as his teachings fell out of favour people just individually threw his texts out.

But what then do we say about the Nag Hammadi Library?
This group of Gnostic texts was found in 1945 with over 50 different texts mostly believed to have been lost since the 4th Christian century. It is believed that they were buried in jars in the desert in order to be hidden from those attempting to destroy them, after Bishop Athansius rejected them as heretical in the Festal Epistle of 367 CE.

Some of the key texts within it, such as the Gospel of Thomas, had some fragments found in the late 19t / early 20th Century, but nothing near a complete manuscript had ever been discovered.

While the majority of these texts had been referred to by many early Church Fathers, some, such as the Gospel of Thomas, were believed to be quite widespread and written in at least two languages (Greek and Coptic). Similar to Marcion, we find nothing but a few fragments of this text and nothing but commentaries by Church Fathers on most of the other texts. Had it not been for the manuscripts found at Nag Hammadi, we would know very little.

The questions herein are quite significant. I have my own answers to them, but I'll leave it for the reader to make further conclusions. I'll summarise and then pose the questions as I see them:

1) Muslims are condemned for burning all their variant texts, yet, we find texts written by those who reported the variants, ahadith reporting the variants and also commentaries on these variants from the very beginning of Islamic textual history. Moreover, all texts written by heterodox writers, despite how little the spread of their influence or how dramatically different their theology was to the mainstream.

2) In contrast, while Christians claim they never destroyed their variant texts, we find little evidence for major early Christian groups, such as those identified above. Moreover, it is clear from some early Church documents, such as the Festal Epistle of 367 CE, that all texts considered to be heterodox were labelled as heretical and they essentially cease to exist.

So:

Who has the most honest scholarship?

Who really destroyed their variant texts?

What does this actually say about the manuscript variants of the Christian Scriptures?

I'm looking forward to some ongoing discussion...

Of Mice and Straw Men

Another debate was held in December which had been in planning stages for a while and ended up running rather well. Certainly there were some flaws with my arguments, but I came to realise, while listening to the arguments of my Christian counterpart, that there are some straw men cropping up around the field.

For example, the Christian Scriptures being devoid of the word 'Trinity' is not a proof they have not been altered. Some extremist Shia sects (that no longer exist) holding that a few verses have been omitted from the Quran that are at complete odds with what the text itself says are not a proof the text has been altered.

These statements aren't even real arguments - they are straw men. Who is setting up the criteria for these issues? Not evidence based critics.

Essentially the debate itself, both in my shortcomings and in the shortcomings of my counterpart, demonstrated to me the profound importance of using an evidence base for making arguments and, in turn, conclusions. Emotions and assumptions need to be left for after the evidence has been considered...

I'll build upon this into a better post within the next week or so, God willing, and hopefully it will help my methods in the future.

Casting Light on The Son

Does the Qur'an say Jews worshipped Ezra as the son of God?

And the Jews say, "Ezra is God's son," while the Christians say, "The Christ is God's son." Such are the sayings which they utter with their mouths, following in spirit assertions made in earlier times by people who denied the truth! May God destroy them! How perverted are their minds! (TMQ 9:30)

So what does this actually mean? Classical commentators were essentially unanimous on the basics, that this ayah indicates some groups are guilty of shirk (polytheism) despite them claiming belief in only One God. Indeed, the very next few ayat elaborate further on this matter:

They have taken their rabbis and their monks-as well as the Christ, son of Mary-for their lords beside God, although they had been bidden to worship none but the One God, save whom there is no deity: the One who is utterly remote, in His limitless glory, from anything to which they may ascribe a share in His divinity! (TMQ 9:31)

and

O you who have attained to faith! Behold, many of the rabbis and monks do indeed wrongfully devour men's possessions and turn away from the path of God. But as for all who lay up treasures of gold and silver and do not spend them for the sake of God - give them the warning of painful suffering to come. (TMQ:9:34)

More perplexing, indeed, if we are to accept a common anti-Qur'anic ascertion: 'Jews did not worship Ezra as the Son of God, therefore this ayah is false'. Now it is saying some take their rabbis and some Christians take their priests as articles of worship besides God.

Quite obviously, by reading beyond the first verse oft quoted by critics, we can see that there is a range of contexts being provided here. Firstly, the Qur'an speaks to Jews claiming Ezra as God's son, then Christians claiming Jesus as God's son, then all Jews and Christians who give lofty status to their rabbis, monks and leaders.

What is the first point being made by the Qur'an?

1) No matter how you interpret these terms, if you give an elevated status to a human being, you are heading into polytheism.

The Qur'an then clarifies, with some short examples, what such a lofty status can be. I will limit this post to the three most obvious:

1) Son of God as Christians understand it (i.e. the literal begotten son of God in the Greco-Roman-Egyptian-Babylonian understanding ofthe term)

2) Son of God as Jews understand it (see Exodus 4:22, II Samuel 7:14, Psalm 89:27-28, Jeremiah 31:8 and others) which included; king, prophet, judge, Israel & angel.

3) A Divine law maker (following rabbis and monks that cast their own judgement without Divine origin).

Is it possible Ezra could fall into any of these categories? Lets see...

The book of Nehemiah (Hebrew Bible/Christian Old Testament) gives us an account of how Ezra, after leading the people back to Jerusalem from exile, then proceeded to deliver his version of the Torah to the people, which is considered the authentic version as well as a range of laws and practices.

And Ezra opened the book in the sight of all the people, for he was above all the people, and when he opened it, all the people stood up. (8:6)

Does the Qur'an mention Ezra as a prophet? No.

So who would the Qur'an be speaking to when mentioning 'Ezra as a son of God'? Obviously not Christians, and given the context of the following ayat, obviously rabbinic Jews.

Whats the warning? Be careful listening to people that don't have authority. Certainly don't ascribe them authority they don't deserve.

What evidence does the Qur'an provide?

Such people will:

*Mislead you

*Take your wealth and resources for themselves

*Eventually receive a just punishment

The first two we can actually test. We can see multiple examples in Christian and Jewish history where monks and rabbis have been placed on pedestals and deified in the Qur'anic sense. Consider the practice of pardoning in Christianity.

An ordained priest would travel from town to town, selling rubbish which he claimed would pardon sin. Such items included milk from Mary's breasts, nails inserted into Jesus, wood from the true cross, wine from the wedding at Cana and other fanciful items. Eventually, this practice lead to the Reformation, but not before countless innocents had lost their meager wealth (remember feudal Europe, peasants and all) trying to satisfy religious obligation.

In short, the claim that the Qur'an says Jews 'worshiped Ezra as the son of God'? No.

The Qur'an says Jews claimed Ezra was the son of God. The Qur'an in the following verses explains exactly what this means, not essentially a begotten son, but an individual that is given some form of Divine right (prophethood, regency, judgement) when they should not be. The Qur'an also explains the human cost of such status being applied to a person incorrectly and illustrates why it is comparable to polytheism.

In short, no need to consider the evidence about some Arab Jews worshipping Ezra. It is one interpretation that can be considered, but the Qur'an is often the best evidence of itself. Moreover, we merely need to look at the understanding the intended audience would have had of such terms, which we can find in their own texts.

Evidence Based Apologetics

Evidence based apologetics... what is that?

It's a new foundation system that I am working on, with the hope of developing some key arguments for Islam and the Qur'an which are based upon the best interpretations of available evidence and scholarship and which can, ideally, be tested and assessed by others.

How would we go about establishing a practice of evidence based apologetics?

Firstly, we must look at some specific questions or challenges and, before proceeding, assess the validity of them.

For example, using the challenge in my most recent post as an example, "The Qur'an says Mary is in the Trinity", we would first assess if this is a valid challenge, before we attempt to formulate the justification of the challenge.

I.e., By simply reading the Qur'an, one can deduce that it never suggests that Mary is part of the Trinity. Ergo, the challenge is invalid, and we do not need to go about explaining why the Qur'an would suggest Mary is a part of the Trinity.

After accepting a challenge or question as valid, we may then follow a simple 3 point process to develop evidence based responses. In short, one would need to:

1)Search for and retrieve evidence. In regards to the Qur'an, we could need to look at; manuscripts, exegeses, ahadith, historical accounts, Arabic language primers, journal articles, etc (this list is far from exhaustive).

2)Assess the validity of the evidence found. For example, who wrote it, what was their background, what evidence did they have, what do we know now that they didn't, etc.

3)Make a decision based upon the evidence. After the evidence has been appraised, make appropriate conclusions from it, which are now evidence based conclusions.

Over the next few posts, insha'Allah, I'll be attempting to demonstrate how such an approach would work, based on a common challenge against the Qur'an.

It is regularly suggested that the Qur'anic claim about the Jews considering Uzayr as the son of God is false, because the Jews don't believe this.

Lets take it through the process to come to an evidence based conclusion, insha'Allah.

Qur'anic doctrine of the Trinity - Are there mistakes?

It is commonplace, today, for many Christian apologists to propose that the Qur'anic arguments against the Trinity are flawed, because they present a false picture of the Trinity itself.

Is this correct? Absolutely not!

Lets consider some of the most common arguments:

1) "The Qur'an says that Mary is part of the Trinity. This is not correct!"
Certianly, the Christian would be 99.9% correct in the second statement above (there was a small Christian sect that did believe this, but that is beside the point) Lets assume for the sake of argument that the second part is fully correct.

So Mary isn't in the Trinity, but does the Qur'an ever suggest she is?

The word 'Trinity', thalathatun and thalathatin, is mentioned twice in the Qur'an. In both verses where it is said, Mary is not mentioned. Instead we have:

Believe, then, in God and His apostles, and do not say, "Trinity" Desist from this assertion for your own good. God is but One God; utterly remote is He, in His glory, from having a son: unto Him belongs all that is in the heavens and all that is on earth; and none is as worthy of trust as God.

(TMQ: 4:171)

Indeed, the truth deny they who say, "Behold, God is the third of a Trinity" - seeing that there is no deity whatever save the One God. And unless they desist from this their assertion, grievous suffering is bound to befall such of them as are bent on denying the truth.

(TMQ: 5:73)

Don't see any mention of Mary there. What could they be confusing this with?

AND LO! God said: O Jesus, son of Mary! Didst thou say unto men, `Worship me and my mother as deities beside God'?" Jesus answered: "Limitless art Thou in Thy glory! It would not have been possible for me to say what I had no right to! Had I said this, Thou wouldst indeed have known it! Thou knowest all that is within myself, whereas I know not what is in Thy Self. Verily, it is Thou alone who fully knowest all the things that are beyond the reach of a created being's perception.
(TMQ:5:116)

Worship me and my mother as deities (ilahayni) besides God (Allah).
Ilahayni is the double plural form of the root ilah which means a deity. From the sense of the Semitic root, ELH, means something with power (i.e. a potential to control affairs, something to seek the help of).

In that sense, this verse is arguing with the belief of somewhere in the order of about 1.5bn of the world's 2bn Christians.

"Oh!", but they say, "Catholics didn't worship Mary until recent history!".'

Is this true?

Lets consider the Sub Tuum Praesidium (Beneath Your Compassion), a prayer still used in Catholic and Orthodox liturgy that has existed since 250CE, at least.

Beneath your compassion,

We take refuge, O Mother of God:

do not despise our petitions in time of trouble:

but rescue us from dangers,

only pure, only blessed one.

Now what does that say about what Orthodox Christians thought (and still do think) about Theotokos (Mother of God)?

Seems to me, if the Qur'an were written by a man without access to a range of Christians and their texts and was just producing poetry based on hearsay, it would be likely to include Mary as part of the Trinity, especially if they happened to hear that prayer in passing.

Instead, the Qur'an differentiates between the claims of the Trinity and the lofty status given to Mary correctly and insightfully.

2)"In a verse in the Qur'an, God says He is a third of a third. Thats not the Trinity!"

Does God say this? Again the verse in question is 5:73, and the phrase in Arabic is:

qaloo inna Allaha thalithu thalathatin

"They say: Certainly, God is a third in a Trinity"

thalithu meaning: third and
thalatatin meaning: Three/Trinity

Both words come from the Arabic root THALTH, meaning 'three'.

So, definitely not "third of a third" and, at worst, it says "One Third of Three" (Which is the literal rendition).

Again, seems like the actual doctrine to any non biased reader.

Everything starts somewhere...

After much prompting I have decided to get this overdue blog started so, at least, when I cannot represent myself appropriately, this humble site will be on standby, ready to fire.

Christian Apologetics have advanced significantly in the last 15 years. Sadly, Islamic Apologetics have not had the same monumental advance and, perhaps for the first time in history, we are behind the Christians by a long way.

What can we do to counteract this? Start somewhere.

We don't get to the top by bringing others down. We get to the top by climbing to meet the challenge of those already there.

Lets keep that in mind for a first principle and please take the time to view my most recent attempt at apologetics.

Any feedback is much appreciated and welcomed.