101 Cleared-up Contradictions in the Bible

By: Jay Smith, Alex Chowdhry, Toby Jepson, James Schaeffer

“The first to present his case seems right, till another comes forward and questions him.” (Proverbs 18:17)

The Charge of Contradiction

Muslims talk often about the many contradictions in the Bible. The number of contradictions vary depending on whom you are talking to. Kairanvi’s Izhar-ul-Haq presents 119 numbered contradictions, while others such as Shabbir Ally have supposedly found 101 contradictions. The problem as they see it concerns their supposition that any religious book claiming absolute divine authority must not include any contradictions, as a message emanating from an Omniscient being must be consistent with itself.

The Muslims quote from the Qur’an (4:82) which says “do they not consider the Qur’an (with care). Had it been from any other than Allah, they would have found there-in many a discrepancy.”

A Definition of Revelation:

In order to respond to this challenge it is important that we begin by recognizing and understanding clearly the presupposition and thinking that underlies such a challenge. The principle of non-contradiction has been elevated to the status of an absolute criterion, capable of being applied by human beings in judging the authenticity of God’s word. This is not a proposition to which Christians can or should give assent. The Christian will gladly admit that scripture is ultimately non-self-contradictory. But the Christian cannot agree that the principle of non-contradiction is given to men as a criterion by which they are to judge God’s word. It is this criterion which the Muslims have imposed upon the discussion of revelation.

This is a mistake which many of us fall into; measuring that which is unfamiliar to us by a standard which is more familiar; in this case measuring the Bible with the standard which they have borrowed from the Qur’an. Their book, the Qur’an, is believed to have been ‘sent down’ (Nazil or Tanzil), from heaven unfettered by the hands of men. It is this belief in scripture as a revelation which has been ‘sent down’ which they then impose upon the Bible as well. But it is wrong for Muslims to assume that the Bible can be measured using the same criteria as that imposed on the Qur’an.

The Bible is not simply one book compiled by one man as the Muslims claim for their Qur’an, but a compilation of 66 books, written by more than 40 authors, over a period of 1500 years! For that reason Christians have always maintained that the entire Bible shows the imprint of human hands. Evidence of this can be found in the variety of human languages used, the varying styles of writing, the differences in the author’s intellects and temperaments, as well as the apparent allusions to the author’s contemporary concepts of scientific knowledge, without which the scriptures would not have been understood by the people of that time. That does not mean, however, that the Bible is not authoritative, for each of the writers received their revelation by means of inspiration.

A Definition of Inspiration:

In 2 Timothy 3:16, we are told that all Scripture is inspired. The word used for inspiration is theopneustos which means “God-breathed,” implying that what was written had its origin in God Himself. In 2 Peter 1:21 we read that the writers were “carried along” by God. Thus, God used each writer, including his personality to accomplish a divinely authoritative work, for God cannot inspire error.

The Bible speaks many times of its inspiration: In Luke 24:27,44; John 5:39; and Hebrews 10:7, Jesus says that what was written about him in the Old Testament would come to pass. Romans 3:2 and Hebrews 5:12 refer to the Old Testament as the Word of God. We read in 1 Corinthians 2:13, “This is what we speak, not in words taught us by human wisdom but in words taught by the Spirit.” This is corroborated in 2 Timothy 3:16, as we saw above. In 1 Thessalonians 2:13, Paul when referring to that which he had written says, “…you accepted it not as the word of men, but as it actually is, the Word of God…” Peter speaks of the inspiration of Paul’s writings in 2 Peter 3:15-16, where he maintains that, “…Paul also wrote to you with the wisdom that God gave him. He writes the same way in all his letters…” Earlier, in 2 Peter 1:21 Peter writes, “For prophecy never had its origin in the will of man, but men spoke from God as they were carried along [moved] by the Holy Spirit.” And then finally in Revelation 22:18,19 the writer John, referring to the book of Revelation states, “…if anyone adds anything to them, God will add to him the plagues described in this book. And if anyone takes words away from this book of prophecy, God will take away from him his share in the tree of life…”

Charles Wesley summarizes this high view of inspiration brilliantly when he says, “The Bible must be the invention either of good men or angels, bad men or devils, or of God. However, it was not written by good men, because good men would not tell lies by saying ‘Thus saith the Lord;’ it was not written by bad men because they would not write about doing good duty, while condemning sin, and themselves to hell; thus, it must be written by divine inspiration” (McDowell 1990:178).

How does God inspire the writers? Does He simply move the writers by challenging their heart to reach new heights, much like we find in the works of Shakespeare, Milton, Homer and Dickens, all of which are human literary masterpieces? Or does that which He inspire contain the words of God-along with myths, mistakes and legends, thus creating a book in which portions of the Word of God can be found, along with those of finite and fallible men? Or are the scriptures the infallible Word of God in their entirety? In other words, how, Muslims will ask, is this inspiration carried out? Does God use mechanical dictation, similar to that which we find claimed for the Qur’an, or does He use the writers own minds and experiences?

The simple answer is that God’s control was always with them in their writings, such that the Bible is nothing more than “The Word of God in the words of men” (McDowell 1990:176). This means that God utilized the culture and conventions of his penman’s milieu, a milieu that God controls in His sovereign providence. Thus history must be treated as history, poetry as poetry, hyperbole and metaphor as hyperbole and metaphor, generalization and approximation as what they are, and so forth. Differences between literary conventions in Bible times and in ours must also be observed: Since, for instance, nonchronological narration and imprecise citation were conventional and acceptable and violated no expectations in those days, we must not regard these things as faults when we find them in Bible writers. When total precision of a particular kind was not expected nor aimed at, it is no error not to have achieved it. Scripture is inerrant, not in the sense of being absolutely precise by modern standards, but in the sense of making good its claims and achieving that measure of focused truth at which its authors aimed.

The truthfulness of Scripture is not negated by the appearance in it of irregularities of grammar or spelling, phenomenal descriptions of nature, reports of false statements (for example, the lies of Satan), or seeming discrepancies between one passage and another. It is not right to set the so-called ‘phenomena’ of Scripture against the teaching of Scripture about itself. Apparent inconsistencies should not be ignored. Solution of them, where this can be convincingly achieved (as we have attempted in this paper), will encourage our faith. However, where for the present no convincing solution is at hand we shall significantly honor God by trusting His assurance that His Word is true, despite these appearances, and by maintaining our confidence that one day they will be seen to have been illusions.

This is not a blind hope. For instance, a century ago there were about 100 parts of the body whose function were mysterious to doctors, and people would say “This is proof of evolution as these are left over parts which we don’t need anymore”. However, because of on-going and diligent research we are now left with only one organ in the body which appears to be redundant. In time, perhaps we will find a use for that organ as well. This principle can also be seen with the Bible. So many ‘discrepancies’ have also been cleared up due to greater research and understanding. Had Shabbir been around a century or even 25 years ago his list could easily have been 1001 contradictions. As new data is uncovered, we are continually finding answers to many of the historical mysteries. Therefore we have every reason to believe that, in God’s time, the rest will be solved as well.

We are fully aware that the Christian criteria for revelation is not acceptable to Muslims, as it is in seeming conflict with their own. Yet, by simply measuring the Bible against the nazil or Tanzil (‘sent down’) concept which they claim for their Qur’an, Muslims condemn themselves of duplicity, since they demand of the New Testament that which they do not demand of the previous revelations, the Taurat and Zabuur, though both are revered as equally inspired revelations by all Muslims. Muslims believe that Moses wrote the Taurat and David the Zabuur. However, neither claimed to have received their revelations by a means of a nazil (‘sent down’) transmission. So why insist on such for the New Testament, especially since the document makes no such claim itself?

The underlying reason perhaps lies in the belief by Muslims that the Qur’an, because it is the only revelation which came “unfettered” by human intervention, is thus the truest and clearest statement of Allah’s word, and therefore supersedes all previous revelations, even annulling those revelations, as they have supposedly been corrupted by the limitations of their human authors.

Left unsaid is the glaring irony that the claim for a nazil revelation for the Qur’an comes from one source alone, the man to which it was supposedly revealed, Muhammad. Yet there are no external witnesses both before or at the time who can corroborate Muhammad’s testimony. Not even miracles are provided to substantiate his claims, nor are there any known documents of such a Qur’an from the century in which it is claimed to have been revealed (see the paper on the historicity of the Qur’an versus the Bible.)

Even if we were to disregard the historical problems for early Qur’ans, a further problem concerns the numerous Muslim traditions which speak of the many differing copies of Qur’anic codices which were prevalent during the collating of the Uthmanic recension of the Qur’an in the mid-seventh century, and that the conflicting copies were all destroyed, so that we cannot know today whether the Qur’an in our possession was even similar to that which was first revealed.

What Muslims must understand is that Christians have always maintained that the Word of God, the Bible, was indeed written by men, but that these men were always under the direct inspiration of the Holy Spirit (2 Peter 1:20-21).

Whereas the Qur’an is alleged to be free of any human element, God in the Bible deliberately chose to reveal His Word through individuals who were inspired prophets and apostles, so that His Word would not only be conveyed to humanity correctly, and comprehensively but would be communicated to their understanding and powers of comprehension as well. This the Qur’an cannot do if it has no human element, as is generally alleged.

There are other problems with the contention maintained by Muslims that the Bible is full of contradictions. For instance, what then will Muslims do with the authority which their own Qur’an gives towards the Bible?

The Qur’an gives authority to the Bible:

The Qur’an, itself, the highest authority for all Muslims, gives authority to the Bible, assuming its authenticity at least up to the seventh-ninth Centuries. Consider the following Suras:

Sura Baqara 2:136 points out that there is no difference between the scriptures which preceded and those of the Qur’an, saying, “…the revelation given to us…and Jesus…we make no difference between one and another of them.” Sura Al-I-Imran 3:2-3 continues, “Allah…He sent down the Law (of Moses) and the Gospel (of Jesus)…as a guide to mankind.” Sura Nisaa 4:136 carries this farther by admonishing the Muslims to, “…Believe…and the scripture which He sent before him.” In Sura Ma-ida 5:47,49,50,52 we find a direct call to Christians to believe in their scriptures: “…We sent Jesus, the son of Mary, confirming the Law that had come before him. We sent him the Gospel… Let the people of the Gospel judge by what Allah hath revealed therein, if any do fail to judge by the light of what Allah hath revealed, they are (no better than) those who rebel…” Again, in Sura Ma-ida 5:68 we find a similar call: “People of the Book!…Stand fast by the law, the Gospel, and all revelation that hath come to you from YOUR LORD. It is the revelation that has come to thee from THY LORD.”

To embolden this idea of the New and Old Testament’s authority we find in Sura 10:94 that Muslims are advised to confer with these scriptures if in doubt about their own, saying: “If thou wert in doubt as to what We have revealed unto thee, then ask those who have been reading the Book from before thee. The truth had indeed come to thee from thy Lord.” And as if to emphasize this point the advice is repeated in Sura 21:7, stating, “…the apostles We sent were but men, to whom We granted inspiration. If ye realize this not, Ask of those who possess the message.”

Finally, in Sura Ankabut 29:46 Muslims are asked not to question the authority of the scriptures of the Christians, saying, “And dispute ye not with the people of the book but say: We believe in the revelation which has come down to us and that which came down to you.”

If there is anything in these Suras which is clear, it is that the Qur’an emphatically endorses the Torah and the Gospel as authentic and authoritative revelations from God. This coincides with what Christians believe, as well.

In fact, nowhere is there any warning in the Qur’an that the former scriptures had been corrupted, nor that they were contradictory. If the Qur’an was indeed the final and complete revelation, if it was the seal of all former revelations the Muslims claim, than certainly the author of the Qur’an would have included a warning against that which had been corrupted in the earlier scriptures. But nowhere do we find even a hint that the Bible was contradictory, or indeed that it was corrupted.

There are some Muslims, however, who contend that according to sura 2:140 the Jews and Christians had corrupted their scriptures. This aya says (referring to the Jews), “…who is more unjust than those who conceal the testimony they have from Allah…?” Yet, nowhere does this aya state that the Jews and Christians corrupted their scriptures. It merely mentions that certain Jews have concealed “the testimony they have from Allah.” In other words the testimony is still there (thus the reason the afore-mentioned suras admonish Muslims to respect the former scriptures), though the adherents of that testimony have chosen to conceal it. If anything this aya is a ringing endorsement to the credibility of those former scriptures, as it assumes a testimony from Allah does exist amongst the Jewish community.

God does not change His Word

Furthermore, both the Christian scriptures and the Muslim Qur’an hold to the premise that God does not change His word. He does not change His revelation (despite the law of abrogation found in the Qur’an). Sura Yunus 10:64 says, “No change can there be in the words of Allah.” This is repeated in Sura Al An’am 6:34: “There is none that can alter the words of Allah,”found also in Sura Qaf 50:28,29.

In the Bible we, likewise, have a number of references which speak of the unchangeableness of God’s word; such as, Deuteronomy 4:1-2; Isaiah 8:20; Matthew 5:17-18; 24:35; and Revelation 22:18-20.

If this is the recurring theme in both the Bible and the Qur’an, it is hardly likely that we would find a scripture with such a multiplicity of contradictions which Muslims claim are found in the Bible.

What then should we do with the contradictions which the Muslims claim are there?

Contradictions analyzed:

When we look at the contradictions which Muslims point out we find that many of these errors are not errors at all but either a misunderstanding of the context or nothing more then copyist mistakes. The former can easily be explained, while the latter need a little more attention. It is quite clear that the books of the Old Testament were written between the 17th and the 5th century BC on the only parchments available at that time, pieces of Papyrus, which decayed rather quickly, and so needed continual copying. We now know that much of the Old Testament was copied by hand for 3,000 years, while the New Testament was copied for another 1,400 years, in isolated communities in different lands and on different continents, yet they still remain basically unchanged.

Today many older manuscripts have been found which we can use to corroborate those earlier manuscripts. In fact we have an enormous collection of manuscripts available to which we can go to corroborate the textual credibility of our current document. Concerning the New Testament manuscripts (MSS) we have in our possession 5,300 Greek manuscripts or fragments thereof, 10,000 Latin Vulgate manuscripts and at least 9,300 other early translations. In all we now have more than 24,000 manuscript copies or portions of the New Testament from which to use! Obviously this gives us much more material with which to delineate any variant verses which may exist. Where there is a variant reading, these have been identified and expunged and noted as footnotes on the relevant pages of the texts. In no way does this imply any defects with our Bible (as found in the original autographs).

Christians readily admit, however, that there have been ‘scribal errors’ in the copies of the Old and New Testament. It is beyond the capability of anyone to avoid any and every slip of the pen in copying page after page from any book, sacred or secular. Yet we may be sure that the original manuscript (better known as autograph) of each book of the Bible, being directly inspired by God, was free from all error. Those originals, however, because of the early date of their inception no longer exist.

The individuals responsible for the copying (scribes or copyists) were prone to making two types of scribal errors, well known and documented by those expert in the field of manuscript analysis. One concerned the spelling of proper names (especially unfamiliar foreign names), and the other had to do with numbers. The fact that it is mainly these type of errors in evidence gives credence to the argument for copyist errors. If indeed the originals were in contradiction, we would see evidence of this within the content of the stories themselves. (Archer 1982:221-222)

What is important to remember, however, is that no well-attested variation in the manuscript copies that have come down to us alter any doctrine of the Bible. To this extent, at least, the Holy Spirit has exercised a restraining influence in superintending the transmission of the text.

Since God has nowhere promised an inerrant transmission of Scripture, it is necessary to affirm that only the autographic text of the original documents were inspired. For that reason it is essential that we maintain an ongoing textual criticism as a means of detecting any slips that may have crept into the text in the course of its transmission. The verdict of this science, however, is that the Hebrew and Greek text appears to be amazingly well preserved, so that we are amply justified in affirming, with the Westminster Confession, a singular providence of God in this matter and in declaring that the authority of Scripture is in no way jeopardized by the fact that the copies we possess are not entirely error-free.

Similarly, no translation is or can be perfect, and all translations are an additional step away from the autograph. Yet the verdict of linguistic science is that English-speaking Christians, at least, are exceedingly well served in these days with a host of excellent translations and have no cause for hesitating to conclude that the true Word of God is within their reach. Indeed, in view of the frequent repetition in Scripture of the main matters with which it deals and also of the Holy Spirit’s constant witness to and through the Word, no serious translation of Holy Scripture will so destroy its meaning as to render it unable to make its reader “wise for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus” (2 Tim. 3:15)”

With that in mind let’s now take a look at the examples forwarded by Shabbir Ally in his pamphlet to better ascertain whether or not the scriptures can stand the test of authority espoused above?

While answering the below challenges it has proven obvious to the four of us that Shabbir made a number of errors in his reasoning which could easily have been rectified had he simply looked at the context. This may offer us an idea as to why Muslims in general seem so fond of looking for, and apparently finding “contradictions” in the Bible – most of which are very easily explained by appealing to the context. When we look at the Qur’an we are struck with the reverse situation, for the Qur’an has very little context as such to refer to. There is little narration, and passages interject other passages with themes which have no connection. A similar theme is picked up and repeated in another Sura, though with variations and even at times contradictory material (i.e. the differing stories of Abraham and the idols found in Suras 21:51-59 and 6:74-83; 19:41-49). It stands to reason, then, that Muslims fail to look in their Holy Book for other passages to derive a context. Is it no wonder that they decline to do the same with the Bible.

On the second page of his booklet “101 Clear Contradictions in the Bible”, Shabbir Ally states “Permission Granted! Please copy this booklet and spread the truth.”

We, the authors of this paper, have been delighted to fulfil this request of Mr. Ally. Although we have not directly copied all his words, we have reproduced his alleged contradictions in this booklet and replied to them. Therefore, through these rebuttals we are doing what Shabbir has asked, spreading the truth! Showing the firm foundation of the Bible, which is the truth.

Please weigh the words of Mr. Ally against the rebuttals found herein.

You will note that a number of the questions contain more then one answer. This is done to show that there are different ways to understand a seeming problem in the Biblical text.

1. Does God incite David to conduct the census of his people (2 Samuel 4:1), or does Satan (1 Chronicles 21:1)?

(Category: misunderstood how God works in history)

This seems an apparent discrepancy unless of course both statements are true. It was towards the end of David’s reign, and David was looking back over his brilliant conquests, which had brought the Canaanite, Syrian, and Phoenician kingdoms into a state of vassalage and dependency on Israel. He had an attitude of pride and self-admiration for his achievements, and was thinking more in terms of armaments and troops than in terms of the mercies of God.

The Lord therefore decided that it was time that David be brought to his knees, where he would once again be cast back onto the mercy of God. So he let him go ahead with his census, in order to find out just how much good it would do him, as the only thing this census would accomplish would be to inflate the national ego (intimated in Joab’s warning against carrying out the census in 1 Chronicles 21:3). As soon as the numbering was completed, God intended to chasten the nation with a disastrous plague which would bring about an enormous loss of life (in fact the lives of 70,000 Israelites according to 2 Samuel 24:15).

What about Satan? Why would he get himself involved in this affair (according to 1 Chronicles 21:1) if God had already prompted David to commit the folly he had in mind? It seems his reasons were entirely malicious, knowing that a census would displease the Lord (1 Chronicles 21:7-8), and so he also incited David to carry it through.

Yet this is nothing new, for there are a number of other occurrences in the Bible where both the Lord and Satan were involved in soul-searching testings and trials:

1. In the book of Job, chapters one and two we find a challenge to Satan from God allowing Satan to bring upon Job his calamities. God’s purpose was to purify Job’s faith, and to strengthen his character by means of discipline through adversity, whereas Satan’s purpose was purely malicious, wishing Job as much harm as possible so that he would recant his faith in his God.

2. Similarly both God and Satan are involved in the sufferings of persecuted Christians according to 1 Peter 4:19 and 5:8. God’s purpose is to strengthen their faith and to enable them to share in the sufferings of Christ in this life, that they may rejoice with Him in the glories of heaven to come (1 Peter 4:13-14), whereas Satan’s purpose is to ‘devour’ them (1 Peter 5:8), or rather to draw them into self-pity and bitterness, and down to his level.

3. Both God and Satan allowed Jesus the three temptations during his ministry on earth. God’s purpose for these temptations was for him to triumph completely over the very tempter who had lured the first Adam to his fall, whereas Satan’s purpose was to deflect the saviour from his messianic mission.

4. In the case of Peter’s three denials of Jesus in the court of the high priest, it was Jesus himself who points out the purposes of both parties involvement when he says in Luke 22:31-32, “Simon, Simon, Satan has asked to sift you as wheat. But I have prayed for you Simon, that your faith may not fail. And when you have turned back, strengthen your brothers.“

5. And finally the crucifixion itself bears out yet another example where both God and Satan are involved. Satan exposed his purpose when he had the heart of Judas filled with treachery and hate (John 13:27), causing him to betray Jesus. The Lord’s reasoning behind the crucifixion, however, was that Jesus, the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world should give his life as a ransom for many, so that once again sinful man could relish in the relationship lost at the very beginning, in the garden of Eden, and thereby enter into a relationship which is now eternal.

Thus we have five other examples where both the Lord and Satan were involved together though with entirely different motives. Satan’s motive in all these examples, including the census by David was driven by malicious intent, while the Lord in all these cases showed an entirely different motive. His was a benevolent motive with a view to eventual victory, while simultaneously increasing the usefulness of the person tested. In every case Satan’s success was limited and transient; while in the end God’s purpose was well served furthering His cause substantially.

(Archer 1982:186-188)

2. 2 Samuel 24:9 gives the total population for Israel as 800,000, whereas 1 Chronicles 21:5 says it was 1,100,000.

(Category: misunderstood the historical context or misunderstood the author’s intent)

There are a number of ways to understand not only this problem but the next challenge as well, since they both refer to the same passages and to the same census.

It is possible that the differences between the two accounts are related to the unofficial and incomplete nature of the census (which will be discussed later), or that the book of Samuel presents rounded numbers, particularly for Judah.

The more likely answer, however, is that one census includes categories of men that the other excludes. It is quite conceivable that the 1 Chronicles 21:5 figure included all the available men of fighting age, whether battle-seasoned or not, whereas the 2 Samuel 24:9 account is speaking only of those who were ready for battle. Joab’s report in 2 Samuel 24 uses the word ‘is hayil, which is translated as “mighty men”, or battle-seasoned troops, and refers to them numbering 800,000 veterans. It is reasonable that there were an additional 300,000 men of military age kept in the reserves, but not yet involved in field combat. The two groups would therefore make up the 1,100,000 men in the 1 Chronicles 21 account which does not employ the Hebrew term ‘is hayil to describe them.

(Archer 1982:188-189 and Light of Life II 1992:189-190)

3. 2 Samuel 24:9 gives the round figure Of 500,000 fighting men in Judah, which was 30,000 more than the corresponding item in 1 Chronicles 21:5.

(Category: misunderstood the historical context)

Observe that 1 Chronicles 21:6 clearly states that Joab did not complete the numbering, as he had not yet taken a census of the tribe of Benjamin, nor that of Levi’s either, due to the fact that David came under conviction about completing the census at all. Thus the different numbers indicate the inclusion or exclusion of particular unspecified groups in the nation. We find another reference to this in 1 Chronicles 27:23-24 where it states that David did not include those twenty years old and younger, and that since Joab did not finish the census the number was not recorded in King David’s Chronicle.

The procedure for conducting the census had been to start with the trans-Jordanian tribes (2 Samuel 24:5) and then shift to the northern most tribe of Dan and work southward towards Jerusalem (verse 7). The numbering of Benjamin, therefore, would have come last. Hence Benjamin would not be included with the total for Israel or of that for Judah, either. In the case of 2 Samuel 24, the figure for Judah included the already known figure of 30,000 troops mustered by Benjamin. Hence the total of 500,000 included the Benjamite contingent.

Observe that after the division of the United Kingdom into the North and the South following the death of Solomon in 930 BC, most of the Benjamites remained loyal to the dynasty of David and constituted (along with Simeon to the south) the kingdom of Judah. Hence it was reasonable to include Benjamin with Judah and Simeon in the sub-total figure of 500,000, even though Joab may not have itemized it in the first report he gave to David (1 Chronicles 21:5). Therefore the completed grand total of fighting forces available to David for military service was 1,600,000 (1,100,000 of Israel, 470,000 of Judah-Simeon, and 30,000 of Benjamin).

(Archer 1982:188-189 and Light of Life II 1992:189)

4. 2 Samuel 24:13 mentions that there will be seven years of famine whereas 1 Chronicles 21:12 mentions only three.

(Category: misunderstood the author’s intent, and misunderstood the wording)

There are two ways to look at this. The first is to assume that the author of 1 Chronicles emphasized the three-year period in which the famine was to be most intense, whereas the author of 2 Samuel includes the two years prior to and after this period, during which the famine worsened and lessened respectively.

Another solution can be noticed by observing the usage of words in each passage. When you compare the two passages you will note that the wording is significantly different in 1 Chronicles 21 from that found in a 2 Samuel 24. In 2 Samuel 24:13 the question is “shell seven years of famine come to you?” In 1 Chronicles 21:12 we find an alternative imperative, “take for yourself either three years of famine…” From this we may reasonably conclude that 2 Samuel records the first approach of the prophet Gad to David, in which the alternative prospect was seven years; whereas the Chronicles account gives us the second and final approach of Nathan to the King, in which the Lord (doubtless in response to David’s earnest entreaty in private prayer) reduced the severity of that grim alternative to three years rather than an entire span of seven. As it turned out, however, David opted for God’s third preference, and thereby received three days of severe pestilence, resulting in the deaths of 70,000 men in Israel.

(Archer 1982:189-190 and Light of Life II 1992:190)

5. Was Ahaziah 22 (2 Kings 8:26) or 42 (2 Chronicles 22:2) when he began to rule over Jerusalem?

(Category: copyist error)

Because we are dealing with accounts which were written thousands of years ago, we would not expect to have the originals in our possession today, as they would have disintegrated long ago. We are therefore dependent on the copies taken from copies of those originals, which were in turn continually copied out over a period of centuries. Those who did the copying were prone to making two types of scribal errors. One concerned the spelling of proper names, and the other had to do with numbers.

The two examples of numerical discrepancy here have to do with a decade in the number given. Ahaziah is said to have been 22 in 2 Kings 8:26; while in 2 Chronicles 22:2 Ahaziah is said to have been 42. Fortunately there is enough additional information in the Biblical text to show that the correct number is 22. Earlier in 2 Kings 8:17 the author mentions that Ahaziah’s father Joram ben Ahab was 32 when he became King, and he died eight years later, at the age of 40. Therefore Ahaziah could not have been 42 at the time of his father’s death at age 40! Such scribal errors do not change Jewish or Christian beliefs in the least. In such a case, another portion of scripture often corrects the mistake (2 Kings 8:26 in this instance). We must also remember that the scribes who were responsible for the copies were meticulously honest in handling Biblical texts. They delivered them as they received them, without changing even obvious mistakes, which are few indeed.

(Refer to the next question for a more in-depth presentation on how scribes could misconstrue numbers within manuscripts)

(Archer 1982:206 and Light of Life II 1992:201)

6. Was Jehoiachin 18 years old (2 Kings 24:8) or 8 years old (2 Chronicles 36:9) when he became king of Jerusalem?

(Category: copyist error)

Once again there is enough information in the context of these two passages to tell us that 8 is wrong and 18 right. The age of 8 is unusually young to assume governmental leadership. However, there are certain commentators who contend that this can be entirely possible. They maintain that when Jehoiachin was eight years old, his father made him co-regent, so that he could be trained in the responsibilities of leading a kingdom. Jehoiachin then became officially a king at the age of eighteen, upon his father’s death.

A more likely scenario, however, is that this is yet another case of scribal error, evidenced commonly with numbers. It may be helpful to interject here that there were three known ways of writing numbers in Hebrew. The earliest, a series of notations used by the Jewish settlers in the 5th century BC Elephantine Papyri (described in more detail below) was followed by a system whereby alphabetical letters were used for numbers. A further system was introduced whereby the spelling out of the numbers in full was prescribed by the guild of so-perim. Fortunately we have a large file of documents in papyrus from these three sources to which we can refer.

As with many of these numerical discrepancies, it is the decade number that varies. It is instructive to observe that the number notations used by the Jewish settlers in the 5th century BC Elephantine Papyri, during the time of Ezra and Nehemiah, from which this passage comes, evidences the earlier form of numerical notation. This consisted of a horizontal stroke ending in a downward hook at its right end to represent the numbers in tens (thus two horizontal strokes one above the other would be 20). Vertical strokes were used to represent anything less than ten. Thus eight would be /III IIII, but eighteen would be /III IIII with the addition of a horizontal line and downward hook above it. Similarly twenty-two would be /I followed by two horizontal hooks, and forty-two would be /I followed by two sets of horizontal hooks (please forgive the deficiencies of my computer; it is not the scholar Dr. Archer is).

If, then, the primary manuscript from which a copy was being carried out was blurred or smudged, one or more of the decadal notations could be missed by the copyist. It is far less likely that the copyist would have mistakenly seen an extra ten stroke that was not present in his original then that he would have failed to observe one that had been smudged.

In the New International Version (NIV) of the Bible, the corrections have been included in the texts. However, for clarity, footnotes at the bottom of the page mention that earlier Hebrew MSS include the scribal error, while the Septuagint MSS and Syriac as well as one Hebrew MSS include the correct numerals. It only makes sense to correct the numerals once the scribal error has been noted. This, however, in no way negates the authenticity nor the authority of the scriptures which we have.

Confirmation of this type of copyist error is found in various pagan writers as well. For example in the Behistun rock inscription set up by Darius 1, we find that number 38 gives the figure for the slain of the army of Frada as 55,243, with 6,572 prisoners, according to the Babylonian column. Copies of this inscription found in Babylon itself, records the number of prisoners as 6,973. However in the Aramaic translation of this inscription discovered at the Elephantine in Egypt, the number of prisoners was only 6,972.

Similarly in number 31 of the same inscription, the Babylonian column gives 2,045 as the number of slain in the rebellious army of Frawartish, along with 1,558 prisoners, whereas the Aramaic copy has over 1,575 as the prisoner count.

(Archer 1982:206-207, 214-215, 222, 230; Nehls pg.17-18; Light of Life II 1992:204-205)

7. Did king Jehoiachin rule over Jerusalem for three months (2 Kings 24:8), or for three months and ten days (2 Chronicles 36:9)?

(Category: misunderstood the author’s intent)

Here again, as we found in challenge number 2 and 4, the author of the Chronicles has been more specific with his numbering, whereas the author of Kings is simply rounding off the number of months, assuming that the additional ten days is not significant enough to mention.

8. Did the chief of the mighty men of David lift up his spear and killed 800 men (2 Samuel 23:8) or only 300 men (1 Chronicles 11:11)?

(Category:misunderstood the historical context or misunderstood the author’s intent)

It is quite possible that both authors may have described two different incidents, though by the same man, or one author may have only mentioned in part what the other author mentions in full.

(Light of Life II 1992:187)

9. Did David bring the Ark of the Covenant to Jerusalem after defeating the Philistines (2 Samuel 5 and 6), or before (1 Chronicles chapters 13 and 14)?

(Category: didn’t read the entire text)

This is not really a problem. Shabbir Ally should have continued reading on further to 1 Chronicles 15, as he would then have seen that David brought the Ark after defeating the Philistines. The reason for this is that the Israelites moved the Ark of the covenant twice. The first time, they moved it from Baal, prior to the defeat of the Philistines, as we see in 2 Samuel 5 and 6 and in 1 Chronicles 15. Once the prophet Samuel narrates David’s victory over the Philistines, he tells us about both times when the Ark was moved. However in 1 Chronicles, the order is as follows: the Ark was first moved from baal; then David defeated the Philistines; and finally, the Ark was moved from the House of Obed-Edom.

Therefore the two accounts are not contradictory at all. What we have here is simply one prophet choosing to give us the complete history of the Ark at once (rather than referring to it later) and another presenting the history in a different way. In both cases the timing of events is the same.

The same could be said of the Qur’an. In Sura 2 we are introduced to the fall of Adam, then God’s mercy is shown to the Israelites, followed by Pharaoh’s drowning, followed by Moses and the Golden calf, followed by the Israelites complaint about food and water, and then we are introduced to the account of the golden calf again. Following this, we read about Moses and Jesus, then we read about Moses and the golden calf, and then about Solomon and Abraham. If one wants to talk about chronology, what does Moses have to do with Jesus, or Solomon with Abraham? Chronologically the sura should have begun with Adam’s fall, then moved to Cain and Abel, Enoch, Abraham, Lot, Isaac, Jacob and Esau, Joseph, the sons of Israel and Moses, in that order. If such a blatant chronological mix-up can be found in this sura of the Qur’an, then Shabbir would do well to explain it before criticizing what they deem to be an error in the Bible.

(Light of Life II 1992:176)

10. Was Noah supposed to bring 2 pairs of all living creatures (Genesis 6:19-20), or was he to bring 7 pairs of ‘clean’ animals (Genesis 7:2; see also Genesis 7:8,9)?

(Category: misquoted the text)

This indeed is an odd question to raise. It is obvious that Shabbir Ally has misquoted the text in the 6th chapter of Genesis, which makes no mention of any ‘clean’ animals in its figure, while the 7th chapter specifically delineates between the clean and unclean animals. Genesis 7:2 says Noah was to bring in 7 pairs of ‘clean’ animals and 2 pairs of every kind of ‘unclean’ animal. Why did Shabbir not mention the second half of this verse which stipulates 2 pairs in his challenge? It is obvious that there is no discrepancy between the two accounts. The problem is the question itself.

Shabbir attempts to back his argument by mentioning that verses 8 and 9 of chapter 7 prove that only two pairs went into the ark. However, these verses say nothing about two pairs entering the ark. They simply say that it was pairs of clean and unclean animals or birds and creatures which entered the ark.

The reason for including seven of the clean species is perfectly evident: they were to be used for sacrificial worship after the flood had receded (as indeed they were, according to Genesis 8:20). Obviously if there had not been more than two of each of these clean species, they would have been rendered extinct by their being sacrificed on the altar. But in the case of the unclean animals and birds, a single pair would suffice, since they would not be needed for blood sacrifice.

(Archer 1982:81-82)

11. Did David capture 1,700 of King Zobah’s horsemen (2 Samuel 8:4), or was it 7,000 (1 Chronicles 18:4)?

(Category: copyist error)

There are two possible solutions to these differing figures. The first by Keil and Delitzsh (page 360) is a most convincing solution. They maintain that the word for chariotry (rekeb) was inadvertently omitted by the scribe in copying 2 Samuel 8:4, and that the second figure, 7,000 (for the parasim “cavalrymen”), was necessarily reduced to 700 from the 7,000 he saw in his Vorlage for the simple reason that no one would write 7,000 after he had written 1,000 in the recording the one and the same figure. The omission of rekeb might have occurred with an earlier scribe, and a reduction from 7,000 to 700 would have then continued with the successive copies by later scribes. But in all probability the Chronicles figure is right and the Samuel numbers should be corrected to agree with that.

A second solution starts from the premise that the number had been reduced to 700 as it refers to 700 rows, each consisting of 10 horse men, making a total of 7,000.

(Archer 1982:184: Keil & Delitzsch 1949:360; Light of Life II 1992:182)

12. Did Solomon have 40,000 stalls for his horses (1 Kings 4:26), or 4,000 stalls (2 Chronicles 9:25)?

(Category: copyist error, or misunderstood the historical context)

There are a number of ways to answer these puzzling differences. The most plausible is analogous to what we found earlier in challenge numbers five and six above, where the decadal number has been rubbed out or distorted due to constant use.

Others believe that the stalls mentioned in 2 Chronicles were large ones that housed 10 horses each (that is, a row of ten stalls). Therefore 4,000 of these large stalls would be equivalent to 40,000 small ones.

Another commentator maintains that the number of stalls recorded in 1 Kings was the number at the beginning of Solomon’s reign, whereas the number recorded in 2 Chronicles was the number of stalls at the end of his reign. We know that Solomon reigned for 40 years; no doubt, many changes occurred during this period. It is quite likely that he reduced the size of the military machine his father David had left him.

(Light of Life II 1992:191)

13. According to the author, did Baasha, the king of Israel die in the 26th year of king Asa’s reign (1 Kings 15:33), or was he still alive in the 36th year ( 2 Chronicles 16:1)?

(Category: misunderstood the historical context, or copyist error)

There are two possible solutions to this problem. To begin with, scholars who have looked at these passages have concluded that the 36th year of Asa should be calculated from the withdrawal of the 10 tribes from Judah and Benjamin which brought about the division of the country into Judah and Israel. If we look at it from this perspective, the 36th year of the divided monarchy would be in the 16th year of Asa. This is supported by the Book of the Kings of Judah and Israel, as well as contemporary records, which follow this convention. (note: for a fuller explanation of this theory, see Archer, page 225-116).

Keil and Delitzsch (pp. 366-367) preferred to regard the number 36 in 2 Chronicles 16:1 and the number 35 in 15:19 as a copyist’s error for 16 and 15, respectively. This problem is similar to question numbers five and six above. In this case, however, the numbers were written using Hebrew alphabetical type (rather than the Egyptian multiple stroke type used in the Elephantine Papyri, referred to in questions 5 and 6). It is therefore quite possible that the number 16 could quite easily be confused with 36. The reason for this is that up through the seventh century BC the letter yod (10) greatly resembled the letter lamed (30), except for two tiny strokes attached to the left of the main vertical strokes. It required only a smudge from excessive wear on this scroll-column to result in making the yod look like a lamed. It is possible that this error occurred first in the earlier passage, in 2 Chronicles 15:19 (with its 35 wrongly copied from an original 15); then to make it consistent in 16:1, the same scribe (or perhaps a later one) concluded that 16 must be an error for 36 and changed it accordingly on his copy.

(Archer 1982:226: Keil & Delitzsch 1949:366-367; Light of Life II 1992:194)

14. Did Solomon appoint 3,600 overseers (2 Chronicles 2:2) for the work of building the temple, or was it only 3,300 (1 Kings 5:16)?

(Category: misunderstood the author’s intent)

This is not too great a problem. The most likely solution is that the author of 2 Chronicles included the 300 men who were selected as reservists to take the place of any supervisors who would become ill or who had died, while the author of the 1 Kings 5:16 passage includes only the supervisory force. With the group as large as the 3,300, sickness and death certainly did occur, requiring reserves who would be called up as the need arose.

(Light of Life II 1992:192)

15. Did Solomon build a facility containing 2,000 baths (1 Kings 7:26), or over 3,000 baths (2 Chronicles 4:5)?

(Category: misunderstood the author’s intent, or copyist error)

The Hebrew verb rendered “contained” and “held” is different from that translated “received”; and the meaning may be that the sea ordinarily contained 2,000 baths. But when filled to its utmost capacity it received and held 3,000 baths. Thus the chronicler simply mentions the amount of water that would make the sea like a flowing spring rather than a still pool. This informs us that 3,000 gallons of water were required to completely fill the sea which usually held 2,000 gallons.

Another solution follows a theme mentioned earlier, that the number in Hebrew lettering for 2000 has been confounded by the scribe with a similar alphabetical number for the number 3,000.

It should be noted that Shabbir (in his debate on 25th February 1998 against Jay Smith in Birmingham, UK) quoted this “contradiction” and added to it saying that if the bath had a diameter of 10 cubits it cannot possibly have had a circumference of 30 cubits as the text says (since ‘pi’ dictates that it would have a circumference of 31.416 or a 9.549 diameter).

Shabbir made the humorous comment “Find me a bath like that and I will get baptized in it!” But Shabbir did not read the text properly or was just going for a cheap, displaced laugh. Why? Because the text says that it was about 8cm thick and had a rim shaped like a lily. Therefore it depends on where you measure from. The top or bottom of the rim or the inside or outside for the vessel would all give a different diameter; and depending on whether you measure at the top of the rim or at the narrower point, you would get a different circumference.

In other words, Shabbir may well be getting baptized if someone can be bothered to make a replica!

(Haley pg. 382; Light of Life II 1992:192)

16-21. Are the numbers of Israelites freed from Babylonian captivity correct in Ezra (Ezra 2:6, 8, 12, 15, 19, 28) or in Nehemiah (Nehemiah 7:11, 13, 17, 20, 22, 32)?

(note: because numbers 16-21 deal with the same census, I have included them as one)

(Category: misunderstood the historical context)

In chapter 2 of Ezra and in chapter 7 of Nehemiah there are about thirty-three family units that appear in both lists of Israelites returning from Babylon to Judea. Of these 33 family units listed in Ezra and Nehemiah, nineteen of the family units are identical, while fourteen show discrepancies in the number of members within the family units (though Shabbir only lists six of them). Two of the discrepancies differ by 1, one differs by 4, two by 6, two differ by 9, another differs by 11, another two by 100, another by 201, another differs by 105, a further family differs by 300, and the largest difference is the figure for the sons of Azgad, a difference of 1,100 between the accounts of Ezra 2 and Nehemiah 7.

How, then, are we to account for the 14 discrepancies? The answer is quite simple, and Shabbir, had he done any study into the history of these two accounts would never have bothered to waste his time in asking these questions. The fact that there are both similarities and discrepancies side-by-side should have pointed him to the solution as well (as you who are reading this are probably even now concluding).

There are two important factors to bear in mind when looking at these discrepancies between the two lists. The first is the probability that though members of the units or families had enrolled their names at first as intending to go; in the interval of preparation, some possibly died, others were prevented by sickness or other insurmountable obstacles, so that the final number who actually went was not the same as those who had intended to go. Anyone who has planned a school-coach trip to the beach can understand how typical a scenario this really is.

A second and more important factor are the different circumstances in which the two registers were taken, an important fact of which Shabbir seems to be acutely unaware. Ezra’s register was made up while still in Babylon (in the 450s BC), before the return to Jerusalem (Ezra 2:1-2), whereas Nehemiah’s register was drawn up in Judea (around 445 BC), after the walls of Jerusalem had been rebuilt (Nehemiah 7:4-6). The lapse of so many years between the two lists (between 5-10 years) would certainly make a difference in the numbers of each family through death or by other causes.

Most scholars believe that Nehemiah recorded those people who actually arrived at Jerusalem under the leadership of Zerubbabel and Jeshua in 537 or 536 BC (Nehemiah 7:7). Ezra, on the other hand, uses the earlier list of those who originally announced their intention to join the caravan of returning colonists back in Babylon, in the 450s BC.

The discrepancies between these two lists point to the fact that there were new factors which arose to change their minds. Some may have fallen into disagreement, others may have discovered business reasons to delay their departure until later, whereas in some cases there were certainly some illnesses or death, and in other cases there may have been some last-minute recruits from those who first decided to remain in Babylon. Only clans or city-group’s came in with a shrunken numbers. All the rest picked up last-minute recruits varying from one to 1,100.

When we look at the names we find that certain names are mentioned in alternate forms. Among the Jews of that time (as well as those living in the East), a person had a name, title, and surname. Thus, the children of Hariph (Nehemiah 7:24) are the children of Jorah (Ezra 2:18), while the children of Sia (Nehemiah 7:47) are also the children of Siaha (Ezra 2:44).

When we take all these factors into consideration, the differences in totals that do appear in these two tallies should occasion no surprise whatsoever. The same sort of arbitration and attrition has featured every large migration in human history.

(Archer 1982:229-230 and Light of Life II 1992:219-220)

22. Both Ezra 2:64 and Nehemiah 7:66 agree that the totals for the whole assembly was 42,360, yet when the totals are added, Ezra – 29,818 and Nehemiah – 31,089?

(Category: copyist error)

There are possibly two answers to this seeming dilemma. The first is that this is most likely a copyist’s error. The original texts must have had the correct totals, but somewhere along the line of transmission, a scribe made an error in one of the lists, and changed the total in the other so that they would match, without first totaling up the numbers for the families in each list. There is the suggestion that a later scribe upon copying out these lists purposely put down the totals for the whole assembly who were in Jerusalem at his time, which because it was later would have been larger.

The other possibility is forwarded by the learned Old Testament scholar R.K. Harrison, who suggests that at any rate the figure of 42,000 may be metaphorical, following “...the pattern of the Exodus and similar traditions, where the large numbers were employed as symbols of the magnitude of God, and in this particular instance indicating the triumphant deliverance that God achieved for His captive people” (Harrison 1970:1142-1143).

Such errors do not change the historicity of the account, since in such cases another portion of Scripture usually corrects the mistake (the added totals in this instance). As the well-known commentator, Matthew Henry once wrote, “Few books are not printed without mistakes; yet, authors do not disown them on account of this, nor are the errors by the press imputed to the author. The candid reader amends them by the context or by comparing them with some other part of the work.“

(Light of Life II 1992:201, 219)

23. Did 200 singers (Ezra 2:65) or 245 singers (Nehemiah 7:67) accompany the assembly?

(Category: copyist error)

As in question number 7, this is a copyist error, where a scribe copying the numbers in the Ezra account simply rounded off the figure of 245 to 200.

24. Was King Abijah’s mother’s name Michaiah, daughter of Uriel of Gibeah (2 Chronicles 13:2) or Maachah, daughter of Absalom (2 Chronicles 11:20 & 2 Samuel 13:27)?

(Category: misunderstood the Hebrew usage)

This apparent contradiction rests on the understanding of the Hebrew word bat, equivalent to the English daughter. Although usually used to denote a first generation female descendant, it can equally refer to more distant kinship. An example of this is 2 Samuel 1:24, which states: ‘O daughters of Israel, weep for Saul…’ As this is approximately 900 years after Israel (also called Jacob) actually lived, it is clear that this refers to the Israelite women, his distant female descendants.

When seen in this light, the ‘contradiction’ vanishes. 2 Chronicles 13:2 correctly states that Michaiah is a daughter of Uriel. We can assume that Uriel married Tamar, Absalom’s only immediate daughter. Together they had Michaiah who then married king Rehoboam and became the mother of Abijah. 2 Chronicles 11:20 and 1 Kings 15:2, in stating that Maachah was a daughter of Absalom, simply link her back to her more famous grandfather, instead of her lesser known father, to indicate her royal lineage. Abishalom is a variant of Absalom and Michaiah is a variant of Maachah. Therefore, the family tree looks like this:

       Absalom/Abishalom
               |
             Tamar-----Uriel
                    |
Rehoboam-----Maachah/Michaiah
          |
        Abijah

25. Joshua and the Israelites did (Joshua 10:23,40) or did not (Joshua 15:63) capture Jerusalem?

(Category: misread the text)

The short answer is, not in this campaign. The verses given are in complete harmony and the confusion arises solely from misreading the passage concerned.

In Joshua 10, it is the king of Jerusalem that is killed: his city is not captured (verses 16-18 and 22-26). The five Amorite kings and their armies left their cities and went to attack Gibeon. Joshua and the Israelites routed them and the five kings fled to the cave at Makkedah, from which Joshua’s soldiers brought them to Joshua, who killed them all. Concerning their armies, verse 20 states: ‘the few who were left reached their fortified cities’, which clearly indicates that the cities were not captured. So it was the kings, not their cities, who were captured.

Joshua 10:28-42 records the rest of this particular military campaign. It states that several cities were captured and destroyed, these being: Makkedah, Libnah, Lachish, Eglon, Hebron and Debir. All of these cities are south-west of Jerusalem. The king of Gezer and his army were defeated in the field whilst helping Lachish (v.33) and in verse 30 comparison is made to the earlier capture of Jericho, but neither of these last two cities were captured at this time. Verses 40 & 41 delineate the limits of this campaign, all of which took place to the south and west of Jerusalem. Importantly, Gibeon, the eastern limit of this campaign, is still approximately 10 miles to the north-west of Jerusalem.

Jerusalem is, therefore, not stated as captured in Joshua 10. This agrees completely with Joshua 15:63, which states that Judah could not dislodge the Jebusites in Jerusalem.

26. Was Jacob (Matthew 1:16) or Heli (Luke 3:23) the father of Joseph and husband of Mary?

(Category: misunderstood the Hebrew usage)

The answer to this is simple but requires some explanation. Most scholars today agree that Matthew gives the genealogy of Joseph and Luke gives that of Mary, making Jacob the father of Joseph and Heli the father of Mary.

This is shown by the two narrations of the virgin birth. Matthew 1:18-25 tells the story only from Joseph’s perspective, while Luke 1:26-56 is told wholly from Mary’s point of view.

A logical question to ask is why Joseph is mentioned in both genealogies? The answer is again simple. Luke follows strict Hebrew tradition in mentioning only males. Therefore, in this case, Mary is designated by her husband’s name.

This reasoning is clearly supported by two lines of evidence. In the first, every name in the Greek text of Luke’s genealogy, with the one exception of Joseph, is preceded by the definite article (e.g. ‘the’ Heli, ‘the’ Matthat). Although not obvious in English translations, this would strike anyone reading the Greek, who would realize that it was tracing the line of Joseph’s wife, even though his name was used.

The second line of evidence is the Jerusalem Talmud, a Jewish source. This recognizes the genealogy to be that of Mary, referring to her as the daughter of Heli (Hagigah 2:4).

(Fruchtenbaum 1993:10-13)

27. Did Jesus descend from Solomon (Matthew 1:6) or from Nathan (Luke 3:31), both of whom are sons of David?

(Category: misunderstood the Hebrew usage)

This is directly linked to ‘contradiction’ 26. Having shown that Matthew gives Joseph’s genealogy and Luke gives that of Mary, it is clear that Joseph was descended from David through Solomon and Mary through Nathan.

28. Was Jechoniah (Matthew 1:12) or Neri (Luke 3:27) the father of Shealtiel?

(Category: misunderstood the Hebrew usage)

Once again, this problem disappears when it is understood that two different genealogies are given from David to Jesus, those of both Mary and Joseph (see #26). Two different genealogies mean two different men named Shealtiel, a common Hebrew name. Therefore, it is not surprising to recognize that they both had different fathers!

29. Which son of Zerubbabel was an ancestor of Jesus Christ, Abiud (Matthew 1:13) or Rhesa (Luke 3:27), and what about Zerubbabel in (1 Chronicles 3:19-20)?

(Category: misunderstood the Hebrew usage)

As with #28, two different Shealtiels necessitates two different Zerubbabels, so it is no problem that their sons had different names.

It should not surprise us that there was a Zerubbabel son of Shealtiel in both Mary’s and Joseph’s ancestry. Matthew tells us that Joseph’s father was named Jacob. Of course, the Bible records another Joseph son of Jacob, who rose to become the second most powerful ruler in Egypt (Genesis 37-47). We see no need to suggest that these two men are one and the same, so we should have no problem with two men named Zerubbabel son of Shealtiel.

The Zerubbabel mentioned in 1 Chronicles 3:19,20 could easily be a third. Again, this causes no problem: there are several Marys mentioned in the Gospels, because it was a common name. The same may be true here. This Zerubbabel would then be a cousin of the one mentioned in Matthew 1:12,13. A comparison of Matthew and 1 Chronicles gives the following possible family tree:

Jehoiachin
    |
Shealtiel----Malkiram----Pedaiah----Shenazzar----Jekamiah----Hoshama----Nedabiah----...
    |                                   |
Zerubbabel                   Zerubbabel----Shimei----...
    |                            |
  Abiud                       7 sons
    |   (1 Ch. 3:19,20)
    |
  Joseph

30. Was Joram (Matthew 1:8) or Amaziah (2 Chronicles 26:1) the father of Uzziah?

(Category: misunderstood the Hebrew usage)

This answer is of a similar nature to that in #24. Just as the Hebrew bat (daughter) can be used to denote a more distant descendant, so can the Hebrew ben (son). Jesus is referred to in Matthew 1:1 as the son of David, the son of Abraham. Both the genealogies trace Jesus’ ancestry through both these men, illustrating the usage of ‘son’. Although no Hebrew manuscripts of Matthew’s gospel are extant today, it is clear that he was a Jew writing from a Hebrew perspective and therefore completely at home with the Hebrew concept of son ship.

With this in mind, it can easily be shown that Amaziah was the immediate father of Uzziah (also called Azariah). Joram/Jehoram, on the other hand, was Uzziah’s great-great-grandfather and a direct ascendant. The line goes Joram/Jehoram – Ahaziah – Joash – Amaziah – Azariah/Uzziah (2 Chronicles 21:4-26:1).

Matthew’s telescoping of Joseph’s genealogy is quite acceptable, as his purpose is simply to show the route of descent. He comments in 1:17 that there were three sets of fourteen generations. This reveals his fondness for numbers and links in directly with the designation of Jesus as the son of David. In the Hebrew language, each letter is given a value. The total value of the name David is fourteen and this is probably the reason why Matthew only records fourteen generations in each section, to underline Jesus’ position as the son of David.

31. Was Josiah (Matthew 1:11) or Jehoiakim (1 Chronicles 3:16) the father of Jechoniah?

(Category: misunderstood the Hebrew usage)

This question is essentially the same as #30. Jehoiakim was Jeconiah’s father and Josiah his grandfather. This is quite acceptable and results from Matthew’s aesthetic telescoping of the genealogy, not from any error.

32. Were there fourteen (Matthew 1:17) or thirteen (Matthew 1:12-16) generations from the Babylonian exile until Christ?

(Category: misunderstood the Hebrew usage)

As Matthew clearly states (1:17), there were fourteen. In the first section there are fourteen names, in the second fifteen and in the third, fourteen. Perhaps the simplest way of resolving the problem is to suggest that in the first and third sections, the first and last person is included as a generation, whereas not in the second. In any case, as Matthew has clearly telescoped his genealogy with good reason, a mistake on his part is by no means shown conclusively. If by some chance another name or two has been lost from the list in the originals, by scribal error, we cannot know. Whatever the real situation, a simple explanation can be afforded, as above.

33. Who was the father of Shelah; Cainan (Luke 3:35-36) or Arphaxad (Genesis 11:12)?

(Category: misunderstood the Hebrew usage)

Although a conclusive answer is not possible, plausible explanations can be found. The most probable answer to this is that the genealogy in the Masoretic text of Genesis telescopes the generations as does Matthew in his list. When we look at the Septuagint (LXX), we find the name of Cainan included as the father of Shelah, echoing what we find in Luke. Luke, writing in Greek, would have used the Septuagint as his authority.

On that same note, if we refer to the Septuagint, when we look at Genesis 11:12 we find that Apharxad was 135 years old, rather than 35 (which would allow more time for him to be Shelah’s grandfather).

34. John the Baptist was (Matthew 11:14; 17:10-13) or was not Elijah to come (John 1:19-21)?

(Category: misunderstood the historical context)

Matthew records Jesus saying that John the Baptist was the Elijah who was to come, while John seems to record John the Baptist denying it. The reason for this apparent inconsistency is a lack of contextualization by readers.

The priests and Levites came to John the Baptist and asked him if he was Elijah. Quite a funny question to ask someone, unless you know the Jewish Scriptures. For God says through the prophet Malachi that He will send Elijah to the people of Israel before a certain time. Therefore as the Jewish people were expecting Elijah, the question is quite logical.

John was about 30 years when he was asked this question. His parents were already dead; he was the only son of Zechariah from the tribe of Levi. So when asked if he was Elijah who ascended up into heaven about 878 years earlier, the answer was obviously “No, I am not Elijah.”

Jesus also testifies, albeit indirectly, to John not being Elijah in Matthew 11:11 where he says that John is greater than all people who have ever been born. Moses was greater than Elijah, but John was greater than them both.

So what did Jesus mean when he says of John “he is the Elijah who was to come”? The angel Gabriel (Jibril in Arabic) speaks to Zechariah of his son, John, who was not yet born, saying “he will go on before the Lord, in the spirit and power of Elijah, to turn the hearts of the fathers to their children and the disobedient to the wisdom of the righteous – to make ready a people prepared for the Lord.” (Luke 1:17)

The Angel refers to two prophecies, Isaiah 40:3-5 (see Luke 3:4-6 to see this applied again to John the Baptist) and Malachi 4:5-6 mentioned above, which says “See, I will send you the prophet Elijah before the great and dreadful day of the Lord comes. He will turn the hearts of the fathers to their children, and the hearts of the children to their fathers”. Gabriel unmistakably says that John is the “Elijah” whom God foretold through Malachi the prophet.

So, was John Elijah? No. But had the priests and Levites asked him, “Are you the one the prophet Malachi speaks of as ‘Elijah’?” John would have responded affirmatively.

Jesus in Matthew 17:11-13 says that the prophecy of Malachi is true, but Elijah had already come. He says that this “Elijah” suffered, like he, Jesus will suffer; “the disciples understood that he was talking to them about John the Baptist“. Therefore, once we understand the context it is clear; John was not the literal Elijah, but he was the Elijah that the prophecy spoke of, the one who was to (and did) prepare the way for the Messiah, Jesus, “the Lamb of God who takes away the sins of the world”, John 1:29.

35. Jesus would (Luke 1:32) or would not (Matthew 1:11; 1 Chronicles 3:16 & Jeremiah 36:30) inherit David’s throne?

(Category: misunderstood the Hebrew usage)

This answer follows on directly from that to #26. Having shown that Matthew’s genealogy is that of Joseph, it is obvious from Jeremiah 36:30 that none of Joseph’s physical descendants were qualified to sit on David’s throne as he himself was descended from Jeconiah. However, as Matthew makes clear, Jesus was not a physical descendant of Joseph. After having listed Joseph’s genealogy with the problem of his descendance from Jeconiah, Matthew narrates the story of the virgin birth. Thus he proves how Jesus avoids the Jeconiah problem and remains able to sit on David’s throne. Luke, on the other hand, shows that Jesus’ true physical descendance was from David apart from Jeconiah, thus fully qualifying him to inherit the throne of his father David. The announcement of the angel in Luke 1:32 completes the picture: ‘the Lord God will give him the throne of his father David’. This divine appointment, together with his physical descendance, make him the only rightful heir to David’s throne.

(Fruchtenbaum 1993:12)

36. Jesus rode into Jerusalem on one colt (Mark 11:7; cf. Luke 19:35), or a colt and an ass (Matthew 21:7)?

(Category: misread the text & misunderstood the historical context)

The accusation is that the Gospels contradict about how many donkeys Jesus rode into Jerusalem on. This accusation is based on not reading the text of Matthew properly and ignoring his full point about this event.

It first should be noted that all four Gospel writers refer to this event, the missing reference above being John 12:14-15. Mark, Luke and John are all in agreement that Jesus sat on the colt. Logic shows that there is no “contradiction” as Jesus cannot ride on two animals at once! So, why does Matthew mention two animals? The reason is clear.

Even by looking at Matthew in isolation, we can see from the text that Jesus did not ride on two animals, but only on the colt. For in the two verses preceding the quote in point (b) above by Shabbir, we read Matthew quoting two prophecies from the Old Testament (Isaiah 62:11 and Zechariah 9:9) together. Matthew says:

“Say to the Daughter of Zion, ‘See, your king comes to you, gently and riding on a donkey, on a colt, the foal of a donkey’.”

Matthew 21:5

By saying “a donkey” and then “on a colt, the foal of a donkey” Zechariah is using classic Hebrew sentence structure and poetic language known as “parallelism”, simply repeating the same thing again in another way, as a parallel statement. This is very common in the Bible (i.e. Psalm 119:105 mentions, “Your word is a lamp to my feet and a light to my path,” yet says the same thing twice in succession). It is clear that there is only one animal referred to. Therefore Matthew clearly says Jesus rode only on a colt, in agreement with the other three Gospel writers.

So why does Matthew say that the colt and its mother were brought along in verse seven? The reason is simple. Matthew, who was an eyewitness (where as Mark and Luke were quite possibly not) emphasizes the immaturity of the colt, too young to be separated from its mother. As the colt had never been ridden the probability was that it was still dependent on its mother. It would have made the entry to Jerusalem easier if the mother donkey were led along down the road, as the foal would naturally follow her, even though he had never before carried a rider and had not yet been trained to follow a roadway.

Here again we see that there is no contradiction between the synoptic accounts, but only added detail on the part of Matthew as one who viewed the event while it was happening.

This is just one of many of the prophecies that Jesus fulfilled. He fulfilled ones that were in his control as well as ones which he could not manipulate, such as the time and place of his birth (Daniel 9:24-26, Micah 5:1-2, Matthew 2:1-6), and his resurrection (Psalm 16:10, Acts 2:24-32) to name but two.

Some Muslims believe that in the Taurat there is reference to the prophecy which the Qur’an speaks of in Sura 7:157 and 61:6 concerning Muhammad. However, these Muslims yet have to come up with one, while Jesus is predicted time and time again.

37. Simon Peter finds out that Jesus was the Christ by a revelation from heaven (Matthew 16:17), or by His brother Andrew (John 1:41)?

(Category: too literalistic an interpretation)

The emphasis of Matthew 16:17 is that Simon did not just hear it from someone else: God had made it clear to him. That does not preclude him being told by other people. Jesus’ point is that he was not simply repeating what someone else had said. He had lived and worked with Jesus and he was now clear in his mind that Jesus was none other than the Christ (Messiah), the Son of the Living God.

Jesus did not ask, “Who have you heard that I am?” but, “Who do you say I am?” There is all the difference in the world between these two questions, and Peter was no longer in any doubt.

38. Jesus first met Simon Peter and Andrew by the Sea of Galilee (Matthew 4:18-22), or on the banks of the river Jordan (John 1:42-43)?

(Category: misread the text)

The accusation is that one Gospel records Jesus meeting Simon Peter and Andrew by the sea of Galilee, while the other says he met them by the river Jordan. However this accusation falls flat on its face as the different writers pick up the story in different places. Both are true.

John 1:35 onwards says Jesus met them by the river Jordan and that they spent time with him there. Andrew (and probably Peter too) were disciples of John the Baptist. They left this area and went to Galilee, in which region was the village of Cana where Jesus then performed his first recorded miracle. “After this he went down to Capernaum with his mothers and brothers and disciples. There they stayed for a few days.” John 2:12.

Peter and Andrew were originally from a town named Bethsaida (John 2:44) but now lived in Capernaum (Matthew 8:14-15, Mark 1:30-31, Luke 4:38-39), a few miles from Bethsaida. They were fishermen by trade, so it was perfectly normal for them to fish when they were home during these few days (for at this time Jesus was only just beginning public teaching or healing).

This is where Matthew picks up the story. As Peter and Andrew fish in the Lake of Galilee, Jesus calls them to follow him – to leave all they have behind and become his permanent disciples. Before this took place, he had not asked them, but they had followed him because of John the Baptist’s testimony of him (John 1:35-39). Now, because of this testimony, plus the miracle in Cana, as well as the things Jesus said (John 1:47-51), as well as the time spent with the wisest and only perfect man who ever lived etc., it is perfectly understandable for them to leave everything and follow him. It would not be understandable for them to just drop their known lives and follow a stranger who appeared and asked them to, like children after the pied piper! Jesus did not enchant anyone – they followed as they realized who he was – the one all the prophets spoke of, the Messiah the son of God.

39. When Jesus met Jairus, his daughter ‘had just died’ (Matthew 9:18), or was ‘at the point of death’ (Mark 5:23)?

(Category: too literalistic an interpretation)

When Jairus left his home, his daughter was very sick, and at the point of death, or he wouldn’t have gone to look for Jesus. When he met Jesus he certainly was not sure whether his daughter had already succumbed. Therefore, he could have uttered both statements; Matthew mentioning her death, while Mark speaking about her sickness. However, it must be underlined that this is not a detail of any importance to the story, or to us. The crucial points are clear:

• Jairus’s daughter had a fatal illness.

• All that could have been done would already have been: she was as good as dead if not already dead.

• Jairus knew that Jesus could both heal her and bring her back from the dead. As far as he was concerned, there was no difference.

Therefore it is really of no significance whether the girl was actually dead or at the point of death when Jairus reached Jesus.’

40. Jesus allowed (Mark 6:8), or did not allow (Matthew 10:9; Luke 9:3) his disciples to keep a staff on their journey?

(Category: misunderstood the Greek usage)

It is alleged that the Gospel writers contradict each other concerning whether Jesus allowed his disciples to take a staff on their journey or not. The problem is one of translation.

In Matthew we read the English translation of the Greek word “ktesthe”, which is rendered in the King James (Authorized) translation as “Provide neither gold, nor silver nor yet staves”. According to a Greek dictionary this word means “to get for oneself, to acquire, to procure, by purchase or otherwise” (Robinson, Lexicon of the New Testament). Therefore in Matthew Jesus is saying “Do not procure anything in addition to what you already have. Just go as you are.”

Matthew 10 and Mark 6 agree that Jesus directed his disciples to take along no extra equipment. Luke 9:3 agrees in part with the wording of Mark 6:8, using the verb in Greek, (“take“); but then, like Matthew adds “no staff, no bag, no bread, no money”. But Matthew 10:10 includes what was apparently a further clarification: they were not to acquire a staff as part of their special equipment for the tour. Mark 6:8 seems to indicate that this did not necessarily involve discarding any staff they already had as they traveled the country with Jesus.

However, this is not a definitive answer, only a possible explanation. This trivial difference does not effect the substantial agreement of the Gospels. We would not be troubled if this were, or is, a contradiction, for we do not have the same view of these Gospels as a Muslim is taught about the Qur’an. And if this is the pinnacle of Biblical contradictions when the Bible is said to be “full of contradictions” and “totally corrupted”, then such people are obviously deluded. If indeed Christian scribes and translators had wished to alter the original Gospels, this “contradiction” would not have been here. It is a sign of the authenticity of the text as a human account of what took place, and is a clear sign that it has not been deliberately corrupted.

41. Herod did (Matthew 14:2; Mark 6:16) or did not (Luke 9:9) think that Jesus was John the Baptist?

(Category: misread the text)

There is no contradiction here. In Luke 9:9, Herod asks who this incredible person could be, as John was now dead. In Matthew 14:2 and Mark 6:16 he gives his answer: after considering who Jesus could be, he concluded that he must be John the Baptist, raised from the dead. By the time Herod actually met Jesus, at his trial, he may not have still thought that it was John (Luke 23:8-11). If that were the case, he had most probably heard more about him and understood John’s claims about preparing for one who was to come (John 1:15-34). He may well have heard that Jesus had been baptised by John, obviously ruling out the possibility that they were the same person.

42. John the Baptist did (Matthew 3:13-14) or did not (John 1:32-33) recognize Jesus before his baptism?

(Category: misunderstood the author’s intent)

John’s statement in John 1:33 that he would not have known Jesus except for seeing the Holy Spirit alight on him and remain, can be understood to mean that John would not have known for sure without this definite sign. John was filled with the Holy Spirit from before his birth (Luke 1:15) and we have record of an amazing recognition of Jesus even while John was in his mother’s womb. Luke 1:41-44 relates that when Mary visited John’s mother, the sound of her greeting prompted John, then still in the womb, to leap in recognition of Mary’s presence, as the mother of the Lord.

From this passage we can also see that John’s mother had some knowledge about who Jesus would be. It is very likely that she told John something of this as he was growing up (even though it seems that she died while he was young).

In the light of this prior knowledge and the witness of the Holy Spirit within John, it is most likely that this sign of the Holy Spirit resting on Jesus was simply a sure confirmation of what he already thought. God removed any doubt so that he could be sure that it was not his imagination or someone else’s mistake.

43. John the Baptist did (John 1:32-33) or did not (Matthew 11:2) recognize Jesus after his baptism?

(Category: misread the text)

In the passage of John 1:29-36 it is abundantly clear that John recognised Jesus. We should have no doubt at all about this.

Matthew 11:2 takes place later on, and many things have happened in the interum. John’s original knowledge of Jesus was limited and it seems that subsequent events had disillusioned him somewhat. He did not know exactly what form Jesus’ ministry would take. We are told from Matthew 3:11,12 some of what John knew: “He will baptize you with the Holy Spirit and with fire. His winnowing fork is in his hand, and he will clear his threshing-floor, gathering his wheat into the barn and burning up the chaff with unquenchable fire.” This is the classic portrayal of the Messiah as the conquering king who would bring God’s judgement on all those who reject him, bringing peace and justice to those who follow him. John obviously understood this.

However, the Messiah was also portrayed in the scriptures as a suffering servant who would suffer on behalf of God’s people. This is shown clearly in Isaiah 53, especially verse 12: “For he bore the sin of many, and made intercession for the transgressors”. John also understood this, as shown by his statement in John 1:29: “Look, the Lamb of God, who takes away the sin of the world!”

What was sometimes not so well understood was how the two portrayals of the Messiah interacted. Many thought that the Messiah would bring his terrible judgement as soon as he came. In fact, this will occur when he returns again (his return is alluded to in Acts 1:11, for example). Some were confused, therefore, by Jesus’ reluctance to act as a military leader and release the nation of Israel from Roman oppression at that time.

This confusion is illustrated by Luke 24:13-33, where Jesus spoke with two of his followers on the road to Emmaus after his resurrection. They were initially kept from recognising him (v.16). They told him how they “had hoped that he was the one who was going to redeem Israel” (v.21). They were correct in this hope, but failed to understand the first stage in God’s redemptive process. Jesus corrected their misunderstanding in v. 25,26: “How foolish you are, and how slow of heart to believe all that the prophets have spoken! Did not the Christ have to suffer these things and then enter his glory?” (emphasis added)

It is most likely that a similar misunderstanding prompted John’s question in Matthew 11:2. Despite having been so sure of Jesus’ identity as the Messiah of Israel, further events had clouded his certainty. After expecting Jesus to oust the Romans and restore the kingdom of Israel as in the days of king David, instead he had seen Jesus ‘teach and preach in the towns of Galilee’ (Matthew 11:1), with no mention of a military campaign. John surely wondered what had gone wrong: had he misunderstood the Messiah’s role, or perhaps he had made a bigger mistake in thinking Jesus was the Messiah. Jesus’ answer in Matthew 11:4-6 makes it clear:

“Go back and report to John what you hear and see: The blind receive sight, the lame walk, those who have leprosy are cured, the deaf hear, the dead are raised, and the good news is preached to the poor. Blessed is the man who does not fall away on account of me.”

These activities were Messianic prerogatives, as foretold by Isaiah 29:18; 35:5,6; 61:1-3. Although John’s disillusionment was a natural human reaction, he had been right the first time. Jesus ended his reply with an exhortation to John not to give up hope. The Messiah was here without a doubt and all would be revealed in its proper time.

44. When Jesus bears witness to himself, is his testimony not true (John 5:31) or is his testimony true (John 8:14)?

(Category: misunderstood the historical context)

“If I testify about myself, my testimony is not valid” (John 5:31) compared with “Even if I testify on my own behalf, my testimony is valid” (John 8:14). It appears to be a contradiction, but only if the context is ignored.

In John 5 Jesus is speaking about how he cannot claim on his own to be the Messiah nor the Son of God, unless he is in line with God’s revealed word. That is, without fulfilling the prophecies spoken in the Old Testament. But as Jesus did fulfil them and was proclaimed to be the Messiah by John the Baptist who the prophets also spoke of as heralding the way for the Messiah (see #34), then Jesus was indeed who he claimed to be, the Son of God. Jesus says of the Jewish scriptures which his listeners studied diligently, “These are the Scriptures that testify about me”.

We read of a somewhat different setting however in John 8. Jesus has just once again claimed to be the Messiah by quoting Old Testament Messianic prophecies and applying them to himself (John 8:12, Isaiah 9:2, Malachi 4:2). “Then some Pharisees challenged him, ‘Here you are, appearing as your own witness; your testimony is not valid’.” Verse 13.

It is to this statement that Jesus responds “Yes it is”. Why? Because the Pharisees were using a law from Deuteronomy 19:15 which says “One witness is not enough to convict a man accused of any crime or offense he may have committed. A matter must be established by the testimony of two or three witnesses. If a malicious witness takes the stand.”

Therefore they broadened the law to mean more that it does actually say. Indeed, the testimony of one man was valid – however not enough to convict, but enough when used in defense to bring an acquittal. This law is not speaking about anyone making a claim about himself, only in a court when accused of a crime.

So when Jesus says in reply to them “Even if I testify on my own behalf, my testimony is valid” he is right to do so as what the law referred to did not directly apply. He also says that he knew exactly who he was, whereas they did not. He was not lying to them; he was the sinless Messiah of God. Therefore his word could be trusted.

However, it is a good principle not to believe just anyone who claims to be the Messiah. Any claimant must have proof. Therefore the second thing Jesus goes on to state in John 8 is that he has these witnesses too, the witnesses that the Pharisees were asking for. “I am one who testifies for myself; my other witness is the Father who sent me.” Verse 18. The same proclamation as in John 5 that he was fulfilling the prophecies that they knew (see just before this incident in John 7:42 for further proof of this point).

There is no contradiction, simply clarity and great depth which can be seen when Jesus’ is viewed in context, in his fertile Jewish culture and setting.

45. When Jesus entered Jerusalem he cleansed (Matthew 21:12) or did not cleanse (Mark 11:1-17) the temple that same day, but the next day?

(Category: misunderstood the author’s intent)

The key to understanding may be found in Matthew’s use of narrative. At times he can be seen to arrange his material in topical order rather than strict chronological sequence. See the next question (#46) for more details.

With this in mind, it is probable that Matthew relates the cleansing of the temple along with the triumphal entry, even though the cleansing occurred the next day. Verse 12 states that ‘Jesus entered the temple’ but does not say clearly that it was immediately following the entry into Jerusalem.. Verse 17 informs us that he left Jerusalem and went to Bethany, where he spent the night. Mark 11:11 also has him going out to Bethany for the night, but this is something that he did each night of that week in Jerusalem.

Matthew 21:23 states: “Jesus entered the temple courts” in a similar fashion to verse 12, yet Luke 20:1 says that the following incident occurred “one day”, indicating that it may not have been immediately after the fig tree incident.

According to this possible interpretation, Jesus entered the temple on the day of his triumphal entry, looked around and retired to Bethany. The next morning he cursed the fig tree on the way to Jerusalem (at which time it started to wither) and cleansed the temple when he got there. Returning to Bethany that evening, probably as it was getting dark, the withered fig tree may not have been noticed by the disciples. It was only the following morning in the full light of day that they saw what had happened to it.

(Archer 1994:334.335)

46. Matthew 21:19 says that the tree which Jesus cursed withered at once, whereas Mark 11:20 maintains that it withered overnight.

(Category: misunderstood the author’s intent)

The differences found between the accounts of Matthew and Mark concerning the fig tree have much to do with the order both Matthew and Mark used in arranging their material. When we study the narrative technique of Matthew in general, we find (as was noted in #45 above) that he sometimes arranges his material in a topical order rather than in the strictly chronological order that is more often characteristic of Mark and Luke.

For instance, if we look at chapters 5-7 of Matthew which deal with the sermon on the Mount, it is quite conceivable that portions of the sermon on the Mount teachings are found some times in other settings, such as in the sermon on the plain in Luke (6:20-49). Matthew’s tendency was to group his material in themes according to a logical sequence. We find another example of this exhibited in a series of parables of the kingdom of heaven that make up chapter 13. Once a theme has been broached, Matthew prefers to carry it through to its completion, as a general rule.

When we see it from this perspective it is to Mark that we look to when trying to ascertain the chronology of an event. In Mark’s account we find that Jesus went to the temple on both Palm Sunday and the following Monday. But in Mark 11:11-19 it is clearly stated that Jesus did not expel the tradesmen from the temple until Monday, after he had cursed the barren fig tree (verses 12 to 14).

To conclude then, Matthew felt it suited his topical approach more effectively to include the Monday afternoon action with the Sunday afternoon initial observation, whereas Mark preferred to follow a strict chronological sequence. These differences are not contradictory, but show merely a different style in arrangement by each author.

(Archer 1982:334-335 and Light of Life III 1992:96-97)

47. In Matthew 26:48-50 Judas came up and kissed Jesus, whereas in John 18:3-12 Judas could not get close enough to Jesus to kiss him.

(Category: misquoted the text)

This is rather an odd seeming discrepancy by Shabbir, for nowhere in the John account does it say (as Shabbir forthrightly maintains) that Judas could not get close enough to Jesus to kiss him. Not being able to get close to him had nothing, therefore, to do with whether he kissed him or not. It seems that Shabbir imagines this to be the problem and so imposes it onto the text. The fact that John does not mention a kiss does not mean Judas did not use a kiss. Many times we have seen where one of the gospel writers includes a piece of information which another leaves out. That does not imply that either one is wrong, only that, as witnesses, they view an event by different means, and so include into their testimony only that which they deem to be important.

(Light of Life III 1992:107)

48. Did Peter deny Christ three times before the cock crowed (John 13:38), or three times before the cock crowed twice (Mark 14:30, 72)?

(Category: discovery of earlier manuscripts)

This accusation is that Jesus says to Peter “the cock will not crow till you have denied me three times” (John 13:38) and also “Before the cock crows twice you will deny me three times” (Mark 14:30). However, as the King James translation has it the cock crowed prior to Peter’s third denial in Mark, while the prediction in John failed. This problem is one of manuscript evidence.

Matthew 26:33-35, 74-75 “before the cock crows you will disown me three times“

Luke 22:31-34, 60-62 “before the cock crows today, you will deny three times that you know me“

John 13:38 “before the cock crows, you will disown me three times“

Mark is therefore the odd one out. This is probably due to the second crow being a later addition to the original Gospel for some unknown reason. Some early manuscripts of Mark do not have the words “a second time” and “twice” in 14:72, nor the word “twice” in 14:30, or the cock crowing a first time in verse 14:68 as in the King James translation. Therefore an erroneous addition is spotted by the clarity of having 4 accounts of the event and many early manuscripts of the Gospel of Mark.

However, another explanation is plausible if the first crow verse (68 in the King James) was not in the original but the others (“twice” in 30 and 72) were, as in the New International translation. For as a cock can (and often does) crow more than once in a row, there would be no contradiction (the first and second crows being together, with Peter remembering Jesus’ prediction on the second crow), for since we may be very sure that if a rooster crows twice, he has at least crowed once. Mark therefore just included more information in his account than the other gospel writers.

Although I am not an expert on the manuscripts used for the King James translation and do not know a great deal about why later, more accurate translators had enough manuscript evidence to omit verse 68 but not the others, I think that the first reason is more likely.

49. Jesus did (John 19:17) or did not (Matthew 27:31-32) bear his own cross?

(Category: misread the text or the texts are compatible with a little thought)

John 19:17 states that he went out carrying his own cross to the place of the skull. Matthew 27:31,32 tells us that he was led out to be crucified and that it was only as they were going out to Golgotha that Simon was forced to carry the cross.

Mark 15:20,21 agrees with Matthew and gives us the additional information that Jesus started out from inside the palace (Praetorium). As Simon was on his way in from the country, it is clear that he was passing by in the street. This implies that Jesus carried his cross for some distance, from the palace into the street. Weak from his floggings and torture, it is likely that he either collapsed under the weight of the cross or was going very slowly. In any case, the soldiers forced Simon to carry the cross for him. Luke 23:26 is in agreement, stating that Simon was seized as they led Jesus away.

Thus the contradiction vanishes. Jesus started out carrying the cross and Simon took over at some point during the journey.

50. Did Jesus die before (Matthew 27:50-51; Mark 15:37-38), or after (Luke 23:45-46) the curtain of the temple was torn?

(Category: misread the text)

After reading the three passages Matthew 27:50-51, Mark 15:37-38 and Luke 23:45-46, it is not clear where the apparent contradictions are that Shabbir has pointed out. All three passages point to the fact that at the time of Jesus’ death the curtain in the temple was torn. It does not stand to reason that because both Matthew and Mark mention the event of Christ’s death before mentioning the curtain tearing, while Luke mentions it in reverse order, that they are therefore in contradiction, as Matthew states that the two events happened, ‘At that moment’, and the other two passages nowhere deny this.

They all agree that these two events happened simultaneously for a very good reason; for the curtain was there as a barrier between God and man. Its destruction coincides with the death of the Messiah, thereby allowing man the opportunity for the first time since Adam’s expulsion from God’s presence at the garden of Eden, to once again be reunited with Him.

51. Did Jesus say everything openly (John 18:20) or did he speak secretly to his disciples (Mark 4:34, Matthew 13:10-11)?

(Category: misunderstood the historical context)

The reason people say that Jesus contradicts himself about saying things secretly or not, especially in relation to parables, is due to a lack of textual and cultural contextualising.

This answer requires significant background information, some of which I hope to give briefly here.

Firstly, what is a parable? It is a story given in order to clarify, emphasize or illustrate a teaching, not a teaching within itself. Jesus was a Jewish Rabbi. In Rabbinical literature there are approximately 4000 parables recorded. It was thought by Rabbis to be good practice to divide their instruction of the people into three parts, the latter third typically being two parables representative to the first two thirds. Jesus carries on in this tradition with just over one third of his recorded instruction being in the form of parables. He drew upon a wealth of images that the Israelis of his day knew, using common motifs such as plants, animals etc. Therefore the point of each of Jesus’ parables was clear to all the listeners, which can be seen from the Gospels too. Parables were so rich and also so subtle that not only could they drive home a clear and simple point to the ordinary listener, but the scholars could turn them over and over in their mind, deriving greater and greater meaning from them. So, Jesus often expanded on the meaning of a parable to his disciples, his close students, in response to their inquiry or to instruct them further as any Jewish Rabbi would.

This can be seen from reading Mark 4:34 in context. For it says, “With many similar parables Jesus spoke the word to them [the crowds], as much as they could understand. He did not say anything to them without using a parable [to clarify, emphasize or illustrate the teaching]. But when he was alone with his own disciples he explained everything [taught them more, for they could understand more than the crowds].” Mark 4:33-34.

Therefore parables were not secret teachings. They are not esoteric knowledge given only to the initiated. It makes no sense (nor has any historical basis) to say that Jesus went around confusing people. He went around in order to teach and instruct people. So when Jesus was asked while on trial in court (John 18:20) about his teaching, he says something to the words of “I taught publicly – everyone heard my words. You know I taught. I did not teach in secret.” He was right.

As all this is true, what are these “secrets of the kingdom of heaven” which Jesus speaks of? The only ‘secret’ (“the mystery hidden for long ages past, but now revealed and made known through the prophetic writing by the command of the eternal God, so that the nations might believe and obey him” (Romans 16:25-26) is that Jesus is Lord!

This secret was that Jesus’ mission was foretold by the prophets, that he was the fulfillment of these prophecies and the greatest revelation that would ever be given to mankind. His words were not only for the saving of people, but also for the judging of people because they were “ever hearing but never understanding, ever seeing but never perceiving” (Matthew 13:14) as many of the hearers of the parables were unwilling to repent and submit to God.

Many people enjoyed Jesus’ teaching, came for the nice moral discourses and the excellent parables, but not many followed him as the cost was too great (see Luke 9:57-61, 14:25-27, 33). But it was these things his disciples were beginning to understand because they truly followed Jesus. The secrets of the kingdom of heaven is what he said to his disciples following (and explaining) Matthew 13:10-11:

“But blessed are your eyes because they see, and your ears because they hear [unlike the crowds]. For I tell you the truth, many prophets and righteous men longed to see what you see but did not see it, and to hear what you hear but did not hear it” [as they did not live during the lifetime of Jesus – all the prophets were before him].

The secret is Jesus is Lord, Jesus is king, Jesus is Messiah, Jesus is the one all the prophets spoke of, the salvation of mankind, God’s greatest revelation, the Alpha and the Omega (Revelation 21:6-8, 22:12-16), the only way to be right with God (John 3:36, Romans 6:23).

52. Was Jesus on the cross (Mark 15:23) or in Pilate’s court (John 19:14) at the sixth hour on the day of the crucifixion?

(Category: misunderstood the historical context)

The simple answer to this is that the synoptic writers (Matthew, Mark and Luke) employed a different system of numbering the hours of day to that used by John. The synoptics use the traditional Hebrew system, where the hours were numbered from sunrise (approximately 6:00am in modern reckoning), making the crucifixion about 9:00am, the third hour by this system..

John, on the other hand, uses the Roman civil day. This reckoned the day from midnight to midnight, as we do today. Pliny the Elder (Natural History 2.77) and Macrobius (Saturnalia 1.3) both tell us as much. Thus, by the Roman system employed by John, Jesus’ trial by night was in its end stages by the sixth hour (6:00am), which was the first hour of the Hebrew reckoning used in the synoptics. Between this point and the crucifixion, Jesus underwent a brutal flogging and was repeatedly mocked and beaten by the soldiers in the Praetorium (Mark 15:16-20). The crucifixion itself occurred at the third hour in the Hebrew reckoning, which is the ninth in the Roman, or 9:00am by our modern thinking.

This is not just a neat twist to escape a problem, as there is every reason to suppose that John used the Roman system, even though he was just as Jewish as Matthew, Mark and Luke. John’s gospel was written after the other three, around AD90, while he was living in Ephesus. This was the capital of the Roman province of Asia, so John would have become used to reckoning the day according to the Roman usage. Further evidence of him doing so is found in John 21:19: ‘On the evening of that first day of the week‘. This was Sunday evening, which in Hebrew thinking was actually part of the second day, each day beginning at sunset.

(Archer 1994:363-364)

53. The two thieves crucified with Jesus either did (Mark 15:32) or did not (Luke 23:43) mock Jesus?

(Category: too literalistic an interpretation)

This apparent contradiction asks did both thieves crucified with Jesus mock him or just one. Mark 15:23 says both did. Luke 23:43 says one mocked and one defended Jesus. It isn’t too difficult to see what it going on here. The obvious conclusion is that both thieves mocked Jesus initially. However after Jesus had said, “Father, forgive them, for they do not know what they are doing,” one of the robbers seems to have had a change of heart and repented on the cross, while the other continued in his mocking.

There is a lesson here which shouldn’t be overlooked; that the Lord allows us at any time to repent, no matter what crime or sin we have committed. These two thieves are symptomatic of all of us. Some of us when faced with the reality of Christ continue to reject him and mock him, while others accept our sinfulness and ask for forgiveness. The good news is that like the thief on the cross, we can be exonerated from that sin at any time, even while ‘looking at death in the face’.

54. Did Jesus ascend to Paradise the same day of the crucifixion (Luke 23:43), or two days later (John 20:17)?

(Category: misunderstood how God works in history)

The idea that Jesus contradicts himself (or the Gospels contradict themselves) concerning whether he had ascended to Paradise or not after his death on the cross is due to assumptions about Paradise as well as the need to contextualize.

Jesus says to the thief on the cross “Today you will be with me in Paradise”. This was indeed true. For the thief was to die that same day on earth; but in paradise “today” is any day in this world, as Heaven is outside of time.

Jesus says to Mary Magdalene, according to the rendering of the King James translation, that he had not yet “ascended” to his Father. However, this could also be rendered “returned” to his Father.

Jesus was with God, and was God, before the beginning of the world (John 1 and Philippians 2:6-11). He left all his glory and became fully God, fully man. Later, God did exalt Jesus to the highest place once more, to the right hand of Himself (see Acts 7:56). This had not yet taken place in John 20:17. Jesus saying “for I have not yet returned to the Father” does not rule out the possibility that he was in heaven between his death and resurrection in “our time” (although Heaven is outside of time). By way of parallel (albeit an imperfect one), I do go to my original home and the area where I grew up without returning there. Returning as in myself being restored to what was.

However, a more likely understanding of the text has to do with the context. Another way to say, “Do not hold on to me, for I have not ascended to my Father. Go instead to my brothers…”, would be, “Do not hang on to me Mary – I have not left you all yet. You will see me again. But now, I want you to go and tell my disciples that I am going to my Father soon, but not yet”.

Both Islam and Christianity believe in the resurrection of the body, and both believe in the intermediate state. In Luke, Jesus dies, and his spirit ascended to Paradise (see vs. 46). In John, Jesus has been bodily resurrected, and in that state, he had not yet ascended to the Father.

The time factor makes this somewhat paradoxical but the texts are not mutually exclusive. There is no contradiction.

55. When Paul was on the road to Damascus he saw a light and heard a voice. Did those who were with him hear the voice (Acts 9:7), or did they not (Acts 22:9)?

(Category: misunderstood the Greek usage or the text is compatible with a little thought)

Although the same Greek word is used in both accounts (akouo), it has two distinct meanings: to perceive sound and to understand. Therefore, the explanation is clear: they heard something but did not understand what it was saying. Paul, on the other hand, heard and understood. There is no contradiction.

(Haley p.359)

56. When Paul saw the light and fell to the ground, did his traveling companions fall (Acts 26:14) or did they not fall (Acts 9:7) to the ground?

(Category: misunderstood the Greek usage or the text is compatible with a little thought)

There are two possible explanations of this point. The word rendered ‘stood’ also means to be fixed, to be rooted to the spot. This is something that can be experienced whether standing up or lying down.

An alternative explanation is this: Acts 26:14 states that the initial falling to the ground occurred when the light flashed around, before the voice was heard. Acts 9:7 says that the men ‘stood speechless’ after the voice had spoken. There would be ample time for them to stand up whilst the voice was speaking to Saul, especially as it had no significance or meaning to them. Saul, on the other hand, understood the voice and was no doubt transfixed with fear as he suddenly realized that for so long he had been persecuting and killing those who were following God. He had in effect been working against the God whom he thought he was serving. This terrible realization evidently kept him on the ground longer than his companions.

(Haley p.359)

57. Did the voice tell Paul what he was to do on the spot (Acts 26:16-18), or was he commanded to go to Damascus to be told what to do (Acts 9:7; 22:10)?

(Category: misunderstood the historical context)

Paul was told his duties in Damascus as can be seen from Acts 9 and 22. However in Acts 26 the context is different. In this chapter Paul doesn’t worry about the chronological or geographical order of events because he is talking to people who have already heard his story.

In Acts 9:1-31 Luke, the author of Acts, narrates the conversion of Saul.

In Acts 22:1-21 Luke narrates Paul speaking to Jews, who knew who Paul was and had actually caused him to be arrested and kept in the Roman Army barracks in Jerusalem. He speaks to the Jews from the steps of the barracks and starts off by giving his credentials as a Jew, before launching into a detailed account of his meeting with the Lord Jesus Christ and his conversion.

In Acts 26:2-23 Luke, however, narrates the speech given by Paul, (who was imprisoned for at least two years after his arrest in Jerusalem and his speech in Acts 22,). This was given to the Roman Governor Festus and King Herod Agrippa, both of whom were already familiar with the case. (Read the preceding Chapters). Therefore they did not require a full blown explanation of Paul’s case, but a summary. Which is exactly what Paul gives them. This is further highlighted by Paul reminding them of his Jewish credentials in one part of a sentence, “I lived as a Pharisee,” as opposed to two sentences in Acts 22:3. Paul also later in the Chapter is aware that King Agrippa is aware of the things that have happened in verses 25-27.

58. Did 24,000 Israelites die in the plague in ‘Shittim’ (Numbers 25:1, 9), or was it only 23,000 Israelites who died (1 Corinthians 10:8)?

(Category: confused this incident with another)

This apparent contradiction asks how many people died from the plague that occurred in Shittim (which incidentally is misspelt ‘Shittin’ in Shabbir’s pamphlet). Numbers 25:1-9 and 1 Corinthians 10:8 are contrasted. Shabbir is referring to the wrong plague here.

If he had looked at the context of 1 Corinthians 10, he would have noted that Paul was referring to the plague in Exodus 32:28, which takes place at Mt. Sinai and not to that found in Numbers 25, which takes place in Shittim, amongst the Moabites. If there is any doubt refer to verse 7 of 1 Corinthians 10, which quotes almost exactly from Exodus 32:6, “Afterwards they sat down to eat and drink and got up to indulge in revelry.”

Now there are those who may say that the number killed in the Exodus 32 account were 3,000 (Exodus 32:28) another seeming contradiction, but one which is easily rectified once you read the rest of the text. The 3,000 killed in verse 28 account for only those killed by men with swords. This is followed by a plague which the Lord brings against those who had sinned against him in verse 35, which says, “And the Lord struck the people with a plague because of what they did with the calf Aaron had made.” It is to this plague which Paul refers to in 1 Corinthians 10:8.

(Geisler/Howe 1992:458-459)

59. Did 70 members of the house of Jacob come to Egypt (Genesis 46:27), or was it 75 members (Acts 7:14)?

(Category: misunderstood the historical context)

This apparent contradiction asks how many members of the house of Jacob went to Egypt. The two passages contrasted are Genesis 46:27 and Acts 7:14. However both passages are correct. In the Genesis 46:1-27 the total number of direct descendants that traveled to Egypt with Jacob were 66 in number according to verse 26. This is because Judah was sent on ahead in verse 28 of Chapter 46 and because Joseph and his two sons were already in Egypt. However in verse 27 all the members of the family are included, including Joseph and his sons and Judah making a total number of 70, referring to the total number of Jacob’s family that ended up in Egypt not just those that traveled with him to Egypt.

In the older Septuagint and Dead Sea Scroll manuscripts the number given in verse 27 is 75. This is because they also include Joseph’s three grandsons and two great grandsons listed in Numbers 26:28-37, and in at least the Septuagint version their names are listed in Genesis 46:20. Therefore the Acts 7:14 quotation of Stephen’s speech before his martyrdom is correct because he was quoting from the Septuagint.

60. Did Judas buy a field (Acts 1:18) with his blood-money for betraying Jesus, or did he throw it into the temple (Matthew 27:5)?

(Category: misunderstood the author’s intent)

This apparent contradiction asks, ‘What did Judas do with the blood money he received for betraying Jesus?’ In Acts 1:18 it is claimed that Judas bought a field. In Matthew 27:5 it was thrown into the Temple from where the priests used it to buy a field. However, upon closer scrutiny it appears one passage is just a summary of the other.

Matthew 27:1-10 describes in detail the events that happened in regard to Judas betrayal of Jesus, and their significance in terms of the fulfillment of the Scriptures. In particular he quotes from the prophet Zechariah 11:12-13 which many think are clarifications of the prophecies found in Jeremiah 19:1-13 and 32:6-9.

In the Acts 1:18-19 passage however, Luke is making a short resume of something that people already knew, as a point of clarification to the speech of Peter, among the believers (the same situation as we found in question number 57 earlier). This is illustrated by the fact that in verse 19 he says, “Everyone in Jerusalem heard about this”. Also it is more than probable that the Gospel record was already being circulated amongst the believers at the time of Luke’s writing. Luke, therefore, was not required to go into detail about the facts of Judas’ death.

61. Did Judas die by hanging himself (Matthew 27:5) or by falling headlong and bursting open with all his bowels gushing out (Acts 1:18)?

(Category: the texts are compatible with a little thought)

This alleged contradiction is related to the fact that Matthew in his Gospel speaks of Judas hanging himself but in Acts 1:18 Luke speaks about Judas falling headlong and his innards gushing out. However both of these statements are true.

Matthew 27:1-10 mentioned the fact that Judas died by hanging himself in order to be strictly factual. Luke, however in his report in Acts1:18-19 wants to cause the feeling of revulsion among his readers, for the field spoken about and for Judas, and nowhere denies that Judas died by hanging. According to tradition, it would seem that Judas hanged himself on the edge of a cliff, above the Valley of Hinnom. Eventually the rope snapped, was cut or untied and Judas fell upon the field below as described by Luke.

62. Is the field called the ‘field of blood’ because the priest bought it with blood money (Matthew 27:8), or because of Judas’s bloody death (Acts 1:19)?

(Category: misunderstood the wording)

Once again, looking at the same two passages as the last two apparent contradictions Shabbir asks why the field where Judas was buried called the Field of Blood? Matthew 27:8 says that it is because it was bought with blood-money, while, according to Shabbir Acts 1:19 says that it was because of the bloody death of Judas.

However both passages agree that it was due to it being bought by blood-money. Acts 1:18-19 starts by saying, “With the reward he got for his wickedness, Judas bought a field”. So it begins with the assumption that the field was bought by the blood-money, and then the author intending to cause revulsion for what had happened describes Judas bloody end on that piece of real estate.

63. How can the ransom which Christ gives for all, which is good (Mark 10:45; 1 Timothy 2:5-6), be the same as the ransom of the wicked (Proverbs 21:18)?

(Category: misunderstood how God works in history)

This contradiction asks, ‘Who is a ransom for whom?’ Shabbir uses passages from Mark 10:45 and 1 Timothy 2:5-6 to show that it is Jesus that is a ransom for all. This is compared to Proverbs 21:18 which speaks of “The wicked become a ransom for the righteous, and the unfaithful for the upright.”

There is no contradiction here as they are talking about two different types of ransom. A ransom is a payment by one party to another. It can be made by a good person for others, as we see Christ does for the world, or it can be made by evil people as payment for the evil they have done, as we see in the Proverbs passage.

The assumption being made by Shabbir in the Mark and 1 Timothy passages is that Jesus was good and could therefore not be a ransom for the unrighteous. In this premise he reflects the Islamic denial that someone can pay for the sins of another, or can be a ransom for another. He must not, however impose this interpretation on the Bible. Christ as a ransom for the many is clearly taught in the Bible. Galatians 3:13-14 and 1 Peter 2:23-25 speak of Jesus becoming a curse for us. Therefore Jesus has fulfilled even this proverb.

Again Shabbir’s supposition relies upon quotations being taken out of their context. The Mark 10:45 passage starts off by quoting Jesus as saying, “For even the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many.” This was spoken by Jesus because the disciples had been arguing over the fact that James and John had approached Jesus about sitting at his right and left side when Christ came into his glory. Here Jesus is again prophesying his death which is to come and the reason for that death, that he would be the ransom payment that would atone for all people’s sin.

In 1 Timothy 2:5-6 Paul is here speaking, saying,

“For there is one God and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus, who gave himself as a ransom for all men-the testimony given in its proper time.“

This comes in the middle of a passage instructing the Early Church on worshiping God. These two verses give the reason and the meaning of worshiping God. The redemptive ransom given by God, that through this mediator Jesus Christ’s atoning work on the Cross, God may once again have that saving relationship with man.

The Proverbs 21:18 passage speaks however of the ransom that God paid through Egypt in the Exodus of Israel from Egypt, as is highlighted in the book of Isaiah, but particularly in Chapter 43:3;

“For I am the LORD, your God, the Holy One of Israel, your Saviour; I give Egypt for your ransom, Cush and Seba in your stead.“

This picture is further heightened in verses 16 and 17 of the same Chapter. This also has some foundation from the book of Exodus 7:5; 8:19; 10:7; 12:33. Chapters 13 and 14 particularly point to this. As history records for us in the Bible it was through this action that the Old Covenant was established between God and the Kingdom of Israel.

64. Is all scripture profitable (2 Timothy 3:16) or not profitable (Hebrews 7:18)?

(Category: misunderstood how God works in history)

The accusation is that the Bible says all scripture is profitable as well as stating that a former commandment is weak and useless, and therein lies the contradiction. This is a contextual problem and arises through ignorance of what God promised to do speaking through the Prophets, concerning the two covenants which He instituted.

Due to space this wonderful issue cannot be looked at in depth here. However, some background information will have to be given in order for a reader, unfamiliar with the Bible, to understand what we are saying here. In order to illustrate I will draw a parallel from question #92 which speaks of the wealth behind many of the Hebrew words used in the Bible; in that particular case the ability we have to interpret the word ‘niham’ as either changing one’s mind, repenting, or to be aggrieved (refer to the question for a further understanding of the context).

God’s word obviously originates from Him alone, and is indeed useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training as 2 Timothy states. That is a general statement which refers to all that which comes from God.

Hebrews chapter 7 speaks of a particular commandment given to a particular people at a specific time; the sacrificial system in the Tabernacle and later the Temple in Jerusalem. God established in His covenant with His people Israel a system where they would offer sacrifices, animals to be killed, in order for God to forgive them of their sins; particularly what God calls in Leviticus chapters 4 to 6, the “sin offering” and the “guilt offering”.

This concept of substitutional death is foreign to Islam, but is fundamental to Biblical Judaism and Christianity. Atonement must take place for sin. The penalty of sin is death, and someone has to pay that price. There is no forgiveness for sin without the shedding of blood, for God demands justice. He cannot just ignore it for that would not be just.

God indeed established this system of atonement as the Old Testament shows by referring to the need for atonement 79 times! However, it also records God saying “The time is coming, declares the Lord, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah. It will not be like the covenant I made with their forefathers when I took them by the hand and led them out of Egypt” [i.e. at Mount Sinai where He gave the first covenant to the people of Israel just after God saved them from Egypt] (Jeremiah 31:31-33). The reason God gives is that the people did not remain faithful to it. Thus the new covenant will be different as God says, “I will put my laws in their minds and write them on their hearts” (vs. 33). He says also that this new covenant will necessitate a once-for-all payment for their sins, unlike the previous covenant (Jeremiah 31:34, Daniel 9:24-25).

God also speaks in the Old Testament of the Messiah who would bring this about. A Messiah not from the Levitical priesthood, but a perfect man from the tribe of Judah who would be a priest unto God. He, the Messiah would be the sacrifice that would pay for all sin in one go, and approach God not on the merit of his ancestry (as with the Levitical priests), but on his own merit, being like God, perfect. If people follow this Messiah and accept his payment of the penalty for sin for them, then God will write the law on their minds and hearts, and God can be merciful to them as His justice has been satisfied. Then they too can draw near to God, for God wants to be in relationship with His creation (Genesis 3:8-11) and it is only sin which stops that.

Obviously this is quite involved and only a comprehensive reading of the Old Testament will explain it adequately. All scripture is profitable, including that concerning the sacrificial system. However, God also promised in the Bible to make a renewed covenant with His people. In this the original system was replaced with the perfect sacrifice of the Messiah, Jesus.

Many scriptures describe this Messiah who would bring about this new covenant. In this God “makes his life a guilt offering”and we are told “Surely he took up our infirmities [sins] and carried our sorrows, he was pierced for our transgressions, he was crushed for our iniquities; the punishment that brought us peace [with God] was upon him.” See Isaiah chapter 53.

You can pay the price for your sin if you wish – it will cost you your life eternally. You will die for your own sin and go to hell. Or, because of the love of God, the Messiah can pay that price for you, and be “pierced” in substitution for you, which will bring you peace with God. Then God will permit you to enter heaven for eternity as His justice is satisfied. For as John the Baptist when seeing Jesus mentioned, “Look, the Lamb of God, who takes away the sins of the word!” He also said, “Whoever believes in the Son [Jesus] has eternal life, but whoever rejects the Son will not see life, for God’s wrath remains on him.” John 1:29, 3:36.

God teaches that He will do this. It was fulfilled in the death and resurrection of the Messiah, Jesus, EXACTLY as the Old Testament said it would happen, and the new covenant was established. Sin was paid for once for all by the “Lamb of God who takes away the sins of the world” as John the Baptist announced upon seeing Jesus (see #34 and #44). He is the one God promised. So through his death the old system of sacrifices, offering animals over and over again, became unnecessary. God’s alternative, which is vastly superior and comprehensive, rendered by God himself the previous system useless (Hebrews 8:7-13).

So, like clarification #92, God did not change His mind on His plan for enabling people to be right with Him. God is not a man that He should change His mind. It was His intention and plan all along to bring in this new covenant as a fulfilment of the old, as the Old Testament shows. A further point needs to be addressed a here. These ceremonial laws were required of the Israelites alone, as they were the ones who operating within the stipulations, ordinances and decrees of the Mosaic covenant. Any Gentile, or non-Israelite, who wished to convert to Judaism, was obligated to observe these covenantal ordinances as well. But Christians are not converts to Judaism. They are believers in Jesus, God’s Messiah, the Savior. They operate within the context of a “new covenant,” the one established in Jesus’ blood by his atoning sacrifice, not the old covenant which God made with Israel at Sinai. Within this new covenant, Christians too have commandments, and in one manner or another they all relate to what was written in the Old Testament, but now in an entirely new context, that of fulfilment. So there is a clear line of continuity, revelation and renewal between the covenants, new and old – because both Israel and Christianity have the Messiah in common, and it was the Hebrew Scriptures that he fulfilled. Therefore all those Scriptures are profitable for studying, to know where we have come from, and where we are going. But not every commandment, ordinance or decree in the Old Testament is applicable to Christians in the same way it was (or is) to Israel. Though we have much in common, we have distinct covenants, a new covenant, which present Jews need to read about and acquiesce to, as it fulfills all that they look for and continue to hope for.

Note: a parallel to this, although an imperfect one, can be draw for the Muslim from the Qur’an. Sura 3:49-50. Jesus comes and says to the people of Israel “I have come to you to affirm the Law which was before me. And to make lawful to you what was before forbidden to you”, or “to make halal what was haram”. According to this he came and confirmed the law which God had given to them, but he made some things permissible for them which God had previously prohibited. This is not true according to the Bible in the context of this “contradiction” and cannot be said for Judaism and Christianity. It is just a parallel to show that the Qur’an testifies of such things too.

65. Was the exact wording on the cross, as ( Matthew 27:37, Mark 15:26, Luke 23:38, and John 19:19) all seem to have different wordings?

(Category: misread the text)

This seeming contradiction takes on the question, ‘What was the exact wording on the cross?’ It is argued that Matthew 27:37, Mark 15:26, Luke 23:38, and John 19:19 all use different words posted above Jesus’s head while hanging on the cross. This can be better understood by looking at John 19:20 which says;

“Many of the Jews read this sign, for the place where Jesus was crucified was near the city, and the sign was written in Aramaic, Latin and Greek.“

It is interesting that Pilate is said to have written the sign and may have written different things in each of the languages according to Pilate’s proficiency in each of the languages. The key charge brought against Jesus in all of the Gospels is that he claimed to be ‘King of the Jews’. If this had been missing from any of the accounts then there may have been a possible concern for a contradiction here; but this is not the case. For a further explanation of this see Archer’s explanation.

(Archer 1982:345-346).

66. Did Herod want to kill John the Baptist (Matthew 14:5), or was it his wife Herodias (Mark 6:20)?

(Category: misunderstood the author’s intent)

The supposed contradiction pointed out by Shabbir is, ‘Did Herod want to kill John the Baptist?’ The passages used by Shabbir to promote his conjecture are Matthew 14:5 where it appears to say that Herod did and Mark 6:20 where Shabbir suggests that Herod did not want to kill him. However the passages in question are complimentary passages.

When we look at the whole story we see that Matthew 14:1-11 and Mark 6:14-29, as far as I have been able to see nowhere contradict each other. This seems to be a similarly weak attempt to find a contradiction within the Bible to that of contradiction 50. In both passages Herod has John imprisoned because of his wife Herodias. Therefore it is the underlying influence of Herodias on Herod that is the important factor in John’s beheading. Mark’s account is more detailed than Matthew’s, whose Gospel is thought to have been written later, because Matthew does not want to waste time trampling old ground when it is already contained within Mark’s Gospel. Notice also that Mark does not anywhere state that Herod did not want to kill John, but does say that Herod was afraid of him, because of John’s righteousness and holiness, and, as Matthew adds, the factor of John’s influence over the people.

67. Was the tenth disciple of Jesus in the list of twelve Thaddaeus (Matthew 10:1-4; Mark 3:13-19) or Judas, son of James (Luke 6:12-16)?

(Category: misunderstood the historical context)

Both can be correct. It was not unusual for people of this time to use more than one name. Simon, or Cephas was also called Peter (Mark 3:16), and Saul was also called Paul (Acts 13:9). In neither case is there a suggestion that either was used exclusively before changing to the other. Their two names were interchangeable.

68. Was the man Jesus saw sitting at the tax collector’s office whom he called to be his disciple named Matthew (Matthew 9:9) or Levi (Mark 2:14; Luke 5:27)?

(Category: misunderstood the historical context)

The answer to this question is exactly the same as the previous one in that both scriptures are correct. Matthew was also called Levi, as the scriptures here attest.

It is somewhat amusing to hear Mr Ally drawing so much attention to this legitimate custom. In the run-up to a debate in Birmingham, England in February 1998, he felt free to masquerade under an alternative name (Abdul Abu Saffiyah, meaning ‘Abdul, the father of Saffiyah’, his daughter’s name) in order to gain an unfair advantage over Mr Smith, his opponent. By disguising his identity he denied Mr Smith the preparation to which he was entitled. Now here he finds it a contradictory when persons in the 1st century Palestine either use one or the other of their names, a practice which is neither illegal nor duplicitous.

There are perfectly legitimate reasons for using an alternative name. However, in the light of Mr Ally’s unfair and deceitful practice outlined above, there is a ring of hypocrisy to these last two questions raised by him.

69. Was Jesus crucified on the daytime after the Passover meal (Mark 14:12-17) or the daytime before the Passover meal ( John 13:1, 30, 29; 18:28; 19:14)?

(Category: misunderstood the historical context)

Jesus was crucified on the daytime before the Passover meal. The reason why Mark seems to say it was after is one of culture and contextualising.

The evidence from the Gospels that Jesus died on the eve of the Passover, when the Passover meal would be eaten after sunset, is very solid. Before we delve (albeit briefly) into this issue, it is worth noting that Mark 14 records that Jesus does not eat the Passover with his disciples.

Luke 14:12 says it was “the Feast of Unleavened Bread”, which is also called “Passover”. As the name suggest states, part of the Passover meal was to eat bread without yeast. It is a commandment which Jewish people keep even today for the meal, for God makes it extremely clear, “eat bread without yeast And whoever eats bread with yeast in it must be cut off from the community of Israel. Eat nothing made with yeast. Wherever you live, you must eat unleavened bread”. See also Exodus 12:1-20.

The Greek word for “unleavened bread” is ‘azymos’. This is the word used by Mark in “the Feast of Unleavened Bread”, chapter 14 verse 12. The Greek word for normal bread (with yeast) is ‘artos’. All the Gospel writers, including Mark, agree that in this last meal with his disciples the bread they ate was artos, in other words a bread with yeast. “While they were eating, Jesus took bread [artos], gave thanks and broke it, and gave it to his disciples, saying Take it; this is my body.” Mark 14:22. It is highly probably therefore that this meal was not a Passover meal. The use of the different words in the same passage strongly suggests this. For it would be unthinkable to them to eat something that God had commanded them not to eat (bread with yeast – artos), and not to eat something that they were commanded to eat (unleavened bread – azymos).

Therefore, as this is true, what does Mark mean in verses 12-17? Firstly, we read, “when it was customary to sacrifice the Passover lamb“. Exodus 20:1-8 says that this must happen on the 14th day of the Jewish month of Nisan. However, there was dispute as to when this day was, due to the debate on separate calendars which were used for calculating feast-days. It is possible that separate traditions were in vogue in Jesus life. So, indeed it may have been “customary” to sacrifice the lamb on that day for some, although many, probably most, recognized the Passover as being the next evening.

Secondly, the disciples ask Jesus “Where do you want us to go and make preparations for you to eat the Passover?” They had no idea that Jesus was going to give his life for the sins of the world like the Passover lamb of Exodus 20 did to save the Israelites from God’s wrath upon Egypt. Jesus had explained to them, but they did not grasp it for many reasons, including the hailing of Jesus by the people as Messiah in the Triumphal Entry, which was still ‘ringing in their ears’. He does not state that he would eat it with them. He wanted to, but he knew he would not. There is no room for any dogmatic statement that the Passover must be eaten on the same day the room was hired or prepared. Indeed, Jewish people, because of Exodus 12, thoroughly prepared their houses for the Feast of Unleavened Bread.

Thirdly, in some ways the Gospels couch the last supper in terms of fulfillment. i.e. Luke 22 records Jesus saying that he had longed to eat “this” Passover meal with them. So, does Luke say it was the Passover meal? It is doubtful, due to the same use of artos and azymos, amongst other reasons. Jesus did make this last supper a sort of Passover meal (but not the real one). He wanted to have this special fellowship with his disciples, his friends, being painfully aware of the agony he would go through, only a few hours later. He also wanted to show his disciples that the Passover spoke of him; that he was the sacrifice that would bring in the New Covenant God promised (see questions #64 and #34) just like the lambs that was killed 1500 years earlier to save the people if Israel from God’s wrath. He illustrated through the meal that he is the “Lamb of God who takes away the sins of the world” as John the Baptist called Jesus (John 1:29). He wanted to eat it with them for he says, “I will not eat it again until it finds fulfillment in the Kingdom of God” (Luke 22:16). His coming death was its fulfillment, “For Christ, our Passover Lamb, has been sacrificed” (1 Corinthians 5:7).

If this understanding is correct (one of two feasible explanations I opted for due to my current research), then there is no contradiction. Jesus died before the Passover meal.

70. Did Jesus both pray (Matthew 26:39; Mark 14:36; Luke 22:42) or not pray (John 12:27) to the Father to prevent the crucifixion?

(Category: misread the text)

This apparent contradiction asks: ‘Did Jesus pray to the Father to prevent the crucifixion?’ Matthew 26:39; Mark 14:36 and Luke 22:42 are supposed to imply that he does. John 12:27, however, seems to say that he doesn’t.

This is a rather weak attempt at a contradiction and again wholly relies upon the ignorance of the reader for it’s strength. Matthew 26:39, Mark 14:36, and Luke 22:42 are parallel passages which take place in the Garden of Gethsemane just before the arrest of Jesus. In all of these passages Jesus never asks for the Crucifixion to be prevented but does express his fears of the difficulties, pain and suffering that he is going to encounter over the next few hours, in the form of his trials, beatings, whippings, loneliness and alienation from people and God on the Cross, the ordeal of crucifixion itself and the upcoming triumph over Satan. He does, however, more importantly ask for God’s will to be carried out over the next few hours knowing that this is the means by which he will die and rise again, and by doing so atone for all the sins of the world.

John 12:27 is from a totally different situation, one which takes place before the circumstances described above. It is said while Jesus is speaking to a crowd of people during the Passover Festival at the Temple in Jerusalem (in fact even before the gathering of the Twelve with Jesus at the Upper Room). On this occasion Jesus again says something very similar to the other passages above;

“Now my heart is troubled, and what shall I say? ‘Father save me from this hour’? No it was for this very reason that I came to this hour. Father, glorify your name!“

Again we are reminded that he is feeling troubled. He knows events are fast unfolding around him. Yet, this statement is said in reply to some Greeks who have just asked something of Jesus through his disciples. Were they there to offer him a way out of his upcoming troubles? Perhaps, but Jesus does not go to meet them and indeed replies to their request to meet him in this way. Is it really conceivable that this man wants to prevent the crucifixion from taking place! I think not!

71. Did Jesus move away three times (Matthew 26:36-46; Mark 14:32-42) or once (Luke 22:39-46) from his disciples to pray?

(Category: the texts are compatible with a little thought)

Shabbir asks how many times Jesus left the disciples to pray alone at the Garden of Gethsemane on the night of his arrest. Matthew 26:36-46 and Mark 14:32-42, show three but Luke 22:39-46 only speaks of one. However once again there is no contradiction once you realize that the three passages are complementary.

Note that the Luke passage nowhere states that Jesus did not leave the disciples three times to go and pray. Because he does not mention all three times does not imply that Jesus did not do so. Obviously Luke did not consider that fact to be relevant to his account. We must remember that Luke’s Gospel is thought of as the third Gospel to have been put to paper chronologically, therefore it would make sense for him not to regurgitate information found in the other two gospels.

72. When Jesus went away to pray, were the words in his two prayers the same (Mark 14:39) or different (Matthew 26:42)?

(Category: imposes his own agenda)

This apparent contradiction comparing Matthew 26:36-46 with Mark 14:32-42, and in particular verses 42 and 39 respectively, is not a contradiction at all. Shabbir asks the question: ‘What were the words of the second prayer?’ at the Garden of Gethsemane. It relies heavily once again upon the reader of Shabbir’s book being ignorant of the texts mentioned, and his wording of the supposed contradiction as contrived and misleading.

Shabbir maintains that in the passage in Mark, “that the words were the same as the first prayer (Mark 14:39).” Let’s see what Mark does say of the second prayer in 14:39;

“Once more he went away and prayed the same thing.”

Nowhere in this verse does Mark say that Jesus prayed the same words as the previous prayer, but what he does imply by the words used in the sentence is that the gist of the prayer is the same as before, as the passage in Matthew shows. When we compare the first two prayers in Matthew (vss. 39 and 42) we see that they are essentially the same prayer, though not exactly the same wording. Then in verse 44 Matthew says that Christ prayed yet again “saying the same thing!” Yet according to Shabbir’s thinking the two prayers were different; so how could Jesus then be saying the same thing the third time?

It seems that Shabbir is simply imposing a Muslim formula of prayer on the passages above which he simply cannot do. You would expect this to be the case if this was a rigidly formulated prayer that had to be repeated daily, as we find in Islam. But these prayers were prayers of the heart that were spoken by Jesus because of the enormity of the situation before him. Ultimately that situation was secondary to the gravity, power, and loving bond that Jesus had with the Father.

73. Did the centurion say that Jesus was innocent (Luke 23:47), or that he was the Son of God (Mark 15:39)?

(Category: the texts are compatible with a little thought)

The question being forwarded is what the centurion at the cross said when Jesus died. The two passages quoted are Mark 15:39 and Luke 23:47. However as has been said before with other apparent contradictions these passages are not contradictory but complementary.

Matthew 27:54 and Mark 15:39 agree that the centurion exclaimed that Jesus, “was the Son of God!”. Luke 23:47 however mentions that the centurion refers to Jesus as, “a righteous man.” Is it so hard to believe that the centurion said both? Nowhere in any of the Gospel narratives do the writers claim that was all that the centurion had to say. Therefore, let’s not impose on the writers what we would have the centurion say.

Matthew and Mark were more interested by the declaration of divinity used by the centurion, whereas Luke is interested in the humanity of Jesus, one of the main themes of his Gospel. Thus he refers to the corresponding statement made by the centurion.

(Archer 1982:346-347).

74. Did Jesus say “My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?” in Hebrew (Matthew 27:46) or in Aramaic (Mark 15:34)?

(Category: misunderstood the Hebrew usage)

The question of whether Jesus spoke Hebrew or Aramaic on the cross is answerable. However, the reason for Matthew and Mark recording it differently is probably due to the way the event was spoken of in Aramaic after it happened, and due to the recipients of the Gospel. However, the whole issue is not a valid criticism of the Bible.

Mark 15:34 is probably the most quoted Aramaism in the New Testament, being “Eloi, Eloi, lama sabakthani.” However, it is doubtful that Jesus spoke in the language that Mark records them in. The reason is simple; the people hearing Jesus’ words thought he was calling Elijah (Matthew 27:47 and Mark 15:35-36). In order for the onlookers to have made this mistake, Jesus would have to have cried “Eli, Eli,” not “Eloi, Eloi.” Why? Because in Hebrew Eli can be either “My God” or the shortened form of Eliyahu which is Hebrew for Elijah. However, in Aramaic Eloi can be only “My God.”

It is also worth noting that lama (“why”) is the same word in both languages, and sabak is a verb which is found not only in Aramaic, but also in Mishnaic Hebrew.

Therefore Jesus probably spoke it in Hebrew. Why therefore is it recorded in Aramaic as well? Jesus was part of a multilingual society. He most probably spoke Greek (the common language of Greece and Rome), Aramaic (the common language of the Ancient Near East) and Hebrew, the sacred tongue of Judaism, which had been revived in the form of Mishnaic Hebrew in Second Temple times. Hebrew and Aramaic are closely related Semitic languages. That Hebrew and Aramaic terms show up in the Gospels is, therefore, not at all surprising.

That one Gospel writer records it in Hebrew and another in extremely similar Aramaic is no problem to Christians, nor is it a criticism of the Bible. The simple reason for the difference is probably that when one of them remembered and discussed the happening of Jesus’ life, death and resurrection, this phrase may well have been repeated in their conversation as Aramaic, which would be perfectly normal. So he wrote it down as such. Secondly, Mark may have written it in Aramaic due to the fact that he was the original recipients of the Gospel.

However, both these reasons are simply speculation. If Mark recorded his words in Arabic, then we would worry!

(Bivin/Blizzard 1994:10)

75. Were the last words that Jesus spook “Father into thy hands I commit my spirit” (Luke 23:46), or “It is finished” (John 19:30)?

(Category: the texts are compatible with a little thought)

‘What were the last words of Jesus before he died?’ is the question asked by Shabbir in this supposed contradiction. This does not show a contradiction any more than two witnesses to an accident at an intersection will come up with two different scenarios of that accident, depending on where they stood. Neither witness would be incorrect, as they describe the event from a different perspective. Luke was not a witness to the event, and so is dependent on those who were there. John was a witness. What they are both relating, however, is that at the end Jesus gave himself up to death.

It could be said that Luke used the last words that he felt were necessary for his gospel account, which concentrated on the humanity of Christ (noted in the earlier question), while John, as well as quoting the last words of Jesus, was interested in the fulfilment of the salvific message, and so quoted the last phrase “it is finished”.

John 17:4 records Jesus’ prayer to the Father in the light of Christ’s forthcoming crucifixion, stating that He had completed the work of revelation (John 1:18), and since revelation is a particular stress of the Gospel of John, and the cross is the consummation of that commission (John 3:16), it is natural that this Gospel should centre on tetelestai. At any rate, if Jesus said ‘It is finished; Father into your hands I commit my spirit’ or vice versa, it would be quite in order to record either clause of this sentence, his last words. Luke-Acts reaches its conclusion without any climax, because the continuing ministry of the exalted Christ through the Holy Spirit and the Church has no ending prior to the Parousia, and to record tetelestai might have undermined this emphasis, or it could have been taken the wrong way. At any rate, no contradiction is involved; purely a distinction of emphasis.

76. Did the Capernaum centurion come personally to ask Jesus to heal his slave (Matthew 8:5), or did he send elders of the Jews and his friends (Luke 7:3,6)?

(Category: the text is compatible with a little thought & misunderstood the author’s intent)

This is not a contradiction but rather a misunderstanding of sequence, as well as a misunderstanding of what the authors intended. The centurion initially delivered his message to Jesus via the elders of the Jews. It is also possible that he came personally to Jesus after he had sent the elders to Jesus. Matthew mentions the centurion because he was the one in need, while Luke mentions the efforts of the Jewish elders because they were the ones who made the initial contact.

We know of other instances where the deed which a person tells others to do is in actuality done through him. A good example is the baptism done by the disciple’s of Jesus, yet it was said that Jesus baptized (John 4:1-2).

We can also understand why each author chose to relate it differently by understanding the reason they wrote the event. Matthew’s main reason for relating this story is not the factual occurrence but to relate the fact of the importance of all nations to Christ. This is why Matthew speaks of the centurion rather than the messengers of the centurion. It is also the reason why Matthew spends less time relating the actual story and more on the parable of the kingdom of heaven. Matthew wants to show that Jesus relates to all people.

Luke in his telling of the story does not even relate the parable that Jesus told the people, but concentrates on telling the story in more detail, thereby concentrating more on the humanity of Jesus by listening to the messengers, the fact that he is impressed by the faith of the centurion and the reason why he is so impressed; because the centurion does not even consider himself ‘worthy’ to come before Jesus. Ultimately this leads to the compassion shown by Jesus in healing the centurion’s servant without actually going to the home of the centurion.

77. Did Adam die the same day (Genesis 2:17) or did he continue to live to the age of 930 years (Genesis 5:5)?

(Category: misunderstood how God works in history)

The Scriptures describe death in three ways; 1) Physical death which ends our life on earth, 2) spiritual death which is separation from God, and 3) eternal death in hell. The death spoken of in Genesis 2:17 is the second death mentioned in our list, that of complete separation from God, while the death mentioned in Genesis 5:5 is the first death, a physical death which ends our present life.

For obvious reasons Shabbir will see this as a contradiction because he does not understand the significance of spiritual death which is a complete separation from God, since he will not admit that Adam had any relationship with God to begin with in the garden of Eden. The spiritual separation (and thus spiritual death) is shown visibly in Genesis chapter 3 where Adam was thrown out of the Garden of Eden and away from God’s presence.

Ironically Adam being thrown out of the garden of Eden is also mentioned in the Qur’an (Sura 2:36), though there is no reason for this to happen, if (as Muslims believe) Adam had been forgiven for his sin. Here is an example of the Qur’an borrowing a story from the earlier scriptures without understanding its meaning or significance, and therein lies the assumption behind the supposed contradiction.

(for a clearer understanding of the significance of spiritual death and how that impinges on nearly every area of disagreement Christians have with Islam, read the paper entitled “The Hermeneutical Key” by Jay Smith.)

78. Did God decide that the lifespan of humans was to be only 120 years (Genesis 6:3), or longer (Genesis 11:12-16)?

(Category: misread the text)

In Genesis 6:3 we read:

“Then the LORD said, ‘My Spirit will not contend with man forever, for he is mortal; his days will be a hundred and twenty years.'”

This is contrasted with ages of people who lived longer than 120 years in Genesis 11:12-16. However this is based, I presume on a misreading or misunderstanding of the text.

The hundred and twenty years spoken of by God in Genesis 6:3 cannot mean the life span of human beings as you do find people older than that mentioned more or less straight away a few Chapters on into the book of Genesis (including Noah himself). The more likely meaning is that the Flood that God had warned Noah about doesn’t happen until 120 years after the initial warning to Noah. This is brought out further in 1Peter 3:20 where we read,

“God waited patiently in the days of Noah while the ark was being built.”

Therefore looking at the context of the Genesis 6:3 passage it would agree with what we find in chapter 11 of the same book.

(Geisler/Howe 1992:41)

79. Apart from Jesus there was no-one else (John 3:13) or there were others (2 Kings 2:11) who ascended to heaven?

(Category: misunderstood the wording)

There were others who went to heaven without dying, such as Elijah and Enoch (Genesis 5:24). In John 3:13 Jesus is setting forth his superior knowledge of heavenly things. Essentially what he is saying, “no other human being can speak from first hand knowledge about these things, as I can, since I came down from heaven.” he is claiming that no one has ascended to heaven to bring down the message that he brought. In no way is he denying that anyone else is in heaven, such as Elijah and Enoch. Rather, Jesus is simply claiming that no one on earth has gone to heaven and returned with a message such as he offered to them.

80. Was the high priest Abiathar (Mark 2:26), or Ahimelech (1 Samuel 21:1; 22:20) when David went into the house of God and ate the consecrated bread?

(Category: misunderstood the Hebrew usage & misunderstood the historical context)

Jesus states that the event happened ‘in the days of Abiathar the high priest’ and yet we know from 1 Samuel that Abiathar was not actually the high priest at that time; it was his father, Ahimelech.

If we were to introduce an anecdote by saying, ‘When king David was a shepherd-boy…’, it would not be incorrect, even though David was not king at that time. In the same way, Abiathar was soon to be high priest and this is what he is most remembered for, hence he is designated by this title. Moreover, the event certainly did happen ‘in the days of Abiathar’, as he was alive and present during the incident. We know from 1 Samuel 22:20 that he narrowly escaped when his father’s whole family and their town was destroyed by Saul’s men. Therefore, Jesus’ statement is quite acceptable.

(Archer 1994:362)

81. Was Jesus’ body wrapped in spices before burial in accordance with Jewish burial customs (John 19:39-40), or did the women come and administer the spices later (Mark 16:1)?

(Category: the texts are compatible with a little thought)

John 19:39,40 clearly states that Joseph and Nicodemus wrapped the body in 75 pounds of myrrh and aloes, along with strips of linen. We also know from the synoptic writers that the body was placed in a large shroud. There need be no contradiction here. The fact that the synoptics do not mention the spices during the burial does not mean that they were not used.

If Mark 16:1 is taken to mean that the women were hoping to do the whole burial process themselves, they would need the strips of linen as well, which are not mentioned. It is likely that they simply wished to perform their last act of devotion to their master by adding extra spices to those used by Joseph.

As Jesus died around the ninth hour (Mark 15:34-37), there would have been time (almost three hours) for Joseph and Nicodemus to perform the burial process quickly before the Sabbath began. We need not suppose that there was only time for them to wrap his body in a shroud and deposit it in the tomb.

82. Did the women buy the spices after (Mark 16:1) or before the Sabbath (Luke 23:55 to 24:1)?

(Category: the texts are compatible with a little thought)

Several details in the accounts of the resurrection suggest that there were in fact two groups of women on their way to the tomb, planning to meet each other there. See question 86 for more details of these two groups.

Now it becomes clear that Mary Magdalene and her group bought their spices after the Sabbath, as recorded by Mark 16:1. On the other hand, Joanna and her group bought their spices before the Sabbath, as recorded by Luke 23:56. It is significant that Joanna is mentioned only by Luke, thereby strengthening the proposition that it was her group mentioned by him in the resurrection account.

83. Did the women visit the tomb “toward the dawn” (Matthew 28:1), or “When the sun had risen” (Mark 16:2)?

(Category: the texts are compatible with a little thought)

A brief look at the four passages concerned will clear up any misunderstanding.

• Matthew 28:1: ‘At dawn…went to look at the tomb’.

• Mark 16:2 ‘Very early…just after sunrise, they were on their way to the tomb’.

• Luke 24:1: ‘Very early in the morning…went to the tomb’.

• John 20:1: ‘Early…while it was still dark…went to the tomb’.

Thus we see that the four accounts are easily compatible in this respect. It is not even necessary for this point to remember that there were two groups of women, as the harmony is quite simple. From Luke we understand that it was very early when the women set off for the tomb. From Matthew we see that the sun was just dawning, yet John makes it clear that it had not yet done so fully: The darkness was on its way out but had not yet gone. Mark’s statement that the sun had risen comes later, when they were on their way. It is perfectly reasonable to assume that the sun had time to rise during their journey across Jerusalem.

84. Did the women go to the tomb to anoint Jesus’ body with spices (Mark 16:1; Luke 23:55-24:1), or to see the tomb (Matthew 28:1), or for no reason (John 20:1)?

(Category: the texts are compatible with a little thought)

This answer links in with number 81 above. We know that they went to the tomb in order to put further spices on Jesus’ body, as Luke and Mark tell us. The fact that Matthew and John do not give a specific reason does not mean that there was not one. They were going to put on spices, whether or not the gospel authors all mention it. We would not expect every detail to be included in all the accounts, otherwise there would be no need for four of them!

85. When the women arrived at the tomb, was the stone “rolled back” (Mark 16:4), “rolled away” (Luke 24:2), “taken away” (John 20:1), or did they see an angel do it (Matthew 28:1-6)?

(Category: misread the text)

Matthew does not say that the women saw the angel roll the stone back. This accusation is indeed trivial. After documenting the women setting off for the tomb, Matthew relates the earthquake, which happened while they were still on their way. Verse 2 begins by saying, ‘There was a violent earthquake’, the Greek of which carries the sense of, ‘now there had been a violent earthquake’. When the women speak to the angel in verse 5, we understand from Mark 16:5 that they had approached the tomb and gone inside, where he was sitting on the ledge where Jesus’ body had been. Therefore, the answer to this question is that the stone was rolled away when they arrived: there is no contradiction.

86. In (Matthew 16:2; 28:7; Mark 16:5-6; Luke 24:4-5; 23), the women were told what happened to Jesus’ body, while in (John 20:2) Mary was not told.

(Category: the texts are compatible with a little thought)

The angels told the women that Jesus had risen from the dead. Matthew, Mark and Luke are all clear on this. The apparent discrepancy regarding the number of angels is cleared up when we realize that there were two groups of women. Mary Magdalene and her group probably set out from the house of John Mark, where the Last Supper had been held. Joanna and some other unnamed women, on the other hand, probably set out from Herod’s residence, in a different part of the city. Joanna was the wife of Cuza, the manager of Herod’s household (Luke 8:3) and it is therefore highly probable that she and her companions set out from the royal residence.

With this in mind, it is clear that the first angel (who rolled away the stone and told Mary and Salome where Jesus was) had disappeared by the time Joanna and her companions arrived. When they got there (Luke 24:3-8), two angels appeared and told them the good news, after which they hurried off to tell the apostles. In Luke 24:10, all the women are mentioned together, as they all went to the apostles in the end.

We are now in a position to see why Mary Magdalene did not see the angels. John 20:1 tells us that Mary came to the tomb and we know from the other accounts that Salome and another Mary were with her. As soon as she saw the stone rolled away, she ran to tell the apostles, assuming that Jesus had been taken away. The other Mary and Salome, on the other hand, satisfied their curiosity by looking inside the tomb, where they found the angel who told them what had happened. So we see that the angels did inform the women, but that Mary Magdalene ran back before she had chance to meet them.

87. Did Mary Magdalene first meet the resurrected Jesus during her first visit (Matthew 28:9) or on her second visit (John 20:11-17)? And how did she react?

(Category: the texts are compatible with a little thought)

We have established in the last answer that Mary Magdalene ran back to the apostles as soon as she saw the stone had been rolled away. Therefore, when Matthew 28:9 records Jesus meeting them, she was not there. In fact, we understand from Mark 16:9 that Jesus appeared first to Mary Magdalene, which was after she, Peter and John had returned to the tomb the first time (John 20:1-18). Here, we see that Peter and John saw the tomb and went home, leaving Mary weeping by the entrance. From here, she saw the two angels inside the tomb and then met Jesus himself.

As all this happened before Jesus appeared to the other women, it appears that there was some delay in them reaching the apostles. We may understand what happened by comparing the complementary accounts. Matthew 28:8 tells us that the women (Mary the mother of James and Salome) ran away ‘afraid yet filled with joy…to tell his disciples’. It appears that their fear initially got the better of them, for they ‘said nothing to anyone’ (Mark 16:8). It was at this time that Jesus suddenly met them (Matthew 28:9,10). Here, he calmed their fears and told them once more to go and tell the apostles.

There are several apparent problems in the harmonization of the resurrection accounts, a few of which have been touched on here. It has not been appropriate to attempt a full harmonization in this short paper, as we have been answering specific points. A complete harmonization has been commendably attempted by John Wenham in ‘Easter Enigma’ (most recent edition 1996, Paternoster Press). Anyone with further questions is invited to go this book.

It must be admitted that we have in certain places followed explanations or interpretations that are not specifically stated in the text. This is entirely permissible, as the explanations must merely be plausible. It is clear that the gospel authors are writing from different points of view, adding and leaving out different details. This is entirely to be expected from four authors writing independently. Far from casting doubt on their accounts, it gives added credibility, as those details which at first appear to be in conflict can be resolved with some thought, yet are free from the hallmarks of obvious collusion, either by the original authors or any subsequent editors.

88. Did Jesus instruct his disciples to wait for him in Galilee (Matthew 28:10), or that he was ascending to his Father and God (John 20:17)?

(Category: misread the text)

This apparent contradiction asks, ‘What was Jesus’ instruction for his disciples?’ Shabbir uses Matthew 28:10 and John20:17 to demonstrate this apparent contradiction. However the two passages occur at different times on the same day and there is no reason to believe that Jesus would give his disciples only one instruction.

This is another contradiction which depends upon the reader of Shabbir’s book being ignorant of the biblical passages and the events surrounding that Sunday morning resurrection. (I say Sunday because it is the first day of the week) The two passages, in fact, are complementary not contradictory. This is because the two passages do not refer to the same point in time. Matthew 28:10 speaks of the group of women encountering the risen Jesus on their way back to tell the disciples of what they had found. An empty tomb!? And then receiving the first set of instructions from him to tell the disciples.

The second passage from John 20:17 occurs some time after the first passage, (to understand the time framework read from the beginning of this Chapter) and takes place when Mary is by herself at the tomb grieving out of bewilderment, due to the events unraveling around about her. She sees Jesus and he gives her another set of instructions to pass on to the disciples.

89. Upon Jesus’ instructions, did the disciples return to Galilee immediately (Matthew 28:17), or after at least 40 days (Luke 24:33, 49; Acts 1:3-4)?

(Category: didn’t read the entire text and misquoted the text)

This supposed contradiction asks when the disciples returned to Galilee after the crucifixion. It is argued from Matthew 28:17 that they returned immediately, and from Luke 24:33 and 49, and Acts 1:4 that it was after at least 40 days. However both of these assumptions are wrong.

It would appear that Jesus appeared to them many times; sometimes individually, sometimes in groups, and as the whole group gathered together, and also at least to Paul and Stephen after the Ascension (see 1 Corinthians 15:5-8, and Acts 7:55-56). He appeared in Galilee and Jerusalem and other places. Matthew 28:16-20 is a summary of all the appearances of Christ, and it is for this reason that it is not advisable to overstress chronology in this account, as Shabbir seems to have done.

The second argument in this seeming contradiction is an even weaker argument than the one I have responded to above. This is because Shabbir has not fully quoted Acts 1:4 which says;

‘On one occasion, while he was eating with them, he gave them this command: “Do not leave Jerusalem, but wait for the gift my Father promised, which you have heard me speak about.”‘

Now the author of Acts, Luke in this passage does not specify when Jesus said this. However in his gospel he does the same thing as Matthew and groups together all the appearances so again it would be unwise to read too much chronologically into the passage of Luke 24:36-49. However it is apparent from the Gospels of Matthew and John that some of the disciples at least did go to Galilee and encounter Jesus there; presumably after the first encounter in Jerusalem and certainly before the end of the forty day period before Christ’s Ascension into Heaven.

90. Did the Midianites sell Joseph “to the Ishmaelites” (Genesis 37:28), or to Potiphar, an officer of Pharoah (Geneis 37:36)?

(Category: misunderstood the historical context)

This apparent contradiction is a very strange one because it shows a clear misunderstanding of the text in Genesis 37:25-36. The question is asked, ‘To whom did the Midianites sell Joseph?’ Verse 28 is used to say the Ishmaelites, and verse 36 Potiphar.

The traveling merchants were comprised of Ishmaelite and Midianite merchants who bought Joseph from his brothers, and they in turn sold him to Potiphar in Egypt. The words Ishmaelite and Midianite are used interchangeably. This would seem obvious once you read verses 27 and 28 together. A clearer usage for these two names can also be found in Judges 8:24.

91. Did the Ishmaelites bring Joseph to Egypt (Genesis 37:28), or was it the Midianites (Genesis 37:36), or was it Joseph’s brothers (Genesis 45:4)?

(Category: misunderstood the historical context)

This supposed contradiction follows on from the last one and again lights up Shabbir’s problem with the historical situation, as well as his inability to understand what the text is saying This time the question asked is, ‘Who brought Joseph to Egypt?’ From the last question we know that both the Ishmaelites and the Midianites were responsible for physically taking him there (as they are one and the same people), while the brother’s of Joseph are just as responsible, as it was they who sold him to the merchants, and thus are being blamed for this very thing by Joseph in Genesis 45:4. Consequently, as we saw in the previous question all three parties had a part to play in bringing Joseph to Egypt.

92. Does God change his mind (Genesis 6:7; Exodus 32:14; 1 Samuel 15:10-11, 35), or does he not change his mind (1 Samuel 15:29)?

(Category: misunderstood how God works in history & misunderstood the Hebrew usage)

This “contradiction” generally appears only in older English translations of the Biblical manuscripts. The accusation arises from translation difficulties and is solved by looking at the context of the event.

God knew that Saul would fail in his duty as King of Israel. Nevertheless, God allowed Saul to be king and used him greatly to do His will. Saul was highly effective as leader of Israel, in stirring his people to have courage and take pride in their nation, and in coping with Israel’s enemies during times of war.

However, God made it clear long before this time (Genesis 49:8-10) that he would establish the kings that would reign over Israel, from the tribe of Judah. Saul was from the tribe of Benjamin. Therefore there was no doubt that Saul or his descendants were not God’s permanent choice to sit on the throne of Israel. His successor David, however, was from the tribe of Judah, and his line was to continue.

Therefore God, who knows all things, did not ‘change his mind’ about Saul, for he knew Saul would turn away from Him and that the throne would be given to another.

The word in Hebrew that is used to express what God thought and how God felt concerning the turning of Saul from Him is “niham” which is rendered “repent” in the above. However, as is common in languages, it can mean more than one thing. For example, English has only one word for “love.” Greek has at least 4 and Hebrew has more. A Hebrew or Greek word for love cannot always simply be translated “love” in English if more of the original meaning is to be retained. This is a problem that translators have.

Those who translated the Bible under the order of King James (hence the King James translation, which Shabbir quotes from) translated this word niham 41 times as “repent,” out of the 108 occurrences of the different forms of niham in the Hebrew manuscripts. These translators were dependent on far fewer manuscripts than were available to the more recent translators; the latter also having access to far older manuscripts as well as a greater understanding of the Biblical Hebrew words contained within. Therefore, the more recent translators have rendered niham far more accurately into English by conveying more of its Hebrew meaning (such as relent, grieve, console, comfort, change His mind, etc. as the context of the Hebrew text communicates).

With that in mind, a more accurate rendering of the Hebrew would be that God was “grieved” that he had made Saul king. God does not lie or change his mind; for he is not a man that he should change his mind. God was grieved that he had made Saul king. God shows in the Bible that He has real emotions. He has compassion on people’s pain and listens to people’s pleas for help. His anger and wrath are roused when He sees the suffering of people from others’ deeds.

As a result of Saul’s disobedience pain was caused to God and to the people of Israel. But also, God had it in His plan from the beginning that Saul’s family, though not being from the tribe of Judah, would not stay on the throne. Therefore when Saul begs the prophet Samuel in verses 24 to 25 to be put right with God and not be dethroned, Samuel replies that God has said it will be this way – He is not going to change His mind. It was spoken that it would be this way hundreds of years before Saul was king.

There is no contradiction here. The question was “Does God change his mind?” The answer is, “No.” But He does respond to peoples situations and conduct, in compassion and in wrath, and therefore can be grieved when they do evil.

(Archer 1994)

93. How could the Egyptian magicians convert water into blood (Exodus 7:22), if all the available water had been already converted by Moses and Aaron (Exodus 7:20-21)?

(Category: didn’t read the entire text & Imposes his own agenda)

This is a rather foolish question. To begin with Moses and Aaron did not convert all available water to blood, as Shabbir quotes, but only the water of the Nile (see verse 20). There was plenty of other water for the magicians of Pharaoh to use. We know this because just a few verses later (verse 24) we are told,

“And all the Egyptians dug along the Nile to get drinking water, because they could not drink the water of the river.”

So where is the difficulty for the magicians to demonstrate that they could also do this? Not only has Shabbir not read the entire text, he has imposed on the text he has read that which simply is not there.

94. Did David (1 Samuel 17:23, 50) or Elhanan (2 Samuel 21:19) kill Goliath?

(Category: copyist error)

The discrepancy as to who killed Goliath (David or Elhanan) was caused by copyist or scribal error, which can be seen clearly.

The text of 2 Samuel 21:19 reads as follows:

“In another battle with the Philistines at Gob, Elhanan son of Jaare-Oregim the Bethlehemite killed Goliath the Gittite, who had a spear with a shaft like a weaver’s rod.”

As this stands in the Hebrew Masoretic text, this is a certainly a clear contradiction to 1 Samuel and its account of David’s slaying of Goliath. However, there is a very simple and apparent reason for this contradiction, as in the parallel passage of 1 Chronicles 20:5 shows. It describes the episode as follows:

“In another battle with the Philistines, Elhanan son of Jair killed Lahmi the brother of Goliath the Gittite, who had a spear with a shaft like a weaver’s rod.”

When the Hebrew for these sentences is examined, the reason for the contradiction becomes quite obvious and the latter 1 Chronicles is seen to be the true and correct reading. This is not simply because we know David killed Goliath, but also because of the language.

When the scribe was duplicating the earlier manuscript, it must have been blurred or damaged at this particular verse in 2 Samuel. The result was that he made two or three mistakes (see Gleason L. Archer, Encyclopedia of Bible Difficulties, page 179):

1. The sign of the direct object in 1 Chronicals was ‘-t which comes just before “Lahmi” in the sentence order. The scribe mistook it for b-t or b-y-t (“Beth”) and thus got BJt hal-Lahmi (“the Bethlehemite”) out of it.

2. He misread the word for “brother” (‘-h , the h having a dot underneath it) as the sign of the direct object (‘-t) right before g-l-y-t (“Goliath”). Therefore he made “Goliath” the object of “killed” instead of “brother” of Goliath, as in 1 Chronicles.

3. The copyist misplaced the word for “weavers” (‘-r-g-ym) so as to put it right after “Elhanan” as his family name (ben Y-‘-r-y’-r–g-ym, ben ya’arey ‘ore–gim, “the son of the forest of weavers”, a most improbable name for anyone’s father). In Chronicles the ore–gim (“weavers”) comes straight after menr (“a beam of”) – thus making perfectly good sense.

To conclude: the 2 Samuel passage is an entirely traceable error on the part of the copyist in the original wording, which has been preserved in 1 Chronicles 20:5. David killed Goliath.

This testifies to the honesty and openness of the scribes and translators (both Jewish and Christian). Although it would be easy to change this recognized error, this has not been done in favour of remaining true to the manuscripts. Although it leaves the passage open to shallow criticism as Shabbir Ally has shown, it is criticism which we are not afraid of. An excellent example of human copying error resulting from the degeneration of papyrus.

95. Did Saul take his own sword and fall upon it (1 Samuel 31:4-6), or did an Amalekite kill him (2 Samuel 1:1-16)?

(Category: misread the text)

It should be noted that the writer of 1 & 2 Samuel does not place any value on the Amalekite’s story. Thus, in all reality it was Saul who killed himself, though it was the Amalekite who took credit for the killing. The writer relates how Saul died and then narrates what the Amalekite said. The Amalekite’s statement that he ‘happened to be on Mount Gilboa’ (2 Samuel 1:6) may not be an innocent one. He had quite possibly come to loot the dead bodies. In any case, he certainly got there before the Philistines, who did not find Saul’s body until the next day (1 Samuel 31:8). We have David’s own testimony that the Amalekite thought he was bringing good news of Saul’s death (2 Samuel 4:10). It is likely, therefore, that he came upon Saul’s dead body, took his crown and bracelet and made up the story of Saul’s death in order that David might reward him for defeating his enemy. The Amalekite’s evil plan, however, backfired dramatically on him.

96. Is it that everyone sins (1 Kings 8:46; 2 Chronicles 6:36; Proverbs 20:9; Ecclesiastes 7:20; 1 John 1:8-10), or do some not sin (1 John 3:1, 8-9; 4:7; 5:1)?

(Category: misunderstood the Greek usage & Imposes his own agenda)

This apparent contradiction asks: ‘Does every man sin?’ Then a number of Old Testament passages that declare this are listed followed by one New Testament passage from 1 John 1:8-10:

“If we claim to be without sin, we deceive ourselves and the truth is not in us. If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just and will forgive us our sins and purify us from all unrighteousness. If we claim we have not sinned, we make him out to be a liar and his word has no place in our lives.”

After this it is claimed by Shabbir that: ‘True Christians cannot possibly sin, because they are children of God.’ This is followed by a number of passages from the First Epistle of John showing that Christians are children of God. Shabbir is here imposing his view on the text, assuming that those who are children of God, somehow suddenly have no sin. It is true that a person who is born of God should not habitually practice sin (James 2:14ff), but that is not to say that they will not occasionally fall into sin, as we live in a sinful world and impinged by it.

The last of the verses quoted is from 1 John 3:9 which says:

“No-one who is born of God will continue to sin, because God’s seed remains in him; he cannot go on sinning, because he has been born of God.”

Shabbir in his quote uses an older translation for 1 John 3:9 and so states, “No one born of God commits sin…and he cannot sin…,” which is not a true translation of the Greek. In the newer translations, such as the NIV they translate correctly using the present continuous in this verse, as it is written that way in the Greek. Thus those born of God will not continue to sin, as they cannot go on sinning…, the idea being that this life of sinning will die out now that he has the help of the Holy Spirit in him or her.

It is interesting how Shabbir jumps around to make his point. He begins with 1 John 1, then moves to 1 John 3-5, then returns to the 1 John 1 passage at the beginning of the Epistle and re-quotes verse 8, which speaks of all men sinning, with the hope of highlighting the seeming contradiction. There is no contradiction in this as Shabbir obviously hasn’t understood the apostle’s letter or grasped the fact that the letter develops its theme as it goes on. Therefore quoting from the beginning of the letter, then moving to the middle of the letter, and finally returning to the beginning of the letter is not the way to read a letter.

The Scriptures clearly teach that all men have sinned except for one, the Lord Jesus Christ, therefore we have no quarrel with Shabbir on this point. As to Shabbir’s second point I am glad he has come to realize that Christians are children of God therefore we have no quarrel with him on this subject.

It is Shabbir’s third point, however, which is a contentious one because it does not take on board the development of the themes of the letter, of which the one pointed out here is the call to holiness and righteousness because of the forgiveness of sins by Jesus Christ’s atoning death. It is for that reason that we are called not to continue in our sinful ways but to be changed into Christ’s sinless likeness. In his attempt to show an apparent contradiction Shabbir has mischievously rearranged the order in which the verses were intended to be read in order to force a contradiction, which doesn’t exist.

97. Are we to bear one another’s burdens (Galatians 6:2), or are we to bear only our own burdens (Galatians 6:5)?

(Category: misread the text)

The question is asked: ‘Who will bear whose burden?’ Galatians 6:2 and 6:5 are compared, one says each other’s, while the other says your own.

There is no contradiction here at all. This is not a case of ‘either/or’ but of ‘both/and’. When you read Galatians 6:1-5 properly you will notice that believers are asked to help each other in times of need, difficulty or temptation; but they are also called to account for their own actions. There is no difficulty or contradiction in this, as the two are mutually inclusive.

98. Did Jesus appear to twelve disciples after his resurrection (1 Corinthians 15:5), or was it to eleven (Matthew 27:3-5; 28:16; Mark 16:14; Luke 24:9,33; Acts 1:9-26)?

(Category: misread the text)

There is no contradiction once you notice how the words are being used. In all the references given for eleven disciples, the point of the narrative account is to be accurate at that particular moment of time being spoken of. After the death of Judas there were only eleven disciples, and this remained so until Matthias was chosen to take Judas’ place.

In 1 Corinthians 15:5 the generic term ‘the Twelve’ is therefore used for the disciples because Matthias is also counted within the Twelve, since he also witnessed the Death and Resurrection of Jesus Christ, as the passage pointed out by Shabbir records in Acts 1:21-22.

99. Did Jesus go immediately to the desert after his baptism (Mark 1:12-13), or did he first go to Galilee, see disciples, and attend a wedding (John 1:35, 43; 2:1-11)?

(Category: misread the text)

This apparent contradiction asks: ‘Where was Jesus three days after his baptism?’ Mark 1:12-13 says he went to the wilderness for forty days. But John ‘appears’ to have Jesus the next day at Bethany, the second day at Galilee and the third at Cana (John 1:35; 1:43; 2:1-11), unless you go back and read the entire text starting from John 1:19. The explanation about the baptism of Jesus in John’s Gospel is given by John the Baptist himself. It was “John’s testimony when the Jews of Jerusalem sent priests and Levites to ask him who he was” (vs. 19). It is he who is referring to the event of the baptism in the past. If there is any doubt look at the past tense used by John when he sees Jesus coming towards him in verses 29-30 and 32. While watching Jesus he relates to those who were listening the event of the baptism and its significance. There is no reason to believe that the baptism was actually taking place at the time John was speaking, and therefore no reason to imply that this passage contradicts that of Mark’s Gospel.

100. Did Joseph flee with the baby Jesus to Egypt (Matthew 2:13-23), or did he calmly present him at the temple in Jerusalem and return to Galilee (Luke 2:21-40)?

(Category: misunderstood the historical context)

This supposed contradiction asks: ‘Was baby Jesus’s life threatened in Jerusalem?’ Matthew 2:13-23 says yes. Luke 2:21-40 appears to say no.

These are complementary accounts of Jesus’ early life, and not contradictory at all. It is clear that it would take some time for Herod to realize that he had been outsmarted by the magi. Matthew’s Gospel says that he killed all the baby boys that were two years old and under in Bethlehem and its vicinity. That would be enough time to allow Joseph and Mary the opportunity to do their rituals at the temple in Jerusalem and then return to Nazareth in Galilee, from where they went to Egypt, and then returned after the death of Herod

101. When Jesus walked on the water, did his disciples worship him (Matthew 14:33), or were they utterly astounded due to their hardened hearts (Mark 6:51-52)?

(Category: didn’t read the entire text)

This seeming contradiction asks: ‘When Jesus walked on water how did the disciples respond?’ Matthew 14:33 says they worshiped him. Mark 6:51-52 says that they were astounded and hadn’t understood from the previous miracle he had done when he fed the 5000.

This again is not a contradiction but two complementary passages. If Shabbir had read the entire passage in Matthew he would have seen that both the Matthew account (verses 26-28) and the Mark account mention that the disciples had initially been astounded, thinking he was a ghost. This was because they had not understood from the previous miracle who he was. But after the initial shock had warn off the Matthew account then explains that they worshiped him.

Conclusion:

In conclusion, once we have weighed the evidence, many if not all of the seeming contradictions posed by Shabbir Ally can be adequately explained.

When we look over the 101 supposed contradictions we find that they fall into 15 broad categories or genres of errors. Listed below are those categories, each explaining in one sentence the errors behind Shabbir’s contradictions. Alongside each category is a number informing us how many times he could be blamed for each category. You will note that when you add up the totals they are larger than 101. The reason is that, as you may have already noticed, Shabbir many times makes more than one error in a given question.

Categories of the errors evidenced by Shabbir in his pamphlet:

-he misunderstood the historical context – 25 times

-he misread the text – 15 times

-he misunderstood the Hebrew usage – 13 times

-the texts are compatible with a little thought – 13 times

-he misunderstood the author’s intent – 12 times

-these were merely copyist error – 9 times

-he misunderstood how God works in history – 6 times

-he misunderstood the Greek usage – 4 times

-he didn’t read the entire text – 4 times

-he misquoted the text – 4 times

-he misunderstood the wording – 3 times

-he had too literalistic an interpretation – 3 times

-he imposed his own agenda – 3 times

-he confused an incident with another – 1 time

-we now have discovered an earlier manuscript – 1 time

It must be admitted that we have in certain places followed explanations or interpretations that are not specifically stated in the text. This is entirely permissible, as the explanations must merely be plausible. It is clear that the gospel authors are writing from different points of view, adding and leaving out different details. This is entirely to be expected when four authors write independently. Far from casting doubt on their accounts, it gives added credibility, as those details which at first appear to be in conflict can be resolved with some thought, yet are free from the hallmarks of obvious collusion, either by the original authors or any subsequent editors.

This testifies to the honesty and openness of the scribes and translators (both Jewish and Christian). Although it would be easy to change this recognized error, this has not been done in favour of remaining true to the manuscripts. Although it leaves the passage open to shallow criticism as Shabbir Ally has shown, it is criticism which we are not afraid of.

In Shabbir’s booklet, he puts two verses on the bottom of each page. It would seem appropriate that we give an answer to these quotes, which are:

1. “God is not the author of confusion…” (1 Corinthians 14:33) True, God is not the author of confusion. There is very little that is confusing in the Bible. When we understand all the original readings and the context behind them, the confusion virtually disappears. Of course we need scholarship to understand everything in there, as we are 2,000 – 3,500 years and a translation removed from the original hearers.But this is no different to the Qur’an. On first (and tenth) readings of the Qur’an there are many things which are not apparent. Take the mysterious letters at the beginning of the suras. It seems that after 1,400 years of scholarship, people can only take a good guess at what on earth they might be there for. Or take the many historical Biblical characters whose stories do not parallel the Bible but seem to originate in second century Talmudic apocryphal writings. This is indeed confusing. However, it is because we can go to the historical context of those writings that we now know that they could not have been authored by God, but were created by men, centuries after the authentic revelation of God had been canonized.

2. “…A house divided against itself falls”(Luke 11:17) The Bible is not divided against itself. Jesus was talking about a major division, i.e. Satan destroying his own demons. This is far removed from the Bible. A book four times the size of the Qur’an, with the remaining problems able to be counted on your fingers and toes, a 99.999% agreement! That indeed is remarkable!

We conclude with two quotes of our own:

“The first to present his case seems right… till another comes forward and questions him” (Proverbs 18:17)

“…our dear brother Paul also wrote to you with the wisdom that God gave him….His letters contain some things that are hard to understand which ignorant and unstable people distort, as they do the other Scriptures, to their own destruction” (2 Peter 3:15-16)

Bibliography:

Archer, Gleason, L., Encyclopedia of Bible Difficulties, 1994 Revised Edition, 1982, Zondervan Publishing House

Bivin, David, & Blizzard, Roy, Jr., Understanding the Difficult Words of Jesus, Revised Edition, Destiny Image Publishers, 1994

Blomberg, Craig, The Historical Reliability of the Gospels, IVP, Leicester, 1987

France, R.T., Matthew, Tyndale IVP, 1985

Fruchtenbaum, A. ‘The Genealogy of the Messiah’. The Vineyard, November 1993, pp.10-13.

Geisler, Norman & Howe, Thomas, When Critics Ask, Victor Books, Wheaton, Illinois, 1992

Haley, John, W., Alleged Discrepancies of the Bible, Whitaker House, Pennsylvania

Harrison, R.K., Old Testament Introduction, Tyndale Press, London, 1970

Keil, C.F., and Delitzsch, F., Biblical Commentary on the Old Testament, 20 vols. Reprint, Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1949

McDowell, Josh, Christianity; A Ready Defence, Harpendon, Scripture Press Foundation, 1990

Morris, Leon, Luke, Tyndale Press, 1974 (1986 reprint)

The True Guidance, Part Two, (‘False Charges against the Old Testament’), Light of Life, Austria, 1992

The True Guidance, Part Three, (‘False Charges against the New Testament’), Light of Life, Austria, 1992

An Insurgency of Terror

The Crisis Facing Christians in Nigeria

Baroness Caroline Cox, House of Lords
November 2016

Villages destroyed in Northern Nigeria

Following the abduction of more than 200 schoolgirls from Chibok town in 2014, the rise of Islamist terrorism in northern Nigeria has rightly drawn international condemnation. Yet some of the deadliest outbreaks remain unreported.

Thousands of Christians have died in communal attacks led by the Islamic State-aligned Boko Haram. Fulani militants have forced vulnerable rural communities to abandon their homes. And the imposition of Islamic law in several northern states has exacerbated deep-rooted religious divisions, causing thousands of Christians to flee.

We visited Nigeria to draw attention to such atrocities. Our conclusions – found on page 14 – are based on testimonies of children orphaned, villages destroyed, families killed and churches burned. While this short report is unable to reveal the full extent of their suffering, we hope it will provide at least some opportunity for redress.

Background

Strategic land grabbing and the permanent displacement of Christian communities

Ethnic and religious animosity has fuelled conflicts in Nigeria for decades. The existence of northern radical Islamist sects, for example, has been a source of considerable tension since the country gained independence in 1960. However, recent outbreaks by Boko Haram and Fulani herdsmen suggest a worrying trend: their military capability and ideological fervour is increasing.

The Anglican Bishop of Bauchi, Musa Mwin Tula, represents many of the worst affected areas. He explained: “The conflict between herdsmen and farmers has existed for a long time. But the menace in recent times has jumped from a worrisome itch in the north to a cancerous disease, spreading throughout the country, claiming lives and threatening to spiral into a monster.”

As recently as 14 November 2016, 41 Christians were killed by militants in Kauru, Kaduna state. As with other similar attacks, the village was remote and vulnerable. Herdsmen used sophisticated weaponry, forcing families to flee their homes and farmland.

Fulani militants killed 41 villagers in Kauru – 14 November 2016

Speaking after the assault, the MP for Kauru told us: “There is one attack after another. It has gone beyond rustling cattle. Land has been taken. Communities are forced to abandon their homes. It is violent expansionism.”

The Stefanos Foundation, which supports displaced persons in Nigeria, calculated 399 Boko Haram and Fulani attacks in 2015/16, resulting in 7,588 deaths.[1]

Fulani militants killed 41 villagers in Kauru on 14 November 2016.

Testimonies

Ropp district, Plateau State

Four farming villages in the Ropp district, Plateau State, were attacked on 18-19 May 2015: Lo-Biring, Jong, Rabuk and Zim. Armed militants killed 21 people.

Some of the villagers are seeking to rebuild their homes

We spoke with a handful of families who have chosen to return, either to bury their dead or  rebuild  their  homes. Ropp is now surrounded by Fulani herdsmen and protected by two military personnel. Just minutes after we left, the villages were ambushed, though thankfully no one was shot.

Describing the attack in 2015, one local pastor said: “People were just sitting and the enemies came. They started cutting them.”

Another said: “They were trained terrorists with guns. They killed those who couldn’t run – the aged, the children and the blind. A pastor was the first casualty. They surrounded him. They killed him and then they rejoiced, shouting ‘Allahu Akhbar’ and ‘we have got a hero’.”

The ruins of a church, now surrounded by Fulani herdsmen and their cattle

Churches and homes have been reduced to rubble and the vast majority of the community has been displaced. For many, it is simply too dangerous to return.

As the pastor explained: “They say this is their land now. But it isn’t. It is ours. Even last August they fired shots to stop us coming here. We can’t come here without security.”

Safe Haven for IDPs, Western Jos

With the Fulani herdsmen holding on to territory rather than retreating after an attack, and Boko Haram fighting to overthrow the Government to create an Islamic state, thousands of Christians have been displaced. Many are now living in Internally Displaced Persons (IDP) camps.

We visited a camp in Western Jos, Plateau State, currently home to 165 children and 30 adults. It is run by Tabitha Evangel Ministries (TEM) International Mission and Partners, established in 2002 to provide shelter for orphans, the homeless  and  ex-Muslim converts.

Bebra, aged 12

“We were sleeping when the Boko Haram came. They surrounded my house and smashed the door. My brother pleaded with them: ‘If it is money you want, I will give it to you’. But they forced him to lie down and insisted on seeing my father. I watched as they shot my father and brother and sliced the back of their necks. They also went to the pastor’s house, shooting his wife in the leg and his daughter in the hand. They shot the pastor and cut off his head. Then they went to the neighbour’s house, broke his leg and shot him as he tried to escape. Boko Haram returned to my house, opened all the doors, and then they left. I don’t think anyone lives in my village now.”

Children at the IDP camp

Children at the IDP Camp

Rachel, aged 15

“My parents died when I was small. My brother, Abdul, was sick and taken to Lagos to live with my grandmother, while I stayed in Biu. When Boko Haram entered our state, they tried to fix bombs to people but they were intercepted. Then they came to burn our houses and churches.  They tried to burn my church but it only burned the carpet. I saw them take off people’s heads and place them on their back. We ran and hid in the soldiers’ barracks. My auntie was killed.”

Patience, aged 13

“My father was in the military, among the army fighting Boko Haram in Biu, Borno State. Meanwhile my mother was invited to join a secret cult, which she resisted, but sadly died of natural causes. Boko Haram attacked our three villages: Dambuwa, Gwoza and Dabro. They burned our homes. Once they had killed people, they would chop off their heads and place it on their chest.”

Juliet, 15

“My mother was sick but my father didn’t have enough money to repair his car and take her to hospital. He eventually went east to get help, but on his way back, the car caught fire and he died. With my mother still very sick, the Fulani herdsmen came. They killed four people and burned the whole village (called Supp, in Plateau State under Riyom). I ran away and moved in with my auntie. There were 1000 people in the village. No one lives there now. People are too scared to return. They are scared of the Fulani people.”

Goodness, David and Abednego bear scars from the attacks

Goodness, David and Abednego bear scars from the attacks

Christiana, aged 10

“My father died in an accident and my mother died giving birth to my younger brother. So we went to my grandmother’s house in Wuba, Borno State – the only Christian home in the village. Boko Haram attacked our house and demanded to see dad. We explained he was dead so they asked: ‘Who is taking care of you?’ My older brother then called my grandfather to come. They shot my grandfather in the stomach and he didn’t die. Then they shot him in the head and he died. They broke down the door and entered, ransacked the house and left.”

Elisha, aged 16

“Boko Haram came to my locality in Borno state and declared that everyone must accept the Islamic faith. My mum and dad submitted but I refused, so I left my family home and moved to another locality. Boko Haram came again, shooting at people, trapping them inside, visiting one building at a time. I escaped through the backyard and ran to another house, hiding under a bed amongst clothes for 24 hours. The gunmen were singling out young boys, so I disguised myself as a girl. As I escaped, I saw one body where the head had been cut by a machete and the brain removed.

“After three days without food and drink, I sought refuge in a Muslim woman’s home. But when we encountered Boko Haram again, they tried to force me to convert, at one stage pointing a gun to my head. Thankfully, God intervened.”

Omar, aged 15

“I remember people in my neighbourhood who would go out and kill at night. They were members of Boko Haram. One of them once asked my sister to go out with him. When my older brother tried to protect her, he was stabbed to death. She was later kidnapped and forced to accept Islam.

“That same night we heard the sound of gunshots. My family knew it was time to run and, although my mother stayed behind, knowing that Boko Haram were searching for men, my father left for another locality. When he encountered Boko Haram, they butchered him.”

Goodness (9), David (6) and Abednego (14)

“The Fulani came to our village at night. The dogs were barking. There were torches on our house. Our mother and father were outside. They shot our father in the legs. They shot him again in the head. Our mother was screaming: ‘He is dead! He is dead!’ She ran to another house with our little brother. The Fulani came into our room and started cutting us. They shot David in the tummy and he fell down. They thought we were dead. Neighbours found us and took us to the hospital. Our mother was safe. She brought us here.”

Richard, aged 15

“It was 2011. I can’t remember the month. Our family was eating one night, my father, my mother and three children. My father went outside to use the toilet and he didn’t come back. He was attacked by Fulani.  They cut off his hand.  He was killed.”

The political landscape

Sharia Bill

Sharia courts exist in many parts of Nigeria. They currently have jurisdiction over a range of personal matters, including marriage, the custody of children and inheritance. In these cases, the parties to a dispute must be Muslims and must have requested that the court hears the case in accordance with Islamic personal law.

Any Muslim who opposes a judgment can appeal to their state’s Sharia Court of Appeal within three months. The case can then be taken to the (secular) Federal Court of Appeal[2] and if deemed necessary, to the Supreme Court.

However, a new Bill has been introduced to increase the jurisdiction of the Sharia Court of Appeal.[3] If it passes, such forums will be able to rule on criminal matters.

The Bill has completed its First Reading – a brief formality

–  in the House of Representatives.  As a constitutional

matter, it has moved straight to Committee Stage, which includes consultation with the Nigerian people. Recommendations from the Constitutional Review Committee will then be presented to the House, where a debate and vote will take place.

In order for the Bill to be enacted, it must pass with a two- thirds majority in both Houses, and with 24/36 state support. While we understand it is unlikely to succeed on this occasion, by creating publicity around the issue, it may affect legislation indirectly.

The Grazing Reserve Commission

A separate Bill has been introduced to curb violent clashes between herdsmen and farmers.[4] If passed, it would create a National Grazing Reserve Commission with the power to establish at least one cattle reserve in each state.

However, it has been widely criticised for undermining the farmers whose land will be taken. The Stefanos Foundation said: “The Bill protects herdsmen over farmers. Land owners will not be able to sue except without permission from the Attorney General. In essence, the government are authenticating aggressive land grabbing and enforcing abandonment, particularly where the Commission is given powers to take land anywhere it deems fit. It is not practical, nor fair”.

Conclusions

Accountability

The Nigerian administration should be commended for taking steps to counter the Boko Haram insurgency. However, it remains clear that the national and cross- border military deployment – supported by the Civilian Joint Task Force, mercenaries, local hunters and vigilantes

– has not been able to eradicate the group.

Even where advancements have succeeded in recapturing villages, there are serious concerns that Boko Haram militants have not been contained, and have simply dispersed.

It may therefore be necessary for an independent body to verify the true impact of Government efforts, including a thorough assessment of the scattering of militants.

Rehabilitation

The insurgency is estimated to have affected about 5 million people, including more than 2.2 million Nigerians who are internally displaced. Adequate arrangements must be made for their security and rehabilitation.

Last month, 21 of the Chibok schoolgirls kidnapped in 2014 by Boko Haram were freed. We understand that they are now in care of the Murtala Muhammed Foundation, which has reportedly attempted to interview the parents of each of the girls. However, we know of one father who has been unable to get access to his daughter. Although she has been freed by Boko Haram, he does not know where she is.

Reconciliation

We visited two reconciliation projects: a Christian school in Bauchi, attended by 250 students, 80% of whom are Muslim; and a crafts group in Plateau, attended by 30-40 Muslim and  Christian women.

Reconciliation project in Plateau with local Muslims and Christians

Such initiatives may seem unsubstantial, but in a context of terror and division, they provide local communities with practical incentives to develop skills and build friendships.

Although the UK Government has contributed £39 million to Nigeria’s Stability and Reconciliation Programme, we heard that central funds do not always reach local Christian projects. There is a risk that vulnerable communities are relying too heavily on individual volunteers and churches.

Religious freedom

The provision for freedom of worship and association is enshrined in the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria.

However, the Nigerian Government has been accused of only occasionally investigating or prosecuting those responsible for abusing religious freedom. One MP told us: “Even if the authorities find those who hack children, they will be released the very next day.” We heard many reports of state and local governments discriminating against members of the Christian community.

What is more, there are concerns that intervention agencies, such as the National Emergency Management Agency (NEMA) are failing to recognise Christian majority IDP camps.

Media

Islamist terrorism in Nigeria is an emergency that is  woefully underreported. The BBC Hausa service has been heavily criticised for promulgating a biased narrative. And western media consistently dismisses pre-planned, religiously-motivated attacks as ‘ethnic riots’, ‘an indigenous problem’, or ‘tribal clashes’. Such reporting may be more palatable, but it fails to characterise the crisis in its entirety.

---

1 This figure does not include the most recent attacks. Boko Haram are currently understood to be targeting the northeast region: Borno, Yobe, Adamawa, Taraba, Gombe and Bauchi. While militant Fulani herdsmen target the middle belt region: Jos, Benue, Nasarawa, Kaduna, Niger, FCT Abuja and Kogi.

2 The subject of the appeal must fall within the jurisdiction originally conferred on it by the constitution, i.e. matters relating to Islamic personal law where all the parties to the dispute are Muslims.

3 A Bill for an Act to alter Section 262 and 277 of the constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999 to increase the jurisdiction of the Sharia Court of Appeal of the Federal Capital Territory and Sharia Court of Appeal of the state by including criminal matters and Hudud and Qisas and for other related matters.

4 The National Grazing Reserve (Establishment) Bill 2016

The Social Attraction of Islam and a Christian Response

Apologetic Paper (Jay Smith) – May 1995

---

Contents

1. Introduction

2. An attraction to Islam: its social laws

3. A Christian response

   1. Social Laws

   2. Priesthood

   3. Women’s Issues

   4. Peace

   5. Law

4. Conclusion

---

A: Introduction

Let me ask you a rather astonishing question. If you had the option to become a Muslim, what would be the reason you would point to for your decision? Or to put it another way, is there anything within Islam which you would find attractive? For most Christians, this question is rather disturbing, but for the sake of argument, try to think of any areas that you might consider which could possibly induce you to become a Muslim? Meanwhile let me continue with my introduction.

In this paper I would like to discuss the attraction of Islam within a social context. You may ask why this area is particularly important? Its importance lies not so much in its applicability as an area of apologetics, for there doesn’t seem to be any specific area of contention here. Yet it is important, because it is this area which most of those who have converted to Islam point to as their primary reason for converting.

Now we can return to the question with which I opened this paper. Had I asked you to make a list of those areas which might induce you to become a Muslim, you too would have probably put this criteria near the top of the list.

Let’s be more specific.

---

B: An attraction to Islam: its social laws

You may doubt why Islam’s Social Laws are the primary reason for converting to Islam. Yet, during my research in the U.S., amongst converts to Islam, most of those whom I talked to had good, solid arguments for why they felt it should be the highest motivation for converting.

A number of the individuals felt that Islamic Social laws are comprehensive, that they are a complete guide to life, and consequently, that they brought about orderly living. They pointed to the fact that people need boundaries by which to live by, especially in Western societies which emphasize catering to special interest groups, while leaving out the needs of the majority. Islam, they felt was the only religion which was giving them these boundaries to live by.

In contrast, quite a few respondents pointed out that Christianity was just not powerful enough to change the evils of modern-day life. In my research in the U.S., the majority of those who expressed this idea were African-American, all of whom lived in inner-city areas of some of the largest urban centers in America. They saw first-hand the anarchy going on all around them, and they justifiably felt that Islam was the only religion which could stand up to the deprivation and violence, as well as the rampant racism found in America today.

A number of those with whom I talked had come into contact with Islam in prison, where they had been reformed by “Muslim brothers” who came weekly for the Jumma prayers and Qur’anic classes. Now that they were “on the outside,” they believed that the disciplined lifestyle, espoused by Islamic law, was the sole reason which kept them from going “back in.” They were appreciative of the local masjids role in driving out drug dealers from their inner-city neighborhoods, and the ongoing campaigns to keep children off the streets and out of gangs.

Another attraction was Islam’s lack of a priesthood. Islam has no medial agents. One will not find a “pope” or even a set of cardinals within Islam. As a result, the believer, they felt, is not dependent on someone else for his relationship to God, and therefore, can go directly to Allah.

A further attraction for new converts was that of Islamic education for young children, “while they were still impressionable.” It was the Muslim schools, they felt, which would reform society and instil just and orderly sets of values upon the next generation.

While doing my research I personally visited four Muslim schools; two Sister Clara Muhammad Schools in Philadelphia and in Washington D.C., and two Qur’anic schools in Baltimore, at the Al Rahman Masjid and the Masjid Ul-Haqq. While the schools seemed to be small and ill-equipped, the children appeared to be well-disciplined and happy. And, not surprisingly, the schools had become the center for other Islamic activities in their local areas.

According to imam Yusuf Saleem, from Washington D.C., though the students did not excel academically, nor perform any better than they had at the public schools, the problems of discipline, crime, and sexual abuse were almost non-existent in these Muslim schools; and that was their greatest attraction.

I made a particular note, that among the respondents to my questionnaire, there were three women who felt that Islam gave them, as women, added fulfilment, for instance, permitting them to own property, while at the same time offering them the best protection from an outside hostile world. While this may surprise some of us, the perception by most Muslims with whom I talked was that, “We take care of our women better than do the Christians.”

David Lamb, the Los Angeles reporter, who wrote the bestselling book The Africans, while living and travelling for four years in Africa echoes this point. He states that one of the best comparisons between a Christian and Muslim country in Africa was the safety of the streets within the larger cities. He felt that he would never let his wife walk alone at night, and sometimes even during the day in most of the larger African Christian cities. Yet, he had no fear of permitting his wife to wander freely within any of the larger African Muslim cities.

Judy and I, during our 5 years in Senegal, a country of 7 million, of which 92% of the population claimed to be Muslim, don’t recall of ever having to fear for the safety of our women. Not once were they ever “cat-called,” and in the entire time there, we remember hearing of only one rape in our town of 350,000 individuals. On this point alone, Islam has proved to far excel Christianity with its care and discipline towards women.

So how do we respond to these views and findings as Christians?

---

C: A Christian Response

From this discussion it seems that Islam has been, is, and probably will be making a dynamic impact on the world. Many people are coming into contact with Islam for the first time, and are finding that there is something appealing for them. But does Islam really answer all it claims? Is it as attractive as converts seem to testify?

It is imperative that we take this area of attraction, and discuss it from the perspective of a Christian. I realize that Islam is making an impact in the West today. It is claimed that there are 20,000 English converts to Islam at the moment, and that this number is increasing daily by 3-5 converts (note: most of these are western women who marry Muslim men and are required to register their marriage in the local mosque, at which time they are then considered, by Muslims, to have converted to Islam).

I am sure that this impact will continue. But I think converts to Islam are appraising Islam incorrectly, or even, at times, dishonestly. There are, I feel, errors of perception, as well as errors in interpretation. These errors I would like to address in this paper. There are also misconceptions of Christianity’s position which must be redressed. And finally, many of these categories are those which, I feel, Christianity has a stronger claim to, than does Islam.

C1: Social Laws

As Christians living in a Western country, we have to accept and admit that the perception by many here is that Islam meets the social needs of people better than does Christianity. The fact that this category was chosen by converts as, “the primary reason to convert today,” speaks to the success evidenced by Western Islam, particularly within the African-American community in the U.S., as well as the Afro-Caribbean community in England, who have benefited by some of Islam’s social programs.

The picture in the greater Muslim world is quite different, however. Consider some of the most current statistics compiled by Michael Kidron and Ronald Segal in The New State Of the World Atlas, printed in 1991:

According to their research; worldwide, there are 19 countries which will never be able to provide adequate food for their populations. 15 out of the 19 are Muslim countries, and include Afghanistan, UAE, Oman, Yemen, Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Western Sahara, Somalia, Iran, Iraq, Syria, Algeria, Niger, Mauritania, and Bangla Desh (Kidron 1991:28-29). Of the 12 countries with the lowest record of life-expectancy (under 45 years), 7 are Muslim countries (Kidron 1991:40-41).

Probably more revealing is the “Quality of Life Index” compiled by Frank Kaleb Jansen, of Target Earth in 1989. This index measures mortality rate, male life expectancy and female illiteracy. When one tabulates the countries of the world within this index, one finds that 12 of the lowest 20 countries rated in the world are Muslim, while 32 of the top 40 rated countries world- wide are those which are traditionally considered as Christian countries (Jansen 1989:90-91).

Yet that is only half the picture. When one adds further criteria to this index, such as: education standards, health status, women’s status, defense allotments, economic and demographic factors, as well as political stability and participation, it is interesting to find that out of the top 40 countries listed, 39 are Christian in background, while all of the 23 Muslim countries included fall well below this level, with 5 of the worst 10 countries on the list Muslim countries (Jansen 1989:92-93).

Kidron concurs with these findings in his analysis on the quality of life, finding that whereas all of the Northern countries (made up of all European countries except Portugal and Romania, and including North American, Israel, Japan and Australia) fall into the highest category for the Quality of Life Index (9 and above), not one of the 32 Muslim countries made it into this category. In fact, the majority of them placed within the medium to very low categories. The lowest rated in the world were mostly Muslim countries (i.e. Niger, Mali) (Kidron 1991:50-51).

Other areas were equally dismal. Take for instance Literacy: while all of the Northern countries had 90% and above literacy rates (except Romania, Portugal, and Bulgaria), not one of the 32 Muslim countries even made it into this category. The best had approximately 70% literacy rate, and the rest fell to 10% and under (Kidron 1991:52-53).

Another example is that of Schooling: whereas all of the northern countries had 90% of their children in Secondary school, the best Muslim state had only 50%, with the majority of the Muslim countries falling between 30% and 10%.

Child-mortality showed another dismal failure: All the Northern states (except Yugoslavia, Romania and the USSR) were in the top category for Child Mortality (25 children or under, out of 1,000 children, who died before 5 yrs. of age). In contrast, all of the 32 Muslim states fell into the lower categories (50 children to 200 children out of 1,000 who died before their 5th birthday) (Kidron 1991:54).

Statistics like these point out that Islam in practice has little to show when it comes to its social agenda.

Many Muslims believe that these statistics are not a result of Islamic principles, but are the result of policies instituted by the colonizing powers before they left. Furthermore, they feel that the western banks exacerbate the problem by demanding debt repayment for the loans given out since independence.

While one would agree that some of the blame can be apportioned on the West, one must bear in mind that many Asian countries also came out of similar colonizing environments. Yet they have managed to control their economies and social environment adequately, and in some cases have even surpassed those countries who had colonized them.

C2: Priesthood

Some of the new converts I questioned, appreciated that in Islam there were no priests, and that they, as believers, did not need to depend on a middle-man for their relationship with God. It might have been helpful to know whether or not these converts came from a Roman Catholic background. The hierarchy of priests is not representative of the Protestant community, where the belief in the “Priesthood of all believers;” that everyone is a priest, goes even further than does Islam in incorporating the idea that everyone is responsible for their own faith, and that each individual can have a personal relationship with God, immediately and eternally.

Indeed, it is this belief which is a primary impetus behind the massive push today to translate the Bible into every language on earth, so that every person can go to the scriptures (the Bible) for themselves to read and understand what God is saying to them, rather then depend on a priest for that guidance.

C3: Women’s Issues

Some converts pointed to women’s issues as their primary attraction to Islam, maintaining that in Islam women can own property, and that they are better protected. It would, perhaps, be helpful for women who believe Islam holds a better record to visit or live for a while in a Muslim country.

Though statistics are hard to find, we do know that, currently, of the 23 countries with the worst records of jobs for women (women making up only 10-20% of all workers), 17 are Muslim countries (Kidron 1991:96-97). Similarly, of the 11 worst offenders of opportunity between men and women, 10 are Muslim states. The widest gaps were found in Bangla Desh, Saudi Arabia, and Egypt (Kidron 1991:57).

Another revealing statistic shows that of the 12 states with the worst records for unequal treatment of girls, 7 are Muslim states. The bottom 3 listed are UAE, Bahrain, and Brunei (Kidron 1991:56).

While one may argue that this is not representative of true Islamic teaching, it does show us how those in Muslim countries treat their women, and what we might expect if we were living in that type of environment.

Those individuals who felt Islam had much to offer the world in women’s emancipation would also do well to read personal testimonies by Muslim women, or those women under Islam’s influence, such as, Betty Mahmood’s ‘Not Without My Daughter’.

They would find that in apportioning inheritance, the Shariah law discriminates against women (Sura 4:7,11), allowing her only half the inheritance of a man. They would also find that women are relegated, almost exclusively, to the home, where they are indeed better protected, but where they also would find little hope in continuing a career that would entail any contact with the opposite sex. As for their maternal rights, many women in the West are not aware that Islam gives the husband legal and ultimate control over any children, upon divorce.

In defense Muslims argue that those men have an obligation under Islamic law to use their money to support women in the family, whereas women have no such obligations, and can use their money however they wish. While this would have been legitimate in a 7th century extended-family setting, it does not reflect 20th century reality. Today, the vast majority of families are managed by women, especially in the West, where the nuclear family as well as the high rate of divorce has forced women to become the glue for the family, many times as a result of absentee fathers. This reality is not reflected within Islamic law, nor is it being raised by many of Islam’s fanatical imams who yearn to take the world back to the supposed “Golden Period” of Islam, a golden period which we now know never existed.

Perhaps, if those who felt women’s issues were an attraction for Islam were aware of these areas of inequality they may come to a different conclusion. One could argue that a locked-up individual (whether in a home, or in a Purdah) is well-protected, but is that a worthy price to pay?

In my discussions with Western women, it is these prohibitive laws as well as the practice by Muslim societies today against women, which, far more than any other, comes under the greatest criticism. In contrast to the emancipation of women in the west, much of which stems from the Biblical call to treat women as Christ treated the church, with love and sacrifice, even unto death; the Islamic example falls far short. While the West cannot be labelled as truly Christian today, it still carries a Christian memory, and it is this memory which elevates women to a role, if not equal with that of men, then at least one of honour and respect in the eyes of the world.

C4: Peace

Perhaps the area of Islamic attraction which is the most puzzling is the perception by some of the non-violence within Islam today, that it is a religion of peace. It is difficult to know where the truth lies. While the West documents and publishes its criminal activities openly, the Muslim countries say very little. Lists which delineate where each country stands in relation to murders, sex offenses and criminality include most of the Western countries, yet only 4 Muslim countries out of 32 have offered statistics for the number of internal murders, while only 6 have offered a list of sex offenses, and only 4 have divulged their level of criminality. Therefore, until more Muslim countries are willing to come forward with statistics, it is impossible to evaluate their claims: that Western “Christian” states have more degradation and criminality than that of Muslim states.

We do know, however, that in the 1980’s, of the 14 countries who were involved in ongoing “general wars,” 9 of them were Muslim countries, while only one was a non-Western Christian country.

Though statistics can be numbing after a while, from what we have seen so far, these statistics help point out, rather harshly in many cases, that Muslim countries today are not meeting the basic needs for the majority of their populations in areas such as literacy, food, education, the freedom of expression, health, and in the general quality of life.

The defense can and is made that these are not true Muslim countries, that the individuals who run them are corrupt and therefore are not representative of a true Islamic ideal. Therefore, they should not be used as examples. Yet, these countries make the claim that they hold to Muslim principles, and as such, are the only examples we have today by which we can judge whether or not Islam can provide an adequate social environment in the 20th century.

Moreover, to contend that it is merely corrupt individuals who are somehow responsible for the state these countries are in, is not only debatable, but dishonest. Muslims waste little time in denouncing the sins of western society, maintaining that it is due to Christianity’s feebleness that our countries are in the state they are in. We could just as easily say that Western countries are also run by corrupt and inept administrators, yet somehow these same “corrupt” western societies still maintain a much better record in terms of providing an adequate social environment for their populations than do those who claim to be run along Islamic principles. The fact that many of the very critics of western society are those who choose to remain here and not return to their own countries points to the hollowness of their argument.

The many who considered this category their primary reason for their conversion need to consider these findings more seriously.

Admittedly, the majority of those who chose this category were African-American converts to Islam, who live in some of the most deplorable social environments in America, a country which prides itself in being the richest country in the world, yet finds itself in that rather embarrassing position as the most violent country on earth (according to the latest statistics there are 20,000 deaths by hand-guns per year in the U.S. compared to 263 in Israel, the country which takes 2nd spot).

The Muslim converts cite, “the hypocrisy of the inner-city Church,” as well as their impression that Christians “live their religion only one day a week, when they are at Church.” And they contrast these inconsistencies with another kind of piety, that of the Muslims, who have not only created and sponsor alternative Islamic schools for their children, but who are actively involved with prison ministries, which specifically contacts African-Americans.

Possibly their greatest witness comes from being the most obvious group to stand against and attempt to eradicate the highly-publicized drug and prostitution rings that have run rampant on their streets. These are the “forgotten” inner-city people, and understandably Islam is “scratching them where they itch.”

Islam is also a religion, which, like many cults today, is especially attractive to insecure people, those who need others to make their decisions for them. Its myriad laws and regulations give a prescription for every facet of social life, and can and do affect the “dregs of society.”

While Christianity prides itself in ministering to the poor and oppressed, and has many active examples to which it can point, the perception within the West, and particularly in the U.S. is that it is the religion of the oppressors, a religion for the “whites.”

C5: Law

Many Muslim converts I talked to pointed out that the Islamic Shariah law was best adapted for the problems which exist in the West today. Yet, when I asked them to explain the precepts of Shariah Law, they had difficulty describing what particulars they had in mind, or how they might apply Islamic rules within a Western context.

For those countries who use or aspire to use Islamic Law, further statistics prove revealing. According to Kidron, while only five Northern states (or Western industrialized states) are categorized as “Terror States” (meaning those involved in using assassination, disappearances and torture upon their own population), 29 of the 32 Muslim states fall into this category (the exceptions are UAE, Qatar and Mali) (Kidron 1991:62-63).

Would Western Muslims welcome this sort of law, considering how it can and is being abused in other parts of the Muslim world?

Generally, the primary desire for discipline among those individuals I had contact with was an overriding concern, despite the fact that it could not be defined.

Yet, I found a contrast to this assertion as well. The prison ministries, though they are touted as one of the crowning achievements of the Muslim community because they instil discipline; are successful, it appears, providing the inmates remain in prison.

I asked the imam of the Harrisburg Masjid about his prison ministry, and he cautioned that the program was not going as well as the press inferred, stating:

“In the prisons, the men have nothing to do, nowhere to go, and so they come and listen to what the brothers have to say. They commit themselves to Islam, and before two witnesses say the “Shahada,” and for the most part come regularly to Jumma prayers. Many of them “talk big” about what they will do once they get out of prison; how they are going to reform, and make a better life. The problem, however, surfaces once they get out. These men come out having resided for four or five years in an environment where all their decisions were made for them. Instead of looking to the mosques for help, they revert back to their former lifestyles, and many times end right back in prison.”

The Islamic prison ministry was appreciated by the prisoners, and became a rallying point for them while they were in prison. But once they left that confined environment, and were again back in “control” of their own decisions, out on the street, they had no more use for that ministry, and possibly found its rules and regulations more debilitating then helpful.

---

D: Conclusion

This then brings us to the crux of the matter concerning the witness of Islam and Christianity in relation to the social agenda.

While Islam gives people the impression that they can change their lives by changing the way they act, or by becoming disciplined, or by simply adopting new names, it fails to pinpoint the essential criteria for a sincere life-change; a new and redeemed heart, which is not natural at all, but something totally supernatural, and something which Christianity not only claims to offer, but delivers as well. Since we are created in the image of God, it is only He who can bring us back into relationship with Him, taking on His image, and thereby becoming the person He had intended us to be, with the help of the Holy Spirit. That indeed has consequences which are not simply immediate but eternal.

For a while, within the heightened atmosphere of a Muslim madrasa, or Muslim community, where they find support and encouragement, new Muslim converts can improve their life, and many do. But out on their own, where they once again find themselves face-to-face with their own inadequacies, new converts will inevitably find failure, and a loss of hope, and even reversion. In the final analysis, we would have to say that Islam is only a man-made and natural religion.

Christianity on the other hand, gives us parameters and guidelines, or patterns to live by which were instigated and passed on to us by the creator Himself, via the Holy Spirit, reflecting the patterns He had intended from the time of creation.

Is it no wonder then, that the witness of Christian nations (even those who continue to retain only a memory) rings superior to anything Islam can offer? While Muslim nations today fail to offer their populations a decent quality of Life, failing in almost every category researched, the witness of the social programs of Christian nations goes from strength to strength. One need only look as far as the number of immigrants from Muslim lands pouring into the West daily to understand that even they have come to the same conclusion which these statistics provide. Though they may refuse to admit to the authority behind the social laws which regulate life in our lands, they, nonetheless admire the justice and equality which those same laws provide.

That then is where we come in. God has given us the responsibility to be His vice-regents here on earth. With those responsibilities comes the knowledge that we have a God who works supernaturally, changing people from the inside, through their hearts, and they in turn, changing institutions and communities into that which God had intended us to be all along: His children, under His Lordship, bringing about His supernatural Kingdom here on earth. This is truly an attractive social agenda.

The Attraction of Islam and a Christian’s Response – Part 4

Jay Smith

Contents | Part 1 | Part 2 | Part 3 | Part 4

---

Conclusion

In the West, Islam is a religion in search of an identity. Gone are the days when Islam could run “slip-shod” over cultures, dominating and subjugating them militarily, and then implementing its own culture and religious precepts through the process of “Islamic Ambience.” Today, Muslims are waking up to a new world, one in which they find themselves humiliated militarily, dominated economically, and the brunt of a hostile media. Yet, they are learning quickly how to adapt, employing a new and aggressive approach in propagating their beliefs in a world where, they believe, Islam holds the key to the world’s future.

Much of this adapting reflects the borrowing of evangelistic ideas and strategies tried and proved by Christian missionaries worldwide for hundreds of years. Men like Hasan al-Banna’, Abu A’la Mawdudi, and Khurram Murad have moved away from the rigid hierarchical control evidenced in much of the traditional Muslim world, and have adopted the low-missiological approach common to the Christian Pietistic Movement. As a result, hundreds of people in the West are being introduced to Islam for the first time. They are attracted by its ideas and precepts which are propagated in universities and in prisons, and they are consequently adopting Islam as their own faith.

We, as Christians, must be aware of this current attraction to Islam. Many of us are ignorant of the fact that of the approximately 1.3 billion Muslims worldwide, four-hundred and fifty million of them reside outside the traditional Muslim countries, in the Diaspora; in areas of the world where Christianity has traditionally had a strong influence (World Christian News 1992:10). Muslims are, in effect, “right on our doorstep,” living next door, sitting at the next desk at work, and playing at recess with our children. Yet, we pay them little attention, because they are, “Americans now, and so much like us.”

We cannot continue to pass-off their conversion-growth as simple aberrations. We must look at what the Muslims are saying, how they are saying it, and how we can meet the needs which they seem to be answering. We can do this by taking the initiative to make relationships and by spending time dialoguing with our Muslim friends.

The gospel of Christ is clear, simple and rational, despite the claims of Muslims to the contrary. Indeed, in many respects it is clearer, and simpler than the message of Islam. It has often been forgotten that salvation in Christ is, indeed, by faith, alone. If we would return to that basic message, being careful that in our presentation we understand what we are saying, and distinguish between those beliefs which are essential and those which are not, the message could be comprehended and accepted.

New converts to Islam claim that Islam has a better record of being involved in the world, and of dealing adequately with racism. While there is room for disagreement, we must not descend into the pitfalls of argumentation, but work all the more to exemplify Galatians 3, and seek avenues to do what is best for those in need around us, irregardless of their race or creed, while recognizing and respecting their cultural differences.

The perception by new believers to Islam, is that we are polytheistic, and worship three gods. This misconception must be rejected at every turn. Yet, it can only be done if we, and not they, take the initiative to define who God is. In order to attain this we will need to return to our authority, the scriptures, and show clearly that they have not been corrupted, but are as authoritative today as they were two-thousand years ago. Only then can we use them to rectify theological inconsistencies which may exist.

The claim by many Muslims that Christians live immoral and hypocritical lives has to be approached with sensitivity. We cannot answer for others, as unfortunately, the moral record of those who call themselves Christians, historically, has been dismal. Until we ask forgiveness for the sins of the past, and strive to reclaim the credibility which has been lost, we will never be able to be the witnesses which Christ calls us to be. We must differentiate clearly between what a true Christian is, and what a nominal Christian is, so as not to confuse Christianity with “what we find in the West today,” as so many Muslims do.

And finally, because those converts who have been attracted to Islam believe Islam is the final way to God, we must ask whether or not Islam affords any assurance for their salvation? Salvation is the key to our message. The Bible gives the only true answer for the world today, because only it defines the true moral dilemma of humanity, and it alone provides the only solution: the sacrificial act of a merciful and loving God; who, through the forgiveness of His Son, allows all of humanity to find, and then choose that assurance of salvation.

To keep these truths to ourselves is improper. We have the mandated responsibility to share the message of the cross with the world, which includes our Muslim friends; by going to them, where they live, and dialoguing with them, face-to-face.

A point of caution concerning dialoguing with a Muslim: It is important to realize, from the outset, that the gospel of the New Testament will counter, and offend a Muslim’s way of thinking, due to its emphasis on The Cross, and the exclusiveness of Jesus, the Christ.

Dialogue, therefore, can be used for contextualizing, and for creating a bridge to those individuals with whom we have a relationship. This means that we must reach out, by listening to them, so that we can understand their culture, their thought-forms, and their world-views. Only then, will we be able to win their trust, and so gain the right to, then, interpret for them, what God has given to us; the good news of Jesus Christ. This is especially important in the context of Islam, where the historic and current atmosphere between the two religions is almost indelibly marked by miscommunication and mistrust.

Dialogue, however, by its very nature, involves two differing points of view. Thus, it is requisite to respond to the Muslim beliefs with those of our own. But this will be difficult, for a number of reasons, three of which I will list here.

First, Islam is antithetical and opposed to the message of the atoning death, and most everything that delineates Jesus, as Messiah. For this reason it has no answer for the human moral predicament: that humans are in need of a savior.

Second, orthodox Islam has traditionally created its own interpretation of God; one, who is distant and impersonal, and unreachable, in direct contrast to the Biblical view of God as Abba, Father.

Third, Islam has no tradition, nor does it allow any form of criticism (verification or falsification) concerning its beginnings, or its authority.

In order to have true dialogue of any worth with a Muslim, these issues must be addressed; otherwise the one party will talk right past the other, with little hope of a meaningful exchange or understanding.

Obviously, what we are hoping for in a dialogue is that we demand of the Muslim that which we demand of ourselves: to accept only those truths which can stand up to verification.

Therefore, as we seek to bring about the true Kingdom of God, we pray to find those individuals who are truly hungry and thirsty, those who are searching, or who are willing to question all thought-forms, including, by heredity, their own. For this reason, we pray constantly to God, that He will steer to us those who are hungry for The Truth.

Contents | Part 1 | Part 2 | Part 3 | Part 4

The Attraction of Islam and a Christian’s Response – Part 3

Jay Smith

Contents | Part 1 | Part 2 | Part 3 | Part 4

---

5: The Qur’an’s Beauty and Applicability

The Qur’an, for Muslims, far exceeds in importance, any other writing. Many of those who were interviewed pointed to its beauty, and some gave it even mystical qualities. For these and similar reasons, the Qur’an is treated as something “holy in itself,” almost worthy of worship.

Take for instance the old man I met in the Harrisburg mosque who was highly revered due to his ability to quote, by memory, any passage from the Qur’an (and therefore given the title of Hafiz). Yet, I never saw him lead any discussions on the Qur’an. A younger man from Saudi Arabia was given that responsibility. When I asked, “Why?” I was told that the old gentleman didn’t understand Arabic well (memorizing doesn’t endure understanding).

It shocked me to find a man who had spent years memorizing the Qur’an, yet had no yearning to understand the content of its message. Is it no wonder, then, that Muslims have so little desire to translate their most holy book? Merit is found in the rote reading of the Qur’an in Arabic, and not in its message.

My friend who considered the Qur’an to be the epitome of beauty, offered me certain Suras as examples. Yet, when I asked him to quote from the text, he could not. Some of the Pakistanis who could quote certain passages had great difficulty in explaining their meaning. I found it disconcerting that the “beauty of the Qur’an” had so much appeal, yet its “beauty” seemed, in fact, to discourage its rationale which became an enemy to its mystique.

Here then is the key which points to the difference between the scriptures of the Christians and that of the Muslims. The fact that Muslims accord the Qur’an a place of reverence and worship, while memorizing its contents without necessarily understanding it, almost sparks of idolatry.

In much of the Muslim world leather amulets worn on the body are sold outside the mosques. Within these amulets one can find folded pieces of paper with an ayya, or verse from the Qur’an written on them. These verses supposedly have power to ward off evil spirits and diseases. For these Muslims the very letters of the Qur’an are imbued with supernatural power.

Christianity stands against this view of God’s written word. We believe that the power and authority for the scriptures comes not from the paper it is written on, but from the words, or the truth it expresses. We also believe that the Bible is the testimony of God’s revelation to certain men, and so is not holy in and of itself, but is a text which must be read and studied, much as a textbook is read and studied in school. Therefore, its importance lies in its content, rather than in its physical pages, just as a newspaper is read and thrown away, though the news it holds may remain imprinted on the readers mind for years to come.

Over a period of four months, during my weekly trips to the local masjid, I would spend an hour or two with the members, studying the Qur’an in English, but reading it aloud, always, in Arabic. Yet, when it came time to discuss and explain the meaning of the text, they would many times quote from the Bible to make a point, leaving the Qur’anic texts for the Islamic commentator Bukhari to explain (though not a commentator, Bukhari was a collector of hadith, some of which refer to the Qur’an).

Even more revealing concerned the content of our discussions, which tended to center around Biblical theology, and used ideas such as, “the substitutionary sacrifice for one’s sins,” and, the Biblical idea of “being in the world but not of it,” concepts which are unique to Christ’s teaching.

This was not atypical to the group at the Harrisburg mosque. During a presentation on television, Louis Farakhan quoted directly from the Bible four times, while not once citing the Qur’an or any other Muslim writing. Maybe this curiosity points to his previous background as a Christian, yet it denotes the fact, that, though the Qur’an is revered for its beauty, it often is not well-understood. It seems that for many American Muslims it has not become a primary influence, and, therefore, is often measured by the standards of the Bible, the very book it claims to “supersede.”

Nor is the traditional reverent concern for the physical treatment of the Qur’an, exhibited by my Asian immigrant friends, practiced by all Muslims in America. In a number of the masjids I visited, I saw copies of the Qur’an on the floor, while some had their front covers missing.

Perhaps, the criticism by Muslims that Christians abuse the Bible, is a result of their misunderstanding of its purpose. Christians believe that the Bible is a text which must be read and studied, much as a textbook is read and studied in school. Consequently, there is no injunction against writing in it, or against laying it on the floor (though most of the Christians I know would not do so, out of respect for its message; not that it is holy in itself. Yet, having been sensitized, I cringe when an evangelist or preacher clutches or leafs through a very worn personal Bible).

Muslims hold a high view for all scriptures, including the Bible, yet the Qur’an, they contend, retains supreme position and ascendancy over all others because, “initially, it was never written-down by men and so was never tainted with men’s thoughts or styles.” It is Allah’s ultimate revelation to humanity because it came down directly, word for word to Muhammad via the angel Jibril (this process is called “nazil”).

Left unsaid is the glaring irony that the claim for nazil revelation of the Qur’an, comes from one source alone, the man to which it was supposedly revealed, Muhammad. There are no outside witnesses both before or at the time who can corroborate Muhammad’s testimony. Not even miracles are provided to substantiate his claims.

In fact, the evidences for the authority of God’s revelation, which the Bible emphatically produces are completely absent in the Qur’an, namely: that the revelation of God must speak in the name of God, Yahweh; that the message must conform to revelation which has gone before; that it must make predictions which are verifiable, and that the revelation must be accompanied by signs and wonders, in order to give it authority as having come from God. Because these are missing in the case of the prophet Muhammad and of the Qur’an, for those of us who are Christians, it seems indeed that it is the Qur’an and not the Bible which turns out to be the most human of documents.

That the Word of God was written by men holds little consequence for a Christian, as we know that these men were always under the direct inspiration of the Holy Spirit (2 Peter 1:20-21). Whereas the Qur’an is alleged to be ‘free of any human element,’ we know that God deliberately chose to reveal His Word through individuals who were inspired prophets and apostles, so that His Word would not only be conveyed directly to humanity but that it would be communicated to their understanding and powers of comprehension as well. This the Qur’an cannot do if it has no human element, as is generally alleged.

Therefore, Christians believe that the Bible, alone, consisting of the Old Testament and the New Testament, is the inspired Word of God (2 Timothy 3:16,17). By inspired, we mean that the messages of God were relayed to His chosen men who spoke or wrote them, using their own language, personalities, and cultural thought-forms (Inspiration, thus, does not mean “divine dictation”). King David wrote as an inspired poet, and the prophet Jeremiah spoke as an inspired preacher, and so on.

When we read 2 Timothy 3:16, we read that all Scripture is inspired. The word used is “theopneustos” which means “God-breathed,” inferring that what was written had it’s origin in God Himself. In 2 Peter 1:21 we read that the writers were moved by God. Thus, God used each writer and his personality to accomplish a divinely authoritative work, for God cannot inspire error. The writers received the actual recording of truth.

How, Muslims ask, was this done? Did God use mechanical dictation, or did God use the writers own minds and experiences? The simple answer, according to 2 Peter 1:21, is that, “prophecy never had it’s origin in the will of man, but men spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit.” Thus, the Spirit’s control was always with them in their writings, so that what we have today is, “The Mind of God in the words of men”.

God, in His omnipotent power, saw to it that what was written was that which He desired to be written, and that it kept to its subject matter, which was, “God as Redeemer” (see II Samuel 23:2,3 and II Timothy 3:16). God also made sure that it was not tampered with, an idea misunderstood too often by most Muslims.

Concerning the literary style of the Qur’an, Muslims believe it is superior to all other books in the Arabic language because of it’s pure Arabic text and it’s sophisticated literary style. They quote Sura 10:38 which says: “Will they say ‘Muhammad hath forged it? Answer: ‘Bring therefore a chapter like unto it, and call whom ye may to your assistance, besides Allah, if ye speak truth.” This is echoed in the Hadiths (Mishkat III, pg.664), which says: “…This book is second to none in the world according to the unanimous decision of the learned men in points of diction, style, rhetoric, thoughts and soundness of laws and regulations.” Muslims conclude that due to the fact that there is no literary equivalent in existence, this proves that the Qur’an is a, “miracle sent down from God, and not simply written by any one man.”

In response we ask whether the Qur’an can be considered a miracle written by one man, when we know from historical research that the Qur’an which is in our possession today was derived from the memory of Muhammad’s closest companions and finally compiled fourteen years after the fact by a group of men who, then, destroyed the evidence by burning the original from which they copied. Where is the miracle in that?

The logic of the claim to it’s uniqueness, according to Dr. Anis Shorrosh, is spurious as well, as “this no more proves its inspiration than a man’s strength demonstrates his wisdom, or a woman’s beauty, her virtue. Only by it’s teachings, principles, and content can a book be judged rightly, not by its eloquence, elegance, or poetic strength” (Shorrosh 1988:192).

One must ask, moreover, what criteria is used for measuring one literary piece against the other? In every written language there must be a “best piece” of literature. Take for example the: Rig-Veda of India (1,000-1,500 B.C.), or the eloquent poems in Greek, the Odyssey and the Iliad by Homer, or the Gilgamesh Epic, the Code of Hammurabi, and the Book of the Dead from Egypt, all which are considered classic masterpieces, and all which predate the Qur’an?

Closer to home; would we compare Shakespeare’s works against that of the Qur’an? No! They are completely different genres. Yet, while few people today would dispute the fact that Shakespeare’s plays and sonnets are the best written in the English language, no-one would claim they were, therefore, divine.

Yet, what do we say concerning the Qur’an’s supposed literary qualities? When anyone who is familiar with the Bible picks up a Qur’an and begins to read it through, there is the immediate recognition that he or she is dealing with an entirely different kind of literature than what is found in the Bible.

Whereas the Bible contains much historical narrative, the Qur’an contains very little. Whereas the Bible goes out of its way to explain unfamiliar terminology or territory, the Qur’an remains silent. In fact, the very structure of the Bible, consisting of a library of 66 books, written over a period of 1,500 years, reveals that it is ordered according to chronology, subject and theme.

The Qur’an, on the other hand, reads more like a jumbled and confused collection of statements and ideas, interposed many times with little relationship to the chapters and verses which preceded. Many scholars admit that it is so haphazard in its make-up that it requires the utmost sense of duty for anyone to plow through it! The German secular scholar Salomon Reinach gives a harsh analysis, stating that: “From the literary point of view, the Koran has little merit. Declamation, repetition, puerility, a lack of logic and coherence strike the unprepared reader at every turn. It is humiliating to the human intellect to think that this mediocre literature has been the subject of innumerable commentaries, and that millions of men are still wasting time in absorbing it” (Reinach 1932:176).

McClintock and Strong’s encyclopedia concludes that, “The matter of the Koran is exceedingly incoherent and sententious, the book evidently being without any logical order of thought either as a whole or in its parts. This agrees with the desultory and incidental manner in which it is said to have been delivered” (McClintock and Strong 1981:151).

Even the Muslim scholar Dashti laments the literary defects of the Qur’an, saying, “Unfortunately the Qur’an was badly edited and its contents are very obtusely arranged.” He concludes by noting that, “All students of the Qur’an wonder why the editors did not use the natural and logical method of ordering by date of revelation, as in ‘Ali ibn Taleb’s lost copy of the text” (Dashti 1985:28).

When reading a Qur’an, you will discover that the one-hundred and fourteen Suras not only have odd names for titles (such as the Cow, the Spoils, the Bee, or the Cave), but their layout is not at all in a chronological order. Size or length had more to do with the sequence of the Suras than any other factor, starting with the longest Sura and ending with the shortest. Even within the Suras we find a mixed chronology. At times there is a mixture of Meccan and Medinan revelations within the same Sura, so that even size is not an infallible guide in dating them.

Another problem is that of repetition. The Qur’an was intended to be memorized by those who were illiterate and uneducated. It therefore engages in the principal of endless repetition of the same material over and over again. This all leads to a good bit of confusion for the novice reader, and gives rise to much suspicion concerning it’s vaunted literary qualities.

In contrast to the Bible, which was written over several hundred years by a variety of authors, and flows easily from the creation of the world right through to the prophecies concerning the end of the universe; the Qur’an, supposedly revealed by just one man, Muhammad, in a span of a mere twenty years, seems to go nowhere and say little outside of the personal and political affairs of this one man and his companions, at one particular stage in history.

With no logical connection from one Sura to the next, one is left with a feeling of incompleteness, waiting for the story to give some meaning. Is it no wonder that many find it difficult to take seriously the claim by the Hadiths that the Qur’an is “a book second to none in the world,” worthy of divine inspiration?

Almost all Muslims contend that the explanation for numerous contradictions between the Bible and the Qur’an are due to additions and corruptions of the Bible by Jews and Christians over the years. Yet, not one Muslim I have talked with has been able to point out where our current scriptures differ with the originals, or when these substitutions could have been made.

This is compounded by the fact that the Qur’an, itself, gives authority to the Bible, assuming it’s authenticity at least up to the Seventh Century. Consider the following Suras:

Sura Baqara 2:136 states that there is no difference between the scriptures which preceded and those of the Qur’an, saying “…the revelation given to us…and Jesus…we make no difference between one and another of them.” Sura Al-i-Imran 3:2-3 continues, “Allah…He sent down the Law (of Moses) and the Gospel (of Jesus)…as a guide to mankind.” Sura Nisaa 4:136 carries this farther by admonishing the Muslims to “…Believe…and the scripture which He sent before him.”

In Sura Ma-ida 5:47,49,50,52 we find a direct call to Christians to believe in their scriptures, “…We sent Jesus, the son of Mary, confirming the Law that had come before him. We sent him the Gospel… Let the people of the Gospel judge by what Allah hath revealed therein, if any do fail to judge by the light of what Allah hath revealed, they are (no better than) those who rebel…” Again, in Sura Ma-ida 5:68 we find a similar call, “People of the Book!…Stand fast by the law, the Gospel, and all revelation that hath come to you from YOUR LORD. It is the revelation that has come to thee from THY LORD.”

To embolden this idea of the New and Old Testament’s authority we find in Sura 10:95 that Muslims are advised to confer with these scriptures if in doubt about their own: “If thou wert in doubt as to what We have revealed unto thee, then ask those who have been reading the Book from before thee. The truth had indeed come to thee from thy Lord.” This is repeated in Sura 21:7, “…the apostles We sent were but men, to whom We granted inspiration. If ye realize this not, Ask of those who possess the message.”

And finally, in Sura Ankabut 29:46 Muslims are asked not to question the authority of the scriptures of the Christians, saying, “And dispute ye not with the people of the book but say: We believe in the revelation which has come down to us and that which came down to you.”

If there is anything in these Suras which is clear, it is that the Qur’an emphatically endorses the Torah and the Gospel as revelations from God. This coincides with what Christians believe, as well.

Furthermore, both the Christian Bible and the Muslim Qur’an hold to the premise that God does not change His word, His revelation (despite the law of abrogation found in the Qur’an). Sura Yunus 10:64 says, “No change can there be in the words of Allah”. This is repeated in Sura Al An’am 6:34: “There is none that can alter the words of Allah,” and again in Sura Qaf 50:28,29.

In the Bible we, likewise, have a number of references which speak of the unchangeability of God’s word, such as Deuteronomy 4:1-2; Isaiah 8:20; Matthew 5:17-18; 24:35; and Revelation 22:18-20.

Why should a Jew or Christian before or after the time of Muhammad be interested in changing God’s revelation? Does he or she want to go to hell? (See Revelation 22:18-19). The only conceivable reason to bring about changes would be that it was the Qur’an, which came after, which differs from the “Book”, and not the other way around.

Why do Muslims continue claiming that the Bible has been corrupted? When, one must ask, was the Bible allegedly polluted? Surely the Qur’an would have clearly stated that it was defiled. If Muslims continue to claim that the scriptures have been corrupted, they have an enormous responsibility to show from what time in history and where these corruptions exist in the text (the task of textual criticism).

The New Testament, they say, has been tampered with by Christ’s disciples. Their authority for such claims is derived from nameless liberal scholars, who, using the same criteria, would play havoc with the authenticity of their own Qur’an.

Christians, in response, need only point to the numerous existing copies on open file at numerous museums around the world to corroborate the accuracy of the ancient New Testament text, with what we have today; manuscripts which existed long before the Qur’an was even written.

The New Testament is the historical record of the manner in which God fulfilled the Old Testament prophecies concerning the Messiah, and established the New Covenant. It contains the account of the life and teachings of the Messiah (the Gospels), the creation of the Church (Acts of the Apostles), the explanations of Christian beliefs and conduct (Epistles), and a description of the end times, when God’s purpose for humanity will be fulfilled (Revelation). Understood in its entirety, it’s truth and it’s unity with the Old Testament Messianic message gives credence to the Old Testament Scriptures which came before.

It is no wonder, then, that Christians accept only the Old Testament and the New Testament of the Bible as God’s inspired written Word, consisting of teachings by more than thirty prophets and apostles, written over a period of tremendous historical change and diversity, spanning more than 1,500 years, yet held together by a common unifying idea; that God, the Creator/Redeemer is at work in history with the intent to redeem and to save humanity for Himself.

Nowhere do we find these redemptive concepts in the Qur’an. In fact, much of the Qur’anic account has little to do with the Biblical scriptures which preceded it, and contradicts many of the teachings of the “previous prophets”. Take for instance the following examples:

Some of the Qur’anic teachings seriously conflict with important Christian teachings. Jesus, in the Qur’an was not crucified (Sura 4:157), nor did God beget a son (Sura 19:36-36,92; Sura 112:3), the Qur’anic account suggesting a physical act, which is outrageous to both Muslims and Christians alike: “How shall I [Mary] have a son, seeing that no man has touched me…” (Sura 19:20-21).

The trinity is misunderstood in the Qur’an, and consists of God, Jesus and Mary, God being the third of the three (Sura 5:119). One must ask how, God, if He is all-knowing, could send to Muhammad such an erroneous concept of the Christian trinity, one which only a small and insignificant sect believed and taught, and certainly was not representative of the scriptures, nor of Christendom as a whole.

Other contradictions confuse names and people. Abraham in the Qur’an is called the son of Azar (Sura 6:74), though in the scriptures he is called Terah (Genesis 11:27). Imram (Biblical Amram) was the father of Moses, Aaron and Mary, the mother of Jesus (by implication in Suras 19:28; 66:12; 20:25-30). Yet, the mother of Jesus was born one-thousand, five hundred and seventy years after the sister of Aaron, or Miriam. Yusuf Ali explains that according to Luke.1:5, Elizabeth is the “daughter of Aaron”, being of the priestly line, and so Mary, her cousin would also be seen as such. How then could the father of Aaron and Mary (the mother of Jesus) be Imran?

Some of the Qur’anic stories are quite confused. In the Qur’an we find that Moses’ wife (Zipporah, daughter of Jethro) was given to Moses in exchange for eight to ten years service (Sura 28:22-28), confusing this account with that of Jacob, two-hundred and twenty years earlier, who pledged seven years to Laban in order to have Rachel (Genesis 29:18 and Exodus 2:16). We also find that King Saul selects his small army of three-hundred from thirty-two thousand men (Sura 2:249), almost mimicking the Gideon account of the same (Judges 7).

Haman in the Qur’an is a servant of Pharaoh, who built a high tower to ascend unto the God of Moses (Sura 28:38). But the Babel tower occurs seven-hundred and fifty years earlier (Genesis 11), and Haman is found in the story of Esther in Babylon, one-thousand one-hundred years after Pharaoh. Yusuf Ali believes this is another Haman, yet this is ridiculous, as Haman is not an Egyptian name, but Babylonian.

In the Qur’an Ishmael rather than Isaac is chosen for Abraham’s sacrifice, on mount Mina (near Mecca) rather than mount Moriah. Though Ishmael is not named, Muslims assume it is he since in Genesis 22:2 God refers to Abraham’s “only son” to be sacrificed, thus Isaac must not have been born.

The more likely explanation is that God accepted Isaac as the only son of Abraham, since he was born by God’s hand to Abraham’s legitimate wife, and not that of a concubine (Hagar). In the same chapter (Genesis 22) Isaac is named as Abraham’s only son, and the covenant bearer (Genesis 21:12), even though Ishmael was alive at the time.

The Qur’an continues to confuse this story, stating that Abraham took Hagar and Ishmael to Paran (which it claims is near Mecca). This conflicts with the Biblical account, as Hagar and Ishmael were unaccompanied by Abraham, and Paran is not near Mecca but is south of Israel, in the Sinai Peninsula.

The question must be asked of Muslims, “If the Qur’anic accounts are indeed correct, then why would God allow so much of His revelation to be abrogated and compromised?” Furthermore, “if the preceding scriptures were authoritative, then why do their principle ideas disagree and contradict so much with what we find in the Qur’an?” If the Qur’an is the final revelation from God, it must not only agree with what God said before, but it must fulfill that which is in the Biblical scriptures, which He sent to all humanity via His chosen prophets.

Christians are convinced that the Bible is not only completely authoritative, but that it is truthful and answers all that anyone needs to know concerning who God is, and what He demands of them. They stand behind these convictions by desiring that the gospel of salvation, the Bible, be read by all the people of the world. It is for this reason that the Bible has been translated into over two-thousand languages so that now ninety-three percent of the world’s population can read it in their mother tongues. It is, therefore, no surprise that the Bible continues to be the best-selling book in the history of humanity.

So what can we say about the authority of the Qur’an’s beauty and applicability? Can we say it is a divinely inspired book sent by Allah for all of humanity, in all ages? Can it claim supernatural as well as literary qualities, which not only place it above other revelations, but point to it’s divine origins? Much of what has been offered points to the fact that the Qur’an lacks in all three qualities, and seems to reflect more the life and times of it’s author than that of the heart of a universal God. The idolatrous tendency of Muslims towards the Qur’an, as well as the confusion of its literary makeup, and the special conditions given to its author, point more to a book put together by one man, rather than an inspired piece of God’s revealed word.

If one were to contrast the sixty-six books of the Bible written over hundreds of years by a multiplicity of authors, with the Qur’an which came through one man, Muhammad, during his lifetime, there would be no contest as to which was the superior literature. In the final analysis, the Qur’an simply does not fit the breadth of vision, nor the literary style or structure of that found in the Old and New Testament. To go from the Bible to the Qur’an is to go from the superior to the inferior, from the authentic to the counterfeit, from God’s perspective to that of an individual, caught up and controlled by his own world and times. I end this section with a quote from a Qur’anic expert, Dr. Tisdall, who says:

The Qur’an breathes the air of the desert, it enables us to hear the battle-cries of the Prophet’s followers as they rushed to the onset, it reveals the working of Muhammad’s own mind, and shows the gradual declension of his character as he passed from the earnest and sincere though visionary enthusiast into the conscious imposter and open sensualist. (Tisdall 1901:27).

6: The Simplicity of Islamic Teaching

Some Muslim converts believe that the simplicity of the Islamic religion can be found in its flexibility. Though I have not formally investigated these claims, I would imagine they refer to the many cultures, worldwide, where Islam has acquiesced to native beliefs and practices which are not in accordance with Islamic teaching, a phenomenon which anthropologists label, “Folk Islam.” These syncretistic allowances are not, however, necessarily accepted by most Muslims. Nor are they given authority by the Qur’an or the hadiths.

Contrariwise, the historical record shows that instead of accepting the beliefs and practices of other cultures, Islam has effected just the opposite, imposing its own culture on that of the host or conquered culture. Take, for instance, the Sind culture, in Pakistan, which gave us Harappa and Mohenjo-Daro. Here is a good example of how the Arab culture has dominated and eradicated a once sophisticated host culture. (As I was born and raised in India, I am familiar with the history of the Indus Valley and Afghanistan, both good illustrations of Islam’s non-adaptation and eradication of host cultures.)

A few Muslims appreciated the simplicity of the decor within the mosques interior, contrasting it to the “gaudy icons” found in many Roman Catholic cathedrals. Although most Protestants would agree with many Muslims on this point, a question needs to be interposed here: “What, for both Muslims and Christians, is the function of a place of worship?” A mosque is a place designated for prescribed prayer. Posturing, also, is standardized; hence there is no place in a mosque for open and expressive worship, and consequentially there is no need for pews or hymnals, or for overhead projectors, for that matter.

A church building, or a cathedral, on-the-other-hand, is dedicated for more than mere prayer. It is a rallying point where people from the community come to assemble for corporate togetherness and worship. Praise to their Lord takes the form, expressly, of music. Singing, therefore, for a Christian, is not for “showing-off,” as Muslims perceive it, but is for offering individuals and the corporate body the chance to praise God, as King David did with his Psalms. Differences in needs, therefore, demand appropriate contrasts in venue.

A further criticism by Muslims is that the presence of women impedes the act of worship. I find this extremely demeaning to women, and really I wonder if, indeed, this is a universal concern for most Muslims. If so, one needs to question why the presence of women would cause men to think evil thoughts? Are women really only sexual objects? Sexuality may be a particular problem for certain individuals. Yet, to exclude one-half of the human race for the sake of the few who would go against any religious ideal is ludicrous. Furthermore, to penalize the women for the weaknesses of the men sparks not only of sexism, but fails to address the primary issue, that the real problem is the men, and it is they who must come to terms with their inadequacies, not the women.

Lack of complexity has often been forwarded as the cornerstone of Islamic theology and practice, and for some a great attraction. Yet, simplicity may be its undoing as well. As nations continue to advance and become more sophisticated, and as mobility has brought much of the world to consider itself as a large “global village,” the rigid inflexibility of thought and practice, religiously adhered-to for the last fourteen centuries, will not suffice for the fast-moving pace of the twenty-first century.

Islam has not managed well at adapting. This fact, as we have discussed earlier concerning Islamic Da’wah, has not been universally acknowledged by it’s adherents worldwide.

Answers to many of today’s important issues are no longer black and white, and it is those gray areas which will keep Islam increasingly out-of-step with the changing world culture around it, forcing its devotees to either assimilate and so neutralize their message, or solidify and therefore isolate themselves from what is happening around them.

7: The Testimony of other Muslims/Muhammad

The witness and lifestyle of Muslims within Islam is ongoing and attractive. A large enough number of Muslims I interviewed indicated this feature to convince me that this element could be a real asset for Islamic Da’wah activity in America.

Muslims have done well to tap into this wealth of ready-made and easily accessible material for their evangelistic campaign. One cannot dispute the suitability of a personal testimony, since it is nigh impossible to cast doubt upon a personal account of one’s changed life. Christian journals and pamphlets have used this vehicle for years to attract non-believers to the claims of Christianity. In fact, all religions use this tactic to their advantage.

The question which arises is whether Islam can take credit for the persons changed life, or whether any religion could have done the same for that individual?

One must not forget, that religion, by its very nature gives an individual a sense of belonging, a sense that he or she is part of a larger group. Religion also offers accessibility to a being (a god) who is larger than themselves. It is, therefore, logical that anyone who commits themselves to a religion will enjoy the security and identity which that religion affords them, a new-found identity which they will want to share with others who are not so fortunate. It is possibly this factor, more than any other, which Islam has a lot to be thankful for.

Take for example an Indian Muslim whom I befriended at the Harrisburg Mosque, who invited me to his home. During our conversation he told me that he knew many of the men who came to the Harrisburg Islamic center, while they were still in their homeland, India. He went on to say that most of them rarely attended the mosque in India, and would not have qualified as being religious, by anyone’s yardstick. Yet, in the U.S., they routinely attended the Jumma prayers, as well as all of the religious festivals. He believed that this new “religiosity” was due to their cultural insecurity in a new and foreign land. In time, he felt, “appearing religious” would wear-off, and they would assimilate as other newly arrived groups preceding them had done.

The true litmus test of a person’s testimony is found in how their changed life works to help others, and how the religion which claims to be a change-agent brings about a lasting benefit to the society in which it is involved (following James argument that “faith without deeds is dead,” James 2:14-26). The earlier discussion in this study dealing with the failings of Muslim countries points to the dearth of good examples for the witness of Islam. Though certain Muslim individuals enhance Islam’s name, the image of the worldwide Islamic community is possibly more detrimental then it is an asset for the witness of Islam.

However, in all my interviews with converts, the overwhelming attention-getting topic was not necessarily the testimony of other Muslims but “the person of Muhammad, himself.” His life, and his persecution in Mecca caught their imagination. For others, the attraction was the fact that he was chosen by Allah as the “seal of all the prophets.”

Christians, of course, before they can look at the merits of Muhammad, must evaluate whether or not Muhammad was a God-appointed prophet. It is unacceptable to take as authoritative the attestations of one witness who has no objective divine proof, such as a prophecy of divine signs. The Bible demands a sign to prove a prophet’s authenticity (read Deuteronomy 18:21-22; Exodus 10:1-2; and Isaiah 41:21-23).

We know from the Qur’an, that Muhammad’s arrival and subsequent claim to prophethood was not accompanied by any signs (Suras 2:87,99,118-119,151,252; 3:183; 6:37,109,124; 7:203; 13:7,30; 17:59,88,93 all attest to this). This puts doubt concerning his claim.

A prophet’s message, finally, must correspond with that which preceded him. A Christian must view Muhammad in light of the total Biblical revelation, culminating with God, the Son, who is Jesus, the promised Messiah. They must ask three questions: 1) to what extent did the prophet Muhammad fully accept the “former scriptures” (refer to Deuteronomy 4:2; Isaiah 8:20; Matthew 5:18 and 24:35; and Revelation 22:18-19 to understand the importance of this decree by God), 2) to what extent did the prophet Muhammad point to the central significance of Jesus as Redeemer (John 14:26 and John 16:14), and 3) to what extent did the life and teachings of Muhammad exemplify suffering redemptive love, which is demonstrated by Jesus the Savior (John 15:5; 16:7-11)? Unless Muslims can show otherwise, Christians will continue to find him completely lacking in all three.

While the witness of certain Muslims in any community is admirable, it is, nonetheless, difficult for Christians to assume that this attribute qualifies Islam the status it demands. Until Muslims can demonstrate that their faith transforms society holistically, and until they can demonstrate that Muhammad, indeed, conformed to the revelation and message which preceded him, Christians will continue to doubt the veracity for the claim of Islam’s witness in the twentieth century, as well as the assertion that their prophet can insist on the status of a true prophet from God.

8: The Rationality of Islam

No-one can argue with Muslims, that Islam, as it is presented to the world, is a seemingly rational religion. This attribute will always be an attraction for Islam, especially for those people who yearn for simplistic answers to simplistic questions. What is more important, however, is whether or not rationality alone necessarily implies Truth. The ways of God are profound, and complicated to explain. Much of it is purposely clouded in mystery.

In order to fully understand God’s plan for humanity, or to understand the heart of God, or even His character, one must bring God down to our level, and anthropomorphize Him. This, however, is not easily accomplished, and many times impossible, unless God, Himself, has revealed it to us.

Take for instance the idea of the love of God, a belief which both Christians and Muslims can agree upon. It is not until we comprehend the trinity (a doctrine much maligned by Muslims) that we can truly understand love. For it is within the trinity that love if fully expressed. True love by it’s very nature requires an object, otherwise it becomes self-centered, self-serving and carnal. If God were one-dimensional, where would true love have originated? The trinity, encompassing the tri-une godhead, delineates the source from which love began, as each person of the godhead, since eternity, has given and received love from among themselves. The best example of the love between the godhead is exemplified by God the Father who sent God the Son to earth (John 3:16); and by God the Son, who in turn “being in very nature God…made Himself nothing…being made in human likeness…He humbled Himself and became obedient to death, even death on a cross” (Philippians 2:7-8).

As a result of this extreme act of love, we humans, being made in the image of God, can now explain and model perfect love to the world, using the examples of God the Father towards God the Son, and the ongoing relationship of God the Holy Spirit in our lives counselling us to become more like Him, by exemplifying that same love.

When Muslims maintain that Allah can be defined as the God of love, our response must be that this claim simply is not rational. For where is it exemplified in history, or in our lives today, and from where did it originate? Rationally speaking, love is much easier understood within the context of a loving God, who not only modeled it Himself, but continues even now to aid us in that same endeavor.

Muslims, while maintaining the rationality of their beliefs, have a difficult time rationally explaining many other beliefs, most of which we share in common with them. Some of these are: the virgin birth, the meaning of the title Messiah, the erroneous name for Jesus (Issa), the significance of the unblemished sacrificial lamb, and the significance of the burning bush. Yet, their inclusion in the Qur’an makes its authenticity no less authoritative. Both scriptures fall prey to accounts and beliefs which cannot be explained by rational means. Therefore, rationality alone should never be the criteria for delineating Truth.

I end with the example of the cross. Who, but God could think up the cross? To the world it is irrational. How could the infinite creator God allow Himself to be crucified by His finite creation? Yet, without the cross, God’s entire substitutionary and sacrificial plan for humanity’s salvation comes to naught. “For the message of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing (the world), but to us who are being saved it is the power of God. For it is written: I will destroy the wisdom of the wise; the intelligence of the intelligent I will frustrate” (I Corinthians 1:18-19).

9: The Practices of Islam

The practices which were most admired by the responders were: polygamy and praying. Polygamy is a historic practice which has had a wide appeal even outside Islam, particularly amongst many African tribes. I find it incredulous, however, that there are Muslims today who believe polygamy is better-suited for Americans than monogamy (most of the men I meet in the U.S.A. are in enough trouble with the one wife they already have).

Monogamy gives recognition, status and integrity to a woman. Where is sexual fulfillment found for a woman who has to share her husband with other wives? But the greatest criticism of polygamy must be centered around what it does to a true understanding of love between a husband and wife.

“Polygamy excludes devoted love, for love between the sexes is exclusive, otherwise it is degraded in essence to mere sexual fulfillment. No woman who loves her husband and wishes to be fully loved in return, can tolerate a partner” (Nehl 1987:110). Invariably, with a plurality of wives, one wife must be favored over the others. In the Middle East and in Africa a definite hierarchy is inevitable, with the first wife dominating the subsequent wives. I saw, personally, the damage that this wifely competition and domination brought about, with the “lesser wives” almost relegated to the status of slaves.

Nor are very many Muslims prepared to speak to the issue of easy divorce (permitted in Islam), or prepared to answer, “What happens to the children in divorced situations?” In Senegal, the children remain with the husband’s family. Yet, in almost every case, they are never treated as equals with the other “legitimate” children.

A Christian would, furthermore, point to the Genesis 2:24 passage, where God took Eve and presented her to Adam, and, “The two became one.” This is echoed by Jesus in Matthew 19:4 and Luke 16:18, where he says, “What therefore God has joined together, let no man put asunder.” Why, then, would God change this universal law, and allow the descendants of Adam to marry additional spouses to add to their “harems?” Muhammad can be excused for having lived in a polygamous society. But he also lived after Jesus and ought to have been aware of His teaching.

Islamic prayer, for converts, was a high-priority attraction, and should be discussed here. Due to opposing interpretations of the significance of prayer, Christians and Muslims will differ. For a Muslim, prayer (Salat) is a mechanical act of obedience. It is not important, therefore, that the believer understand what he or she is praying, nor whether or not the prayer pertains to the situation at hand. Posturing and quoting the Qur’an in Arabic is considered an act of obedience for a Muslim.

For a Christian, prayer is understood in the context of relationship. A Christian “speaks” to God in order to praise Him, to communicate with Him, or to intercede for themself and for others. All these demand an ongoing vital personal relationship with a God who is infinite yet personal, who is transcendent yet not distant, and who is immediately present at all times and in every situation. Until Muslims discover and receive the God of Jesus Christ who is like “Abba,” Father, they cannot hope to understand the ramifications of true prayer, nor can they hope to be personally communicating with and receiving, the blessings of the God who is there, which a life of prayer can offer.

10: Islam’s Superiority to All Other Religions

Two respondents stated that the superiority of Islam is found in its attainability; that, in contrast, Christianity is simply too difficult to obey. Perhaps, it would have been helpful for them to have compared what is required of a Christian with that which is required of a Muslim.

I mentioned earlier, that, in conversations which I have had with Muslims on this issue, they have admitted that there are few examples of Muslims who have actually attained the ideal Muslim life. In fact, I am convinced that it is this very factor, Islam’s simplistic approach to the “unattainable,” which has kept so many Muslim countries in poverty and dysfunctional in modern times.

On the other hand, as has been noted, there are millions of examples of Christians worldwide, who have committed their lives to the Lord Jesus Christ, and who, because of His gift, the indwelling of the Holy Spirit, have seen dramatic transformations in their lives, which has affected not only themselves, but also has caused dramatic changes in others around them. Missiologists have coined the term “Redemption and Lift” to explain this phenomenon.

A large number of converts considered Islam superior because it had received the most recent and “final” revelation. Islam is not singular in claiming such an “added” revelation. The Mormons, the Moonies, and the Ahmadiyyas, to name a few, believe that they have received further revelations which supersede those of both traditional Islam and Christianity.

A question begs for an answer: “Have these ‘additional’ revelations fulfilled what had been said previously about God, and about His redemptive work for humanity? (an idea which is prominent throughout the earlier scriptures: the Old and New Testaments.)

Other converts felt that Islam is superior because it has had the greatest influence on the modern world. There are those who would agree that Islam is influential, but many would wonder whether or not it can claim the same influence as, say, Judaism, or Christianity, religions which have been credited with setting the stage for The Renaissance and the Enlightenment; which, in turn, set the stage for the Industrial Revolution, affecting, dynamically, the world in which we live today.

Claiming the superiority of one religion over another can be tenuous, as one’s definition will be colored by their religious affiliation. Many Muslim booklets make the claim that much of the technological advances found in the West today are a direct result of earlier Islamic teaching, and it is this which makes it superior.

While one can debate the validity of the above comment, it perhaps is more important to point out that much of what we have in the West is not necessarily Christian, but an accumulation of knowledge borrowed from a vast array of cultures both secular and religious, over a vast period of time.

If one were perfectly honest, however, they would have to admit that all religions tend more to retard creativity and research. Both Christianity and Islam are guilty of this. Yet the fact that modern science found a particular fertile ground in the “Christianized” West has more to do with the fact that in those countries, and especially in those which were run by Protestants, which for theological reasons separated church and state, the secular world was afforded the freedom to go about its business of creating the modern technology which we all marvel at today. Ironically, it is this very “Westernization” which poses the greatest threat for domiciled Muslims who live in the West today, as they watch their children assimilate ideals and aspirations which reflect a Western secular mind-set rather than that of their Islamic heritage.

11: The Theology found in the Qur’an

Surprisingly, a few converts considered Islam a religion of peace, though the prophet Muhammad, himself, was involved in over forty separate military campaigns. The fact is that many of Islam’s best successes have been attributed to its military conquests.

Apparently, today, due to Islam’s newly precarious position in a global society, dominated by an “anti-Islamic” superpower, the “former” militarism of Islam is, conveniently, no longer overtly taught or practiced. That is not to say that Muslim nations do not involve themselves in war, as can be attested by the earlier statistics concerning current global conflicts involving Muslim countries.

Possibly the greatest curiosity, however, is the view that Islam has no specific teachings on sin. One respondent may have been referring to the concept of spiritual sin, an idea well-understood in Christianity, but defined in Islam as social sins. Or, perhaps he felt that Christianity put too much emphasis on the guilt of sin, and so preferred the Islamic approach, which does not really deal with the moral predicament, promising instead the innate goodness of humanity.

Christianity emphasizes the heinousness of sin. According to scripture, any sin is an abomination to God whose character is holy and righteous. Sin, in essence, is a rejection of His character. However, Muslims, as do Christians, believe that Satan tempts them. Yet, according to Christians, it is not Satan, but each individual who is responsible for their own actions, and for their own sins.

Both Christians and Muslims believe that everyone has the choice to resist Satan’s temptation. The Bible insists, throughout, that the consequences of sin is death, and that everyone is guilty (Romans 3:23). Therefore, everyone deserves eternal death, Muslims and Christians alike (Romans 6:23).

Since Islam has not dealt with the fact of moral sin, it maintains no theory for its consequence, which is death. The Bible, however, begins with and faces up, head-on, to this predicament. Therefore, it is tragic to find individuals who have chosen Islam due to the fact that it has no guilt-inducing teachings. A belief must never be chosen for how it makes one feel, or how it can meet one’s needs. God’s truth does not function that way. God creates the boundaries of reality and truth. He, therefore, may not bend to our whim or fancy, but must stand consistent to His own character. The onus is on us to conform to His truth, to proclaim what God defines concerning sin, death, and salvation, and form our reality accordingly.

For a Christian, death no longer has a sting, because God, in His mercy, has not left us in our guilt, but has offered exoneration and forgiveness for those who receive it. He has sent His Son to die in our place, to take upon Himself our guilt. Therefore, those who believe in His historical redeeming death on the cross, and who repent of their sins, are saved from death, and eternal separation (John 3:16,17). But those who reject Christ, the only one qualified to be the mediator between God and humanity, will be eternally separated.

Muslims, understandably, cannot fathom the efficacy of Christ’s atonement. Would anybody believe that another human-being could pay for another person’s sins? Of course not. On that, we all agree. The question must come to: Who is this Redeemer? He is not just another human-being. Christ, as God, incarnate, fulfills all that is required for our redemption. But those who reject this crucifixion death of Christ, will remain, unforgiven, to spend eternal punishment, in total isolation from God; because, in rejecting God the Son, they have also rejected God the Father and God the Holy Spirit, and this sin alone is unforgivable (1 John 2:22-23).

There are individuals who may not accept the Biblical message of justification and redemption, because it does not fit their needs. Yet, consequences follow every decision a person makes, and in this case, the consequences are eternal. Therefore, for those who have truly believed and have received Christ as their Lord and redeemer, they do not fear Christ the judge, and it is to them that eternal life is granted with God in heaven (John 5:22-24; Acts 17:30-31).

Muslims believe that paradise consists of a garden full of carnal pleasures, where men are waited-upon by beautiful virgins (Sura 78:33). Curiously, it is this very sensuous environment, which can, in this life separate us from God. I wonder, indeed, where lies the attraction of heaven for Islamic women?

Compare this view with that of the Bible, where heaven is envisioned as the place where both women and men will go, to enjoy the very presence of God Himself, and where they will live forever with Him in love and in joy. For, as it says in Revelation 21:1-7: “Behold, the dwelling of God is with men. He will dwell with them, and they shall be His people,… He will wipe away every tear from their eyes, and death shall be no more, neither shall there be mourning nor crying nor pain.”

12: Islam’s Spirituality

For some Islamic converts the idea that Allah has total control over all that happens, including history, gives them the security they crave. What they fail to acknowledge, is that this belief, as was mentioned earlier, smacks of the mechanical doctrine of predestination, a non-questioning acceptance of destiny and a resignation to fate (Kismet).

For some, Allah’s complete control leads to a fatalism and passivity; while for others, it frees the mind from matters over which it has absolutely no control. Kismet makes the Muslim fanatically self-sacrificing in war, yet resigned in defeat or in bereavement or in disaster, or in the presence of preventable evil such as epidemics (because these could fall under the “will of Allah”).

Furthermore, Allah is not bound by any moral obligation, as this would limit his sovereignty. It follows that Allah is also the author of evil. He is under no necessity of his own nature to be right, or just, or merciful. Therefore, a Muslim exhibits this twist-of-logic by saying, “Allah does not will an act because it is good; rather, it is good because he has willed it.”

Other attributes of Allah point out the contrast between him and the God of the Bible. “Allah,” according to Muslims, “loves only those who do his will,” whereas the God of the Bible not only loves those who are good, but He loves those who are sinners, those who reject Him, even to the point of giving His life for them (Romans 5:1-10).

Unlike Allah of the Qur’an, who is portrayed as a distant, remote, God with whom no one can have a personal relationship, the Biblical view of God is of One who desires a true, personal relationship with each of His creatures (John 1:11-14; 15:9-15).

In the Qur’an, as was indicated above, Allah is considered to be the author of evil. Yet, in the Bible we find just the reverse. God is infinitely righteous and holy (Psalm 77:13;99:9), for His, “eyes are too pure to look on evil” (Habakkuk 1:13).

When we take these three attributes of the Biblical God: 1)a God of selfless love, 2)who is in relationship with His creation, 3)yet is unable to create or accept evil, we will find in these three the relationship that He seeks with His creation as well.

Though new Muslim converts testify to the superiority of Allah, they fail to take into account that which is missing, that which Allah cannot offer. He cannot offer redemption of his people through a loving act on his part, nor can he offer a personal relationship with them; nor, because of his character, can he accept their possible rejection of him. In fact, all that Allah can offer is that his disciples follow him blindly. Completely lost is their response to a wooing of love.

In contrast, the God of the Bible does not seek a total and blind obedience from His creation. For that would not illustrate true love. True love seeks the best for the loved-one, at the owners expense. This sacrificial love is best exemplified in the crucifixion of Christ on the cross. It is this same quality of love which God desires from us, both in our relationship with Him, and in our relationships with all of humanity, who are made in His image, sinner and saved alike.

The Bible tells us that humans were created in God’s image (Genesis 2:27), a view which is in direct contrast to that of Islam, which perceives humans as slaves. According to the Bible, we were never created to be slaves to God. We were created, from the very beginning, to be His children, in perfect relationship with Him. This assumes, however, freedom of choice, in that we can accept or reject that relationship with Him, despite the fact that He is our creator.

And finally, according to the Bible, by God’s very nature, He can neither create nor tolerate evil. Thus, He has not brought about, nor can He tolerate the evilness of humanity. Sin is of our own doing. But God has made a way by which sin can be forgiven, so that we can, once again, be brought back into a true relationship with God, as was intended from the very beginning with Adam and Eve. Our fate, therefore, is never arbitrarily predestined. Anyone can, by simply acknowledging Christ as Lord and Savior, be assured that they will be united here, and later in heaven, in the presence of God, for eternity.

These, then, are the true attractions of Christianity.

Contents | Part 1 | Part 2 | Part 3 | Part 4

The Attraction of Islam and a Christian’s Response – Part 2

Jay Smith

Contents | Part 1 | Part 2 | Part 3 | Part 4

---

A Christian’s Response

From this discussion it is possible to see that Islam has been and is making a dynamic impact on the world. Many people are coming into contact with Islam for the first time, and are finding that there is something appealing for them. But does Islam really answer all it claims? Is it as attractive as converts seem to testify?

In the final section, I would like to take these areas of attraction, and discuss them from the perspective of a Christian. I realize that Islam is making an impact in the United States today. And I am sure that this impact will continue. But I think American people are appraising Islam incorrectly, or even, at times, dishonestly. Within the list of twelve attractions there are, I feel, errors of perception, as well as errors in interpretation. These I would like to address. There are also misconceptions of Christianity’s position which must be redressed. And finally, many of these categories are those which, I feel, Christianity has a stronger claim to, than Islam.

1) Islam’s Social Laws

As Christians living in America, we have to accept and admit that the perception by many in the West is that Islam meets the social needs of people better than does Christianity. The fact that this category was chosen by converts as, “the primary reason to convert today,” speaks to the success Islam in America has enjoyed with some of its social programs.

The picture outside of America is quite different. Consider some of the most current statistics compiled by Michael Kidron and Ronald Segal in The New State Of the World Atlas:

Worldwide, there are nineteen countries which will never be able to provide adequate food for their populations. Fifteen out of the nineteen are Muslim countries, and include Afghanistan, UAE, Oman, Yemen, Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Western Sahara, Somalia, Iran, Iraq, Syria, Algeria, Niger, Mauritania, and Bangla Desh (Kidron 1991:28-29). Of the twelve countries with the lowest record of life-expectancy (under forty-five years), seven are Muslim countries (Kidron 1991:40-41).

Probably more revealing is the “Quality of Life Index” compiled by Frank Kaleb Jansen, of Target Earth. This index measures the mortality rate, male life expectancy and female illiteracy. When one tabulates the countries of the world within this index, they find that twelve of the lowest twenty countries rated in the world are Muslim, while thirty-two of the top forty rated countries world-wide are those traditionally considered Christian (Jansen 1989:90-91).

When one adds further criteria to this index, such as: education standards, health status, women’s status, defense allotments, economic and demographic factors, as well as political stability and participation, it is interesting to find that out of the top forty countries listed, thirty-nine are Christian in background, while all of the twenty-three Muslim countries included fall well below this level, with five of the worst ten countries on the list Muslim countries (Jansen 1989:92-93).

Kidron concurs in his analysis on the quality of life, finding that whereas all northern countries (made up of all European countries except Portugal and Romania, as well as North American, Israel, Japan and Australia) fall into the highest category for the Quality Life Index (nine and above), not one of the thirty-two Muslim countries made it into this category, the majority of them placing within the medium to very low categories. The lowest rated in the world were mostly Muslim countries (i.e. Niger, Mali) (Kidron 1991:50-51).

Other areas were equally dismal. Literacy: while all northern countries had ninety percent and above literacy rates (except Romania, Portugal, and Bulgaria) not one of the thirty-two Muslim countries made it into this category. The best had approximately seventy percent literacy rate, and the rest fell to ten percent and under (Kidron 1991:52-53).

Schooling: whereas all the northern countries had ninety percent of their children in Secondary school, the best Muslim state had only fifty percent, with the majority of the Muslim countries falling between ten to thirty percent (Kidron 1991:53).

Child-mortality: All of the northern states (except Yugoslavia, Romania and the USSR) were in the top category of child mortality (twenty-five children or under, out of one-thousand children, who died before five years of age). All thirty-two Muslim states fell into the lower categories (fifty children to two-hundred children out of one-thousand who died before their fifth birthday) (Kidron 1991:54).

Concerning the area of violence in the world, it is difficult to know where the truth lies. While the West documents and publishes its criminal activities openly, the Muslim countries say very little. Lists which delineate where each country stands in relation to murders, sex offenses and criminality include most of the Western countries, yet only four Muslim countries out of thirty-two have offered statistics for the number of internal murders, while only six have offered a list of sex offenses, and only four have divulged their level of criminality. Therefore, until more Muslim countries are willing to come forward with statistics, it is impossible to evaluate their claims that Western states have more degradation and criminality than that of Muslim states.

We do know, however, that in the 1980’s, of the fourteen countries who were involved in ongoing “general wars,” nine of them were Muslim countries, while only one was a non-Western Christian country.

Though statistics can be numbing after a while, they do help point out, rather harshly in this case, that Muslim countries today are not meeting the basic needs for the majority of their populations in areas such as literacy, food, education, the freedom of expression, health, and in the general quality of life.

The defense can, and is made that these are not true Muslim countries, and therefore should not be used as examples. Yet, these countries make the claim that they hold to Muslim principles, and as such, are the only examples we have today by which we can judge whether or not Islam can provide an adequate social environment in the twentieth century. The many who considered this category their primary reason for their conversion need to consider statistics like these seriously.

Admittedly, the majority of those who chose this category were African-American converts to Islam, who live in some of the most deplorable social environments in America, a country which prides itself in being the richest country in the world. They cite, “the hypocrisy of the inner-city Church,” as well as their impression that Christians “live their religion only one day a week, when they are at Church.” And they contrast these inconsistencies with another kind of pietism, that of the Muslims, who not only have created and sponsor alternative Islamic schools for their children, but who are actively involved with prison ministries, which specifically benefit African-Americans. Possibly their greatest witness comes from being the most obvious group to stand against and attempt to eradicate the highly-publicized drug and prostitution rings which have run rampant on their streets. These are the “forgotten” inner-city people, and understandably Islam is “scratching them where they itch.”

Islam is also a religion, which, like many cults today, is especially attractive to insecure people, those who need others to make their decisions for them. Its myriad laws and regulations give a prescription for every facet of social life, which can affect even the “dregs of society;” and in reality it does do just that.

When asked for clarification, many of the individuals I asked responded by saying that the Islamic Shariah law proved to be the best law to live by. Yet, when asked to explain the precepts of Shariah Law, they had difficulties describing what particulars they had in mind, or how they might apply Islamic rules within an American setting.

For those countries who use or aspire to use Islamic Law further statistics prove revealing. According to Kidron, while only five northern states are categorized as “Terror States” (those involved in using assassination, disappearances and torture), twenty-eight of the thirty-two Muslim states fall into this category (except UAE, Qatar and Mali) (Kidron 1991:62-63). Would American Muslims welcome this sort of law, considering how it can and is being abused in other parts of the world?

Generally, the primary desire for discipline, among those individuals I had contact with, was the overriding concern, despite the fact that it could not be defined.

Yet, I found a contrast to this assertion as well. The prison ministries, though they are touted as one of the crowning achievements of the Muslim community, because they instill discipline, are successful, it appears, providing the inmates remain in prison.

I asked the imam of the Harrisburg Masjid about his prison ministry, and he cautioned that the program was not going as well as the press inferred, stating:

In the prisons, the men have nothing to do, nowhere to go, and so they come and listen to what the brothers have to say. They commit themselves to Islam, and before two witnesses say the “Shahada,” and for the most part come regularly to Jumma prayers. Many of them talk big about what they will do once they get out of prison; and how they are going to change, and make a better life. The problem, however, is once they get out. These men come out having been in prison for four or five years, where all their decisions were made for them. Instead of coming to the mosques for help, they go back to their former lifestyles, and many times end right back in prison.

The Islamic prison ministry was appreciated by the prisoners, and became a rallying point for them while they were in prison. But once they left that confined environment, and were again back in “control” of their own decisions, out on the street, they had no more use for that ministry, and possibly found its rules and regulations more debilitating then helpful.

Some of the new converts I questioned, appreciated that, in Islam, there are no priests, and that they, as believers, did not need to depend on a middle-man for their relationship with God. It might have been helpful to know whether or not these converts came from a Roman Catholic background. The hierarchy of priests is not representative of the Protestant community, where the belief in the “Priesthood of all believers” (that everyone is a priest), goes even further than does Islam by incorporating the idea that everyone is responsible for their own faith, and that each individual can have a personal relationship with God, immediately and eternally.

Indeed, it is this belief which is a primary impetus behind the massive push today to translate the Bible into every language on earth, so that every person can go to the scriptures (the Bible) for themselves to read what God is saying to them, rather then depend on a priest for that guidance.

Concerning the attraction of women’s issues which some converts point to, that women can own property, and that they are better protected; it would perhaps be helpful for women who believe Islam holds a better record to visit or live in a Muslim country.

Though statistics are hard to find, we do know that, currently, of the twenty-three countries with the worst records of jobs for women (women making up only ten to twenty percent of all workers), seventeen are Muslim countries (Kidron 1991:96-97). Similarly, of the eleven countries with the worst record for diparagement of opportunity between men and women, ten are Muslim states. The widest gaps were found in Bangla Desh, Saudi Arabia, and Egypt (Kidron 1991:57). Another revealing statistic shows that of the twelve states with the worst records for unequal treatment of girls, seven are Muslim states. The bottom three listed are UAE, Bahrain, and Brunei (Kidron 1991:56).

Again, while one may argue that this is not representative of true Islamic teaching, it does show us how those in Muslim countries treat their women, and what we might expect if we were living in that type of environment.

Those individuals who felt Islam had much to offer the world in women’s emancipation would also do well to read personal testimonies by Muslim women, or those women under Islam’s influence, such as, Betty Mahmood’s Not Without My Daughter. They would find that in apportioning inheritance, the Shariah law discriminates against women (Sura 4:7,11), allowing her only half the inheritance of a man. They would also find that women are relegated, almost exclusively, to the home, where they are indeed better protected, but where they also would find little hope in continuing a career that would entail any contact with the opposite sex. As for their maternal rights, many women in the West are not aware that Islam gives the husband absolute legal control over any children.

Perhaps, if those who felt women’s issues were an attraction for Islam, were aware of these areas of inequality they may come to a different conclusion. One could argue that a locked-up individual (whether in a home, or in a Purdah) is well-protected, but is that a worthy price to pay?

In my discussions with Western women, it is these prohibitive laws as well as the practice by Muslim societies today against women, which, far more than any other, comes under the greatest criticism.

2: Unity of God (Tawhid)

Perhaps no other category is as important to deny, from the Christian perspective, as the Islamic misconception that Christians believe in and worship three separate gods. This accusation is the one issue we must center all our energies on to condemn. Obviously, it is this “polytheism” which disturbs Muslims the most.

Christians and Muslims, alike, worship the God of Abraham. Furthermore, Muslims and Christians, alike, are monotheistic, believing in only one, righteous, and transcendent, creator God. Muslims must understand that we echo them on this point. The key verse of the Torah of the Prophet Moses states that: “The Lord our God is one Lord; and you shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your might” (Deuteronomy 6:4). God is one and He commands us to love Him totally.

Jesus Christ, speaking more than one-thousand years after the prophet Moses says: “The Lord our God, the Lord is one; and you shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your mind, and with all your strength” (Mark 12:28-30 and Matthew 22:37). Remember that this is the man who claims to have equality with God who is speaking.

Thus, both the Torah and the Gospel (Injil) agree that God is one. We are commanded to love one God. Only He has the right to command our ultimate loyalty. All other gods which man invents are totally false (Hosea 13:2,3).

The greatest criticism against Christianity posed by Muslims is, ironically, the ridiculous view of the plurality of God. Muslims contend that the Bible teaches God is made up of three: “God the Father, Mary the mother, and Jesus the son” (Suras 5:73 and 5:116). This view is more repugnant to Christians than it is to Muslims, as it claims something which the scriptures never even alluded to, while at the same time it contradicts the theology of the church both before and after Muhammad’s time.

Obviously, an error of this magnitude puts suspicion on the veracity of the Qur’anic sources. If these were direct revelations from an all-knowing God, why, then did He not know what His previous revelations said, or at least what those who received it believed?

A more likely explanation points to a source closer to home. Research reveals that there was a heretical Christian sect, known as the Choloridians, who had contact with Muhammad during his tenure in Mecca, who taught a view of the trinity similar to what we find described in the Qur’an.

We must say, however, to our Muslim friends, that from the scriptures we find revealed a Divine unity of three Characters: God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit, commonly known as, “The Trinity.” It is impossible to fully define the mystery of God as “triune.” To correspond with Biblical revelation, the Christian must equally emphasize that God is one and three. Though God is immensely complex, and cannot be exhaustively known, He has so revealed Himself in scripture that He can be truly known. The early church theologians wrestled with the difficulty of defining God from what is revealed in scripture with the limitations of the human language, which had no word to express the reality of one God, who is three (even this definition in English seems illogical, and illustrates the point).

For centuries theologians adopted many words to try to express God’s revelation of Himself as three in one (for instance, words such as three prosopon, hupostasis, and trias), yet they were all inadequate. It was the early church theologian, Tertullian (145-220 A.D.) who finally coined the word trinity, which was adopted three centuries later by the Church.

Therefore, we readily admit that the word trinity does not exist in the Bible. It is simply a theological term which expresses what the scriptures delineate as God comprised of three persons, who are infinite, yet personal, in complete unity of will, purpose, action and love, yet cannot be separated though they have different functions.

The scriptures speak of God the Father, who is the co-Creator with God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit, who blesses (Ephesians 1:3-4), initiates (John 17:2-9), and sends (John 17:3,18). God, the Son, who speaks-out the creation (John 1:1), and acts into history, both during the time of the prophets (Genesis 32:25-30; Exodus 3:2-5; 13:21; 33:9-11; Judge 2:1), and physically incarnated as the savior, the historical Jesus Christ (John 1:14).

And finally, the scriptures speak of God, the Holy Spirit, who is resident within the followers of Jesus Christ, who guides, instructs and empowers them (John 14:16-17), and who mediates Jesus Christ and His atoning work (John 15:26).

Jesus referred to this ‘Trinity in Unity’ when He commanded His apostles to go everywhere and to persuade men to become His disciples, and to baptize believers, “…in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit” (Matthew 28:19).

It is important that God as “Father” must not be viewed within a biological context. Christians share with Muslims the prohibition against conceiving of God in the form of an image (made by humans). God as “Father” refers, rather, to a relationship; a description of the covenant and fellowship relationship between God and humanity. Nonetheless, it is this relationship of the Godhead which confounds Muslims profoundly, especially in the context of God the Father, and Jesus the Son. “How,” they ask, “can Jesus, a man, be God?” The audacity of equating a puny man with the transcendent God begs understanding. And we agree, as the assumption behind this question is that somehow the prophet Jesus was given divine status by His followers: thus, Jesus became God. Yet, nowhere in our scriptures do we find that Jesus became God. He always was, from the beginning, God (John 1:1). Muslims, therefore, are asking the wrong question! It would be more correct to turn the question around and ask, “How can God be the man, Jesus?” I have not yet met a Muslim who claims that becoming a man is not possible for God. It would be simple for God to come down to earth and take on human form. On that we agree. The question, then, that Muslims should be asking, is not How can Jesus be God, or How did God become a man, but Why did God become a man. Once we answer why God took on the form of a human, then the question of How loses it’s relevancy.

When Christians explain the trinity to a Muslim as I have above, they neutralize any criticism leveled against Jesus of being totally other than God. With that established, Christians can point to the function of Jesus, as redeemer, which highlights the price of our sin, and reminds us that though we cannot pay for the consequences of our sins, God can, and has done so. Jesus, the Christ, by taking on Himself that substitute responsibility, not only proved Himself to be divine and, therefore, equal with God, but showed Himself to be worthy of our thanks and worship, in that He has now eradicated eternal death brought on by sin. This, then, answers why God became a man.

Perhaps, the problem between Muslims and Christians has been accentuated due to the “Christian” environment in which transplanted Muslims find themselves; an environment which Muslims have incorrectly assumed is polytheistic. The Prophet, Muhammad, had similar circumstances during his tenure in Mecca, where the polytheistic practices of the local religion caused him to speak out clearly and often against idolatry. Therefore, it stands to reason that the reactionary concept of God as one unit would be the focus of the Muslim evangelistic thrust. In the bookstore of the Islamic Center, on Massachusetts Avenue, in Washington D.C., I counted six books which dealt with the subject. I took special note that these had been strategically placed near the door to attract the attention of any browser who happened to enter.

Above the entrance of the Dar Al Hijrah Mosque, in Falls Church, Virginia, inscribed into the facade, is a quote from the Qur’an reminding the adherents that God is unique (one unit). This is the first inscription an individual sees when they come to do their prayers.

I wonder whether this same emphasis would be evident in a Pakistani or Middle Eastern mosque, where, due to the small number of Christian churches present, the doctrine of the trinity is not so pronounced.

Three people in my survey felt that Islam is the only religion which gives every individual the choice for their own salvation. I find that curious, since every knowledgeable Muslim I have asked has clearly stated that Muslims have no assurance for their salvation; that the choice can only come from Allah, and that the outcome will only be known at the day of judgment.

These respondents may have been confusing one’s choice for salvation with that of conversion to Islam, the fact that one can choose it. If so, then more needs to be said on the freedom of Muslims to also reject “inherited” Islam. Many western Muslims have not adequately reviewed the strict laws concerning apostasy in Islam, which gives little freedom, whatsoever, for the rejection of one’s faith.

3: Brotherhood

I was initially surprised with the assertion by many converts that Islam evidenced a high degree of Brotherhood. In my discussions with African-Americans, it soon dawned on me that many of them were mis-informed or ignorant concerning the historic record of Islam. To say that, “Islam offers a greater degree of brotherhood because it is not responsible for slavery, and harbors no racism,” is just not credible.

Understandably (as I have been often reminded), the majority of African-Americans have been hurt by racism in America. Every one whom I talked with had stories to tell of discrimination at the hands of whites. One black Muslim approached me in a mosque, and, confronting me three inches from my face, yelled at me that he hated all whites, and blamed his present poverty on “white racist attitudes.”

The perception of African-Americans that I have met maintains that racism in America can be blamed on white Christianity, since whites control and perpetuate Christianity. Islam, on the other hand, because it comes from a non-white part of the world, has no such racist stigma.

There are those who believe that Christianity, alone, must be blamed for the enslavement of the black race. Although, historically, the church did condone slavery, and even, at times, used scripture for its substantiation; the majority of historians today agree that it was Christian missionaries overseas, and Christian clergymen in the homeland who were responsible for the leadership of the Abolitionist Movements against slavery in America and elsewhere (Wilberforce and the “Clapham Sect” in London, for example). While Europeans were involved with the slave trade for a few hundred years, the existence of the traffic of “slaves” had been well established one-thousand years before.

The position which places the entire blame for the invention and practice of black slavery at the door of Christian Europe, is simply not historically tenable. Both the Grecian and Roman societies were slave states, yet most of their slaves were Caucasian. In fact, the word “slave” meant a person who was of Slavic origin. Robert Hughes, in his essay on “The Fraying of America” in the February 3, 1992 Time magazine puts the record straight when he says:

The African slave trade as such, the black traffic, was an Arab invention, developed by traders with the enthusiastic collaboration of black African ones, institutionalized with the most unrelenting brutality, centuries before the white man appeared on the African continent, and continuing long after the slave market in North America was finally crushed… Nothing in the writings of the Prophet [Muhammad] forbids slavery, which is why it became such an Arab-dominated business. And the slave traffic could not have existed without the wholehearted cooperation of African tribal states, built on the supply of captives generated by their relentless wars. The image promulgated by pop-history fictions like Roots-white slavers bursting with cutlass and musket into the settled lives of peaceful African villages-is very far from the historical truth. A marketing system had been in place for centuries, and its supply was controlled by Africans. Nor did it simply vanish with Abolition. Slave markets, supplying the Arab emirates, were still operating in Djibouti in the 1950’s; and since 1960, the slave trade has flourished in Mauritania and the Sudan. There are still reports of chattel slavery in northern Nigeria, Rwanda and Niger (Hughes 1992:49).

It would be helpful for those who believe that Islam was responsible for eradicating slavery, as did the imam I talked with, to honestly look at the historical record. Slavery still exists in some North African Muslim countries today (Mauritania, Mali), yet receives little or no attention, let alone criticism from other Muslim states.

Finally, one needs to look at the record of Muhammad’s life, a man who, himself, owned slaves. The argument, by some, that slavery was “God’s way of converting Africans to Islam,” is much the same argument suggested by some earlier Christians who said that, “bringing Africans to America gave them the opportunity to hear the Gospel;” an argument which holds little credibility, and dishonors the character of God.

Many Muslims mentioned that the best example of Brotherhood in Islam is found during the Hajj: Understandably, this is a heightened time for many pilgrims, a time to put away one’s prejudices and to enjoy this once-in-a-life occasion. What needs to be asked, however, is what happens after the Hajj, when people return home again, and are confronted with the everyday problems facing them? Does the ideal of brotherhood remain with them once they come back home?

I asked this question of the imam of the Harrisburg Masjid. He agreed that within Islam, the problem of racism still exists. He was well aware that his masjid is made up almost exclusively of African-Americans, while the more affluent Asian Pakistanis and Indians preferred their own Islamic center a few miles distant. A further concern was that rather than investing in the masjid, which needed repair, the Asian immigrant group were, at that time, conducting a fund-raising program for constructing a new, and modern center farther out-of-town, in an area approachable only by car (Not wasted on the imam was the fact that few of the black converts owned cars).

He mentioned that none of these Asian immigrant Muslims would ever condone the marriage of one of their daughters to any African-American. “Even the Asian women,” he stated, “move away from our women, when we occasionally go to visit.”

While interviewing the imam of the Masjid Muhammad, in central Washington D.C., and the administrator at the Masjid Ul-Haqq, in Baltimore, I found that both related almost identical situations of racial ostracism by the Asian Muslim community. Yet, each felt that the problem had more to do with economic and cultural differences than with color or race. I agree that these are more likely the reason for the animosity. Yet, to claim that what is happening within white Christian communities is somehow different, is in my opinion dishonest. We are all guilty of gravitating to and preferring those of “our own kind.”

Christian missiologists have long recognized the need for people of different backgrounds and cultures to worship in settings which are the most similar to their own. Thus, Donald McGavran’s HUP principle (Homogenous Unit Principle), which speaks to this very issue, is now being adopted by many denominations throughout the U.S.A. and the world.

Muslims in America will soon see that the lack of integration in their groupings is not as much one of racism, as much as it is that of multi-culturalism. The fact is that people do reflect the culture in which they were born, and so prefer to worship God in a familiar setting, whether that be familiar forms of worship, familiar dress, language, or ethnic groupings.

Other respondents were attracted to Islam’s teaching on enquiry and broadmindedness and felt that the tolerance within Islam is, indeed, unique. Again, I found this surprising, as few people I know would designate Islam as a religion which embodies these attributes. Rather, the opposite seems to pertain.

Most religious historians agree that the primary reason for Islam’s decline after the tenth Century had to do with the threat Muslim clerics felt towards the enquiry into scientific advances which seemingly did not agree with the Qur’an. Take for instance the present on-going restrictions for Qur’anic schools in the West which are only permitted to teach science and philosophy within the parameters of the Qur’an. A better known example is that of the Fatwa imposed on the Briton, Salman Rushdie, by the Fundamentalist Muslim world, which points to a blatant lack of broadmindedness, and enquiry.

Furthermore, people who are knowledgeable concerning world events agree that there are few Muslim nations that grant full equality to other religions. In my own personal experience, I have seen, first-hand the persecution of not only the adherents of foreign religions (and of Islamic sects, such as the Ahmaddiyas), but also the persecution of those who are sent to propagate other than Islamic beliefs (particularly foreign missionaries). Despite the denial by many Muslims in the West that this problem exists, the absence of religious freedom is evidenced most profoundly worldwide within Muslim countries.

For example, there are eleven countries worldwide whose stated belief is strictly imposed, while all other beliefs are repressed. Two of them are communist (N.Korea and Angola), one is Buddhist (Bhutan), and the remaining eight are all Muslim (Mauritania, Libya, Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, Qatar, Iran, Pakistan, and the Maldives) (Kidron 1991:72-73). It is difficult to find an aura of toleration in statistics like these.

Even the Qur’an is unclear on this matter. How does one reconcile the verse which maintains “no compulsion in religion” (Sura 2:256), with others which call Muslims to, “Slay the idolaters wherever you find them, and take them [captive], and besiege them, and prepare for them each ambush” (Sura 9:5), or the call to, “strike off their heads in battle” (Sura 47:4), and “make war on the unbeliever in Allah, until they pay tribute” (Sura 9:29)? Muslims are also asked to, “fight then…until the religion be all of it Allah’s (Sura 8:39), threatening “a painful doom to those who disbelieve” (Sura 9:3), seemingly a call for the eradication of all other beliefs, and certainly not one for toleration.

Is it no wonder that of the twenty religious conflicts worldwide in the 1980’s, sixteen of them involved Islam, and twelve of these were against people from other faiths. Passages from the Qur’an, backed up with current statistics such as the above paint a rather contrasting picture of Islam to that volunteered by the new converts.

4: Islamic Morality

The discrepancy evidenced within the surveys, between the earlier European group, who did not consider morality an important issue towards their conversion, and those more recent respondees from the U.S.A., who did, may have something to do with their differing geographical locations, as well as having a common misconception of Christians.

Those Europeans who had written their testimonies, had been introduced to Islam while traveling in foreign lands, either while performing military duties or while overseas in diplomatic service. Many of them had written little concerning the moral condition of the host countries. Their attraction to Islam had been due, primarily, to the precepts it taught, and not due, as much, to the testimony of its adherents.

Furthermore, most of these European converts came from Christian backgrounds, and so had no problem differentiating between the immorality expressed in a culture, and that practiced by Christians. In those days, I would assume that the overt societal immorality was not considered as much of a problem as it is today.

On the other hand, the majority of those who chose this category as important, are present-day Americans, who had rarely, if ever, traveled to a Muslim country (except the trip to perform the Hajj in Saudi Arabia). Their sole criteria for choosing, therefore, was the positive testimony of Islam in their own neighborhoods, a testimony which fared well when contrasted with that of church-attending Christians, as has been discussed earlier. Therefore, the moral standards of Muslims had a greater impact on their decision to choose Islam, as they contrasted the morality of Muslim friends with that of Christianity. Interestingly, it might be helpful to note that, according to INTERPOL, the number of sex offenses in the USA, a supposed “Christian country,” came only twenty-second on the list of countries worldwide (with thirty-five cases per one-hundred thousand people), almost half as many as Kuwait (with sixty per one-hundred thousand).

Concerning the mistreatment of women by Christians, in all fairness, there are men in every culture and religion who mistreat their wives, regardless of whether or not this is permitted by their religion. They should not be held as representative of a particular culture or religion. It would be far more helpful to investigate the religious teachings which deal with the treatment of women to see whether or not each authority gives women the equality and respect they deserve.

Christianity has a high regard for women, and considers them equal to men in the eyes of God. If a Christian man chooses to dishonor his wife he is disobeying the scriptures, which say, “Husbands love your wives as Christ loved the Church.” According to our scriptures, Christ loved the church (and, in fact, the whole world) so much that He gave His life for her. This is the example we are to follow with our wives, a relationship which centers on self-sacrifice.

Islam, however, has little to say concerning the sacrifice of a husband towards his wife. Instead Islam allows a husband to divorce his wife without giving a reason for his actions (Sura 2:224-230). In addition to the four wives allowed by law, a Muslim man can have an unlimited number of slave girls as concubines (sexual partners) according to Sura al-Nisa (Women) 4:24. Furthermore, women are required to be absolutely obedient to their husband, and can be beaten for being rebellious (Sura 4:38). No such privilege, however, is reserved for the wife (Sura 4:11,176). There is, therefore, more allowance for a Muslim man to mistreat his wife than there is for a Christian husband. I will say, however, that in my experience with Muslim men, I have not seen many who have mistreated their wives as one would expect, considering the permissibility they have to do so.

Perhaps the greatest obstacle, for a Christian, in answering, “Why do evil people exist within a Christian environment?” may be in defining what is a Christian environment versus that of a secular state. For a Muslim, society, itself, is defined by Islam. All facets of that society must come under Islam’s authority. Therefore, all areas, including that of morality, come under Allah’s control. The Muslim hierarchy, as his regents, then take on that authority, interpreting and defining how people are to act; and what punishments, if deserved, they must receive.

For a Christian, one’s morality is measured by scripture and by their personal relationship with God. God, the Holy Spirit, admonishes the individuals character and conduct. The elected Church leaders do have authority for guiding and counseling believers to adhere to the precepts found within scripture. Yet, the only punitive control they have is in their ability to excommunicate recalcitrant parishioners. Thus, individuals, who live within a “Christian society,” such as we find in most western countries today, where the Church exists distinct from any political authority, do not come under the church’s jurisdiction. How they live morally, is up to each person. They are answerable directly to God. The church has no real authority, other than to give them guidance, if and when they ask for it.

What I find exciting, however, is the testimony of Christians who have come under the love-authority of God, the Holy Spirit. One is always overwhelmed with the testimonies of how their lives have been changed, and how this transformation, in turn, has affected others.

I once had a conversation with a Muslim businessman from Senegal, who claimed that the Islamic lifestyle (which included its ethics and social practices) was better suited to the world today, than was Christianity’s. I asked him, therefore, to show me where there was a country or region of the world which adhered correctly to these “better-suited” precepts of Islam? He, of course, was unable to show me, saying that, “All Muslim countries are run by men who don’t follow the Shariah,” and that was the reason Islam was having so many problems today. I then asked him to point out individuals who follow Islam correctly, and he began to name off a list of Muslim celebrities, many of whom were politicians or well-known religious figures.

My response was that according to his argument: Islam must be a religion for super-humans alone, or for people who were very rich, or very famous, or very disciplined; because only these could follow it correctly.

I, then, projected a video-tape of a Billy Graham Crusade altar call, and told him to notice the hundreds of people marching forward to commit their lives to Jesus. I told him that the majority of these people were not rich or famous, and perhaps not very disciplined. In fact, I would even venture to say that all of them considered themselves sinners, and probably had many problems in their lives. Yet, if we were to talk with them a year later, we would find that there had been a dynamic change in their lives; and that they would be continuing to change more and more into the “character of Jesus Christ.” And of even more importance, this dramatic character change would not only affect their own lives, but also, many others around them.

“Thus,” I concluded, “While Islam requires an immense amount of disciplined effort, it offers no outside help towards its fulfillment.” “Therefore,” I contended, “Islam is nothing more than another natural religion, one which takes superhuman effort to obey. Christianity, on the other hand, proves to be a supernatural religion, a religion which requires something no one could hope to obey on their own, yet which is being followed by thousands and millions, worldwide, because of their repentance, and the supernatural power of God, the Holy Spirit, in their lives.” Which, then, is the better-suited for the world today?

For this reason, true Christians, deny that America is a “Christian society.” The scriptures are clear on this point: “Many will call Him ‘Lord, Lord,’ but [God] will not recognize them.” Only the living God knows the heart condition of a man or woman. Clearly, the example of most Americans show that they do not heed the call of Jesus Christ, nor do many display the witness (the proof) of God, the Holy Spirit, admonishing them in the ways of the Lord.

Contents | Part 1 | Part 2 | Part 3 | Part 4

The Attraction of Islam and a Christian’s Response – Part 1

Jay Smith

Contents | Part 1 | Part 2 | Part 3 | Part 4

---

Introduction

Islam is not perceived by most people as a religion which is overtly evangelistic. In fact, the vast majority of individuals who are Muslims today, are so because of their birth. Personally, I have always believed that Islam, because it is a religion condusive to the Arab mindset, to its worldview; has a much higher attraction amongst those who either come from that part of the world, or have had strong cultural ties with it. Only recently was I made aware of Islam’s dynamic evangelistic thrust (known as Da’wah, or ‘the call’), and that it is growing, not simply by biological growth, but by conversion growth as well.

In my work in Senegal, and during my stay in the central part of Pennsylvania, I had personally seen an increasing evangelistic thrust by Islam amongst the native populations. The local mosque in Harrisburg, near where we lived, claimed to convert approximately three to four Americans per month. The Muslims there had plans to enlarge their premises so that they could build an Islamic Center which would cater specifically to North Americans. When speaking in churches, many people who had come into contact with Muslims asked me why Islam was growing worldwide, and what the attraction was. Unfortunatley, I had not been able to adequately answer them, because little had been done by Christians to ascertain what it was the Muslims were doing, or how successful their endeavors were, and why it was that those who were from outside the faith were attracted to Islam.

Previously, in Senegal, it had been simple enough to answer the question, “Why was Islam attractive?” as 92% of the population in Senegal is Muslim. Thus, most of the people there are born into Muslim families, and continue the religious traditions they have inherited.

In the United States, however, this is not the case. Most of those who have been attracted, or who have converted to Islam, have come from either Christian or non-religious backgrounds. They have, therefore, made a deliberate choice to reject a former faith and become believers in Islam. For that reason they are the best qualified to answer the question of, “What exactly is the attraction of Islam?”

In order to carry out this research I needed to conduct personal interviews with individuals who had converted to Islam, and find out from each why he or she had converted, what were the methods used, and how they had fared now that they were Muslims (including the acceptance or rejection felt by their family and friends).

These face-to-face contacts were not possible in the area I was living. Therefore, in 1992, over a period of four months, I traveled to seven different cities: Harrisburg, Lancaster, New York, Montreal (Canada), Philadelphia, Baltimore, and Washington D.C. In each city, in the mosques or Islamic centers, I was able to participate in numerous prayer sessions, and attend many religious meetings. I also talked with seven imams and interviewed over thirty American converts, some of them at length, and others more briefly.

From these conversations, along with printed written testimonies and my ongoing research, I was able to glean the necessary data to determine what the “Da’iyyahs” (Muslim evangelists) have done, what they are continuing to do, and what they plan to do.

To find out what the convertees felt were the factors for their conversion, I administered a questionnaire by mail to about twenty converts of Islam, and had personal interviews with the others whom I met in the mosques and Islamic centres. From their responses I was able to tabulate the 12 most common reasons for converting to Islam. They are listed below (in order of importance):

1. Islam’s Social Laws

2. The Unity of God (Tawhid)

3. Brotherhood (taught and practiced)

4. The Morality of Islam

5. The Qur’an’s beauty and applicability

6. The Simplicity of Islamic teaching

7. The Testimony of Other Muslims

8. Islam’s Rationality

9. The Practices of Islam

10. Its Superiority to all other Religions

11. The Theology found in the Qur’an

12. Islam’s Spirituality

With this information, I have been able to come to some conclusions concerning the attraction of Islam for Americans, and whether or not the reasons for Islam’s attraction will continue in the future. The following, then, is a summary of the significance of those studies.

1: Islam’s Social Laws

While some may be surprised to find Islam’s social laws at the top of the list, most of those whom I talked to had good, solid reasons why they felt it should be of the highest motivation for converting. In this category were included a number of factors from the original list (see paper on Da’wah in North America, Figure 1, page 106). For instance, a number of individuals felt that these social laws are comprehensive, that they are a complete guide to life, and consequently, that they brought about orderly living. This points up the fact that people need boundaries by which to live, especially in a society like the U.S. which emphasizes catering to special interest groups, while leaving-out the needs of the majority.

As a contrast, quite a few responders felt Christianity was just not powerful enough to change the evils of modern-day life. The majority of those who expressed this idea were African-American, all of whom live in inner-city areas of some of the largest urban centers in America. They see, first-hand, the anarchy going on all around them, and they feel Islam is the only religion which can stand up to the deprivation and violence, the racism and injustices in the U.S.A.

A number of those with whom I talked had come into contact with Islam in prison; and there, they had been reformed by “Muslim brothers” who came weekly for the Jumma prayers and Qur’anic classes. Now that they were “out,” they believed the disciplined lifestyle, espoused by Islamic laws, was the sole criteria to keep them from going “back in.” They were appreciative of the local masjid’s role in driving out drug dealers from their inner-city neighborhoods, and the ongoing campaigns to keep children off the streets and out of gangs.

A further attraction is Islam’s lack of a priesthood. Islam has no medial agents. As a result, the believer is not dependent on some-one else for his relationship to God, but can go directly to Allah.

The subject of an “Islamic education for young children, while they were still impressionable,” was mentioned frequently. I personally visited four Muslim schools; two Sister Clara Muhammad Schools, in Philadelphia and in Washington D.C., and two Qur’anic schools in Baltimore, at the Al Rahman Masjid, and the Masjid Ul-Haqq. While the schools appeared to be small and ill-equipped, the children appeared to be well-disciplined and happy. And, not surprisingly, the schools had become the center for other Islamic activity in their local areas.

According to imam Yusuf Saleem, from Washington D.C., though the students do not excel academically any better than they did at the public schools, the problems of discipline, crime, and sexual abuse are almost non-existent in these Muslim schools. That is their greatest attraction.

I made a particular note, that among the responders, there were three women who felt that Islam permitted them to own property, and that Islam gave them the best protection. While this may surprise some of us, the perception by most Muslims with whom I talked is that, “We take care of our women better than do the Christians.”

2: The Unity of God (Tawhid)

Monotheism, or the belief in the oneness of God, again, came near the top of this priority list. Under this heading I included the problem with the belief in the Trinity, the fact that Islam has no intercessor, and the belief that, “Each person has a choice in his/her salvation.”

The first and greatest teaching of Islam is proclaimed by the Shahada: “La Ilaha illa-l-lah, Muhammadun rasulu-l-lah.” (“There is no god but Allah, and Muhammad is the apostle of Allah.”) It is this very confession, which, once uttered sincerely, makes one a true Muslim. In Islam, Allah is one (Wahid), and has no partners, no equals. According to the Qur’an, Sura 28;88, it is stated: “And cry not unto any other god along with Allah. There is no god save him.” Thus, Allah is totally other. He created and maintains the world, and since Allah is one, no one else can share even an atom of his divine power and authority. Islam makes it clear that Allah has no son, no father, no relative, and no associates.

In the Hadith, Muhammad is reported to have related the ninety-nine names of Allah, to express some of his attributes. A number of these are: that he is merciful (that he provides humanity with food, drink, the means of movement, and all the necessities of life), that he is all-powerful (omnipotent), that he is wise and all-knowing (omniscient), and that he is eternal (has no beginning and no end).

This idea of the uniqueness of God (Tawhid) is repeated time and again in the Islamic institutions I have visited. In fact, there have been instances where I wondered if, indeed, they did it solely for my benefit when I appeared.

A number of my friends in the Harrisburg mosque questioned why we needed an intercessor, and specifically one who was human? They felt that in giving Jesus deity we had diluted the power of God, in that God would then be dependent on someone else to fulfill His purposes on earth. “Islam,” they felt, “corrected that perception, and put God back in his rightful place, where he belonged.”

In my conversations, the relationship of Jesus to God caused concern, as well. The administrator of the Masjid Ul-Haqq, in Baltimore, asked, “How could we believe that God would ever let Himself be killed?” and “Where is Jesus now?” “If He is sitting at the right hand of God, then that would imply that there are two gods, and that Jesus never went back into His original form (one with God).” It was this very idea, which directed this administrator, the son of a second-generation Baptist minister, to accept Islam as, “The only true religion,” and to become, probably, the most eloquent defender of Islam of those whom I interviewed.

Obviously it is clear to see that the belief in the uniqueness of God, and the rejection of Jesus as the Son of God, have a strong appeal. In fact, if we were to combine the two lists together (referred to in the paper on Da’wah), this category would be placed right at the top, in first place.

3: Brotherhood

The idea of a sense of Brotherhood was the third most popular attraction for these converts. In this category is included the ideas of equality, charity and love, as well as the view that Islam allows for tolerance and broadmindedness. The universal brotherhood and equality for all Muslims is a cardinal tenet of Islam.

Poston, in his study found, curiously, that while almost all Europeans mentioned this category, not a single American male did so. The Europeans, he discovered, believed that Islam had a distinctively positive stand on social justice and racial equality (Poston 1992:178).

In my research, I found that this area, which was ranked second by those from a primarily European background, came third among African-Americans. Yet, the stress on “Brotherhood” was probably the most often mentioned in any interviews, among these same African-American converts. Almost without exception, they believed Christianity had failed miserably, stating in one case that, “Islam gives identity to the dispossessed, providing them with Allah’s identity, which is larger then one’s own. That is why Islam will always be accepted by the Blacks.”

This same individual, a son of a minister in Harrisburg, and, himself, the imam for the masjid there, believes that, “It is Islam which has eradicated slavery, and it will be the Blacks who will be the forerunners of Islam, worldwide, fulfilling what Muhammad prophesied during his life-time concerning Bilal’s descendants.”

When discussing the attribute of Brotherhood with Muslims, they point out that only in Islam does racism not exist. To back this up, they point to the Hajj, where millions of believers come together from many social, economical, and ethnic backgrounds, to put on robes, and fulfill the obligations prescribed in the Qur’an; all in unison, with no thought as to who or from where the person standing next to them is.

4: Islamic Morality

A surprising priority in the second listing was the category of Islam’s morality. For those who accepted Islam earlier-on, morality was near the bottom of their preferences, yet, for the more recent responders, the question of morality was the fourth most important category.

In Poston’s research, he similarly found that, eighteen percent of those who responded within the United States considered Islamic morality as the most significant factor for conversion, while only five percent of the Europeans mentioned it. He assumed the difference was due to a conservative American environment (Poston 1988:429).

Many of those I interviewed also equated the immorality of the West with that of weakened Christianity, believing it was the lack of correct ethical teaching and practice that had brought about the hopeless situation found within the inner-city families, where over fifty percent of all African-American families are now made-up-of and run by a single parent.

Others I interviewed believed Christians were hypocritical. A young Muslim in Harrisburg asked me, “Why are Christians holy only one day out of the week?” Another in New York stated that, “Of the families he knew, the Muslim men treated their women better than did the Christians, with few Muslims ever considering cheating on their wives.”

One administrator in a Baltimore mosque pointed out that the very day I was with him, the leader of the largest Black Baptist convention had just admitted to attempting to bribe a young girl with one-hundred thousand dollars to keep her quiet concerning an attempted rape by a well-known boxer, who had just offered to give five million dollars to that church. This, he said, does not happen amongst Muslims in the U.S.A.

Unfortunately, some of this is true. Islam, without taking the antics of earlier Muslim leaders into account, often does have a better moral witness than that of Christianity. Even in Africa, the rule-of-thumb is that a woman is safer on the streets of an Islamic capital than those of a Christian one. Our own experience in Senegal bears this out as well. Because of Islam’s stricter social laws, there will be dividends in areas such as morality. In any highly controlled society, there will be noticeable and direct consequences, and Islam can well-afford to claim credit where credit is due.

5: The Qur’an’s Beauty and Applicability

Both groups believed that the Qur’an was important in their decision to convert to Islam. They felt an almost mystical quality in the Qur’an, which they could not explain. The mere reading of it gave them unspeakable joy.

While Jews accept the Old Testament, and Christians accept both the Old Testament and the New Testament revelations as authoritative, Muslims consider the first three existing “revelations:” the Tawrut, the Zabur, and the Injil to be so. Yet, Muslims believe that human imperfections, or abrogations, have been introduced into the Tawrut and Injil. The Bible, they say, seems to be a mixture of history and revelation. Therefore, it is extremely difficult to separate the true revelation in the Bible from that of “history” and human intervention.

For that reason, the Qur’an, they believe, was sent as the perfection and culmination of all the truth contained in the “earlier scripture,” The Bible. Though written down in Arabic, The Qur’an is the Book for all times, and for all humanity. It guards the previous revelations by restoring the eternal truth of Allah (Sura 3:3-4a), and clears up all uncertainties.

In the Harrisburg Islamic Center I was introduced to an older man from Pakistan, who was highly revered for having memorized the entire Qur’an. Though he had been in the United States for a number of years, he could hardly speak a word of English, and so was totally dependent on others for his transportation and welfare. Yet, it was he who led the exercises of Qur’anic reading, and whenever he entered the room people stopped whatever they were doing and bowed. This is an example of the Qur’ans mystique, influencing Muslims worldwide.

Since the Qur’an is so highly honoured, it is treated honourably. No one would be permitted to let their Qur’an touch the floor. Every individual, therefore, is urged to use ornately decorated book-stands to rest their Qur’an on when studying its contents. My Muslim friends were horrified to learn that Christians not only stacked Bibles alongside other lesser books, but wrote notes in the margins.

Quite a few individuals explained that it was the beauty of the Arabic text in the Qur’an which had the greatest influence on them. One imam mentioned that “the wording within the Qur’an is pleasing and beautiful, and as such, a good guide.” He pointed to Sura 24:35-38, and Sura 2:3-18 as good examples of this.

6: The Simplicity of Islamic Teaching

Simplicity is an attraction which is mentioned by many Muslim converts. “Islam,” according to one imam in Harrisburg, “has a simple message for the world; believe in God and his prophets, and live a life which follows the Qur’an, and all will be well.”

Essentially Islam requires, only, that a convert repeat the “Shahada” (“There is no God but Allah and Muhammad is his Messenger”) to become a Muslim, and then throughout his life to follow the Five Pillars of practice (the Shahada, the five daily Prayers: Zakat, the Fast of Rammadan, the Pilgrimage to Mecca: Hajj, and Almsgiving: Zakat), and know the Six Areas of Belief (Iman). But these are not complicated actions or beliefs, and require no engagement in theological or philosophical speculation.

“Theologically speaking,” according to another Muslim friend, “Islam has little to impede its understanding. There are no mysteries which get in the way. Even a child can explain it and follow it.” This is the reason, he believes, that Islam will always be more attractive than Christianity. If the believers can understand it, then they can, in turn, explain it to others.

For some, surprisingly, the flexibility of Islam has been an attraction. “It gives us lee-way to express our own African-American culture; to practice our own identity.” When queried further, the responder explained that, only in Islam does he feel free to be black, because only Islam admits to the injustices put upon the black people by whites, and so gives him the opportunity to become black again.

None of those I questioned felt that the Arab culture or its language was being imposed upon them; believing instead that Islam with its Arabic influence was really Allah’s culture and Allah’s language.

Another attraction is the dearth of religious trappings in Islam. There are no idols or lavish decorations as is well-evidenced in many Roman Catholic cathedrals and in Eastern Orthodox paraphernalia.

“The mosque,” a believer from Baltimore said, “is the best example of simplicity. There is nothing there to clutter your mind. You enter, and all around you are four empty walls, a carpeted floor, and the microphone, facing toward Mecca to focus your thoughts and prayers on God alone. There is no singing to show off your voice; and, to keep your mind from wandering into evil thoughts, women are kept out of sight.” What is more simple than that!

7: The Testimony of Other Muslims

Probably, one of the most recurring ideas which has come out of the literature on “Da’wah in America,” is the attraction of the witness of individual Muslims.

We have already mentioned the success of this witness in the area of morality within the community. The fact is that many individuals have converted because of the witness of another Muslim in their lives.

One of the few white Muslims that I know invited me to his home in Lancaster, Pennsylvania, to discuss his conversion. He admitted that his initial interest and on-going search was due to the example of his roommate in college, a foreign-exchange student from Saudi Arabia. Ironically, this student admitted to having not been very religious while in Saudi Arabia, but that during his studies in the United States, he felt compelled to go regularly to the mosque. It was this witness which so impressed my friend, that he, in turn, acquiesced to Islam eleven years ago.

A number of those who responded to my questions claimed they were attracted by the honesty and trustworthiness shown by the Muslims they had met. But the overwhelming testimony expressed by most converts was the attraction of Muhammad himself. Many converts had seen videotapes of Muhammad’s life, produced and distributed by the Muslim League, for university campuses in the United States. While I am told that some of the historical data in these videotapes is somewhat suspect, there is no question that the story the videos portray of Muhammad as a prophet and statesman has impressed many who have viewed them.

8: The Rationality of Islam

Another category on the list of attractions is Islam’s rationality. Islam is considered to be a supremely rational faith. As was mentioned earlier, there are no real mysteries to explain in Islam, as there are in Christianity. Concepts such as “The Trinity,” and “The belief in the Incarnation,” as well as “The belief in personal sin,” and “The need for Redemption” are areas Muslims do not have to contend with. Islam has no water baptism, no catechisms, and no complicated traditions, as has Christianity.

In fact, interestingly, many responders turned to Islam out of a distaste for these very cardinal beliefs in Christianity. “The mystery of The Trinity, and the untenability of redemption was too much to believe, let alone accept,” one convert said. Other beliefs, such as The Incarnation, The Resurrection, and the belief in Transubstantiation were much “too mystical.” They were ideas which were “not compatible with reason and science.”

Another new convert was disappointed by the Roman Catholic Church, and the inadequacy of nuns who had taught him, because, “They had no explanations for their beliefs, and did not seem to know their Bible well.” He concluded, that, “There is a progression within the three faiths (Judaism, Christianity, and Islam); that…God introduced His revelation through the Jews, but as they kept it to themselves, God gave this revelation to the Christians; yet, they strayed off the path and introduced new and difficult ideas, and, so, Muhammad was sent to re-introduce the simple revelation of Islam.” Rationally-speaking, if one believes in “the evolution of religion,” it makes sense.

9: The Practices of Islam

According to the responses, the most attractive Practices of Islam are: the allowance of polygamy, and the protection of the daily ritual of calling and chanting portions of the Qur’an.

Understandably, none of the women who responded spoke to the issue of polygamy (this being a factor which attracted the men primarily). I was able to speak to an administrator of the oldest mosque in Baltimore, who has two wives, each, with her own residence to live in. He felt that polygamy, when practiced as the Qur’an prescribes, would be a definite asset for Americans today. “Women,” he said, “needed the protection and security men could give.” He believed that the law against polygamy in America would soon fall, as the government would see how advantageous a polygamous marriage could be. He was not ready to explain what advantages these marriages had over monogamy.

On the practice of prayer (Salat), many I interviewed felt that it was best expressed in the context of obedience, which only Islam exemplified. To them the belief that God is personal, that He could be talked-to as with another human-being, was repugnant and audacious.

10: Islam’s Superiority to All Other Religions

The idea that one’s belief system is superior to all others is understood by most adherents; otherwise, there would be no reason to hold to it. Therefore, this category may seem rather redundant. Yet, enough respondents chose this category, believing strongly in the superiority of Islam over all other religions.

As an example, many of the respondees considered Islam to be practical. It is considered by them to be this-worldly, in contrast to Christianity, which is perceived as abstract in the extreme. Rather than preparing the individual for the hereafter, as Christianity does, “Islam,” they say, “provides a solution to the acute needs of human society, answering all of man’s problems, while bringing-in the Kingdom now.” Muhammad, Muslims believe, left behind a political, social, economical, and moral program, founded on religious principles, while Jesus, advocated nothing more than the hope of his imminent return.

Islam is also considered superior because it is compatible with science. Maurice Bucaille’s book The Bible, The Koran, and Science figured in a number of discussions. I was surprised to find that a large proportion of the converts were still not aware that this book has been refuted by many scholars as being erroneous and simplistic. Yet, even today it can be found in many Islamic bookstores.

During my time at the Al Faruqi Mosque in New York city, I was shown a video-tape proving the superiority of the Qur’an as it pointed to embryological breakthroughs which are just now beginning to be understood (i.e., the Alacca, or leech like stage expressed in the Qur’an, fourteen centuries ago, parallels what we can now observe in a human embryo).

Perhaps the greatest reason for Islam’s superiority, according to those who responded, is that it is the final revelation, and so fulfills the revelations which have preceded it. The other faiths were only precursors to the final and greatest faith, that of Islam. Christianity was corrupted and syncretistic, while Islam was preserved in its original form (Poston 1992:177).

Some believed that Islam was superior as “it has had the greatest influence on mankind.” At one session in the Harrisburg Masjid, the converts there related how Islam was responsible for “The Renaissance, Modern Science, and The Reformation!” While they could be blamed for not studying their history better, they could not be blamed for their exuberance in the knowledge that Islam’s influence is exemplified by its rapidly increasing population worldwide.

11: The Theology Found in The Qur’an

Theology is the cornerstone of any religion, and is studied and analyzed by great minds. For that reason it is not recommended that one use theology as a tool for evangelizing. It is surprising, therefore, that this area was chosen by some as the reason for their conversions.

A possible explanation could be, that the new adherents may not have understood what they were adopting. Take, for instance, the idea, offered by a few, that, “Islam has no doctrine of sin.” Very few Muslims would accept this conclusion. In fact, one woman who answered a questionnaire took offense to this statement, commenting that “nowhere in all her reading did Islam make this claim.”

As a contrast, Poston discovered that the sin question was actually a deterrent for Christianity. Only one of the seventy-two he questioned, believed that sin was a factor for conversion. Many felt they were not sinful people, that the Christian doctrine of original sin was repulsive, and for this reason they found Islam’s view of the innate goodness of humanity appealing (Poston 1992:175).

For a Muslim, personal sin is a private matter. The idea that one’s sin is consequential from one generation to the next does not exist. This is due to the belief that “Satan is the root of all sin; and Allah, who is all-merciful, will quickly forgive those who ask for forgiveness.” There is one sin, however, which is unforgivable, the sin of “shirk,” the practice of associating anyone or anything with Allah. It is this very category, according to Muslims, that Christianity, with its belief in the “Son of God,” falls into.

Sin, furthermore, is not necessarily the person’s responsibility. The sin of Adam and Eve (Adama and Hauwa) was not really their fault, as they were tricked by Satan, and, “they asked for forgiveness, and were given it.” Thus, contrary to the prevailing view of the Biblical account, their sin is not hereditarily passed-on.

For the Muslim, one’s salvation is attained not by faith alone, but also by works: by observing the five pillars of Islamic practice, by avoiding the major and the minor sins, as well as having faith. It is simple and easy to understand, and even easier to accept. Therein lies its attraction.

To add to the simplicity is Islam’s view on Paradise, described as a perfumed garden of material and sensual delights, surrounded by rivers and flowing fountains, populated with black-eyed virgins, who are there to serve the men with all variety of fruits (Suras 47 & 56).

On the other hand, a vivid hell (Gahenna) awaits those who fail the test, a hell which consists of boiling water, gore and fire, a hell of extreme physical pain (Suras 4, 38, & 50).

The theology of piety, that Muslims must be dutiful in their religion, conversely, is well-known in Muslim circles, and well-practiced. “If Muslims are anything,” one African-American convert told me, “they are disciplined in their faith, always filling the mosque for Jumma (Friday) prayers, and dutifully bringing their children to the Sunday School.”

Another convert told me that “Islamic theology is better then that of Christianity, because it is comprehensive; it tells you what to believe in every area of life.” Whether he was confusing Muslim practices with its theology, I am not sure. The impression is, however, that converts believe Islamic theology gives, much as a handbook gives, answers for all of life’s problems, and does it better than does Christianity.

A large number of those who conversed with me mentioned Islam’s emphasis on peace. “Islam,” according to the imam of the Masjid Muhammad in Washington, D.C., “is the religion which offers peace to the world, not just politically, but within the family, and society.”

I was interested in his statement, and so, asked the Saudi Arabian imam of the Islamic Center, also in Washington, D.C., why Islam is perceived as a religion of peace. “Peace,” he said, “has to come from Allah alone. Only he can offer peace. He is the creator, and he has created rules which are for this world. When we obey what he has demanded, we will live as he wanted us to live, and we will have peace. It is very simple.” When I asked him if there were any examples today of peace in the Muslim world, he answered, not surprisingly, “Yes, Saudi Arabia is the most peaceful country in the world”. It’s that simple.

12: Islam’s Spirituality

The final attraction of Islam is a difficult one to understand. The majority of those who chose it had written their testimonies many years ago, and so were not available for comment. Of those who responded, two felt Islam answered all their “spiritual” needs, while two others believed it was a combination of the spiritual and the material needs.

The definition of spirituality is: “purifying from the corrupting influences of the world.” With this definition I would have thought that this category would have been at the top of many peoples’ list. Yet, it dropped to last place on both the earlier and more recent lists.

There were many, who, in their conversations, mentioned that Islam was the only answer for today’s corrupting problems. I listened for two hours to an imam address over five-hundred believers in a mosque in Philadelphia. During the entire time he never ceased from describing the evils of American society, explaining that Islam was the only religion which could come to America’s rescue. This argument and definition of spirituality does exist within Muslim circles. In the answers to my questionnaire, however, “Spirituality” was not singled-out as one of Islam’s more attractive influences, or as a deciding factor for conversion.

On the other hand, the idea of Allah’s power and control came out clearly in interviews with many individuals. “Allah,” they said, “must be lifted high. He must be given complete allegiance. He is the all-powerful, the all-mighty, the all-compassionate…”

The word, “Islam,” means submission to the will of Allah. A Muslim, therefore, is one who submits, much as a slave submits to his master. The reason for this submission is found in the belief that, everything, including good and evil, faith and unbelief, is pre-ordained. As a religion, Islam is a code of political, ceremonial, civil, and criminal law, as well as moral and religious precepts, all promulgated in Allah’s name, while leaving nothing to the believer’s initiative. It is this all-encompassing view of Allah which has attracted many, as they seek to find a God bigger than themselves and their problems on which to rely.

Allah, they feel, fulfills that need. Muslims believe that Allah is in control of all of history. This belief embraces the doctrine of pre-destination, an acceptance of destiny, and a resignation to fate (Kismet). Allah, therefore, is sovereign. Thus, anything that happens is the will of Allah, and is attributed to him, explaining why the phrase “In sh’allah,” which translated means, “If Allah wills it,” is so common in the Muslim world.

These are the attractions of Islam. What, then is our response?

Contents | Part 1 | Part 2 | Part 3 | Part 4

The Attraction of Islam and a Christian’s Response

Jay Smith

From the Master’s Thesis

Contents | Part 1 | Part 2 | Part 3 | Part 4

---

Part I

Introduction

The Attraction of Islam

1. Islam’s Social Laws

2. The Unity of God (Tawhid)

3. Brotherhood (taught and practiced)

4. The Morality of Islam

5. The Qur’an’s beauty and applicability

6. The Simplicity of Islamic teaching

7. The Testimony of Other Muslims

8. Islam’s Rationality

9. The Practices of Islam

10. Its Superiority to all other Religions

11. The Theology found in the Qur’an

12. Islam’s Spirituality

Part II : A Christian’s Response

1. Islam’s Social Laws

2. The Unity of God (Tawhid)

3. Brotherhood (taught and practiced)

4. The Morality of Islam

Part III : A Christian’s Response

1. The Qur’an’s beauty and applicability

2. The Simplicity of Islamic teaching

3. The Testimony of Other Muslims

4. Islam’s Rationality

5. The Practices of Islam

6. Its Superiority to all other Religions

7. The Theology found in the Qur’an

8. Islam’s Spirituality

Part IV : Conclusion

Contents | Part 1 | Part 2 | Part 3 | Part 4

Islamic Da’wah in North America

The Dynamics of Conversion to Islam in Western Societies

By Larry Allan Poston, Northwestern University (Dissertation for Doctor of Philosophy 1988)
Printed by: UMI, Ann Arbor, Mich.
Reviewed by Jay Smith

---

Introduction

[iii] Da’wah (“to call,” “to summon,” “to invite”) has two approaches:
1) “High-Church” (jihad), involving the conquest of nations, establishing Muslim institutions, and the conversion which came about over many generations, as they became enculturated to the new environment (used historically).
2) “Low-Church”, conversion of individuals, seeking to influence society from the bottom upwards (used today).
[3] Sura 16:125=The expansionist verse for Da’wah: “Call unto the way of thy Lord with wisdom and fair exhortation, and reason with them in the better way.” Versus Sura 2:256, which prohibits compelling others to enter the Islamic faith (pg.6).
– Muhammad Khurshid: believed it was to be active, dynamic, progressive, to all individuals with the objective that everyone may submit to the will of Allah. His view is becoming increasing popular (pg.6)
[4] Isma’il al-Faruqi: believed our lifestyle was to be a powerful attraction, causing others to inquire, presupposing Muslims to be “devout” and immersed in society (a problem for No. Americans).
– Believes No. American Islam has acquiesced and compromised itself to U.S. culture, so must be brought back into the fold.
[7] Ahmad Sakr believes conversion of outsiders to Islam is prohibited, because there is no compulsion in religion.
[8] ‘ahl al-dhimma’ (protected persons) applies to Christians and Jews. Thus Da’wah is a form of resurgence or reformation within Islam alone.
[9] When Da’wah pertains to others, it is for correcting the distortions found in others theology, but thus be transformed into a Muslim sect (?).
[14] Survey-questionnaire met with much distrust, and hostility, so had to drop it.
[16] Black Muslims movement under Elijah Muhammad was only an “elitist ethnic movement”, not recognized by the rest of the world, but today, under Warith al-Din Muhammad, now has noteriety.

---

Chapt. One: 7th-19th Centuries

I Da’wah in the East

[20] Doubtful whether Muhammad intended a world-encompassing religion, but rather something succinctly Arab and monotheistic.
[21] Expedition to Tabuk in 630 and Transjordan raid, just before his death, are the beginnings of international endeavors.
– After the Riddah wars, the military forays began. Their chief aim was to convert men and women to Islam.
[24] In middle East and No. Africa the Muslim raiders (Mujahidun) were welcomed with open arms as liberators.
– The classical theory of Jihad demands that enemies must be given the option of converting to Islam or pay the Jizya Tax, before attacking them (Sura 17:15,
Sura 16:125), and Sahih al-Bukhari.
– Thus, Da’wah is preliminary to Jihad, an invitation to convert before the military quest was taken.
[26] “The role of temporal power in creating a total Islamic environment as a precondition of the fostering of the right attitude and state of mind in individuals” (Levtzion, “Toward a Comparative Study” pg.11)
[27] executive, judicial and legislative control ensures the missionaries that their work could go forward.
– Setting up the institutions such as: Masjid (religious agency), Madrasa (educational agency), Shari’a (legislative, economic structure, and court system), helped to persuade and pressure them to convert.
[30] In order to create an “Islamic ambience” (a surrounding, all-emcompassing atmosphere of Muslim religiousity that eventually appeared in every institution and at every level of society), political, economic and judicial control over the culture was essential. This would provide an ideological framework through which the precepts of Islam could be disseminated. It would also protect the “divines” (professional men of religion) or agencies of propagation of these teachings (p.48).
– Muslims needed to speak from a position of power; to be seen as superior because of their literacy, magical, and wealthy, a contrast with Christian proselytizers, who came into a foreign society as guests mostly, and so were seen as inferior.
[31] Commerce was used, as only Muslims could be admitted to the credit system. Divines came along with the traders to propagate Islam. They allowed the use of amulets and indigenous beliefs, adapting and contextualizing to the culture there. They could only speak from superior learning and miracles.
– Contextualization= “kernels of supracultural truth (absolutes) are re-packaged with trappings of the target culture to be understood by the indigenous population.”
[33] It was the Sufis who made real gains in non-Muslim territories, as they sought to pursue God in esoteric and individualistic means.
– Were against the worldliness of the Muslims as well.
[37] They began Tariqas between the 12th and 14th centuries which propagated Islam by individual and personal contact with the natives.
[40] Around 1250 A.D. the shift from an offensive to a defensive mode for Muslims came about. Consolidation was more the need.
[41] The Mongols came onto the scene, and this caused the Muslims to interpret this defeat as Allah showing judgment on them because of their worlkliness. The Mongols forced the Turks back to Turkey, where they consolidated there power for the

Ottoman empire

, while the descendants of Ghenghis Khan went into India and brought about the Mogul Empire. The new name for their soldiers were ghazis or “raiders.”
[48] -The message was concise (5 pillars), theological ideas such as Tawhid, and elements of Shari’a law, proved ints superiority to other religions. Any syncretism was seen as bida’, and heretical.
– The Ottomans tolerated the absorption of Greco-Christian thinking, while the Mogul rulers were universalistic, and so syncretistic. Akbar was so relaxed that he tolerated Dhimmi treatment (protected persons, usually reserved for Jews and Christians) for the polytheistic Hindus.
– From the 18th-19th centuries the orientation of Islam changed from offensive to defensive, and has remained so to this day.

II Da’wah in the West: North America

[52-56] 5 waves of immigration:
1) 1875-1912= individuals and families, mostly unskilled and uneducated Arabs fleeing from bad political and economic situations back home. Had to assimilate.
2) 1918-1922= from E. Europe and Middle East, after WW1 (assimilated).
3) 1930-1938= relatives and acqaintances of earlier immigrants.
4) 1945-1967= post WW2 displaced people from India, Pakistan, and E. Europe. Mostly ruling elite, educated, westernized, rich, thus avoided assimilation.
5) 1967-today= wealthy individuals or families, highly educated professionals from Pakistan or Arab world. Don’t clump together.
[58] Most Muslims are Black Muslims. But others are growing, and have renewed pride in their ethnic and religious heritage
[59] Estimated 5 million Muslims from 60 countries. Arabs=2 million, but 90% are Christian. Turks are the most secularized of the group.
[60] Most of the influence in the U.S. is by the Pakistani’s (who are the chief suppliers of imams, teachers, guest lecturers and teaching material), and the Arabs.
[62] Shi’ites=6%
[67] 2 kinds of Islamic Da’wa in U.S.: 1) Defensive Pacifist, 2) Offensive Activist
1) Defensive Pacifist:
– Dar al’Islam (Muslims) and Dar al’Harb or Dar al’Kufr (the unbelievers) were to keep away from each other except as visitors or for learning, thus only to be in their territory for a short time.
[70] Muslims first believed all military victories were indications of Gods favour. Then the Mongols defeat showed Gods judgment of their worldliness. But the defeat by Christians (Dhimmis) in the 19th century caused a problem.
– The response was to exhort Muslims to pursue and overtake the West by imitating it. Yet Islam has done just the opposite, trying to stifle science and stop its progress (Esposito: Islam in Transition, p.16).
[71-72] But those who sought to follow the example of the new theologians made it easy for many to come to the west, as now in the U.S. there were constitutionally guaranteed individual rights & religious freedom, not found in their own countries.
[74] The earlier Muslims mostly assimilated into the mainstream, married Christians and became such themselves, except for those who built the first mosque, in Cedar Rapids, Iowa (1934).
[75] Most Muslim organisations in U.S. are geared towards caring for the social affairs of each particular group, rarely proselytizing, but calling or exhorting nominal Muslims.
[78] Yet, no mosque or Islamic center has ever accomplished the objective of reviving Muslim populations.
[80] Christian missions was seen as “the leavening of the total life of the surrounding culture with the basic ideals of a Christian culture, thus creating a more favorable atmosphere in which direct missionary work can be done.” (Braden, “Islam in America”, p.317).
– This is different that ‘Muslim ambience’ as it is done without having political control, as guests in a country.
[81] In Muslim countries the govt. wants one religion only, that of Islam, to control society. In the U.S. the govt. maintains strict independance from religious control. Constitutionally it can neither further or establish any one religion, but protect all. Thus there are 3 appeals for expansion:
1) size (if everyone belongs, than I want to belong)
2) similarity (the tradition is in accordance with contemporary culture)
3) differentiation (culture is in decline, so rel. trad. is a viable alternative).
– Islam in No. American exhibits none of the above (except Black Islam).
[85] To alleviate the problem of knowledge for Muslims in U.S. volunteers are sent to Al-Hazar, but only a few who learn few answers for believers living in Dar al’ Kufr. U.S. Imams are from Saudi Arabia and Egypt, too strict with little English.
[89] Muslims in America are those: “whose past is a painful memory, however romantically expressed, whose present is comfortable and confused, and whose future is a boundless haze.” (Haider “Canadian Saturdays…” pg.38).
2) Offensive-Activist:
[89] Not many in U.S., and mostly amateurish, but they will be coming more popular.
[90] Two kinds:
1) Temporary foreign students, who have nothing to lose. They see the un-Islamic facets of American life, and attempt to change it.
– Some, who have never been activists in their own country become so here, out of a reaction, as they are forced to compare, or are questioned by Americans about their beliefs. They have a identity crisis, see lack of ethical lifestyle (high crime, drugs, and pornography), get a sense of mission with purpose and meaning, and so work to introduce the superior Islamic values (pg.91).
2) New immigrants (25,000-35,000 per year). Come with reformist and activist ideologies (espoused by Ikhwan al-Muslimun).
[93-94] Isma’il al-Faruqi, in his “Islamic Vision”, speaks of 5 reasons for Muslims who come to the U.S. to be Offensive-Activists: (“Islamic Ideals” pg.268)
1) -must assuage any guilt for coming as immigrants, because God was leading them to become a da’iyyah, or ‘Missionary.’
2) -by seeing the U.S. through Islamic eyes, he will see that the U.S. is not so great, but quite inferior.
3) -the immigrant is given a feeling of being personally called by Allah to call all non-Muslims to Islam, in word as well as deed.
4) -the Islamic vision would provide the immigrant with necessary criteria for transforming this culture to conform to will of God.
5) -a deep attachment for the U.S. is given to see it become a nation finally returned to God.
[95-99] The immigrant is to constantly focus on his homeland, so that he will one day return there, and, as well, not be assimilated into the U.S.
– Yet, must not be isolationist, but “participate” in the culure (Maher Hathout: “Muslim Americans Dilemna, pg.48).
– Schools must be in accord with the Shari’a law: strict dress code, separation of the sexes, non-participation in plays & proms, or Christmas, Easter, Halloween, and St. Valentines day. Exemption from classes on Fri. (1-2p.m.) and 15 break each afternoon. No pork in meals.
– “An Open letter to the President” blames Zionism for political U.S. problems.

---

Chapter II: Towards Islamic Pietism

I “High Church” and “Low Church” Strategies in Religious Proselytization

[100-103] Conquest of the world requires strategies which may work in one part of the world but not in another.
–Two categories for entry of missionary agent:
1) Upper, authoritative level, by the executive, legislative, judicial
economic, and bureaucratic structures.
2) Lower, subject level, among the masses.
1)Upper level: high-church groups, are heirarchical, with formal and structured liturgy, controlled by officials (status), believing in the amillennialist approach to the Kingdom of God, that the Church had responsibility to bring it in. Thus religious and political spheres are bound together. (i.e.=Constantine, Holy Roman Empire, Crusades, and Conquistadores).
[105-106] Colonialism by the west was somewhat due to a desire for natural resources, and power, but the wider reason was the belief that “their nations had been divinely commissioned to transmit the Christian principles underlying Western civilization and in so doing produce a like civilization in non-Christian lands.”
– “It has to be remembered that in the 19th century the alternatives for many peoples were not independence and enslavement, but destruction by unscrupulous exploiters or through the slave trade, or the possibility of survival in a state of colonial dependence. They found the people divided, poor and barbarous, and left them united, prosperous and on their way to taking their places in the councils of the nations of the world.” (Neil History, pg.249)
– Since the enlightenment, religious beliefs have been relegated to the private sphere, and so there is no need to establish the physical kingdom of God.
[107-111] In Islam, the high-church missiology is quite evident, as there is a definite heirarchy (caliphal office), formal liturgyand beliefs (brings efficacy, in that one who prays 5 times washes the sins away-S. Imtiaz Ahmed, on the prophet).
Also the idea of a material kingdom to be established is strong.
– Political conquest brought about Islamic ambience, which allowed Islam to gradually pervade the culture at all levels, and thus make conversin more socially acceptable.
– Muslims always operated from a position of superiority, and conversion to Islam became a culturally positive phenomenon.
– In a newly Muslimized country, “traders could improve their credit, government bureaucrates could retain their offices, nobility could hold on to their property, if they became Muslims” (Levtzion in “Comparative studies” pg.9-11).
– A. Bausani states: “the truth of Islam is not, or not chiefly, a
theoritical truth, but also and prevalently las and customs
felt as given by God, and obvioulsy cannot be spread through personal conversion but only through physical conquet of the
region to be converted.”
(Bausani, from Whalings “Missionary Transplantation”, pg. 331, from a lecture given in 1972 at the University of London).
[112-116] What should those in the U.S. do? Sura 16:125 states: “Call unto the way of thy Lord with wisdom and fair exhortation.” A call for Da’wah.
2 options: 1)abandon the mission because it is too impracticable in the U.S.
2)abandon the traditional missiological approach.

2 models:
a)Educational model, vs. military model. Bring in the Islamic world-view within the educational system, 1st to Muslims schools, then non-Muslim ones.
-i.e.=International Institute of Islamic Thought in No.Va. suburb of Wash. D.C. has taken the idea to recast university disciplines, by eliminating, amending, reinterpreting, and adapting its components to the Islamic world-view.
[118-126] b)Low-Church model= PIETISM. Modeled after Philipp Jakob Spener (1648). Focus must be on the Christians experience, upon his deeds, lifestyle, and morality. Using Romans 13:1-7, he felt Christians were not to be bedded with government, accepting all govts. as from God, even when they are evil, “just as a jewel remains a jewel, whether it is in the hands of an honest man or a thief.”
-History operates on two dimensions:
1) the physical/earthly dimension (political, economical, and social control), where kingdoms and empires rise and fall (according to the dictates of Gods permissive will-Catholic & Reformed), and
2) the metaphysical/spiritual dimension, in which lie the truly important aspects of life: spiritual regeneration, moral transformation of the individual, sanctification and the spreading of the Gospel.

Pietests distinctives:
a)-Aimed at individual conversion at the level of the masses.
b)-They then were expected to experience a new life-style, which would, in turn, have a leavening effect upon society in general (redemption and lift).
c)-According to Luke 17:21 and John 18:36, the emphasis is on the internal life of the Christian, and a separation of church and state.
-Now, no need for earthly security by a govt. for proselytizing, as was seen by the Catholics and Anglicans.
d)-Christianization, because of its emphasis on individual conversion, would occur from the level of the masses upward, as against the structures downward.
[126-132] Sufis also espoused a similar view as the Pietists.
a)-Focused on internal experiences rather than external observances. Had a strong distaste for doctrinal controversies, materialistic lifestyles, and the affairs of state. They became ascetic, and isolationists, however, and so undercut any missionary orientation.
b)-advocated an activist approach to sanctification and spiritual growth. -The idea of a military Jihad was rejected and replaced with a Jihad against personal wishes and sensual desires, thus spiritualizing it. For this rea- son Sufis were able to move outside Dar al-Islam and spread their ideas amongst the Dar al-Kufr. Allah was their provider and sustainer, instead of political entities.
**-Believed in the Jihad al-lisan or Jihad al-qalam= the Holy War of the tongue or pen (Peters, Islam and Colonialism, pg.119). (pg.130 for other sources).
c)-allowed for an eschatological motivation in the form of the Mahdi (the “guided one”), who would appear at the end times, to spread Islam in all the earth.
– This gave the Muslims (Sufis) a sense of purpose and mission.
Thus, “Sufism provides an alternative in the form of low-church missiology which aims at the conversion of individual persons within society followed by training in Islamic precepts, which will in turn enable each convert to induce further conversions.” (132)

II Hasan Al-Banna and Abul A’la Mawdudi: Pioneers of Modern Islamic “Pietism”

[135] Two movements using low-church methodology: 1)Hasan al-Banna’ (1906-1949)
2)Abul a’la Mawdudi (1903-1979)

[135-146] A) Hasan al-Banna’ and the “al-nizam al-islami”: (Egyptian)
– Founded the Hasafi Welfare Society, to build up a high moral character and to curb the activities of the Christian missionaries in Egypt. Assasinated at age 42.
Objectives were: a) To make every individual a true Muslim.
b) Develope the Muslim family on Islamic lines.
c) Establish a Muslim ‘umma (community).
d) Establish an Islamic state in Egypt.
note: al-Banna’ begins at the level of the masses and works upwards, whereas Levtzion’s model works the reverse direction.
– He sent students to coffee-houses, and public places to preach Islam, asked people to shun coffee, story-telling, and idle activities, & invited them to Islam.
– Believed Islam regulated every aspect of life, and established an “Islamic Order” al-nizam al-islami, which would in turn act as a leavening agent for society.
– Every Muslim was, like a khalifa, much like our ‘priesthood of believers.’
– The Muslims lot in this world was to be subordinate to his mission, in order to gain a reward in the next life for his self-sacrifice.
– His appeal was to the young, who had “nothing to lose”.
– Problem: there was an absense in his writings of a precisely defined model for the brotherhood’s goals. No way was given to achieve the 4 above objectives.
[147-162] B) Abul A’la Mawdudi and the “Jama’at-i Islami” (India and Pakistan)
– Born in India, and later moved to Pakistan, was influenced by Sufi teaching by his father. Was a journalist and editer of Taj. Became an activist, rebeling against traditional ways, a voice of dissent.
– Believed best way was to create a small, informed, dedicated and disciplined group, to transform the world to Islam.
– Began with Muslims, seeking to purify them, using Sura 2:143. Believed that: “the transformation of the political, economic and social institutions could only be achieved by transformed individuals.” (pg.150) (see Khurram Murad on Muradi, pg.27)
– Established in 1941, the Jama’at-i Islami (Islamic movement) 7 phases:
1) The da’i, made up of individuals from the masses, should expect to find trials and persecution in their work. They are to go out and “draw to the light” those bound to them by kinship, friendship, neighbors, buyers, and sellers. Not be isolationists.
2) Those who came were to go to training camps, to be purified, and prepared for their new mission.
3) The group was made up small groups of transformed individuals, who assuaged the severity of the present trials (Dunya=this world) by looking toward the rewards of the hereafter (akhira=hereafter). The focus was inward.
4) From these groups elected officials got appointed to office in the state.
5) They then had institutional control of the state.
6) The state then would implement decisions for the populace for Islam.
7) An Islamic ambience would be instilled, as the trasformation of a significant number of individuals would effect changes in the structures.
8) A new awakening in the populace, would affect the masses (see page 159).
– Problem came about, when the above was implemented, because little attention was given to more practical and mundane aspects of the Islamic state; a failure to consider the working out of principles and applications. “Technique, which has been of supreme importance in the West since the Industrial revolution, finds little to commend it in the Muslim world.” (162)
[162-167] For Christian Pietists, the lifestyle serves only as supportive of the verbal witness, rather than being a witness in and of itself.
– Mawdudi and al-banna’ felt the methods are not important so long as the life of the communicator is in order. All one need do is display it.
– The teachings of Mawdudi and Al-banna’ have entered the U.S. in 3 ways:
a) the influx of immigrants from Egypt and Pakistan
b) the Muslim Student Association founded in 1963, at Univ. of Ill., Urbana, all founding members belonging to the Muslims brotherhood of Al-banna’.
-The Islamic Society of North America, came out of this group and relects the writings of Mawdudi and Al-banna’.
c) through the speeches and writings of Khurram Murad, a disciple of Mawdudi, residing in Great Britain, who writes of Da’wah in the west.
– 80% of U.S. Islamic Da’wah writings are by or about al-Banna’ and Mawdudi.

III Khurram Murad: Contextualization of the Islamic Movement for the West

(168-189) -Indian, born in 1932, went to Pakistan in 1948, and joined the Islamic Movement under Mawdudi. Received Master of Science in Michigan, U.S., and in 1978 became director of Islamic Foundation, based in Leicester, England. His booklets and speeches are considered as standard for Islamic workers in Britain and the U.S.
*“Islamic Movement in the West: Reflections on some Issues” (1981)
“Da’wah among Non-Muslims in the West: Some Conceptual and Methodological
Aspects” (1986).
– For him the Islamic Movement is “an organized struggle to change the existing society into an Islamic Society based on the Qur’an and the Sunna, and make Islam, which is a code for the entire life, supreme and dominant” (“Islamic movement” 1981)
– Methodology is low-church, done by locals using Al-‘Imran 3:187 and 110, al-Baqarah 5:159-160 and al-Hajj 22:77-78 as his authority.
– Thus, for Muslims in the U.S., they must “fix the whole direction of their lives, activities, programs, institutions and structures towards the goal of making American society Islamic and Muslim.” (Murad “3rd Opportunity,” pg.10). “Every non-Muslim is a potential Muslim.”
– Murads Strategy involved:
1) Literature, to proclaim message of Islam & aimed at the non-Muslim mind.
2) Da’wah amongst non-Muslims:
a) People are invited back to their “own religion.” Judaism and Chris- tianity, in their original form were the same as Islam today, but were corrupted purposely or by accident, thus making it necessary for a renewal by Muhammad.
b) Begin with full surrender to Allah; to have justice in the world.
c) Must begin their witness by showing the commonalities between the be- liefs (found in Al-‘Imran 3:64); emphasis on concepts and values vs. Islamic forms.
d) No-one must accept the historical Islam of the last 14 centuries, but should accept the Islam of the Qur’an and the Sunna.
e) Evil of modern man should be partially blamed on Islam, because they have not given a good witness, and so let the Kafirsgo astray.
f) A Kafir= a rebel against God. He is not ignorant of his Creator. So everyone to be witnessed within their context, by others of his kind (HUP principle)
g) Since each prophet spoke in the vernacular, and in their context, a Muslim must do so today (Contextualization necessary), to make the message relevant.
3) Support Home movements by stimulating the Islamic movements at home.
4) Create appreciation for Islam amongst children of immigrants.
5) Create appreciation for Islam amongst foreign Muslim students.
6) Resolve Community Needs amongst the Muslim communities by setting up community centers for Muslims to help them, and give added schooling to children.
7) Co-ordinate thinking, planning and action between the various Muslim groups in the U.S. or whatever foreign country they find themselves.
– Murad believed that the primary reason for problems within the Muslim communites in foreign lands is because they no longer are involved in missionary activity. If they would concentrate on Da’wah, the problems would evaporate.
– “Da’wah is a command to be obeyed, a strategy to be implemented, and an activity to be performed.” (189)

IV The Muslim Missionary Today (190-211)

Islam has not produced highly-organised missionary agencies, as in Christ- ianity, due to the belief that all Muslims are “Da’is,” & so automatically share.
Muhammad Kurshid (Texas) believes Da’wah should be amongst the rich: exhibit that what Muslims say is true, evince boldness in lifestyle, and a practical inde- pendent testimony, even to martyrdom. Arabic is to be used only after conversion, for training, as it attracts the hearer.
Emphasis is on: Laicization, lifestyle, and education. Kurshid feels all methods must: communicate to the hearer, be simple, plain, clear, goal-oriented, global, without antagonism, creating an atmosphere to talk on the listeners level.
Rashid al-Ghanoushi (Tunisia) feels a moral lifestyle is not an issue for U.S.
Fathi Yakan (Lebanese), holds to 3 emphasis’ above, but believes it must be amongst the poor, and involve “al-isti’ab” (“full and total comprehension”=context- ualisaton). Be “Cultural Chameleons”, understanding the settings and weaknesses of the hearers, to communicate, comprehensibly, Islam to them. Borrowed from x-tians.
Problems: No way to help the masses to learn these precepts. The Manual of Da’wah for Islamic Workers is not comprehensive, poorly written, and has a strong anti-Christian polemic(210). Only a few professional “Da’is” in the U.S. now.

---

Chapter III: The Institutionalization of Da’wah in the Western Context

I “Para-mosque” structures and Their Development

Intro: (212-226)

– Def.=”Para-church” or “Para-mosque” is any spiritual ministry whose organization is not under the authority of a local (Christian/Muslim) congregation or body.
– Problems: no accountability, no support of local church, duplication & non coordination of resources, and built around a central figure.
2 Muslim examples: Hasan al-Banna, and Abul A’la Mawdudi.
In west, the mosque has taken on a different feature, much like a church (visiting, counselling, prayer-room, educational center, political forum, & social hall). Thus, Imams must play role they never were trained for.
– So, no over-arching authority, no checks and balances to prevent the forming of self-interested, and blatantly heretical sects, breaking down “umma.” (221)
– Most Islamic institutions in U.S. are defensive in orientation. There were several attempts to propagate the “gospel of Islam” but many (if not most) were unsuccessful and were abandoned within a few years of their inception.” (226)
– “They failed to grasp the nature of western society & its dynamics, mostly ethnic groups, with emphasis on preserving their cultural identity” (Arabia-226)

A The Islamic Information Center of America (227-231)
Musa Qutub, Quaker educated, from Jerusalem, established the Center, in 1983, with John Merenkov, an American Doctor. 3 objectives:
1) deliver the message of Islam
2) inform non-Muslims about Islam
3) aid U.S. Muslims to deliver the message to others.
– goals fulfilled by: contacting people, giving lectures, conducting seminars, writings, giving out Qur’ans, using T.V., radio, and Newspaper.
– no governmental connection, non-profit, and lay-oriented
– depends on contributions; donaters will receive rewards, up to 700 times.
– Qutub seeks to give viable spiritual alternative to dissatisfied Americans. No debate or discussions, but do so for the love of Americans.

B The Muslim Student Assoc.(MSA) & Islamic Soc.of No.America (ISNA) (231-245)
Started in 1963, some 75 students, at Urbana campus in Illinois formed the MSA, to improve students’ knowledge of Islam, perpetuate the Islamic Spirit, explain Islam to Americans, and help the restoration of Islam in students home countries.
– In 1983, 310 student chapters with more than 45,000 members (MSA & USA p.63).
– MSA’s magazine is “Al-Ittihad”, ISNA’s is Islamic Horizons (The Muslims answer to ‘Christianity Today’, edited by U.S. graduates of the Medill School of Journalism). Has good quality.
– “Know your MSA” brochure states: “the most important task is da’wah among non-Muslims, as the campus is where the most curious, the most inquisitive, and most open-minded audience for Islam.”
– Other groups: Muslim Social Scientists (AMSS), the Association of Muslim Scientists and Engineers (AMSE), and the Islamic Medical Association (IMA) Islamic Book Service (Muslim writings & videos), & Islamic Teach. Cent. (activist organiza- tion preparing workers with lectures, correspondance courses, & training camps (238)
– Recommended reading: Yusuf ‘Ali’s Qur’an, Malik’s Al-Muwatta, ‘Abd al-Ati’s Islam in Focus, and Abul A’la Mawdudi’s Towards Understanding Islam.
– MSA has $21 million building with 124 acres of land, for a mosque of 1500, and library of 80,000 volumes, in Plainfield, Indiana (near Indianapolis).
– MSA is N.America’s leading activist agency, the backbone of ISNA (241).
– “Long characterized by immaturity, American Muslims are now being co-ordinated and refined by an influx of indigenous converts to Islam and by the steadily-rising level of education of its leaders.” (244)
– Murrad wants U.S. as a “Muslims continent, teaching Islam in Public schools, on the Qur’anic Morality and Ethics, political and economic development” (245).

C Rabitat al-Alam al-Islami (The Muslim World League) (245-249)
Founded by the Saudi Arabian govt. in 1962, “to combat the influence of Nasser and Islamic Socialism.” (Haddad-Muslims in Canada).
– Low-church organization, dedicated to Da’wah in those countries where Islam is a minority religion.
– Functions: assists Islamic centers, youth camps, summer schools, provides teachers and imams, develops prison min., fellowships and grants for Univ. profes- sors, produces T.V. & radio programs, and Muslims newspapers (Sakr-Isl.conf.)
– Muhammad Ali al-Harakan felt World League was to “perform the obligation of jihad, to propagate Allah’s religion…” (248).
– League is moving more firmly into the activist camp (249).

D Sh’ite Organizations (Islamic societies of Georgia and Virginia (249-254)
– population of Shi’ites is quite small in U.S. Yasin T. Al-Jibouri from Atlanta was imam of the Islamic Center of Atlanta, until they found he was from the Jafari school of Law.
– Most Shi’ite converts are black in the U.S. Literature comes from Iran (World Organization for Islamic Services) and East Africa (Bilal Muslim Missions of Tanzania and Kenya).
– Much more politically oriented than that of Sunni’s, due to the inferiority complex inherent in minority groups (253).

E Islamic Circle of North America ICNA (Canada) (254-257)
– established in Montreal in 1971. It is a well-developed group, with evangelical intent (255). Put together Manual of Da’wah for Islamic Workers. Is poorly written, with bad grammar and style. Stresses Door-to-door canvassing.

F The Ahmadiyya (Non-Orthodox Organization) (257-262)
– Calls itself the “True Islam” but is seen as heretical by other Muslims.
– Founded by Ghulam Ahmad, born in 1839, to a well off family in Qadian, India.
– Had visions and dreams; that he was appointed mujaddid (renewer). By 1891 took on title of Khalifa, and saw himself as Christian’s Messiah and Hindu’s Krishna (258), thus was repudiated by other Muslims.
– Ahmad castigated both Christians and Muslims.
– His eccentric personality and teachings of Jihad were attractive to many. Holy War, he felt was wrong, and Islam was to preach “with reasoning and heavenly signs.” (Inniger, p.160)
– Ghulam Ahmad came to Chicago in 1920, with Mufti Muhammad Sadiq, borrowed freely strategies of Christians. As of 1981, there were 26 (jamaats-chap-ters), run from Pakistan, with missionaries serving 10 yrs. (Richardson, Islamic Cultures).
-7-year course for missionaries at Punjab univ., including: linguistics, world religions, contextualization, apologetics, mass media, doctrines. (261)
– Every adherent must give 1/16th of income, thus many frugal missionaries, using American strategies: “blitz” campaigns and city-wide evangeliz. programs (262)

G Other Para-Mosque Organizations and Strategies (262-270)
– Many Muslim Organizations fail to contextualize their message, giving cultural interests a higher priority than the interests of the Muslim community.
– “No Muslims organization or institution established in the West has made any serious effort to make a systematic study of the west in order to develop a meaningful dialogue with its leading institutions.”
– A lack of capable leaders, not well educated, either in religion or in secular culture, read no western books or newspapers, with views of the west from “literature which originated in their countries some 30-40 years ago.” (268)
– “Incompetency and lack of education of leaders, makes it unable to produce competent followers.”
– “The programs which do exist are said to consist of little more than recita- tions of verses from the Qur’an which are intended to inspire the aspiring worker to perform da’wah activity.”
– “There is a complete lack of self-evaluation on the part of Missionaries, and none of the organizations encourage criticism or discussion, due to feelings of inferiority. Thus one must assume para-mosque agencies are making very litte progress in their mission of bringing Islam to North America.” (269)

II Para-Mosque Strategies and Methodologies; Intro: (270-278)

– Want to define the strategies and methodologies of the “offensive-activist” Muslims involved in Da’wah in No. America.
– Only the Ahmadiyya movement borrows an evangelical approach of evangelism without apology for its ‘Moorish Temple Foundation.’
– By 1959, the Ahmadiyya had 500 converts, 30% orientals, 5-10% of Muslim extraction, the remaining negroes, and only 5-10% white.
– *”The chief appeal of the (Ahmadiyya) movement lay in its presentation of Islam as non-discriminatory with regard to race, as a simple and rational religion and as a viable alternative to Negroes dissatisfied with their treatment at the hands of Christian churches.” (274)
– “It is generally conceded among Sunni and Shi’ite groups that imitation of Christian practices is unacceptable for Muslim workers.”
– Islahi forbids borrowing because of a situation he knew of in India, in which a Muslim leader allegedly “adopted a christian practice in urging “Muslim whores” in Delhi to preach Islam to their non-Muslim customers.” (Islahi-Call to Islam, pg.13)
– Isma’il al-Faruqi prefers to adopt “lifestyle Evangelism”, so that it would attract the non-Muslims to Islam.
-Fathi Yakan is scathing in his denunciation of lifestyle concept, in that it “guarantees nothing, it is slow, and it has little effect, and is an aspect of the Christian missionary approach.” (Yakan, Isl.Move. p.111)
– Akbar Muhammad agrees but says: “American converts of Islam, who of necessity must experience some form of conversion, are infinitely more effective in their proselytization efforts than are those who boast Muslim parentage or ancestry…they seek to produce an experience in others which duplicates their own, and this lends an effectivety to their efforts which is not observable in the case of “lifestyle” advocates.” (Akbar Muhammad, Some factors…pg.41-43)

A “Lifestyle Evangelism” (278-289)
1) –Muhammad Imran says: “Take Islam to the West not by pulpit preaching or mailing Islamic literature, but by doing what Muslims ought to do, living, drinking, eating, sleeping and behaving as Muslims are enjoined to do.” (Imran,15)(presence)
– It is more comfortable, not necessary for the witness to actually confront a targeted individual, and thus run the risk of trauma or scorn, and rejection. (279)
– Yakan mentions: “the humble da’i is the one who lives together with the people, receives the people, speaks…visits…loves…serves…is bonded…and lives for others, not for himself…rejoices at the happiness of others.” (Yakan 45)
– Personal contact with a devout adherent of a religious faith is nearly always instrumental. (281)
– “In order to produce a witness that will pinpoint Islam as the root cause of one’s lifestyle orientation, some intellectual interaction must inevitably occur.”
-One must be aware of the doctrines of Tawhid and Muhammad, and have intel lectual contact before religious commitment can occur (proclamation-183).
2) -Some believe Muslim education is a middle approach between the two.
– Robert Crane advocates a “databank” where one could ask any question on politics, economics, law, morality etc.. and instantaneously receive an “Islamic” answer or solution. 20 “Ummatic Scholars” would work 20 years compiling the info.
– Islamic institutions must be established as alternatives to secular schools. Not to seperate Muslims from non-Muslims, but an invitation for all to receive info.
– Children would be exposed to Islamic teachings.
– Problem: whereas Catholic and Fundamental schools are an acceptable alternative in U.S., Islamic schools would not be. (289)

B Activistic Preaching (290-312)
aslama=submitting to Allah, kafara=refusing Allahs demands.
-Allal al-Fasi from Sura 16:125 draws 3 principles, the 2nd of which is: “gentle preaching with reasonable and acceptable ideas which will attract the people.”
– Islahi speaks of 7 principles for Da’is: a)begin with own people, b)quality greater than quantity, c)clear, self-evident, dignified and effective call, d)present arguments, e)exhibit uniformity, f)never be antagonistic, g)regard for the feelings of others (Islahi).
– Ahmadiyya’s are the most practiced in arranging seminars, and debates. Billy Graham refused to debate in early 70’s, “showing his cowardice” (294).
– Public halls are preferred, because general populace would come to them.
– Lectures and Seminars are shunned by non-Muslims.
Dialogues: 4 types: 1)Discursive dialogue=intellectual inquiry, with sympathy for each person’s position.
2)Human dialogue=stress on humanity of individuals, & the I-thou relation ship
3)Secular dialogue=recognition of man’s situation, and joint concern and action to rectify it.
4)Interior dialogue=emphasis on the mystical contemplative tradition, rather than intellectualization (296)
– According to the Islamic Circle, Da’is should: develop friendships, engage in dialogue, present concepts of Tawhid, prophethood of Muhammad, the Day of judgment, and explanations of the erroneous teachings of Christianity. (Manual of Da’wah,21)
– Steve Johnson believes dialogues should include diverse Christian groups to show the diversity of Christianity vs. the unity of Islam. (Johnson Pg.21)
– Muhammad Khurshid is against dialogue because its very spirit is not to unravel truth, but to create a myriad of confusion and enigma. He believes “nothing short of direct, confrontational preaching is acceptable…because according to the rules of propriety, (in a dialogue) the da’i must relinquish the freedom to preach which is his by right of Allah’s appointment of the Muslim ‘ummah, to be “witnesses” unto mankind. A Muslim does not bandy words with unbelievers; “his sole aim is to convince any and every person of the Truth.” (Kurshid)
– Door-to-door is not acceptable, as it invades privacy, not cold-turkey, but visiting other Muslims by appointment. (300)
– Maryam Jameelah (American convert) feels Small study circles in private homes, especially for women, with their close female friends and small children is an option.
– Offensive-activists are only a small fraction of the Muslim population, because evangelism is perceived as 1)a violation of the Qur’an’s non-compulsion directive, and 2) difficult due to the inability of speaking English by many Muslims who are the most active (new immigrants-those contrasting the spiritual atmosphere of their homes, and the religious poverty of the west). (301)
– Youth camps and summer schools also advocated, but for other Muslims.
Prison Ministries are highly effective, as prisoners are technically a “displaced people” & therefore more susceptible to religious transformation. The Islamic Teaching Center, in 1981, contacted 4,000 inmates in 310 prisons, and enrolled more than 500 in Islamic Correspondance courses.
– Black Muslim movement “had been criticized for its heretical tendencies and that Blacks commonly viewed Islam as something other than merely a personal faith to be adopted in pietistic fashion (303). It appeals to blacks by presenting Islam as an African religion and therefore the Black Man’s religion, in contrast to Christianity, identified with the White man, oppressive, and the originator of the ‘darkie slave’ phenomenon. (304)
– In 1974, suggestion was made to study foreign missionary techniques to establish Islamic broadcasting stations.(305)
– Literature is used by all the groups to further Islam and their causes.

C Contextualization Struggle (312-320)
Muslims have been negligent in studying the west
Rashid Al-Ghanoushi states: “Islamic literature needs to transcend the stage of idealsim..which does not go beyond generalizations whose relationship to the environment of da’wah hardly varies from place to place or from one age to another…rendering Islamic ideology an empty or vacuous form, with no basis in actual facts” (Ghanoushi,p.13)
– He believes this neglect is fear of bida’, the introduction of Islamic heresy.
-Sharafuddin Murghani suggests they “observe the Sufis, who are a major force behind conversion to Islam in Britain…and that to understand people, one must either rule them or get right into their culture for long time.” (Murghani-p.46)
– Both Islahi and Khurshid stress the need to address Da’wah to the influential people, who will in turn reform the common people.
– Fathi Yakan disagrees, believing it must be done among the poor (317-318)

D 100% Mobilization of the Muslim “Umma” (320-323)
All Muslims are responsible, but not all can be involved to the same degree. 3 categories: 1)those who have the best abilities, 2)whose abilities hover between strength and weakness, and 3)those whom natural abilities appear non-existent.

E Dilemna of the People of the Book (Christians and Jews) for Da’wah

Qur’an is ambivalent on this issue.
– Musa Qutub: “Da’wah should not be to the people of the book, but rather to “those who have gone astray.” (324)
-The Ahmadiyya, interpret Sura 46:28 as indicative that Islam was meant to prevail over all other religions.
– Muzzamil Siddiqui concurs, stating that “the People of the Book are kafirun, and that Muslims are therefore obligated to perform da’wah among them.” (325)

F Training
Ahmad Shafaat studied Christian Missionary methods and wrote about it in his Missionary Christianity and Islam. Shows Muslims what Christians do, by examining missionary manuels, answering the assertions point by point. Focuses on doctrine of abrogation (that it is in Bible as well), and the true concept of God (as being only monotheistic). (Shafaat,p.5)
-Materials for training Da’is are inadequate, using archaic suggestions, and misunderstanding Christian theology, with flaws on the treatment of Protestantism.

G Issue of Leadership

Muslim leaders in the west are not well-read in Western literature or culture.
Khurshid: “Whoever found himself thrown out of the world of competition and endeavor, became satisfied by becoming the imam of a local masjid and kept on beating about the bush, with no vision and without knowledge.” (Khurshid,pg.32)
– Leadership based on the following of Islamic principles and ideals is flawed because principles and ideals must be both created and modelled by exemplary individuals if they are to have a lasting effect. (336)
Robert Crane suggests a solution would be to design an Islamically-formed educational system. (336)
– 3 options: 1)using immigrants who were trained in their own country. But are they willing to serve, have practical experience in Da’wah, and do they acculturate to U.S. easily? 2)utilize visiting lecturers, but do they understand English, and know how to acculturate the message to U.S.? 3)send American Muslims overseas, but there is lack of volunteers, language difficulties, problems of adjustment, and inapplicability of teaching methods for the American situation.

III Contemporary Apologetics: The Literature of Proselytization

– Muslims almost exclusively rely on the printed word, and so have produced an imposing array of literary works. But, they have not come up with the number of tracts and small booklets which Christian evangelicals use for their “plan of salvation”. The Literature used by the da’is is necessarily more intricate since in Islam “Salvation” is not obtained by following a three or four step formula, as is done in evangelical Christiandom. (340)
– Most books are by Hasan al-Banna’, Abul A’la Mawdudi, and Khurram Murad.
–3 booklets for New Muslims by Mawdudi:
1)Towards Understanding Islam, an explanation of the 5 pillars.
2)Islam: An Historical Perspective, a panoramic view of history by Muslims,
3)What Islam Stands for, a continuation of the former, with a view of Islam as being universalitic and holistic. These three are geared for the new convert, and not non-believers.
–3 writings for seekers:
1)“Islam at a Glance”, emphasizing Islam as the only true religion, explaining 5 pillars, the Qur’an, hadith and Tawhid.
2)“Ten unique features of Islam”: a)the only religion given its name by its prophet, b)the only religion with any sense or outlook on life, c)the only religion with a multi-purpose institution (mosque) for religious, social, educational and political community needs, d)the only religion with divine and democratic institu- tions, e)the only religious book (Q ur’an) which was unaltered, f)the prophet Muhammad, alone has a historical significance, g)the only religion which gives a platform from which to overthrow oppressive powers, h)the only religion with plain & simple teachings, and i)there are no large-scale defections in its history (345)
-all claims are debatable, some quite false.
–*”What the Muslim authors have failed to do is deal adequately with Protestantism, which is the more influential sect on the North American continent. The Christianity being opposed here is in the main, Roman Catholicism. Many of the “unique features” would not appear unique at all to a Protestant.” (346)
3)The Islamic Correspondance Course: 11 unit study of basic principles of Islam, 247 pages, with lots of doctrine and history, of most value to a new convert.
– Ahmad Shafaat writes The Gospel According to Islam, about the 93 verses about Jesus, showing Muhammad as the messenger of God denied by Christians (Shafaat-intro)
-Ahmad Deedat, born in Gujarat, raised in Durban, South Africa, had discussions with missionaries of evangelical American mission there, and set about to answer their questions.
-In 1958 founded the Islamic Propagation center, which puts out books and videos to combat Christian proselytization. His main encounters, and much of his literature deals with Jehovahs Witnesses, and 7th Day Adventists and Worldwide Church of God.
-Deedats successor is Yusuf Buckas, a young South African lawyer.
– “The IPC aims not at the scholarly Christian who is familiar with the argu- ments against the inspiration and authority of the Scriptures and the Deity of Christ, but rather those who are not deeply grounded in their faith and to the uncommitted.” (352)

IV The Anti-Christian Polemic

“The concept of the ‘ahl al-dhimma (protected persons, usually used as a synonym for ‘ahl al-kitab) grew out of a situation in which Islam was a superior ideology by right of conquest. This is not the case in the contemporary world in which Islam, despite the fact that its adherents constitute a fifth of the world’s population, holds a position of a minority as well as being inferior with respect to the West in matters of technology and economic and social development.” (353)
“Many of the most recent works attack Christian missionary activity as being politically oriented; it is generally believed that Christians seek to dominate Muslims politically, economically and culturally as well as religiously. The idea of a purely spiritual motive for proselytization does not appear to have credence and this is not difficult to understand, given the traditional inability on the part of Muslims to divide between the spiritual and material realms. Missionary endeavors are interpreted…under the concept of Jihad, but the term used is “crusaders”, a continuation of the medieval incursions of Europeans into the Middle East in the 15th century, with aims at the total annihilation of Islam as a world religion.” (355-356)
– Examples of this are seen in Samuel Zwemers writings: “…before we can establish Christianity in the hearts of Muslims we must destroy (hadama) Islam in their souls…the destruction of Islam in the soul of a Muslim implies the destruction of the religion in general.” (Al-Jindi,p.27) (356)

-“Zwemer can therefore speak of ‘the destruction of the religion in general’ and mean only the religion, but to the Muslim this would be tantamount to annihilation of his external environment.” (357)

-Therefore Zwemers “destruction of the religion in general” implies for a Muslim that which the term “holocaust” today connotes for a Jew.
– Many Muslims reiterate commonly that Paul, and not Jesus, was the actual founder of the Christian religion, and came up with ideas such as the trinity, the crucifixion, the resurrection. (Ahmad Deedat, Cruci-fiction, p.1)
– Thus Hasan Al-Banna’ felt that “the missionary…was the major ‘agent’ of cultural imperialism.” (358)
– Maryam Jameelah writes against Westernization and Christianity in her book Islam Versus Ahl al-Kitab (see pp.398-399 =how Jesus would reject x-tianity and choose Islam when he returns). She has no academic credentials, but popular (361)
– Ahmad Deedat receives $10,000 renumeration, has vitriolic style. Says in his “Roman Catholicism” brochure-1985 “Now, for the conquest of Britain for Islam” (363)
– Is critical of recent missiological strategies, calling Josh Mcdowell “sick”, for whom “every trick in the bag is permissible to clinch a convert for christ” (Deedat-Crucifiction,p.76). Tells readers to: “take the wind out of the mission- aries’ sail. You can CRACK HIS SKULL, exactly as young David…did.” (Cruci-p.59)
– Notice Deedats use of words to describe missionaries: “…merciless mission- ary punched the wind out of the Muslim with snide remarks…the hot gospeller, the door to door peddler of Christianity and the shameless insulter of Islam…I humbly undertook…from the assaults of Christians.” (Deedat-Bible God’s, p.62)
Ata’ullah Siddiqi in his “Islam and Missions” criticizes the missionaries contextual approach as less honest when they call themselves “followers of Isa”, and churches as “Masjid Isa”, hoping to fool the Muslims (364).

---

Chapter IV: The Dynamics of Conversion to Islam

I Religious Conversion: The Traditional Western Paradigm (pgs.367-394)

I Conversion to Christianity

William James, James H.Leuba, and Edwin Starbuck all led the field in research in conversion.
– Starbuck administered a questionnaire to 192 converts in the 19th cent.,
72 males and 120 females, and found that primarily adolescents were converted at the ages of 13-14 for females and 16 for males, with the conclusion that “the frequency of conversions correspond with the periods of bodily growth for both males and females (puberty).” (368)
– At adolescence, individuals are forming a world and life view, as well as an identity. Two things must happen: 1)one must experience a sense of incompleteness or wrongness concerning one’s life in general, and 2)there must be a positive ideal which one desires to attain. In addition both of these must be expressed in religious tenets (i.e. sin and righteousness repectively). (370)
– Starbuck points to 2 types of conversion:
1) “volitional”, conscious and voluntary, the end product of a reasoned
and thoughtful search.
2) “spontaneous”, involuntary and unconscious, a self-surrender, or an
emotional experience. (a pseudo-solution for some, most likely to
occur in neurotic, prepsychotic or psychotic persons, according to
Salzman (Salzman 177-187)
F.J. Roberts in 1965 studied 43 theology students, 23 of whom had sudden conversions. Found that those from Christian backgrounds were more neurotic than those who converted from outside, due to the parental pressure they felt. (374)
– John Lofland and Rodney Stark explained a form of reverse psychology in conversion: “individuals would relinquish a more widely-held perspective for an unknown, obscure and often socially devalued one.” Conversion thus became a form of protest against familial or social conditions deemed to be less than ideal.
– Reasons for conversion were: an experience of tension, the feeling that con- ventional methods for solving problems weren’t good enough, so alternatives were sought; believing they were pilgrims, seekers, at a turning point, came to make a decision, at which time relationships were established which attracted them towards that decision, while negative factors (sometimes relationships) pushed them away from their roots, and intensive interaction was had with the new group (377).
– Some believe the above is only an escape mechanism.
Flo Conway and Jim Siegelman talk of “snapping” for spontaneous conversion.
Characteristics of Conversion:
1)Integration factor-people choosing a religious grid to make sense of their problems and difficulties around them.
2)During Adolescence is when the most occured, as this is the period during which individuals are most intensely involved in constructing a world and life-view as well as forming a personsl identity. It is only logical to expect that the highest rate of conversions will take place during the time when the struggle to integrate reaches its peak intensity (387).
3)It happens during a time of Personal Stress or anxiety. In the U.S. only 10-30% experience some form of religious conversion, and for the majority of these it apparently is a satisfactory experience. The attrition rate of religious converts is actually quite low. (Starbuck p.360).
4)Interprsonal relationships are important in the conversion process, especially those who have themselves been converted. This can be a positive rela- tionship with them or a negative reaction against the group they are coming out of.
5)Conscious Motivational Factors are influential at the time of conversion:
a)fears= an insecurity concerning life in general.
b)Self-regarding motives= a desire for status, or to enter the ministry, or see a loved one in heaven.
c)altruistic motives= desire to be a part of a religion based on ethic, love, sacrifice.
d)Following out a moral ideal.
e)Remorse for and Conviction of Sin.
f)Response to Teaching=an intellectual or rational decision.
g)Example and Imitation= the influence of family, relatives, or peers.
h)Urging and social Pressure= more direct than the above. (390-391)
– Thus, a western convert to Christianity can be one who: is between 12-18 years, usually a female, one who has grappled to integrate internal and external factors impinging on their life, resulting in stress, whereupon they have looked to a religious solution, which is found in a relationship with another individual of like mind. The final commitment could be spontaneous or gradual, and may be attributable to one or more of the above motivational factors. (393)

II Conversion to Islam (pgs.394-443)

Intro: (394-399)
Muslim literature is poor in recording conversion to Islam. Most of the conversion which are recorded do not emphasize supernatural phenomena, because Muslims believe propositional tenets of his faith are self-evident. Thus the focus of his proselytization is the proclamation of these tenets.
Nehemiah Levtzion, a convert to Islam questions whether or not conversions during the early history of the Islam were forced by the mujahidun, and concludes that this was rarely the case. (395) He showed the importance of traders and Sufi’s for its spread.
Richard Bulliet felt ‘Individual conversion would be true “conversion” while the communal phenomenon would be considered “adhesion.”‘ (Bulliet, p.4)

A Research Methodology (Postons Questionnaire)
– Must note that a “typical” western convert to Islam differed significantly from that of the “typical” religious convert.
– Poston put together 4-page questionnaire, sent out a general letter to 20 Muslim (offensive-activist) organizations, but only 8 organizations were agreeable. 136 questionnaires were distributed, but only 10 were returned (7%), due to suspicion, because he wasn’t a Muslim. Personally gave out 15 questionnaire at a conference, but only 2 were returned (401).
– Islamic Horizons offered to publish the questionnaire in its Jan.-Feb. 1988 issue, 15 answers came back but were not released to the author (402).
– Thus Poston sought to peruse written accounts (60), and put together a composit of 70 converts: U.S. (32=46%) and foreign (38=54%) responses (28=British). 49 (70%) were male and 21 (30%) were female.
– Yvonne Haddad claimed that in 1982- 5,000 individuals of European background had converted to Islam, but gave no documentation for this figure (405).

B Results of the Study

[1] Male-female ratios (405-410)
– In the study, of the 70 respondants 49 were males and 21 females. While Christianity is characterized as appealing mainly to women and children, Islamic studies indicate that men are attracted as much as or perhaps more so than women.
Why more males are attracted than females:
1) It is a male dominated religion.
2) Women are to be veiled and in seclusion.
3) Womens attendance is not required at mosques functions.
4) They are excluded from from official positions of leadership.
5) The Muslim male emphasis on virility and masculinity.
6) The media protrays Muslim women as veiled, secluded, uneducated and little
more than a material possession of the male. (407)
– In Europe, more males were converted to Islam then females, while in the U.S. it was about equal. This is due to 3 reasons: a) Women in America are found to adhere in greater proportions to all expressions of faith, b) Some women have reacted negatively to the feminist movement, and c) American women are less opposed to marryiung Muslim men, which nearly always involves conversion to Islam.
– Concerning marrying for reasons of marriage: Ghayur found in U.S. 90% are females who married Muslims, and so converted. Henningsson found the same in Europe. Haddad found, however, that converts are generally U.S. men who have married Muslim women. (411)

[2] Dissatisfaction with Christianity: (410-412)
– Most common reasons were: 1) “irrationality of the concept of Trinity, 2) the doctrine of transubstantiation, 3) the disappointment that Christianity couldn’t speak to modern social issues, and 4) it’s exclusivistic claims.

[3] Age for rejection and Conversion: (412-416)
– The average age of conversion for a Muslim convert is 31.4 years (U.S.=29 years, Europe=33.7) (John Renard: “Understanding the World of Islam,p.207). The age of rejection of Christianity was 16.8, thus a “Moratorium period” of 14 years, where they were experimenting with other beliefs, was noticed (412).
– “Whereas in a Christian context, conversion is at ages 15-16 for maximal commitment, followed by a period of “backsliding”, when they look for financial security, then followed by renewal to religious values later on, the convert to Islam rejects completely their natal religion, followed a Moratorium period of 14 years, during which other spiritual options are explored, and then a final conversion to Islam in the late 20s to early 30s. There appears to be little backsliding on the parts of Muslim convers.” (415-416)

[4] What does one do to become a Muslim? (416-427)
– Testimonies are usually silent on this issue.
– Some believe it is through a private conversation with a friend, or a public recitation of the Shahadah (“There is no God but Allah and Muhammad is His messenger”). Others felt they had always been Muslims, and so now are reverting.
– Conversion did not involve an upheavel: 69 of the 70 converted over time, as a process, rather then as a “spontaneous” experience. Not an emotional reaction, no crisis; no sense of desperation. They were fully conscious, making careful examinations and considerations of alternatives; by means of conversations with Muslims, reading the Qur’an, and journeying to Muslims lands.
– Islamic conversion, differs from Christian conversions. They are ‘conversions of the head’ (the intellect) not ‘conversions of the heart’ (emotions). (421)
– The overwhelming majority experienced no crisis, which may be attributable to their age, being beyond the stresses which accompany adolescence. (421)
– 60% of converts mentioned the influence of a Muslim friend in their decision.

[5] The attraction of Islam: (428-441)
– Some saw the only hope for uniting mankind & creating equality was in Islam.
– Many found a haven in the “strictness” of the new faith.
– 18% considered Islamic morality to be the significant factor for conversion, yet only 5% of Europeans mentioned this (due to conservative U.S. environment).(429)
– Only 1 of the 70 felt sin was a factor for conversion. Many felt they were not sinful, that the doctrine of original sin was repulsive, and so, were attracted to Islam’s view of the innate goodness of man.
– Some stated that while family and friends attempted to understand and accept, they could not comprehend the reasons for the decision. (Benjelloun. pg.6)
-42 of the 70 mentioned that individuals had influenced their decision. So, a pietistic lay witness (low-church) is the key to spreading Islam in the west (441).
– “The Response to Islamic Teachings” was the chief motivating factor (52 out of 70 converts=74%), which made Islam qualitatively superior.
1) Simplicity (20%), much less complicated and easier to explain, just Shaha dah and 5 pillars; no baptism, catechism, or complicated traditions. Christianity was corrupted and syncretistic, while Islam was preserved in its original form (434)
2) Rational (20%), strictly in harmony with reason and science, not irra tional like x-tianity (i.e.=trinity, incarnation, resurrection, transubstantiation)
3) Tawhid (the oneness of God)
4) Brotherhood of Man (20%) Almost all Europeans mentioned this, while not a single American male did so. Felt, also that Islam had positive stand on social justice and racial equality.
5) This-worldly focus, (19%). Provides a solution to the acute needs of human society, answering all of mans problems, and bringing in the Kingdom now.
6) Lack of Priesthood (9%). No medial agents, that the believer can go directly to God.

A typical Muslim convert:

An individual, who after deliberately rejecting their parents religion at age 16-17, after pursuing religious alternatives for 6 or more years, makes a commitment to Islam in late 20’s or early 30’s, after considerable intellectual, rather than emotional thought, as well as contact with another Muslim, due to aspects of Islamic doctrine, which are found appealing.

---

Chapter V: The Future of Da’wah in the West

– Expansion of Islam in the U.S. is more like a trickle than a torrent. It makes up not even 2% of the U.S. population. The majority of Muslims continue to be assimilated into their secularized environments. Offensive-activist organizations are increasing in size, but are small, disorganized, poorly staffed, and funded.
– “Only 1/5 of U.S. Muslims participate actively in a mosque.” (Haddad,p.75)
– “In pluralistic America the one who is most forceful in his presentation gains the most publicity and, hence, the greatest number of converts.” (444)
– Over the years ethnic concerns were given priority rather than matters which involved the ‘umma as a whole. (447)
Kerry Lovering (publications secretary of SIM) in 1979 wrote: “Christianity…has failed miserably…it is now Islam that ofers salvation from the drunkenness, sexual license, political corruption, violence, blasphemy and corrupt lifestyles that afflict ‘Christian’ nations.” (Lovering, p.6)
Martin Marty speaks about certain traits which have been ingrained into the American ethos which will stay. Islam can answer many of these quite well:
1) Pluralism and Experimentalism: generic traits, the willingness of Americans to both seek and practice spiritual alternatives. Islam will thus be assured of a hearing, if it proclaims its distinctive elements.
2) Scripturalism: adherence to a written revelation. The Qur’an as the revelation of God accords this distinctive.
3) The Enlightenment thinking of ‘Reason’: Islam has a viable alternative for those repulsed by the emotional emphasis of contemporary Christianity.
4) Voluntaryism: the view that the Church or institution should be supported by voluntary contributions rather than the state. Islam is lay led in the U.S., and thus should be attractive in this area. (Marty, Religion and Republic, pp.36-48)
– But, changes must be had for the Muslims to gain on these traits:
a) Islam in the U.S. must develope an indigenous leadership, or else it will retain a distinctly foreign character, which will inhibit its growth. (451)
b) New converts to Islam must stop adopting an Arabic name upon conversion.
c) Much seek to change the stereotypical image of Islam as consisting mainly of Iranian and Libyan terrorists, Black activists, and male chauvanists.
d) The anti-Christian polemic must cease, as such attacks serve to increase the interest of nominal Christians in the precepts of their faith.
e) Unity, as envisioned by Muslims, is a vain pursuit, and best abandoned. The diversity of the Muslim world will have to be accepted, much like HUP principle.
f) Khurram Murads low-church missiological approach must be expanded and continually developed. Muslim laymen must be mobilized.
Dr. Abdel-Halim Mahmoud: “We cannot deny that U.S. Muslims might one day try to replace the Constitution with Shari’a law.” (Lovering,p.6)
Isma’il al-Faruqi: “The Islamic vision endows No.Am. with a new destiny worthy of it. For this renovation of itself, of its spirit, for its rediscovery of a God-given mission and self-dedication to its pursuit, the continent cannot but be grate- ful to the immigrant with Islamic vision. It cannot but interpret his advent on its shores except as a God-given gift, a timely divine favor & mercy.” (Faruqi-p.270)
Musa Qutub: “The people of the West (U.S.) will assist (in spreading) the Truth when the Hour comes.” (Sahih Muslim, Bab al-Imara 177). (455)

---

Bibliography

Benjelloun, Amina, “Why I am a Muslim,” Islamic Horizons, September 1984, p.6

Braden, Charles S. “Islam in America”, International Review of Mission, XLVIII (July 1959): 309

Bulliet, Richard. Conversion to Islam in the Medieval Period, Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1979

Deedat, Ahmad, Crucifixion or Crici-fiction?, Durban, S.A.: Islamic Propagation Centre, 1984

Deedat, Ahmad, Is the Bible God’s Word?, Durban, S.A.: Islamic Propagation Center, 1980

Donahue, John J. and Esposito, John L., eds. Islam in Transition, N.Y.: Oxford University Press, 1982

Al-Faruqi, Isma’il Raji, ” Islamic Ideals in North America,” In The Muslim Community in North America. Edited by Earle Waugh et al. Edmonton: University of Alberta Press, 1983

Al-Ghanoushi, Rashid. “What We Need is a Realistic Fundamentalism.” Arabia: The Islamic world Review, October 1986: 13-15

Haddad, Yvonne Yazbeck. “Muslims in Canada: A Preliminary Study.” In Religion and Ethnicity, pp.71-100. Edited by Harold Coward and Leslie Kawamura. Waterloo: Wilfred Laurier Univ. Press, 1978

Haider, Gulzar. “Canadian Saturdays, Pakistani Sundays.” Whole Earth Review, (Winter 1985):38

Hathout, Maher. “Muslim Americans’ Dilemna: A Response.” Arabia: The Islamic World Review, July 1987, p.47.

Imran, Maulana Muhammad. Importance of Da’wah (Tabligh) in Islam. Lahore, M. Siraj-ud-Din and Sons, 1976

Inniger, Merlin W. “The Ahmadiya Movement: Islamic Renewal?” In Dynamic Religious Movements. Edited by David J. Hesselgrave. Grand Rapids; Baker Book House, 1978

Islahi, Amin Ahsan. Call to Islam and How the Holy Prophets Preached, Kuwait: Islamic Book Publishers, 1978

Al-Jindi, Anwar. Afaq Jadida lil-Da’wah al-Islamiyya fi ‘Alam al-Gharb. Beirut: Mu’assasa al-Risala, 1984

Johnson, Steve, Da’wah to Americans: Theory and Practice (Plainfield: Islamic Society of North America, 1984), p.21

Khurshid, Muhammad. Da’wah in Islam. Houston: Islamic Education Council, n.d.

Levtzion, Nehemia. “Toward a Comparative Study of Islamization”, In Conversion to Islam, pp.1-23. Edited by Nehemia Levtzion. N.Y.: Holmes and Meier Publishers, Inc., 1979

Lovering, Kerry. “Tough at Home, Aggressive Abroad: Islam on the March,” Muslim World Pulse, August 1979. p.6

Manual of Da’wah for Islamic Workers. Montreal: Islamic Circles of No. America, 1983

Marty, Martin E. Religion and Republic (Boston: Beacon Press, 1987), pp.36-48

“MSA and Family Builds in the U.S.”, Arabia: The Islamic World Review, May 1983, p.63

Muhammad, Akbar, “Some Factors which Promote and Restrict Islamization in America”, American Journal of Islamic Studies (August 1984): 41-43

Murad, Khurram Jah. Da’wah Among Non-Muslims in the West. London: The Islamic Foundation, 1986

Murad, Khurram Jah. Islamic Movement in the West. London: Islamic Foundation, 1981

Murad, Khurram Jah. “Third opportunity to Keep Islam in the West.” Islamic Horizons, November 1986, p.10

Murghani, Sheikh Sharafuddin. “When In Rome…” Arabia: The Islamic World Review, May 1987, p.46

Mawdudi, Abul A’la, Witnesses Unto Mankind: The Purpose and Duty of the Muslim Ummah, ed. and trans. Khurram Murad (Leicester: The Islamic Foundation, 1986)

Neill, Stephen. A History of Christian Missions. N.Y.: Penguin Books, 1964

Peters, Rudolph. Islam and Colonialism: The Doctrine of Jihad in Modern History. N.Y.: Mouton Publishers, 1979

Renard, John “Understanding the World of Islam,”, America October, 20, 1979

Richardson, E.Allen. Islamic Cultures in North America N.Y.: The Pilgrim Press, 1981

Sahih Muslim, Bab al-Imara 177

Sakr, Ahmad, Proceedings of the First Islamic Conference of North America. N.Y.: Muslim World League, 1977, pp.62-63

Salzman, Leon, “The psychology of Religious and Ideological Conversion,” Psychiatry (May 1953): 177-187)

Shafaat, Ahmad. The Gospel According to Islam, (N.Y.: Vantage Press, 1979)

Shafaat, Ahmad. Missionary Christianity and Islam (2 Volumes) Montreal: Nur Media Services, 1982, I,p.5

Starbuck, Edwin D., The Psychology of Religion (N.Y.: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1900)

Whaling, Frank. “A Comparative Religious Study of Missionary Transplantation in Buddhism, Christianity and Islam.” International Review of Mission LXX (October 1981): 314ff.

Yakan, Fathi. Islamic Movement: Problems and Perspectives. Indianapolis; American Trust Publications, 1984

Mutual Misconceptions: Christian Misconceptions About Islam and Muslim Misconceptions About Christianity

Keith Small

---

Introduction

All of us know the personal hurt of being misunderstood. It is all the more tragic when misunderstandings and misconceptions are elevated to national and cultural levels extending the hurt to millions. In these days of increased travel and communication we have the opportunity of diminishing misconceptions that have plagued us, sometimes for centuries. We have the opportunity to talk to and listen to each other as never before. Let us not squander this opportunity. I hope my contribution today will be a small part of overcoming some of the many misconceptions that have arisen between Muslims and Christians.

To truly understand each other we must talk and listen with as much fairness and objectivity as we can muster. It is too easy to yield to prejudice when we are confronted with something difficult to understand or something contrary to what we expect or contrary to what we want to believe. Such prejudice does no one any good. It only reinforces inaccurate stereotypes and prolongs and deepens misconceptions. Modern science at its best strives to overcome ignorance and misunderstanding with impartial research. We would do well to adopt this attitude of impartiality toward the more difficult issues that science cannot address that are addressed by our faiths.

This is a short attempt to address some of the major misconceptions between Muslims and Christians about each other and each others’ religions. I prefer to say that the misconceptions are between Christians and Muslims rather than between Islam and Christianity because fundamentally, misunderstandings occur between people, not systems of belief.

I. Christian misconceptions about Islam.

These are things those of us who are Christians need to take to heart.

A. Many Christians see all Muslims as extremists, terrorists, or intolerant.

There is a tendency to see all Muslims as religious fanatics instead of normal, pious people. I think there are three main reasons for this.

1. Many Christians believe media bias which often shows extremism. They don’t realize that they are being given an incomplete picture. Many are often ignorant of the variety within Islam that there are peaceful groups as well as violent ones, spiritually motivated groups as well as politically motivated ones.

2. Many Christians don’t understand the political side of Islam. Christians tend to be ignorant of Muhammad’s role as political ruler in Medina and the enormous amount of teaching and law in the Qur’an and Islam regarding politics. Many tend to simplistically look at Muhammad through the example of Jesus who did not have a political agenda.

3. Although Jesus grew up under an oppressive imperialistic power, Western Christians don’t know the experience of being dominated by a another political or economic power. Note I have said Western Christians and not Middle Eastern, African, Eastern European, and Chinese Christians to name a few. Western Christians find it hard to appreciate the hurt much of the West’s involvement in the Middle East has caused Muslims. They don’t understand the frustration that fuels much of the violence the extremists commit. Western Christians often don’t understand poverty and oppression because their lives have been relatively free from injustice and want.

These are the reasons why I think Christians often make unfair generalisations as to what Muslims are like.

B. Many Christians don’t understand Muhammad’s place in Islam, and it leads them to two kinds of misconception concerning Muhammad.

1. Often Christians out of ignorance tend to think that Muhammad holds the same general place in Islam that Jesus holds in Christianity. They don’t realize that Muslims don’t see Islam as “Mohammed’s” religion, that is, a religion that Muhammad began. Muslims see Islam as the basic religion that all prophets proclaimed, Muhammad happening to be the last prophet. This is why the term “Mohammedanism” is offensive to Muslims and is more properly replaced with “Islam”. The misconception here is over-estimating the importance of Muhammad to Muslims in the religion of Islam, almost believing they worship him.

2. On the other hand, Christians also undersestimate what Muhammad means to Muslims. This is seen in that many Christians don’t understand the current attitude toward Muhammad as expressed in the Salmon Rushdie affair. While Muslims don’t worship Muhammad, Christians often don’t understand the place of affection and devotion he does have so that they understand the hurt defaming remarks cause. Muslims see Muhammad as the last and greatest of the prophets and so accord him the greatest amount of respect that they give to any man. It is like the hurt Christians feel when they hear Jesus called “just a good teacher”, “just a man”, or even “just a prophet”. To Christians, Jesus is so much more, and to call Him something less is blasphemy. Christians need to understand the emotions involved in others’ beliefs and be sensitive to Muslims.

C. Many Christians have misconceptions about the roles of politics and religion in Islam.

1. Christians can tend to believe that Islam is exclusively spread by the sword. They are often ignorant of world history that shows that much of Islam’s spread in the world was the result of traders and Muslim Sufi missionaries. This is especially true for Islam’s spread in Asia. Western Christians tend to know more about the wars with Islam that occured around the Mediterannean and in Europe.

2. Also, many Christians are ignorant of the political nature of Islam so they think it should not be involved in politics today. Throughout history Islam has seen political means as being appropriate for accomplishing the spread of the religion since the religion of Islam is meant to embrace the whole of life. Christians often don’t realize that the Qur’an and Islamic law embrace not only personal religion but family law, civil law, and criminal law.

3. Christians also forget that for much of the history of Christianity, the Church shared this view that it was to be intimately involved in politics. The Church has for much of its history seen the sword of political authority as a necessary and proper support for its position. Only in recent years has this expectation been overturned .

D. Many Christians see Islamic culture as backward and unrefined.

1. Christians are often ignorant of Islam’s rich and full cultural heritage. They don’t know that Muslims have extensive bodies of literature in Arabic, Persian, and Urdu. They don’t know that Islam has a long and full history in architecture, calligraphy, poetry, philosophy and science. This leads to Christians not understanding why Muslims often take more pride in their Islamic cultural heritage than in the cultural achievements of the West.

2. Like the West in general, Christians often tend to judge other nations in terms technological progress, or they slip into simple prejudice at something that they don’t understand.

3. Christians are often ignorant of the influences Islam has had on our own culture. They don’t realize that our knowledge of Platonic and Aristotelean philosophy came through Arabic translations of these texts. Many are ignorant of the debates and discussions in theology that took place between Islamic and Christian scholars for hundereds of years. They don’t realize that all of our sciences and especially mathmatics, medicine and astronomy were influenced by Medieval Islamic books and research. Many don’t realize that all of our fine arts have been profoundly influenced by Islamic fine arts, from painting and literature to architecture and music. In general, many Christians are ignorant of the long and varied history of contact and influence between Islam and Christianity.

These are just some of many areas where Christians need to become better informed concerning Islam.

II. Muslims’ misconceptions about Christianity.

Please accept this as an outsider’s view. These are misconceptions I have encountered personally.

A. Many Muslims view all Westerners as Christians.

1. Because culture and religion are so intertwined in Islam, I think Muslims have a hard time realizing that all Westerners are not Christians. The West has a Christian cultural heritage, but in the main our culture and society have left that heritage to pursue a more secular course. Religion in the West has been moved out of public life to be a mostly private affair. Crime, immorality, drug abuse, and drunkenness are not things that Christianity promotes or allows. It is adamently opposed to them for the sins that they are in themselves, and for the hurt and tragedy they foster.

2. Many Muslims have a hard time understanding that most countries in the West do not allow the Church to have dominant political power. The limiting of the Church’s power is a reflection of the biblical teaching that coercion and true religion do not go together. Muslims tend to confuse Jesus with Muhammad and think that He left a law and political agenda similar to Muhammad’s. Jesus didn’t do these things. The law He left is the Law of love summed up by what is called the Golden Rule: “So in everything, do to others what youwould have them do to you, for this sums up the Law and the Prophets.” (Matt. 7:12, NIV). It is this teaching, which still operates to a great degree in the West, that is behind people being allowed to freedom of speech, even to the degree where Muhammad is insulted in The Satanic Verses, and Jesus is degraded in The Last Temptation of Christ. This alsocontributes to why the West views it as wrong for even blasphemers to be injured or killed. Christians are also taught to love their enemies and pray for their repentence.

3. Also, Muslims tend to misunderstand that, according to the Bible, becoming a Christian is primarily a personal decision, not a cultural or family identity. No one is born a Christian. Everyone must decide for themselves that they will trust in Jesus’ death for them on the cross for the forgiveness of their sins. Jesus said, “For God so loved the world that he gave His one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life.” (John 3:16) A culture becomes “Christian” only secondarily after many people choose Christ and obey His teachings, and it affects the way they live.

B. Many Muslims view the basic message of Christianity and Islam as the same, that in essence they teach the same thing.

1. I appreciate the tolerance that this sentiment is trying to express. But it is not fair to Christianity or Islam to say they teach essentially the same thing. Islam claims to be the final religion. This is the claim of the Qur’an itself (Surah 61:9, “As-Saff” or “The Ranks”): “He it is who hath sent His messenger with the guidance and the religion of truth, that He may makeit conqueror of all religion however much idolaters may be averse.” (Pickthall’s translation) Likewise, Jesus claims to be the only way to the Father, and His teachings the most authoritative statements of truth given by God to mankind (John 14:6): “Jesus answered, ‘I am the way and the truth and the life. No-one comes to the Father except through me.”(NIV)

2. Such statements, though well intended, only confuse the issue of truth. In order for both Islam and Christianity to be true at the same time, then major parts of each would have to be viewed as wrong. For instance, Islam holds that sincere repentence is enough for God to grant a person forgiveness. Christianity holds that repentence is not enough but must be united with trust in the atoning death of Christ. These are very different views. They involve differing views of the nature of sin, of God’s character, and of forgiveness. Neither side can yield its view without giving up essential foundational doctrines.

C. Many Muslims assume that the Bible has been corrupted, that is, that it’s content and meaning have been intentionally and radically changed.

Most Muslims I have talked to are convinced that the Bible has been corrupted so much that it cannot be trusted. This matter in itself is of such great importance that it should not be treated lightly by anyone but should be searched out with care and objectivity. The Bible and the Qur’an each claim for themselves to contain the truth that will lead to eternal life. Yet they donot agree with each other. Here are four issues that are commonly misunderstood by Muslims concerning the Bible:

1. The existence of so many different translations of the Bible means that there are many different versions of the Bible, meaning different Bibles. This is completely wrong. There is only one Bible, in the original languages of Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek. There are many different translations of this one book because of the nature of language. Language changes, so translations need to reflect these changes. Language is also rich in meaning. Additional translations bring out nuances that might be missing in others. The basic meaning in all these translations is the same. This situation is the same as is found with English and Urdu translations of the Qur’an. There are many different translations of the same book. Also, there has never been a hesitation in Christianity to translate the Scriptures. The original languages have never been regarded as divine languages defying translation. The Bible presents that revelation can be adequately conveyed in human languages. Revelation is meant to be understood, loved, and obeyed (Deut. 30:11-14). That is why Christians take so many pains to see the Bible translated and translated accurately.

2. It is often believed that since there are four gospels in the New Testament that there was originally one which the Church corrupted. There is no historical evidence that this was ever the case. There is no evidence that Jesus left a book to His disciples called “the Gospel.” In fact, Jesus promised, not to leave a book, but to guide the disciples into all the truth as they wrote of Him. Jesus left the task of recording Scripture to His disciples whom He would guide by the Holy Spirit (John 14:25,26; 15:26,27).

3. It is often remarked about the Bible that since there are variations in the manuscripts that the text must be corrupt. I have found that most Muslims do not realize that their own book, the Qur’an, is in a similar situation. In the reliable Islamic traditions it is recorded that many of the companions of Muhammad had collections of the Qur’an that differed from each other. These differences have been preserved. The Qur’an collections differed in many respects, for example, the number and order of Surahs, the spelling of words, and the use of different words in the exact same contexts. If one examines these variations fairly, they will realize that the situations for the Bible and the Qur’an are the same. These variations in detailsdon’t affect the overall reliability of the text. There are small areas that are in doubt as to the exact reading, but none of the variant readings affect any major or minor doctrine in Islam or Christianity. Both books are amazingly accurate as regards the historical preservation of their texts. The significant difference between the two books is in their message, not their textual history. It is a misconception to believe that one has been corrupted beyond reliability in the transmission of its text while the other has not.

4. Also, Muslims are often ignorant of the history of the transmission of the Bible that bears this out. The Old Testament of the Bible has been the holy Scriptures of the Jews since before esus, and they still are to this day. The New Testament has been the holy Scriptures, with the Old Testament, for the Christians since the days of the Apostles of Jesus. In the five centuries preceding Muhammad this same Bible that we have today was the Scripture of the Christians. It’s content and meaning have not been changed either before Muhammad or after.

D. Many Muslims believe Christians have made Jesus out to be God, that is, that they have elevated a man to deity.

All that the Christians believe about Jesus being God comes from Jesus’ own words and actions in the Gospels, and the testimony of Jesus’ closest disciples as preserved in the New Testament. Christian belief is based on what Jesus said about Himself and did to prove it and what the disciples had seen of Jesus and what they had been taught by Him. If you read the Gospels fairly you will see that Jesus identifies Himself as God and does many things that are the perogative of God alone. Christians have not made Jesus out to be God. We have only accepted what Jesus revealed about Himself. Christians are as sensitive to blasphemy as any Jew or Muslim. We have only accepted Jesus as God by examining the evidence left by Jesus Himself. These are some of many areas where I have found Muslims could be better informed.

Conclusion

1. As I said at the beginning, these are just a few of the major misunderstandings between Muslims and Christians. If you feel I have not been fair, or that I have left out any of greater importance than these, please say so and help me to learn.

2. My burden is that we discuss our faiths fairly, clearly, and with respect and sympathy. We would all agree that God is to be served with our entire lives and hearts. Let us approach each other sincerely and seek to correct our mutual misconceptions.

3. Thank you for allowing me to address you. May God bless you as you seek Him and seek out truth.

Given by Keith E. Small, 18 February 1997, Bradford University, Bradford, West Yorkshire.

Some missiologists prefer a relational approach to Islam, while others prefer a more confrontational approach. Which do you prefer and why?

By Toby Jepson

---

Our approach to Islam can say a lot about us. It can also communicate very different things to the Muslims with whom we are speaking. In the following essay I would like to look at a couple of the options available and consider the pros and cons of each. Then I shall look at situations in the Bible that throw light on the subject and conclude by summarising my own view.

In the first section I shall examine the relational and confrontational approaches. It should be borne in mind that rarely will any one person rely exclusively on either of the two. My own view, seen later, is that the biblical model is an excellent example for us today, combining both elements as is appropriate to each situation.

The Relational Approach

If it is possible to condense this approach down to one phrase, I would say that it is concerned primarily with the personbeing spoken to, their own needs, culture and sensitivities.

People who rely mainly on this approach tend to shy away from dwelling on issues such as the reliability of the Bible or the Qur’an, the trinity, the divinity of Jesus and the prophethood of Muhammad. It is often said that subjects such as these will only inflame a discussion and lead to a fruitless war of words that benefits neither party. Much emphasis is placed on friendship, showing the love of Christ to a Muslim so that they will be drawn to the Christian life. Should a Muslim wish to question certain aspects of the Christian faith, answers will often be given, but again shying away from the more controversial aspects.

The Confrontational Approach

To summarise this approach in turn, it is concerned primarily with the propositional truth of Islam and Christianity. Ultimately, it is up to the person concerned whether or not they accept the implications, but the aim is to persuade them that the gospel is objectively true and then invite them to live in accordance with it. In this context, the very issues that the relational approach may avoid come to the forefront. Right at the heart are questions such as, ‘which is more reliable – the Bible or the Qur’an?’ Leading on from that, the divinity of Jesus or the trinity, issues that so often confuse Muslims and lead them to reject Christianity, may be examined and discussed.

Strengths and Weaknesses

Clearly these two different approaches are broad ones that will be used differently by different people, with varying degrees of combination of the two. It could be said that they represent two opposing ends of the spectrum and that rarely is a person operating solely at one end or the other. However, it is useful to consider them in isolation and to look at the respective advantages and disadvantages of both.

Relational

The great strength of this approach is that it considers each person as an individual and is concerned that discussion and dialogue proceed at the pace of that person. Much use can be made of material that is common to both religions, for instance the sacrifice of Abraham’s son. This may be used as a bridge to talk about the sacrifice of God’s unique son, Jesus, with all the reasons for and implications of this. It is easily usable in Muslim countries, where a more confrontational approach may quickly lead to deportation and the end of any effective ministry in that place.

Its weaknesses tend to be simply the other side of the coin. When we are too concerned about the sensitivities of the individual and a desire to proceed at their own pace, we may never get to the crucial issues that they need to face. Is it not inevitable, after all, that at some point we will need to deal with issues that Muslims find uncomfortable? They cannot come to believe in the crucifixion, resurrection and divinity of Jesus (the heart of the gospel) without denying the infallibility of the Qur’an and the prophetic authority of Muhammad. At least, if they can, something has gone wrong somewhere! If we become more concerned with a pleasant relationship with our Muslim friends than with their eternal destinies, we are wasting our time and toying with their souls. The friendliest and most loving thing we can do in this situation is to challenge them to change.

Confrontational

We serve a God who has touched history, who has come down in the person of Jesus Christ and walked among us. We learn of that revelation through the Bible, the most valuable book in all human history. Unfortunately, Muslims consistently deny the authority of that Bible and so many of its most crucial teachings. It is vital that at some point they be urged to consider the claims of Christ and the validity of the Bible with fresh eyes. This is the chief value of this approach. Confrontation can be defined as meeting face to face or as comparison. The confrontation is primarily that between the key conflicting teachings of Islam and Christianity. At its root it is simply looking at the fundamental issues side by side and asking where the truth lies. It does not necessarily imply aggression, insult, arrogance or violence.

Unfortunately, our human natures can often distort this approach so that it takes on just those ugly features. Our inbuilt xenophobia and insecurity constantly tempts us repel those who oppose us or our beliefs with little regard for their intrinsic value as humans. This is the weakness of confrontation, that so often it leads to fruitless disputations where each side is more concerned with scoring points and bolstering their own sense of security than actually meeting the other person in dialogue.

Biblical Models

I shall take as my examples the two greatest biblical evangelists, Jesus and Paul. As we shall see, they used both approaches flexibly, as they saw fit in each individual situation.

Jesus

Jesus was no stranger to a relational approach. He shared his whole life with the twelve apostles, especially his ‘inner circle’ of Peter, James and John. Very often it was his life and actions that convinced them of who he was, such as the stilling of the storm in Matthew 14:22-33. In these situations he did not use rational argument to prove that he was the Messiah – he simply got on with the business of showing it, so the disciples were forced to ask themselves what other option there was. Yet even with his closest friends, he was not afraid to call a spade a spade and lovingly point out their error when necessary. His strong rebuke of Peter in Matthew 16:21-23 show that he was far more interested in his soul than in simply having a pleasant and cordial relationship.

In other situations he challenged the assumptions of those he met. The rich young ruler thought he was complimenting Jesus by calling him ‘good rabbi’, but Jesus threw it right back at him. Without denying his own goodness, he forced the ruler to reconsider what he was saying – only God was truly good, so did Jesus fit the bill…? Then he cut straight to the heart of the man’s problem – his love of wealth, showing him that he needed to change drastically in order to be a disciple (Luke 18:18-25).

With the Samaritan woman he gently led her on by provoking questions, but he was not afraid to challenge her immorality or to point out her erroneous beliefs: ‘you Samaritans worship what you do not know; we worship what we do know, for salvation is from the Jews’ (John 4:22).

Finally, when confronting the arrogance and hypocrisy of certain Pharisees, he did not mince his words: ‘Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites!…woe to you, blind guides!…you blind fools!…you snakes! You brood of vipers! How will you escape being condemned to hell? (Matthew 23:13-33). Nor was he particularly empathetic to the money changers in the temple (Luke 19:45,46). As Jay Smith points out:

He did not seek to discuss their position in an atmosphere of mutual understanding. Rather, he stormed in and upturned their tables. 1

Paul

As was the master, so the disciple. Paul shows good evidence of mixing his approach as the need arose. In Philippi, the conversion of Lydia seemed to proceed naturally from a friendly discussion by the riverside. Here there is no evidence of antagonism or heated debate (Acts 16:13-15).

Yet Paul was a master of reasoned argument and used it extensively in his ministry. We are told that he made a habit in each new town of going first to the synagogue and reasoning with the local Jewish population. In Pisidian Antioch he entered the synagogue with Barnabas in cordial circumstances and began to show from the Scriptures that Jesus was the Messiah. This stimulated much interest and it was only later that opposition arose (Acts 13:14-48). In Iconium the pair ‘spoke so effectively that a great number of Jews and Gentiles believed’ (Acts 14:1). At Thessalonica Paul ‘reasoned with them from the Scriptures, explaining and proving that the Messiah had to suffer and rise from the dead’ (Acts 17:2,3).

In the face of opposition we see that Paul ‘preached fearlessly in the name of Jesus’ (Acts 9:27). In the Areopagus at Athens he took the people from where they were and used their own beliefs as an effective bridge to preach the gospel in a way they could understand (Acts 17:19-34), with a measure of success as well as much derision. Paul’s desire to persuade his hearers of the truth of his message even led him to hold ‘discussions daily in the lecture hall of Tyrannus. This went on for two years, so that all the Jews and Greeks who lived in the province of Asia heard the word of the Lord.’ (Acts 19:9,10) He preached before angry mobs (Acts 21:40-22:22), a hostile Sanhedrin (Acts 22:30-23:9), Roman governors (Acts 24:1-21; 25:7,8), a king (Acts 25:23-26:29) and perhaps even Caesar himself (Acts 25:12). In all these situations he clearly set out his gospel in order to persuade his hearers, answering their challenges as necessary. His own methodology is clear (2 Cor 10:5):

We demolish arguments and every pretension that sets itself up against the knowledge of God, and we take captive every thought to make it obedient to Christ.

Even when it was his opponent was obviously evil and closed to the truth, Paul spoke out without fear (Acts 13:10):

You are a child of the devil and an enemy of everything that is right! You are full of all kinds of deceit and trickery. Will you never stop perverting the right ways of the Lord?

Putting the Pieces Together

We have seen above some of the many and varied ways in which Jesus and Paul approached their hearers in the course of spreading the gospel. Although often gentle, they were never afraid to reason and to show where necessary that people’s beliefs were deficient. With this in mind I would like to put forward some principles for use in Muslim evangelism.

Firstly and perhaps most importantly, there is no need for an artificial separation between the relational and confrontational styles of evangelism. Both are necessary and were used to good effect in varying degrees and combinations by both Jesus and Paul. We must crave divine discernment to determine what each situation requires.

When using more relational principles, we must be never be more concerned with platitudes than truth. Bearing in mind all the principles of good friendship, we must lovingly point out error when necessary in order to lead our friends to a saving knowledge of Christ. Ultimately the kingdom of darkness is being illuminated by the kingdom of light. We cannot avoid an element of confrontation, no matter how pleasant we are, or mindful of the need to proceed ‘with gentleness and respect’ (1 Peter 3:15).

In more confrontational situations we must never give way to arrogance or unnecessary humiliation of others (if anything humiliates a Muslim it should be the truth and not our delivery of it). We should never resort to a simple slanging match where we are simply concerned with sounding impressive. Even when confronting pure evil, as demonstrated above by both Jesus and Paul, we must speak out of a simple love for the truth and not a misplaced self-righteouness. If we find ourselves having no concern for the dignity of the individual, we need to ruthlessly question our motives for engaging Muslims.

My own experience has been largely gained at Speakers’ Corner, Hyde Park. This is admittedly an unusual situation, perhaps not unlike the Areopagus in Athens, but it gives a whole variety of opportunity, requiring many different approaches.

At times there people who come asking good questions and not being belligerent or unnecessarily argumentative. With these it is possible to proceed pleasantly through important issues in a friendly manner, even though I am challenging the very foundation of their faith.

Then there are those who are less responsive and more aggressive. Particularly with Asian Muslims, it is easy to misinterpret their passion as hatred or anger. In this situation, to be timid and placating, declining to offer evidence for my beliefs, will show in their eyes that I do not really believe what I am saying, or that it is indefensible. I attempt to give a robust answer in such situations, without resorting to insult or simple put-downs.

As a speaker on a ladder, it is easy to be drowned out by a sea of hecklers shouting irrelevant statements or insults. Shouting is often necessary to be heard, yet this in no way needs to be angry ranting. Many hecklers may need to be ignored, simply so that the message can be heard, answering appropriate challenges when they are made.

Also testing is heckling a Muslim speaker from the crowd. It is often necessary to speak out, as rarely will a Muslim conclude his talk without some false jibe against Christianity. Those listening who know no better must hear that there are answers, yet it can be hard to be heard. The speaker is at an advantage, controlling the crowd from the ladder and often attempting to humiliate any opposition.

Perhaps the most difficult and trying situations occur when faced with someone who is aggressive, abusive, insulting and has no desire to dialogue or to listen to anything I may have to say. Their aim is simply to humiliate me in public and to look good to the onlookers. Should I simply walk away, convinced that there is no benefit in talking to them? Should I fight fire with fire and throw back abuse at them? Though they may be closed, they need to be warned, and it must be clear to onlookers, Muslim and non-Muslim, that Christianity can stand up to attack. My own approach here is often to appeal to the onlookers and ask them if the person is being reasonable. I may demand evidence for any accusations that are being thrown (usually at a mind-boggling rate) and point out what an obnoxious fool they are being. It certainly is hard to maintain respect for such people, but we must do our best with God’s help.

Conclusion

As mentioned already, we must take our example from Jesus and Paul, mixing our approach as the situation demands, yet not forgetting either the person or the message. The love we must have for Muslims should not be confused for the sloppy emotionalism that avoids upsetting at all costs. Love must often be tough and false beliefs that blind people to the truth must be confronted, in as creative and godly a manner as possible.

Reference

1. Lang, and Walker, The Armenians, p. 8.

Jihad in the West

‘Muslim Conquests from the 7th to the 21st Centuries’

By Paul Fregosi
Prometheus Books, New York, 1998
Reviewed by Sharon Morad, Leeds

---

Preface

(pp. 15-18)
There is a link between terrorism known as Jihad today, with wars of Muslim expansion beginning with Muhammad.

All expressions of Islam’s basic distaste for the outside world.

Most Muslims claim crusades are the origin of the conflict between Islam and Christianity, but this is the wrong way around. The first crusade was in 1096 AD. Jihad had already been going on for 500 years by then.

---

Introduction

The Holy War that Isn’t (pp. 19-27)

Definition of Jihad: not attempt to convert people to Islam by force (except maybe in the 1st century of Islam).

Rather, attempt to “expand and extend Islam until the whole world is under Muslim rule. The jihad is essentially a permanent state of hostility that Islam maintains against the rest of the world, with or without fighting for more sovereignty over more territory” (20). It is a duty, an obligation for all Muslims.

[p.22] A contrast between Christ (He who lives by the sword will die by the sword), with Muhammad (the sword is the key to heaven and hell).

• Christians who kill are ignoring the words of Christ. Muslims who kill are obeying Muhammad.[p.23] Crusades – 1096 AD until 1270 AD. An attempt to retake (formerly Christian) Palestine.

• Jihad = 1,300 years. An attempt to occupy Europe, Asia and Africa, and then Islamicize them.[p. 25] Why do we not hear of the Muslim capture of Jerusalem from the Christians in 638 AD, or of the capture of Spain about 70 years later, or of the subsequent 800 year occupation?

• It was the success of Jihad against Europe that triggered Pope Urban II to call for the first Crusade in 1095 AD.

• Colonialism – not exclusively western. Muslim lands colonized much of Europe in the 7th – 19th centuries, and the two colonized each other in the 19th century.

• In fact Europe colonized Muslim lands for only 130 years (1830s – 1960s)!![p. 26] Muslims have freedom of worship in Christian lands, not vice versa (penalty of apostasy = death).

---

Part One: The Days of the Prophet

Chapt. 1: The Beginning: Mecca 570-622 (pp. 31-33)

A summary of the traditional accounts of Muhammad’s life, describing Islam as being “essentially a patriotic movement aimed at asserting Arabian independence and prestige” (p.32)

Chapt. 2: Gabriel Cometh: Medina (pp. 34-39)

• A traditional account of the early followers and opposition. Unfaltering description of the Qur’anic revelation.

• A description of the clash between Muhammad and Abu Sufyan (Umayyad originator). Early days, Muslims at risk, and Hijra to Medina.

• Perhaps a pious exaggeration of dangers in Mecca. Those that remained were undisturbed.

Chapt. 3: The First Battles (pp. 40-45)

• A description of the early days in Medina.

• Quarrels between Ansars and Muhajirun.

• Problems with the Jewish tribes.

• Poets writing verses mocking Muhammad.

• Muhammad establishing his authority – intrigue, manoeuvering , assassinations, wars, monetary gains thru caravan raids.BattlesNakhla = successBadr = success (angels helped)Abu Jahl (enemy from Mecca) executed, head given to Muhammad.Poets

  Female: Asthma bint Marwan, killed for making disrespectful verse.

  Male: Abu Afak and Kab, both killed.

• Terror is effective, as many people became loyal as a result.Jews: one tribe forced to leave (without possessions)

Chapt. 4: A man of Many Parts (pp. 46-51)

Many examples of Muhammad’s cruelty.

• Torturing a Jew until he revealed a gold store.

• Killing and robbing tribesmen to whom he had given hospitality (killing by cutting off hands and feet so they bled to death).

• Had a number of pious followers willing to act as assassins. This is different from the Muhammad of the Muslim psyche. In the Muslim psyche he is kind, helps the poor, saves baby girls, is nice to 11 wives.

• Combination of religion and politics. The Qur’an occasionally addresses Muhammad’s enemies with vengeance, and helps Muhammad out with exemptions from laws or answers , or knotty problems.

Chapt. 5: When the Killing Had to Stop (pp. 52-55)

Battle at Mt. Uhud was the first major defeat for Muhammad, but Abu Sufyan does not follow up his advantage. Two years later, the Meccans attack Medina, but due to a big trench which had been dug, their attack failed.

• Kihouna – Jewish chief at Khaybar; had a fortune in gold, was tortured by Muhammad in order to reveal the whereabouts of his gold (46). When he was dead, Muhammad married his 17 year old widow, Safiya, that same day (54).

• Killing by subordinates was routine.

• An assassination attempt of Abu Sufyan was foiled, but not completely useless, as four others were taken instead.

• Zaid (Muhammad’s adopted son) avenged a raid on a Medinan caravan, killed a middle-aged woman named Um Kirfa, along with her daughter, and two sons, by tying her legs to camels and having them pull her to pieces. Muhammad congratulated him on his return saying it was a job well done.

• When Muhammad returned to Mecca there was not much bloodshed, only a poet, a minor singer and one or two others.

Chapt. 6: A Man of His Time (pp. 56-59)

Basically a summary of preceding chapters with a special comment that Muhammad’s actions weren’t so much worse than other men of his time, but he was a hypocrite for preaching love and mercy at the same time; and in any case his life in history is nothing like his mage in Islam today.

• Now a comment on the slaughter of the Jewish Beni Quraiza tribe (660-800 men slain, wives and children sold as slave). Soldiers receive large amounts of booty (Muhammad gets 1/5). The Qur’an (S. 33:25) praises God for the killings because with them Muhammad becomes feared.

Chapt. 7: Of Banes and Stones (pp. 60-64)

A summary of the traditional account of the compilation of the Qur’an; some early controversy about it and the Mut’azilites. Throughout history other Muslims have challenged the idea of an eternal, uncreated Qur’an. A bit about the Hadith and questions on its reliability.

Chapt. 8: A Paradise for Warriors (pp. 65-68)

Why did outnumbered, under-equipped Arabs make such huge territorial victories so quickly?

1) dissensions between the Christians

2) warfare between the Byzantines and the Persians exhausted both.

3) plunder – either in this life or the next, the soldier of Islam was promised riches and women.

There is a detailed and graphic description of Muslim paradise, complete with houris, rivers of wine and the enjoyment of watching those in torment.

---

Part Two: Beyond Arabia

Chapt. 9: Onward Muslim Soldiers: Byzantium and Persia 632-640 AD (pp. 71-75)

After the death of Muhammad came the caliphate of Abu Bakr (2 yrs.), Umar (for ten years, then assassinated), followed by Uthman.

Uthman was the descendant of Abu Sufyan, the implacable enemy of Muhammad.

630 AD was the first battle outside of Arabia – against the Byzantines in Jordan. Muhammad ordered two campaigns just before his death:

Usama – led troops to the north

Khalid – captured Baghdad (he was a great general later on of the Umayyads)

Fall of Jerusalem, Damascus (635) and Antioch (636)

Muawiyya was active in the campaign against Syria. He was declared the governor of Syria by Umar in 640 AD.

By 641 AD much of Egypt and Persia had fallen

Islam (poor)

Sword (middle class)

Tribute (rich)

Chapt. 10: The Island Campaign: Cyprus, Rhodes, and Crete 649-668 AD (pp. 76-82)

A summary of the civil war between Muawiyya and Ali, establishment of the Umayyad caliphate.

Ali – 4th caliph, had capital in Basra. Muawiyya accuses him of complicity in Uthman’s murder.

657 – battle at Siffin. Ali’s troops stop fighting when Muawiyya’s appeal to the Qur’an for a verdict. The Kharajites leave Ali and one of them murders him.

Muawiyya is the caliph between 661-680, with his capital in Damascus. The Umayyads rule until 749 – then the Abbasids take over and rule until 1258 AD.

Abbasid rule – was anti-Umayyad, with much destruction of any references to them. Thus we know very little about the Umayyads.

We do know that Muawiyya was a good leader, was an imperialist, had wanted to take ships to attack the Mediterranean islands, but Umar refused (Umar like many Arabs, was afraid of the sea). But Uthman gave him permission to attack Cyprus in 649, first from Saida (Lebanon) and then from Alexandria. The first major Arab naval enterprise brought great booty. Later the Arabs left when the island promised to pay tribute.

Crete was raided in 653 AD. Rhodes was raided in 653. The “Saracens” remanined there 5 years, stripped the island bare, melted down the giant bronze colossus (one of the 7 wonders of the ancient world). Sicily was raided in 668 AD (at which time Muawiyya was now the caliph and not simply a general)

Advancement to Constantinople and a 6 year siege.

Chapt. 11: Checkmate on the Bosphorus: Constantinople 668-673 (pp. 83-86)

The dream of conquering Constantinople, greatest city of the east. In 668 there was an amphibious assault. An expedition sails from Syria, the Arab headquarters established on the island of Cyticus (a few miles south in the straits). Siege for 7 years.

The Byzantines had a secret weapon, a flaming mixture of ‘naphtha’, sulphur and pitch poured down on the attackers.

Eventually, Muawiyya realized he couldn’t take the city. The problem was that many of his ships were burnt, so he loaded as many soldiers as possible on the remaining ships. 30,000 soldiers were left to march back through Anatolia. The infantry was destroyed by the Byzantines during this retreat until there was a peace settlement, which forced Muawiyya to pay a tribute to Constantinople.

---

Part Three: The Iberian Venture

Chapt. 12: The Toledo Whore: Spain 710

Legend: the King Rodrigo of Spain seduces the daughter of count Julian of Morocco. In retaliation, Julian sides with the Emir Musa, a Muslim ruler of North Africa, based in Tunisia. Musa’s dream was to invade through Spain and France and meet Muslims invading from the east, so that Islam would surround the Mediterranean.

Chapt. 13: The Mountain of Tarik: Spain 711 (pp. 93-96)

The Caliph al-Walid authorizes the invasion of Spain, so the Musa and his commander, Tarik, with the count Julian as advisor, cross from Tangier to Gibralter (then called Jabil Tarik).

Spain – peasants oppressed by aristocracy. Internal dissension especially against Jews. They were now ruled by the Visigoths, who were complacent and corrupt.

The first battle, on the banks of the Guadelete river was a decisive victory for the Muslims. King Rodrigo was killed and his head sent back to Damascus.

The Muslims called Iberia al-Andalus and immediately began the campaign to take it all and head on for France.

Chapt. 14: A Conqueror’s Fate: Spain 711-715 (pp. 97-100)

Musa had commanded Tarik to wait for reinforcements, but the general ignored him, dividing the army into 2 parties, one heading for Cordova and the other for Toledo. The inhabitants fled and the cities and booty were taken without a fight.

Musa arrived with reinforcements in 712 en route to Toledo. He captured several other cities; Carmona, Medina, Sidonia, and Seville. Often the Jews helped the Muslims as liberators.

By 715 nearly all of Spain was under Muslim occupation. Leaving his son in charge, Musa returned to Damascus to report, but the new Caliph, Suleiman, feared his victories and had him banished to live as a beggar in a town in Arabia.

---

Part Four: Islam Unfolds

Chapt. 15: The Forgotten Isaurian: Constantinople 717-718 (pp. 103-106)

Leo the Isaurian, Anatolian and Byzantine emperor repelled the second Muslim attack on Constantinople in 717AD, initiated by Suleiman, consisting of 120,000 Arabs and Persians by land and 100,000 by sea.

Leo filled the granaries and the citizens watched with full bellies as the besiegers starved throughout the winter. The Arab supply ships were destroyed by Greek fire. A final doom for the Muslims came about when the Bulgarians joined the Greeks against them. The retreat was ordered, again, 30,000 by land, the rest by sea.

Chapt. 16: The Dhimmis: Dar-al-Islam from the Seventh Century Onwards (pp. 107-109)

Dhimmis could not carry weapons, ride horses, wear shoes, ring church bells, wear anything green, or fight back against a Muslim assault.

Proclaiming Jesus’ divinity and conversion from Islam were capital offenses.

Muslim rulers were not anxious for converts because Dhimmis were more valuable economically, as they paid tribute and were the slave labour.

Chapt. 17: Forays into France: The Langvredoc 718-732 (pp. 110-115)

The Spaniards began the Reconquista in 718 (ended in 1492). They started out as resistance movements.

Pelayo ruled a tiny territory and ran guerrilla raids against the Muslims.

Muslims began moving north.

Al-Semak led the first invasion across the Pyrenees in 721, establishing a base at Norbonne.

He was succeeded by Abderaman, who moved up the Rhone as far as Lyon and Dijon; specially targeting churches and monasteries. Then he moved on to Bordeaux. Between Poitiers and Tours, there was a clash between Abduraman and Charles Martel.

Chapt. 18: The Hammer of the Franks: Tours 732-759 (pp. 116-121)

Summary of the battle of Poitiers (or Tours) where Charles Martel turned back Abderaman’s advance. There was lots of fighting in the south of France (to the west in Langredoc under ibd-al-Malik, up the Rhone river again, east to Piedmont in Italy). The Muslims helped by Christian allies, began quarrelling with each other.

737 – Charles Martel retakes Avignon and continues to recapture Muslim strongholds until in 739 he reaches Marscilles.

741 – Charles Martel dies and is succeeded by Pepin the Short. Te Muslims are effectively driven out of France by this time.

Chapt. 19: The Umayyad Takeover: Spain 756-852 (pp. 122-129)

749 – the end of the Umayyad caliphate in Damascus. The new Abbasid rulers try to kill off all the remaining Umayyads. Abu al-Abbas manages to murder them all, but one, Abd al-Rahman, who escaped to Spain. Al-Abbas sent an army after him, but al-Rahman defeated it and established hi control over al-Andalus.

Charlemagne invaded from the north, but had to return to France to fight the Germans. So Abd al-Rahman was able to consolidate his power over his Muslim subjects.

(788-796) – Hisham I – succeeded Abd al-Rahman. Muslims invaded France, but turned back by the Christians there.

(796-822) – al-Itakam succeeded Hisham I. There was violent and quarrelling dissension even among the Muslim subjects. Notorious for massacres. In 801 Louis I (son of Charlemagne) invaded. Turned back, and also had troubles with the Basques.

(822-852) – Abd al-Rahman II – relatively peaceful, focussed on his 97 children. Exception – execution of nearly 1 dozen Christians of Cordova, who deliberately sought martyrdom by insulting the prophet.

Chapt. 20: The Long Resistance: Sicily 827-902 (pp. 130-134)

Conquest of Sicily began in 827 AD, though it had been raided several times earlier. The conquest took place when Admiral Euphemius of the Byzantine navy rebelled against discipining action for marrying a nun. He joined up with the emir of Tunisia. The campaign was slow and bloody, complete with many massacres. From Sicily they took other islands (Corsica, Malta, Sardinia, Pantellerva), and then marched on to Italy, reaching Rome and pillaging the churches of St. Peter’s and St. Paul’s in 846 AD.

In Sicily the Arab occupation lasted 264 years. In 1091 AD the Normans defeated the Saracens.

Chapt. 21: The French Riviera Campaign: St. Tropez 898-973 (pp. 135-139)

Muslim sailors landed at St. Tropez and began a disjointed pattern of conquest. All throughout the Riviera, in the Alps, cutting off France from Italy. Many settled and intermarried. Slowly the tide began to turn and in places Muslims were being pushed out. But a weak and divided Christendom was singularly unfit for the task.

---

Part Five: For Spain, My Humble Duty

Chapt. 22: The Corpses of Simancas: Spain 912-961 (pp. 143-148)

Incoherent, disorganised battles between Muslims and Christians and between different groups on each side characterised the early 10th century. Abd Al-Rahman III (912-961) decides to establish order. (He was following on the heals of Abdalla (882-912), a notoriously cruel caliph. After the surrender of the Castle of Polei he ordered the decapitation of all Christians unless they converted – only one took that offer and survived.) Abd al-Rahman III re-established the authority of Cordova, putting down insurgent Muslim cities and waging war against Christian kingdoms of the north. But the Reconquista continued to grind on. The Christians won a major victory at Simancas while Abd al-Rahman was preoccupied with Muslim rebels in the south. But the Christians did not follow up on their victory, preferring instead to settle for peace with the Muslims and internal dissension at home.

Chapt. 23: Aurora’s Lover: Santiago De Compostela 967-1002 (pp. 149-152)

Ibn Abi Amir (a.k.a. “Almanzor”) seduced the wife of Caliph Hakim II and became vizier of al-Andalus. He became especially powerful when his lover’s 5-year-old son, al-Hisham II became caliph. In 981 Almanzor lead the Muslim conquest of Zamora and executed over 4000 Christians. As a sign of his religious zeal he copied the whole Qur’an by hand and carried it around with him on campaigns. He also helped to build a mosque with his own hands. In the face of internecine warfare on the Christian side, Almanzor took Rueda, Barcelona, a group of villages in Castile and Leon, the shrine of Santiago De Compostela (reputed burial site of St. James), and Caneles. Each campaign was followed by a massacre of prisoners and civilians, the burning of the town and desecration of churches and monasteries. The great bells of Santiago de Compostela were carried off to Cordova on the backs of Christian slaves to be hung in the new mosque built by Almanzor. In 1002 Almanzor died of illness on the return from capturing Caneles.

Chapt. 24: Exeunt the Umayyads: Spain 1085 (pp. 153-155)

Muslim empire : The Abbasid empire was divided with the Buhaywids in Iraq and Persia, Damanids in China, Fatimids in Syria, Egypt, eastern North Africa, Sicily and the Hijaz. The Spanish Caliphate was the de facto ruler of western North Africa until disunity among Muslims in Spain lead to the fall of the Umayyads in 1031 followed by “taifas,” a collection of ~30 little Muslim statelets each ruled by their own king. In contrast, the Christians were making attempts to unify. But not much was done in the way of jihad or reconquista, though the latter gained momentum in the closing decades of the 11th century, culminating with the reconquest of Toledo in 1085.

Chapt. 25: The Desert Warrior: Zalaca 1085-1086 (pp. 156-160)

1085- reconquest of Toledo stimulates the “taifa” of Seville to ask for help from the Almoravid leader, Yusuf ibn Tashufin. The Almoravids were a puritanical movement, following the Maliki school of jurisprudence. Yusuf, a military genius, came eager to fight against Christians and with the intention of remaining in Spain. The kings of the Muslim taifas chose Islam over Spain, they preferred the suzerainty of Africa rather than the Christian kingdom of Castile. Near Badajoz, at the Battle of Zalaca (a.k.a. Sagrajas), Yusuf defeated the Castilian army of Alfonso VI. >24,000 Christians were slaughtered and their heads shipped to all the main towns of al-Andalus and North Africa. Yusuf then returned to North Africa to tidy up affairs in his kingdom there.

Chapt. 26: Mio Cid: Valencia 1080-1108 (pp. 161-167)

El-Cid, born Rodrigo Diaz de Biuar, one of the heroes of the Reconquista, a tactical genius. He was estranged from Alfonso VI while the king appeared to be making progress against the Muslim taifas, but after Zalaca el-Cid and his knights joined the Christian knights of Leon and Castile in their assault on Valencia. After a 20 month siege Valencia was taken and its ruler burned alive. After that Yusuf and the Almoravids returned from Marrakech to retake Valencia. Their attempt to starve the city into submission failed when el-Cid led his troops in an attack that scattered the invaders. It was not until el-Cid’s death in 1099 that Valencia was retaken for Islam.

---

Part Six: Deflection in the South

Chapt. 27: Liberation in Lusitania: Portugal 1079-1147 (pp. 171-174)

The French knight, Henry of Burgundy, came to crusade against Islam on behalf of Alfonso VI of Castile and Leon. (Many French knights were at this time answering the appeal of the pontiff in Rome to save Spain from the Saracens). Henry married the daughter of Alfonso VI and was given the fiefdom of Portugal. His son, Alfonso Henrique, freed Portugal from the Muslims with the assistance of a fleet of 164 vessels carrying hundreds of crusaders bound for the Holy Land who stopped in Portugal and decided to stay. After the Christians reconquered Lisbon in 1147 they massacred the Muslim inhabitants and turned their attention against their Castilian overlords. By 1171 nearly all the Muslims had been expelled from Portugal and the Portuguese had established independence from Castile. In 1185 Alfonso Henrique died, king of an independent country.

Chapt. 28: Whence the Greeks and Normans: Sicily 1025-1091 (pp. 175-181)

961-Byzantines had retaken Crete from the Muslims

1035-Byzantine general, Giorgios Maniakes, assisted by the Viking Harold Hadrada, invaded Sicily.

1038-Byzantine victory at Rametta, however, no permanent landing was made because of fighting with the Normans in Italy and intrigues in the Byzantine court. The Normans had been brought to Italy as mercenaries in the wars between little Italian statelets. In 1061 a contingent of >2000 Normans landed on Sicily, ready to fight both with Muslims and Greeks. Initially a war between roving bands, in 1084 it took on more religious overtones for the Christians when the Muslims of southern Italy burned down the churches of Reggio and enslaved the monks of the Rocco d-Asino monastery.

1091-Noto, the last Muslim stronghold in Sicily, surrendered.

After the conquest of Sicily was complete mot of the Muslim population co-operated with their conquerors, some even joining the Norman army. A few rebellions were put down among those who would not co-operate, but a Muslim population remained until 1300 when the remnant was deported or forcibly converted to Christianity.

Chapt. 29: The African Take-over: Spain 1104-1212 (pp 182-191)

Yusef and the Almoravids introduced the North African rule of Spain. Spain became a secondary battlefield when war broke out between 2 rival Berber sects, the Almoravids and the Almorhads. This internecine “jihad” (so-called by the mullahs on each side) were often as fierce as those against the Christians. This infighting finally assured Spanish victory in Spain.

During the 12th century many of the Orders of Christian warriors were founded (e.g. Knights of Calatrava, Knights of Santiago, Knights of our Lady of Montjoie) They began to play a crucial role in the Liberation of Spain from the Moors in the 13th century.

By 1114 the North Africans had taken nearly all the Muslim taifas and were pushing north. This conflict roused Christendom as if it were a crusade, and many knights, veterans of the reconquest of Jerusalem in 1097, poured in to defend Spain. After some back and forth movement (complicated by power struggles between the Christian kingdoms) the tide began to move against the Moors.

The collapse of the Almoravids was not caused by the Christians, but by the Almorhads, who invaded Spain in 1146 and by 1150 were rulers of al-Andalus. (The Almoravids were desert nomads, ancestors of today’s Tuareg, and the Almorhads were peasant farmers and pastoralists from the Atlas mountains. The had little in common but love of Islam, hatred of each other, and the practices of slaver and violence.) Once firmly in power the Almorhads continued the Jihad in Spain.

1195 – Battle of Alarcos – fought between Alfonso VIII of Castile and the Almorhad el-Mansur. Expected Christian victory turned into a terrible defeat, which shook the rest of Western Europe. The pope (Celestine III) then intervened on behalf of Christian unity. He excommunicated the Leonese king who had formed an alliance with the Muslims, demanded the co-operation of rival kings against the Moors, and sent some crusaders to Spain instead of to the Holy Land.

Chapt. 30: The Year of Decision: Las Navos de Tolosa 1212 (pp. 192-196)

King Alfonso VIII of Castile called together the largest Christian army ever assembled in Spain, >100,000 men. This army met the Almohads at Las Navos de Tolosa. After fierce fighting the Moors were routed. After the Christian victory 1 million Moors migrated back to Africa. And the Christian campaign pressed forward.

Chapt. 31:The Muslim Debacle: Spain 1212-1250 (pp. 197-200)

La Reconquista took nearly 800 years to finally rid Spain of the colonial invaders.

Stage I: 710-1080 – retake 1st 1/3 of Iberia

Stage II: 1080-1210 – retake 2nd 1/3 of Iberia, including Portugal

Stage III: 1210-1250 – retake last 1/3 (except Grenada)

Most important battles: Simancas, Zalaca, Alarcos, Las Navos de Tolosa

Key Christian Leaders: Fernando III of Castile, Jaime I of Aragon. Most of the Christian soldiers were knights of military orders. The Muslims helped to destroy themselves. Some joined the Christians as mercenaries, the rest fought among themselves for power (in the 1220’s there were 3 rival caliphs in Spain.) The Spanish Muslims could expect no help from North Africa, which was embroiled in its own civil war. Muslim leaders rose and were swiftly decapitated by their fellows as the Christians moved inexorably south.

Chapt. 32: Five Cities to Go: Andalusia 1230-1248 (pp. 201-205)

The Almohads were expelled from Spain in 1230, after their departure five cities still remained in Muslim hands:

Cordova – reconquered by Fernando III of Castile. The bells of the mosque of Cordova, which had been made for Santiago de Compostela and were carried by Christian slaves to Cordova upon the order of Almanzor, 300 years earlier, were now carried back to Compostela by Muslim slaves upon the order of Fernando III. La Reconquista had come a full circle.

Seville – reconquered by Fernando III of Castile after the Muslim population assassinated their leader for suggesting they surrender. Instead the siege last 2 years and 2 months before the inhabitants finally surrendered and emigrated to Morocco in 1248.

Grenada – became a vassal state of Castile

Jaen – surrendered to Fernando III of Castile by its Muslim governor in exchange for permission to rule Grenada as a vassal of Castile.

Valencia – reconquered by Jaime I of Aragon. The Muslim king quickly capitulated because he wanted to convert to Christianity.

---

Part Seven: Onslaught from the East

Chapt. 33: The Ottoman Advent: Turkey Mid-1200’s (pp. 209-211)

1250- Turkey – Othman, son of Ertognil, is born. His tribe begins moving into Anatolia fighting the Byzantines on the west and the Mongols on the east. The Mongols had been sweeping across central Asia. In 1258, Hulagu (grandson of Ghengis Khan) took Baghdad. After the adoption of Islam the Turkish advance on Europe became a holy war. In a short time they became the most feared threat to Eastern Europe, twice nearly reaching Vienna.

Chapt. 34: The Mongolian Horde: Russia 1340-1480 (pp. 212-205)

Mongols – during their overrunning of central Asia they had no formal religion, practising a vague sort of shamanism. After conquering Muslim lands they adopted Islam (mid-13th cen,) and then moved north into Russia (at that time ruled by Lithuania in the east and Nougorad in the north.) 1223, Mongol victory by the river Kalka. 1237 – Mongols crossed the Volga and conquered Russian principalities one after another. The society ruled by the Mongols was a mixture of Mongols, Turks, Russians, Armenians and Greeks.

Late 14th century a Russian vassal state ruled from Moscow rebelled against the Mongols. After initial success they were trounced by and Moscow sacked. But the Mongols did not stay so far north for long. They remained in the south where they gradually disintegrated into different states. Those in the Crimea became known as the Tartars.

15th century – Russia was becoming a unified state. 1480 – Russia refused to pay tribute to the Mongols. The two armies faced off and disperse without a battle, effectively a victory for Russia.

1491 – Final battle of Mongols in Europe at Zasalvi in Poldavia, where a Polish army defeated a mixed Tartar-Turkish force.

Chapt.35: Janissaries Ahoy: Thrace 1301-1353 (pp 216-218)

Othman I – gave his name to the Ottoman Empire and little else. He didn’t fight much, just moved his people into sparsely populated areas of Asia Minor.

Orkhan I – son of Othman. Sultan in 1326 and made Bursa his capital.

Byzantine Empire – throne contested by John Cantacuzene and John V (a child, his widowed mother was protecting his claim to his father’s throne). John Cantracuzene invited the Ottomans into Europe to support his claim.

1345 – 1st Ottoman excursion across the Dardanelles

1349 – Byzantines ask for Ottoman help against Bulgaria

1353 – Turks establish their first permanent European settlement in Gallipoli

Orkhan I created the Janissary force – originally drawn from Christian slaves removed from their families as children. They were raised to be an elite fighting corp, loyal to the sultan alone. For the next 300 years, they were the best fighting force in Europe. (Janissaries were generally converted to Islam, sometimes by force, sometimes willingly.)

Chapt. 36: The Gay Revolt: Thrace 1376-1388 (pp. 291-223)

Under Orkhan I the Ottomans conquered Thrace. Europe was in its usual disarray. The French and English were beginning their 100 years war. Genoa and Venice were in a 30 years war. Spain endured internecine warfare between Christian kingdoms. In Germany the Black Death raged. Lithuania and Hungary were fighting over the Ukraine. Russia was fighting the Mongols and the Balkans were resisting Hungarian imperialism.

Murad I (Othman’s son) – began the first serious Ottoman invasion of Europe and tripled the size of the Empire. Pope Urban V, afraid of a renewed Muslim invasion from North Africa and the rising Ottoman threat in the Balkans, called upon Catholic Hungary and Orthodox Serbia to stop the Turks.

1371 –1st important Eastern European response to Jihad. Christians were stopped by Muslims at Cenomen. 1st conflict between Janissaries and their Christian relations, also 1st between Turks and the Serbs. Murad cleverly intervened in the Byzantine civil war between the rival “Johns”, supporting now one, now the other. The sons of John V and Murad began having an affair and also planned to overthrow their fathers. The coup was halted, and Murad was so enthusiastic that he launched a new invasion of Europe. Sofia fell in 1385 and Salonika in 1387.

Chapt. 37: The Field of Blackbirds: Kosovo 1389 (pp 224-230)

King of Serbia (Lazar I), threatened by advancing Ottomans, gathered together a force of Serbians, Wallachians, Bosnians and Albanians to oppose the invaders. The Christian force outnumbered the Muslims, but a well-timed addition of Janissaries to the fight turned the tide and the Ottomans won. Murad was wounded and ordered the execution of King Lazar before himself dying. The new sultan, Bajazet, immediately ordered his brother Yakub to be strangled. Yakub had led the counterattack that turned the battle against the Christians and might have proved a little too popular for the new sultan’s comfort. (The execution of surviving siblings proved to be a common political manoeuvre in the Ottoman court)

Chapt. 38: The Wild Knights of France: Nicopolis 1396 (pp. 231-239)

King Sigismund of Hungary sent envoys to France to plead for protection against the invaders. The 100 years war had just taken a breather and French knights were happy to head off to Hungary with the blessing of the pope. The purpose of the expedition of these ~10,000 knights was to retake Nicopolis on the Bulgarian side of the Danube. The brought no siege equipment, trusting on their courage to route the Turks. Instead, Nicopolis held, waiting for reinforcements, which Bajazet duly brought. Against the advice of Sigismund, the French knights rushed to meet the enemy – straight into a trap, rows and rows of sharpened stakes planed in the ground so the French were forced to dismount or disembowel their horses. Effectively helpless on the ground, the French were massacred, Bulgaria became an Ottoman vassal, and Hungary remained in danger.

One of the surviving French knights returned to France and brought a small force to assist in the siege of Constantinople. For a time the French forced the Turks to lift the siege by land and sea, but the eventual fall of Constantinople was really delayed by the invasion of the Mongol Timurlane who was leading his troops across Asia from Samarkand. He defeated Bajazet and established himself as sultan.

Chapt. 39: The Hungarian Hero: Varna 1444 (pp 240-247)

The Ottoman empire quickly degenerated into a 4-sided civil war. The Serbs foolishly sided with a prince that lost and were massacred in their thousands for their folly. Eventually only one claimant survived, Mahomet I, an exceptionally humane and just ruler. He signed peace treaties with Venice and Constantinople. His son, Murad II, resumed the invasion of Europe. In the Balkans he had been facing two resistance movement, one lead by Janas Hunyadi of Hungary and one led by John Castriot of Albania, and Murad was eager to make up his lack of prestige.

1443- The Hungarians, Poles, Serbs, Wallachians, and Germans untied under the Hungarian king Ladislaus and went out to face the advancing Turkish army. The vastly outnumbered Christians defeated the Turks, but, inexplicably, within sight of the Turkish capital King Ladislaus pulled back and signed a treaty with Murad. A year later the Hungarians changed their mind and started the war again, this time marching as far as Varna (where they were supposed to receive aid from Venetian ships which never arrived.) This time the Christians were soundly defeated by a renewed Muslim force.

Chapt. 40: The Last Agony: Constantinople 1453 (pp 245-259)

In 1453 Constantinople fell, unaided by any European ally except a few hundred troops from Genoa. Beset by internal quarrels, the European states did not notice until it was too late. The next thing they knew, Turkey was the most powerful state in Europe. Suleiman the Magnificent was far more powerful than his contemporaries Elizabeth of England, Charles V of Austria or Francois I of France.

(Pg. 249) “They feared the Turks. The Turks did not fear them. The Turkish threat was for centuries the main concern of all the European nations, and every European man and woman lived in terror of the Turks. They feared the Muslim Turks much more than they ever feared the Nazi Germans or the Communist Russians, and for much, much longer. The Nazi peril lasted 10 years. Soviet imperialism lasted 70 years. The Turkish threat lasted 500 years.”

Since its founding in 658 Constantinople had been besieged 29 times. Frequently by the Muslims (during the initial Arab conquests and then a frequent Ottoman activity), but occasionally by Catholic Christians who sacked the Orthodox city en route to the Holy Land on the crusades. Mahomet II determined to take Constantinople and the few hundred square mile remaining of the once glorious Roman empire. 1st he besieged the city, and waited. He made a treaty with the Catholic Hungarian Janas Hunyadi to ensure peace on his northern front. Mahomet was not a pious man.(rather he was fond of blaspheming the prophet, murder, and homosexual activity) and this war barely pretended to be a Jihad, rather it was straightforward imperialism. The Turks attacked the city relentlessly from 6 April to 29 October. Despite determined resistance and the addition of the Genoese troops, the city walls fell. The night of 28 October the remaining citizens crowded into St. Sophia’s Cathedral for a final service. The next day the city was overwhelmed, the soldiers slaughtered, the civilians enslaved, and the women raped – beginning with the convent. St. Sophia was declared as mosque, as it has remained to this day. But the Ottomans had to make long term arrangements for the surviving Christians throughout the empire, most of whom refused to convert, so they commanded the remaining Orthodox priests to appoint a new patriarch, who could shepherd his little flock at the will of the Sultan.

Chapt. 41: The Road to Rome: Belgrade 1456 (pp 260-264)After the fall of Constantinople, Mahomet II set his sights on Rome and turned his army north toward the Balkans. In the next few years he conquered 12 kingdoms and 200 cities. 1st, Peloponnese, the remaining part of Greece, then Bosnia. At its surrender the king and heir were promised their lives, but shortly they were executed as the Grand Mufti argued that agreements with unbelievers were invalid. The population generally converted to Islam so as to avoid the same fate, a crime for which the Serbs, who remained Orthodox, have never forgiven them. Serbia fell next, but for a time Albania held out under the leadership of John Castriot (a.k.a. Skanderbeg) until 1468. Hungary, still with Janos Hunyadi at the head of the army, stood firm and called for a crusade to protect Belgrade. Hunyadi’s victory there proved a major setback to the Ottomans.

After 15 years of fighting in the Balkans Mahomet II decided to try a sea assault against Italy. But plans went awry when he announced his plans to keep the plunder for himself and his Janissaries refused to attack. Mahomet died before leaving Asia Minor. The pope called for a crusade to protect southern Italy.

---

Part Eight: By Land and by Sea

Chapt. 42: The Sigh of the Moor: Granada 1492 (pp 267-274)

Mahomet II’s death triggered a power struggle between his two sons, Bayazid and Djem. Bayazid won, exiled his brother and established the Ottoman navy as a significant power in the Mediterranean. Muslim-Christian fighting had very much died down in Spain, as only Grenada and a few sea ports remained in Muslim hands. But Morocco sent a stead supply of soldiers, so the Spaniards decided to retake the last of these towns, but the effort was half heart (distracted by things such as the 100 years war between France and England) and took over a century.

1461 – Ferdinand of Aragon and Isabella of Castile marry and together unify Spain

1480 – Beginning of the serious campaign against Grenada. The final conquest was completed in 1492.

Chapt. 43: The Ottoman Empire: Selim the Grim 1512-1520 (pp. 275-277)

After the fall of Grenada, Hungary plunged into civil war, the aristocracy brutally oppressed the peasantry which rebelled and then were crushed. But the Ottomans were busy elsewhere for the time being and missed their golden opportunity to take Hungary. Selim I (1512-1520) built up the navy and nearly doubled the size of the empire through conquests in Asia and Africa. He took for himself the title “caliph” which vastly increased his religious prestige. A devout Sunni, he hated the Shi’a nearly as much as Christians. A strong sadistic streak left a record of hundreds of thousands of executions and goulish torture.

Chapt. 44: The Red Danube: Manacs 1526 (pp. 278-284)

Suleiman the Magnificent succeeded his father Selim in 1520. He did fight 3 wars against Persia, his main Muslim enemy, but the general focus of his imperial policy was west, toward Europe. His navy moved to retake the island of Rhodes, which was defended by the Knightly order of St. John of Jerusalem. It fell in 1522 and Suleiman permitted the surviving knights to leave Rhodes unharmed, a gesture he bitterly repented when they moved to Malta and repulsed his attacks 43 years later.

Previous Jihad campaigns destroyed Serbia, Bulgaria, Wallachia and Bosnia, Albania and Greece. Only remaining was Hungary, which Suleiman was determined to destroy. Wracked by internal dissent and ruled by a foolish playboy, (Louis II), Belgrade fell in 1521. Louis II rushed to meet the enemy rather than waiting for reinforcements. The armies met at Mohacs, and the outnumbered Hungarians were destroyed by Turkish guns. During the next two centuries the Ottomans depopulated Hungary (from 4 to 2 /2 million), exporting ~3 million Hungarians as slaves and hunting others like partridges.

Chapt. 45: The Untaken Capital: Vienna 1529 (pp. 285-287)

In 1529 Suleiman moved on Vienna only to find that to his disgust both Charles V and his brother Ferdinand were elsewhere. After 3 weeks of vile weather which prevented the use of Turkish guns Suleiman decided the effort and time needed to take the city wasn’t worth the satisfaction of defeating the unimportant general in charge, so he returned to Istanbul.

Chapt. 46: Sailors, Slaver and Raiders: The Mediterranean 1504-1546 (pp. 288-294)

The Muslim fishermen of Grenada established a thriving piracy business from bases in North Africa. The chief commodity was Christian slaves from Spain and Italy. The pirates considered their actions to be Jihad, citing sura ix: 5-6 “kill those who join other gods with God wherever ye shall find them; and seize them, besiege them, and lay wait for them with every type of ambush.) Slavery was considered to have Qur’anic (and therefore divine) sanction (as compared to Christianity, where, though it has taken place, has nearly always been considered reprehensible.) The pirate Barbarossa, based in Algiers, brought the territory he controlled into the Ottoman Empire and then became head of Suleiman’s navy. 1535 – Charles V sacked Tunis committing atrocities worthy of the Turks. Generally the Europeans were too preoccupied with fighting each other to spend too much effort on the Ottomans.

Chapt. 47: In Arms Always and Prepared for Combat: Malta 1565 (pp. 295-308)

A shipload of luxury goods was captured and taken to Malta. Investors in the enterprise, including several of the sultan’s wives, stood to lose heavily, so they pleaded with Suleiman to attack Malta instead of launching a second attack on Vienna. 1565, the Ottoman fleet set out for Malta (galleys rowed by Christian slaves). To both sides this was a holy war, the struggle of Islam and Christianity. The battle started at St. Elmo, defended by Neapolitan knights who used “Greek fire” and boiling oil against guns and canons. After a month long bombardment, the fortress fell. The siege of Malta continued for 2 ½ months after the fall of St. Elmo. The island reached the breaking point, with even women and children joining the battle to defend their 1500 year old faith, first brought to the island by St. Paul. At last reinforcements arrived from Sicily and the Ottomans lifted the siege and returned to Istanbul. 30,000 Moors and Turks died. 8,000 of the 9,000 knights of Malta died, as did 5,000 civilians. The Ottomans never attempted to attack Malta again.

Chapt. 48: The Rhapsody of Death: Hungary 1566 (pp 309-311)

As Suleiman marched the largest ever Ottoman army north through the Balkans, he was annoyed by the Hungarians who stubbornly and repeatedly rebelled against their Turkish overlords. Suleiman looked on these rebellions as an affront not only to his personal majesty, but also to God, who had given him the right to rule Hungary. The rebels were brutally slaughtered, but the march to Vienna did not continue, as Suleiman died of a heart attack and was succeeded by his son Selim.

Chapt. 49: The Alpujarras Rising: Spain 1568-1570 (pp 312-316)

70 years after the fall of Grenada, 100,000 Muslims still lived in Spain, dreaming of the day Islam would return to rule al-Andalus. They were also persecuted in the Inquisition. A secret resistance movement formed, stockpiling arms to aid an eventual invasion from North Africa. Revolt broke out in the mountains of Grenada, and King Philip II petitioned the Pope for assistance. The Spanish force (for a time led by Don John) beat back the Moriscos, eventually completely uprooting them from Grenada and scattering them all over Spain.

Chapt. 50: The Flaying of Bragadino: Famagusta 1571 (pp. 317-321)

1570 – Selim launched an invasion of Cyprus to get a hold of the vineyards. After a year the defense collapsed and the Ottoman general Lala Mustafa had the governor of Cyprus, Bragadino, flayed to death.

Chapt. 51:A Good Day to Die: Lepanto 1572 (pp. 322-328)

1571 – Pope P ius V founded the Holy League in an attempt to unite Europe against the Muslim invaders. Commander-in-Chief was 25 year old Don John of Austria (who was actually a Spaniard). 1572 – The league sent out a navy of 316 ships which met the Ottoman navy at Lepanto where a mammoth battle took place. The result was a Christian victory that annihilated the Muslim fleet, but bad weather prevented a follow up attack on Istanbul.

Chapt. 52: Colonialism Muslim Style: Eastern Europe 1574-1681 (pp. 329-339)

Turkey was the first major colonial power (100 years before Spain). Following the victory at Lepanto the Holy League fell into disarray, its members preoccupied with quarreling with each other ( e.g. Elizabeth of England and Philippe of Spain). Selim II had fallen down in a drunken stupor and cracked his head. He was succeeded by Murad III who didn’t encourage much Jihad and allowed the Janissaries to degenerate. Revolts broke out in Transylvania, Moldavia, and Wallachia. The Janissaries rebelled several times and engaged in widespread corruption. Mahomet III led a relatively uneventful reign. His son Ahmed I became sultan at age 14 and aside from a brief excursion into Hungary pretty much focused on Persia. Othman II (1618) was jailed and strangled by his own Janissaries (it was during his reign that a British envoy first described the Ottoman Empire as the “sick man of Europe). Murad IV (1623) Sultan at age 11, restored order at the price of 100,000 executions and quelled mutinies by the army and the Janissaries. An alcoholic and sadist (killing was a kind of sport to him), he did a few kind deeds, e.g. Ending the tribute in children which had been demanded of Christian villages, and thus he forced the Janissaries to find a new source of manpower. Ibrahim, (brother of Murad IV) resumed the Jihad in Europe against the Cossacks, assisted by the Tatars. He also broke a treaty with Venice and attacked Crete. The siege of Candia lasted 20 years, when the Venetians in turn besieged Istanbul. The irritated populace and the Janissaries overthrew the sultan. Mahomet IV (1648, age 10) briefly restored the Ottoman empire to its former greatness. He sent an army against the Holy Roman (i.e. Austrian) Empire and defeated the Christian force at the Battle of St. Gothard. In 1672, the Ottomans defeated the Poles and Russians, intervening at the request of the Cossacks. In 1681, the war turned around. The Poles and Russians had retaken all the land lost to them, and had made inroads into Ottoman territory.

---

Part Nine: The Waning of Holy War

Chapt. 53: Never was there a victory more complete: Vienna 1683 (pp. 343-348)

1682 – Hungarians revolted against Austria, providing a golden opportunity for the Ottomans, who sent a ½ million man army northward. 1683 – The Ottoman army, led by Kara Mustafa, besieged Vienna. Anxious not to damage the city he intended to rule, Kara Mustafa decided to starve out the inhabitants. Leopold I of Austria fled, issuing appeals for help from all over Europe. The pope sent prayers. The French promised not to attack Austria. But King John III of Poland (the same John Sobieski who defeated the Turks in four battles in four days a decade earlier) brought an army. 3,000 Polish cavalry and 18,000 Polish and German infantry set out to meet 500,000 Turks. The Ottoman encampment was lazy and ill-planned, and the Polish force routed them in a single charge. The flight headed by Kara Mustafa himself (who was duly strangled when he returned to Istanbul).

Chapt. 54: The Jihad Totters: Greece and Hungary 1685-1699 (pp. 349-353)

The Ottoman Empire is collapsing in the centre with corruption and mutinous Janissaries and crumbling at the edges as the Austrians moved steadily on. 1685 – Francisco Morosini leads a force to retake much of the Morea (Peloponnese) for the Greeks. Austrian victory at Gran taking Buda. 1687- Russians besiege Azov. Austrian victory at Mohacs taking Croatia and Transylvania. 1688 – Austrians take Budapest. 1690 – Turks regroup, take back Belgrade and renter Kosovo. France, threatened by growing Hapsburg strength attacks the Rhineland. 1691 – Austrians defeat Muslims in battle at Salankeman. 1697 – Battle of Zenta leads to Austrian capture of Sarajevo. 1699 – The treat of Karlowitz as the Turks sue for peace. This is the first time in the history of the Ottoman Empire that it had been forced to send envoys abroad to treat with its foes. This is the turning point. From now on the Turks are on the defensive.

Chapt. 55: The Gravediggers: Central and Southeastern Europe 1716-1770 (pp. 354-361)

Ottoman wars are no longer expansionist, and barely pretend to be religious. The empire is now a major player in European power politics. 1715 – Ottoman navy and army head out to attack the Hapsburgs. They are defeated at Peterwardein (1716) and the Austrians take Belgrade, but instead of taking Istanbul the victorious Hapsburgs sign a peace treaty. Sultan Achmed II (ruled 1703-1730) lost a war against Persia in the Caucasuses. Under Mahmoud I the Janissaries revolted. But the empire did not fall because it was alternately supported by different European nations who were trying to maintain a balance of power. Western European nations did not want a collapsing Ottoman empire to enhance the power of the Austrians or Russians. Turkey and Russia got into a war over Poland (who knows why?). Austria took more of the Balkans and under Catherine the Great Russia moved south toward the Black Sea.

Chapt. 56: The Orloff-Suvarov Duet: The Mediterranean and Crimea 1770-1792 (pp 362-36

1770 – Russian navy turns to assist Greek rebellion against Turkey. The Greeks took the opportunity to massacre the local Turks in particularly hideous ways. But the Ottomans managed to restore order with equal severity. The Ottoman navy was nearly destroyed, but most of the Russian sailors were killed in skirmishes around the Med. Catherine the Great ordered the Russian army to the Crimea which they took from the Tatars. The resulting peace treaty turned Turkey into a semi-vassal of Russia. 1783 – Russia incorporated the Crimea into her empire leading, causing a fresh outbreak of war. The threat of Ottoman collapse concerned the rest of Europe./ the resulting peace treaty (1792) pushed the Russian border further south but left the Ottoman empire alive.

---

Part Ten: Warriors of a Willing Doom

Chapt. 57: To the shores of Tripoli: North Africa 1798-1830 (pp 370-379)

French occupation of Egypt under Napoleon, who was unable to ally the Egyptians. Instead its Muslim inhabitants fiercely opposed him, calling for Jihad. The Janissaries joined the French, but eventually the Mameluks survived the temporary French presence. Napoleon’s attack on Egypt was an attempt to strike against the British in India, so when the British threatened Istanbul the French joined the Turks, bringing weapons and modern training.

The Americans clashed with the Muslims first over the Barbary pirates who annoyed US merchants and embarrassed the navy by capturing a frigate and holding the sailors hostage. A variety of skirmishes took place, ending with a treaty between the US and Algeria in 1815.

1816 – the British navy bombarded Algiers over its refusal to stop the practice of Christian slavery. 1830 – An exchange of insults between the French and Algerians deteriorated into warfare resulting in a French victory and the beginning of the French occupation of Algeria for the next 132 years. 1880s – The French took Tunisia. This was a disorienting change for the Muslims, for whom the natural order of things was Muslim rulers and Christian slaves. They weren’t quite sure what to do about the Europeans who were quite certain that the opposite situation was the natural order.

Chapt. 58: The Surrogates of Pericles: Greece 1821-1827 (pp. 380-388)

Rebellions in Wallachia and Moldovia triggered a revolt in Greece. Within a few weeks nearly the entire Turkish population of Morea had been slaughtered, and from the Peloponnese the revolt spread. Now Jihad was primarily a defensive concept to the Turks who fought to retain both their Ottoman nationality and Islamic religion. Furious at the deaths of their co-religionists in Greece, Turks turned on Christians throughout the rest of the empire. Simple death was too kind, instead they were brutally tortured, triggering further atrocities by the Greeks in a downward spiral. Philhellics from all over Europe joined the cause of Greek independence.

Sultan Mahmoud II finally managed to free himself from the tyranny of his imperial guard, secretly recruiting a gunner force that destroyed the Janissaries during one of their many revolts. Support from Muhammad Ali, pasha of Egypt (virtually independent for some time), turned the tide against Greece, until Britain, France, and Russia threatened to jointly attack Turkey if it did not sign a peace treaty with the Greeks. A short naval battle persuaded the Ottomans of their sincerity by destroying the Turkish fleet. Greece was finally free.

Chapt. 59: War Galore: The Balkans 1825-1878 (pp. 389-395)

Following the revolt of Greece the Ottoman empire plunged into a series of wars:

Russo-Turkish War (1828-29)

Crimean War (1853-56)

Russo-Turkish War (1877-78)

Balkan Wars (1912-13)

World War I (1914-18)

Russia was Turkey’s greatest enemy, and the Balkan states generally gained their independence because of their relationship with Russia. This growing power intimidated Britain and France enough to join the Ottomans against Russia in the Crimea. The wars were conceived almost exclusively as political struggles by the “Christian” nations, but the rhetoric of jihad still dominated Ottoman propaganda until the mid-19th century.

In the face of revolts in Egypt, Bosnia, Herzegovina, and Bulgaria, and the Russian advance to Edirne (~50 miles from Istanbul), belated military reforms and savage reprisals against rebels could not keep the empire together.

In India, 1877, a gathering of Muslim clerics decided that for their part, jihad against Britain was unnecessary, as long as she permitted the practice of Islam to her subjects.

---

Part Eleven: The Jihad Returns

Chapt. 60: The Great Unholy Wars: Dar al-Harb 1912-1945 (pp. 399-409)

The new Balkan states created in the first few decades of the 20th century had no experience at self-government. Their only model of government for the last few centuries had been Ottoman corruption and ruthlessness. The new borders were not drawn with intelligible divisions of ethnicity or language.

1912 – 1st Balkan war – Greece, Serbia, Bulgaria, Albania, Turkey – lots of switching sides. Austria got involved when Serbia claimed Bosnia, and the death of Archduke Francis Ferdinand triggered the 1st World War. Turkey entered on the side of Germany and the sultan/caliph declared universal jihad against the enemy nations. But in general the call failed and few Muslims in these countries rebelled. The British persuaded the Arabs in turn to declare a jihad against the Ottomans. Various rival factions declaring jihad on one another further weakened the empire.

1915-massacre of 1 million Armenians while being deported from Turkey to Syria. Most of the victims died along the way when deprived of food, water and all clothing. e.g. In one group of 18,000 Armenians, only 150 survived to reach Aleppo.

1922-100,000 Greeks massacred at Smyrna

All the victims in both cases were Christian.

With the destruction of the Ottoman empire, after the last orgy of violence in Smyrna, the caliphate and the rhetoric of jihad temporarily disappeared. In fact, the new leader of Turkey, Mustafa Kemal (Attaturk) detested Islam. But during W.W.II the first hints of the return of jihad appeared in Bosnia, unrecognised by almost everybody. In the midst of inter-ethnic violence where everybody appeared to be killing everyone else, Muslims began banding together, forming religiously defined defence groups. The Grand Mufti of Jerusalem travelled to Yugoslavia to preach jihad against the Jews and other enemies of Islam on the side of Nazi Germany.

Chapt. 61: Terrorism: The West 1980s-1990s (pp. 410-412)

The vocabulary of jihad has returned, justifying terrorist actions of every type. But rather than uniting Islam, jihad today is dividing it as Muslims war against one another. Not all Muslims identify with this violence. Islam is still a political ideology, considering its destiny to rule the world and replace the outdated religions of Christianity and Judaism. Religious submission is demanded of its own people.

Epilogue: An Action in all its Luster (pp. 413-415)

Story about a good relationship between a Christian and a Muslim in the 18th century.

The Compilation of the Text of the Qur’an and the Sunni-Shia Dispute

Antoin MacRuaidh

---

1. Introduction

In recent years, in various countries, there have been public disputations between Christians and Muslims about the veracity of their respective holy books. At the time of writing there is an ongoing heated dispute taking place on the inter-net on this subject, and one issue being raised by some Christians is the question of the compilation of the Qur’an. A cursory examination on the literature on both sides demonstrates that the issue raises intense emotions, and sometimes both sides can express themselves in terms which do not promote good communal relations, or useful academic dialogue. It is not my purpose in this paper to raise questions about the veracity or otherwise of the contemporary edition of the Qur’an. Neither is it my intention to provoke or intensify hostilities between the Sunni and Shia about the integrity of the ‘Uthmanic edition of the Qur’an. Rather, I hope to show how the different Muslim hypotheses about the compilation of the Qur’an, and the Sunni-Shia dispute therein, help to explain the attitudes of Muslims to the Christian concept of inspiration, text and canon. After examining the history and nature of Qur’anic compilation and the sectarian controversy thereof, we can see that to some extent the accusations of Muslim polemicists about the Bible reflect an internal dispute within Islam about its own sacred Scripture. With this in mind, I have largely ignored the positions of Orientalist and other scholars who have engaged in ‘The Quest for the Historical Qur’an‘ and have questioned the veracity of the ‘Uthmanic edition of the text. Instead, I have been guided by what Muslims themselves say about its compilation.

This brings us back to the point I made in my previous paper, The Attitude of the Qur’an and Sunnah to the Christian Scriptures, that Muslims view the Bible through the lens of the Qur’an, and in their estimation the holy book of Islam sets the pattern for the form and content of an inspired Scripture. Insofar as the average Muslim is familiar with the concept of canonicity, he naturally assumes that what was true of the compilation of his own scripture is equally true of other sacred writings, at least those mentioned in the Qur’an. Nor is this a mere personal prejudice. If the ‘previous Books’ are true revelations from God, sent down from ‘the Mother of the Book’, a Muslim will believe that given the collegiality of the prophets and thus their Scriptures, the process which marked the compilation of the Qur’an must be a reflection of that procedure which characterised the collation of the Books of Moses, David and Jesus. If this is not the case, then, naturally, Muslim suspicions are aroused. Ironically, as we shall see, the actions Caliph ‘Uthman took to canonise the text assembled by Zaid ibn Thabit have influenced Muslim opinion on the corruption of the Biblical text and canon. It can be seen that on this issue, textual history and psychology meet. On the other hand, the position that oral tradition played in preserving the Qur’anic text presents us with an opportunity to explain to our Muslim friends the similar role it performed in the Biblical revelation.

2. Origins and Structure of the Qur’an

2.1 The Commencement of Revelation

The Qur’an celebrates the event of the commencement of revelation in its reference to Laylat al-Qadr, ‘the Night of Power’, during the month of Ramadan when the portion of the Tablet descended to the ‘House of Protection’ in the lowest of the seven heavens. The Qur’an claims to have been supernaturally revealed by angelic spirits on this night. Throughout history, as necessity arose, aspects of the eternal Tablet were revealed to the Prophets through Gabriel; the Qur’an is the culmination of these revelations. In the same fashion, it was revealed to Muhammad in Arabic by the angel Gabriel over a period of twenty-two to twenty-three years. The fact that the Qur’an as a whole was not revealed immediately demonstrates that in many cases it is responding to historical events in the career of Muhammad, and helps to explain the phenomenon of abrogated verses.

The hadith literature records the advent of revelation to Muhammad, and his reaction of terror, the result of fearing that he had become mad or possessed. Insanity was often associated with possession by the jinn, and so it is interesting to note Surahs 15:6 and 68:2 in this respect which answer the accusations of the pagans as to his condition. There is nothing comparable in Christian concepts of inspiration to the physical grip of the angel in imparting revelation to Muhammad, and this again points to the passive character of revelation in Islam. It is interesting to note that there was an early Christian association with Muhammad at this point, and that the role that the Christian believer played was crucial in confirming to Muhammad the truth of his revelation. After this, revelation ceased for a period, and when it resumed, it was once again through the agency of the Archangel Gabriel. At first, the reaction of Muhammad to the angelic visitation was once again to be afraid. Inspiration thereafter continued throughout the remainder of his life, and a large number of revelations came to Muhammad just before his death. The last revelation was 2:281 (although some say it was v282, v278, or all three). Others say it was 5:4. The Hadith literature offer support to either Surah Tawbah or Surah Nasr.

2.2 The Place of Oral Tradition

We can see from this that there was not a simple, single event which disclosed the entire Muslim holy book, and that given that most revelation came not long before his passing, it follows that there was not an entire, completed document of the Qur’an at the death of Muhammad. However, as Muslims often protest, this does not necessarily mean that the Qur’an as it stands is unreliable. Oral tradition and memorization have long been adequately practised by Oriental peoples of all faiths, and has been frequently demonstrated to be dependable. Muslims have long placed great emphasis on memorization of their sacred text, and many mullahs today are able to recite the Qur’an without mistake. The earliest claim for the public recitation of the Qur’an is found in respect to Abdullah bin Mas’ud, who proclaimed it at the pagan sanctuary in Mecca, in the early period of Muhammad’s ministry. Of course, there would have been only a restricted portion of the Qur’an to express at this time, and what bin Mas’ud recited according to the sira was clearly Surah 55 Rahman Ayah 1ff. This points to an early period of oral transmission, to which should be added the testimony of the hadith on the subject which encouraged memorization. Zayd ibn Thabit records that when he began his collection of the Qur’anic text it existed as writings on ‘… palmed stalks, thin white stones and also from the men who knew it by heart… ‘

2.3 The Structure of the Qur’an

The chapters of the Qur’an are called surahs, meaning ‘fences’. They are arranged in order of length rather than chronology. It is often difficult for a Christian reader coming to the Qur’an for the first time to understand the nature of what he is reading, since its form is so different from the Biblical structure of books and verses. The themes within each surah are not all sequential, but rather purportedly reflect the order established by Muhammad. Agreement with this proposition, however, depends upon whether one is a Sunni or a Shi’i. Further, it should be remembered that since revelation was effected over a period of twenty years, compilation was necessarily piecemeal. As stated earlier, for the most part, the Qur’an was preserved through oral tradition; necessarily so since most of the Prophet’s Companions were illiterate.

2.3.1 Abrogated Verses

A major issue in Qur’anic interpretation is that of abrogation – Naskh. Within the Qur’an itself are statements which offset others, but according to the doctrine of abrogation the later texts supersede the earlier whenever there are inconsistencies. The Muslim argument is that the abrogated verses were only meant for specific, temporary situations. We have seen that the revelation of the Qur’an is grounded in the historical circumstances of the life and career of Muhammad, and so there is a progressive element in doctrine of Islam’s holy book. Situations change and develop, and since the Qur’an reflects this, its teachings changed with the circumstance at hand. At the most obvious level we can see this in the fact that in the early years of Islam, Muhammad was a minority preacher in Mecca, concerning himself with almost solely theological and moral/social issues, but when he moved to Medina, he became the Governmental Executive, and so his revelations began to address legal, political and economic matters. The Qur’an explains the practice of abrogation by referring to the sovereignty of God. Yusuf Ali says:

For: 2.106

The word which I have translated by the word ‘revelations’ is Ayat… It is not only used for verses of the Quran, but in a general sense for God’s revelations, as in ii. 39 and for other Signs of God in history or nature, or miracles, as in ii. 61. It has even been used for human signs and tokens of wonder, as, for example, monuments or landmarks built by the ancient people of AD (xxvi. 128). What is the meaning here? If we take it in a general sense, it means tht God’s Message from age to age is always the same, but that its Form may differ according to the needs and exigencies of the time. That form was different as given to Moses and then to Jesus and then to Muhammad. Some commentators apply it also to the Ayat of the Quran. There is nothing derogatory in this if we believe in progressive revelation. In iii. 7 we are told distinctly about the Quran, that some of its verses are basic or fundamental, and others are allegorical, and it is mischievous to treat the allegorical verses and follow them (literally). On the other hand, it is absurd to treat such a verse as ii. 115 as if it were abrogated by ii. 144 about the Qibla. We turn to the Qibla, but we do not believe that God is only in one place. He is everywhere.

As can be seen, some Muslims believe that this verse refers to Jewish and Christian Scriptures. However, it is not the only verse that impinges on this subject, and these others indicate that what is involved is abrogation of the Qur’an.

For: 16.101

… The doctrine of progressive revelation from age to age and time to time does not mean that Allah’s fundamental Law changes. It is not fair to charge a Prophet of Allah with forgery because the Message as revealed to him is in a different form from that revealed before, when the core of the Truth is the same, for it comes from Allah.

In the Hadith, we find reference to abrogation which specifically relates this practice to the Qur’an. Another text concerns Surah 2:106; a Qur’anic reciter was supposed to have memorised every revelation from Muhammad, so what was under consideration in this text was whether he should have deleted those verses which had been cancelled. Finally, there are Hadith texts which settle the issue that abrogation relates to the Qur’an itself, rather than to the holy scriptures of the Jews and Christians (or anyone else for that matter). The Hadith illustrates our earlier point about the progressive character of Qur’anic revelation, and how an aspect of this related to the changed conditions of Muhammad after the Hegira. The classic example often used by Muslim exegetes to explain the mechanics of abrogation is found with respect to the widow’s bequest.

To understand what this involves, we can examine the fact that Islam makes a great point in portraying itself as a ‘mercy’ to Mankind, and part of this is that is does not burden believers with too much ritual obligation. For example, Surah 73 begins in vs. 2 – 4, by commanding Believers to spend a considerable portion of the night in prayer, but ayah 20 abrogates this. S. 43:89 orders that polytheists be let alone, however, S. 2:190-191 commands that they be slaughtered.

However, it is not only the case that the Qur’an abrogates itself; the Sunnah also abrogates parts of the Qur’an. This can be seen in the Mut’ah practice of temporary marriage. According to Sunnis, this was later abrogated, and the hadith refers to this. Ahmad von Denffer records three types of abrogation with respect to the Qur’an, which he evidences by quoting from ayat and ahadith:

1. Abrogation of the recited verse together with the legal ruling:
   
   

   Aisha

   SAHIH MUSLIM

   It had been revealed in the Qur’an that ten clear sucklings make the marriage unlawful, then it was abrogated (and substituted) by five sucklings and Allah’s Apostle (peace be upon him) died and it was before that time (found) in the Qur’an (and recited by the Muslims).

2. Abrogation of the legal ruling without the recited verse:
   
   

   Surah: 33. Ahzab Ayah: 50

   50. O prophet! We have made lawful to thee thy wives to whom thou hast paid their dowers; and those whom thy right hand possesses out of the prisoners of war whom Allah has assigned to thee; and daughters of thy paternal uncles and aunts and daughters of thy maternal uncles and aunts who migrated (from Mecca) with thee; and any believing woman who dedicates her soul to the Prophet if the Prophet wishes to wed her this only for thee and not for the Believers (at large); We know what We have appointed for them as to their wives and the captives whom their right hands possess in order that there should be no difficulty for Thee. And Allah is Oft-Forgiving Most Merciful.

   52. It is not lawful for thee (to marry more) women after this nor to change them for (other) wives even thought their beauty attract thee except any thy right hand should possess (as handmaidens): and Allah doth watch over all things.

3. Abrogation of the recited verse without with the legal ruling:
   
   

   Abdullah ibn Abbas

   SAHIH AL-BUKHARI

   … Umar sat on the pulpit and when the summoners for the prayer had finished their announcement, Umar stood up, and having glorified and praised Allah as He deserved, he said, ‘Now then, I am going to tell you something which (Allah) has written for me to say… Allah sent Muhammad (peace be upon him) with the Truth and revealed the Holy Book to him. Among that which Allah revealed, was the Verse of the Rajam (the stoning of a married person (male or female) who commits illegal sexual intercourse, and we recited this Verse and understood and memorized it. Allah’s Messenger (peace be upon him) did carry out the punishment of stoning and so did we after him.

   I am afraid that after a long time has passed, somebody will say, ‘By Allah, we do not find the Verse of the Rajam in Allah’s Book.’ and thus they will go astray by abandoning an obligation which Allah has revealed. The punishment of the Rajam is to be inflicted on any married person (male or female) who commits illegal sexual intercourse provided the required evidence is available or there is conception or confession…

von Denffer notes that the punishment of stoning for adultery has been retained in the Sunnah, whilst it is not present in the Qur’an. According to Ibn Salama, an authority on the subject, there are:

43 surahs with neither nasikh (abrogating verses) or mansakh (abrogated verses)

6 surahs with nasikh but no mansakh.

40 surahs with mansakh but no nasikh.

25 surahs with both nasikh and mansakh.

According to Jalauddin us-Suyuti there are 21 abrogated verses, and according to Shah Waliullah there are five:

Mansakh 2:180 Nasikh 4:11, 12
Mansakh 2:240 Nasikh 2:234
Mansakh 8:65 Nasikh 8:62
Mansakh 30:50 Nasikh 33:52
Mansakh 58:12 Nasikh 58:13

The problem for Christians as they read the Qur’an, is that its structure is unlike that of the Bible in this regard. The New Testament, because of the Sacrifice of Christ, ‘abrogates’ the Old Testament rulings on animal sacrifices, since the latter had a prophetic character which is now fulfilled; to a large extent, this is the message of Hebrews, e.g. 10:1ff. On a similar basis, the kosher laws of the Old Testament are superseded by the declaration of Jesus in Mark 7:19 that all foods were now ‘clean’. In these cases, however, abrogation occurs because of prophetic fulfilment. This ending of food legislation and other aspects of the Law often seems so arbitrary to Muslims, and encourages them to believe that the Christians have tampered with their Scriptures. They do not understand the eschatological element involved. The structure of the Christian Scriptures, whereby the books that celebrated the fulfilment of the Messianic prophecies of the Tenak, i.e. what we call the New Testament, in temporal terms obviously came later than the Old Testament texts, and the present Biblical structure, though arbitrary in terms of denoting the books as ‘Old Testament’ and ‘New Testament’, reflect the theological fact of the change that the Advent of Christ has wrought. Moreover, we are dealing with later books that abrogate aspects of the former books.

With the Qur’an, however, this is not the case. There is no element of realized eschatology involved. Nor is it simply a case that the Qur’an abrogates elements of the previous books. Rather, verses abrogate others in the same book, and the structure of the Qur’an does not reveal this, as the abrogated texts are not removed. Hence the need for instruction in the science of Qur’anic interpretation and the impact of the Sunnah. The fact that Christian ‘abrogation’ is of a different character to that of Islam is confusing to Muslims, and adds to the belief that the New Testament is fraudulent. This is especially true when we consider the role that the Sunni-Shia dispute has played in this. The Shia deny that the rule on temporary marriage has been abrogated, and naturally consider the Sunni hadith abolishing the practice as being untrue. The Sunnis, on the other hand, regard the Shia as sinning by continuing the practice. It is not surprising that when Muslims accuse each other of corruption in issues of text and canon on issues affecting doctrine and practice, that they naturally accuse ‘the nations before them’ of similar actions when they discover differences with Islam.

2.4 Variant Readings

One interesting feature about Islamic dogma concerning the Qur’an is that the holy book is held to have been revealed in seven different ways. There are various opinions about what this means. For example, one tradition linked it to seven different reciters of the text This however, is generally not accepted. Another possibility is that it refers to pages expressed in different Arab dialects. For example, a recent Muslim contributor to the Internet stated the following:

At the time of the Prophet… Arabs use [sic]to speak many different accents. Many of them did not know how to read or write. So Allah (SWT), allowed for them to read it in different ways. For example the tribe of Quraish do not pronounce the ‘hamza’ while the tribe of Tamim… pronounce it… When it comes to writing there have to be some differences in spelling, those who pronounce the ‘hamza’ wrote it down as the prophet taught them, others did not write it. Other differences in tone ‘harakat’, grammar or using a different word for the same meaning…

To this agrees the modern Muslim scholar von Denffer, as one of several possibilities. He points out that tribes like the ones mentioned above pronounced words differently, for example al-tabuh and al-tabut (2:248). Other differences include variant readings of words such as ‘trusts’ in 23:8, which can be read as either singular or plural in the unvowelled text, or in different wordings of a particular passage, such as 9:100, where adding min (‘from’) to the text gives a minor variant reading. Again, synonyms are used, such as in 101:5 which reads as ‘Ka-l-‘ihni-l-manfush’, but another reading is ‘Ka-s-sufi-l-manfush’, both meaning ‘like carded wool’. von Denffer also points out variant readings in the texts of the Companions, such as the omission of qul (‘Say’) in the texts of ibn Mas’ud, ‘Ubaid and ‘Umar with respect to S. 112:1, with ibn Mas’ud’s text replacing al-ahad (‘unique’) with al-wahid (‘one’), omitting 112:2, and replacing lam yalid wa lam yulad (‘he begets not’) for lam yulad wa lam yulid (‘he is not begotten’). The Muslim scholar Tabataba’i points out that ‘… the script used at the time was the kufic style and had no diacritical points; each word could be read in various ways.’ It should be noted that the Hadithimplies that there were different dialectic readings of the Qur’an.

This difference in recitation was later to lead to conflict between Syrians and Iraqis, and this led ‘Uthman to standardise the Qur’anic text.

3. Collation of the Qur’an

3.1 Fragmentary Existence

Whilst Muhammad was alive, certain of his companions began the compilation of the Qur’an, and this is recorded in the Hadith literature, an indication of how important it was to establish the claims of the Qur’an and especially to assert its purity of text. Amongst these, a major figure in the redaction of the Qur’an was Zayd ibn Thabit. There are clear evidences of different versions of the Qur’an in the early period, at least in regard to order. Four reciters had memorized it before the death of Muhammad. However, Muhammad said that he had left ‘the Book of Allah’ for his people, and there is evidence that parts were written down during Muhammad’s lifetime by some of his followers. Yusuf Ali says the following about Surah 80:13ff:

For: 80. 13

At the time this Sura was revealed, there were perhaps only about 42 or 45 Suras in the hands of the Muslims. But it was a sufficient body of Revelation of high spiritual value, to which the description give here could be applied. It was held in the highest honor; its place in the hearts of Muslims was more exalted than that of anything else; as Allah’s Word, it was pure and sacred; and those who transcribed it were men who were honorable, just and pious. The legend that the early Suras were not carefully written down and preserved in books is a pure invention. The recensions made later in the time of the first and the third Khalifas were merely to preserve the purity and safeguard the arrangement of the text at a time when the expansion of Islam among non Arabic-speaking people made such precautions necessary.

The written existence of some parts of the Qur’an at least is also implied by the fact that people were forbidden to touch it unless they were in a state of ritual purity. However, what was written down tended to be fragmentary. The Muslim scholar Mahmoud Ayoub, says that when Muhammad died, the Qur’an

… consisted of scattered fragments either privately collected or preserved in human memory. It was the Muslim community which in the end gave the Qur’an its final form and reduced it to a single standard version which remains unchanged to this day. The community has, moreover, guaranteed the authenticity and truthfulness of the Qur’an through its universal and unbroken process of transmission. Thus it is the community consensus on the shape and authenticity of the Divine Word which ultimately shaped the Qur’an.

3.2 The Role of Consensus

It is worth noting the role ijma played in the process of collation. There is a tradition in the Hadith that it is impossible for the united Ummah to err, so ijma on this issue is a divine seal on the ordering of the text. However, the Sunni-Shia divide on the text of the Qur’an raises questions about this authority, since the obvious point is the lack of consensus as to the true form of Islam’s holy book. We see evidence of this lack of consensus in the traditions, for some surahs were not named at first. It is also implied by the fact that Gabriel checked the recitation of the Qur’an once a year, presumably because the majority of the revelation was preserved orally, and thus was subject to the infirmity of the human memory. There would be little point in checking it if it were all set down in writing. The alternative explanation, that he would come to confirm that the text had not been corrupted by someone, would not commend itself to Muslims.

3.3 Collation Under the Caliphs

The complete compilation was the work of the Muslim leadership under Abu Bakr and ‘Uthman. The first compilation occurred after the Battle of Yamama in 633 during which some Qurra had been killed. Obviously, if the entire text, as recognized by every Muslim, had been already collated, there would not have been the sense of urgency that accompanied the death of these men. The event was recorded by Zayd ibn Thabit, and the narrative reveals that not even the Prophet of Islam himself had previously collected the Qur’an:

Narrated Zaid bin Thabit:
SAHIH AL-BUKHARI

Abu Bakr As-Siddiq sent for me when the people of Yamama had been killed (i.e., a number of the Prophet’s Companions who fought against Musailama). (I went to him) and found ‘Umar bin Al-Khattab sitting with him. Abu Bakr then said (to me), ‘Umar has come to me and said: ‘Casualties were heavy among the Qurra’ of the! Qur’an (i.e. those who knew the Quran by heart) on the day of the Battle of Yalmama, and I am afraid that more heavy casualties may take place among the Qurra’ on other battlefields, whereby a large part of the Qur’an may be lost. Therefore I suggest, you (Abu Bakr) order that the Qur’an be collected.’ I said to ‘Umar, ‘How can you do something which Allah’s Apostle did not do?’ ‘Umar said, ‘By Allah, that is a good project.

‘Umar kept on urging me to accept his proposal till Allah opened my chest for it and I began to realize the good in the idea which ‘Umar had realized.’ Then Abu Bakr said (to me). ‘You are a wise young man and we do not have any suspicion about you, and you used to write the Divine Inspiration for Allah’s Apostle. So you should search for (the fragmentary scripts of) the Qur’an and collect it in one book).’ By Allah If they had ordered me to shift one of the mountains, it would not have been heavier for me than this ordering me to collect the Qur’an. Then I said to Abu Bakr, ‘How will you do something which Allah’s Apostle did not do?’ Abu Bakr replied, ‘By Allah, it is a good project.’ Abu Bakr kept on urging me to accept his idea until Allah opened my chest for what He had opened the chests of Abu Bakr and ‘Umar. So I started looking for the Qur’an and collecting it from (what was written on) palmed stalks, thin white stones and also from the men who knew it by heart, till I found the last Verse of Surat At-Tauba (Repentance) with Abi Khuzaima Al-Ansari, and I did not find it with anybody other than him. The Verse is:

‘Verily there has come unto you an Apostle (Muhammad) from amongst yourselves. It grieves him that you should receive any injury or difficulty..(till the end of Surat-Baraa’ (At-Tauba) (9.128-129)

Then the complete manuscripts (copy) of the Qur’an remained with Abu Bakr till he died, then with ‘Umar till the end of his life, and then with Hafsa, the daughter of ‘Umar.

The edition given to Hafsa was not copied nor presented as the ‘Authorised Version’ of the Islamic holy book, but rather appears to have been a private copy in the hands of the Caliph to safeguard against the loss of the text through incidents such as the battle in question. Other people kept their own codices, or relied on their own memorization of the text. This explains the trouble during the rule of ‘Uthman arise about variant copies. As we shall see, the Shia claimed that Ali already had both a written copy and appendices of the Qur’an.

These texts reveal the central role of Zayd ibn Thabit in the collation of the Qur’an, and that this occurred under Governmental mandate. However, it is clear that Zayd ibn Thabit’s collation did not fully resolve the matter, as we see later under the caliphate of ‘Uthman in 653, which indicates that variant readings remained a problem for the early Muslim community. In fact, so distinct were the variant readings of the Qur’an that there was trouble between the Muslims of Syria and Iraq at the time of ‘Uthman. The Christian apologist Campbell states that the differences arose from the Syrians using the collection of Ubayy bin Ka’b whereas the Iraqis used that of Ibn Mas’ud. von Denffer points out that the collection of Ibn Mas’ud differed from the ‘Uthmanic recension by excluding Surahs 1, 113, and 114, and also in terms of order, pronunciation, spelling and the use of synonyms. Likewise, the collection of bin Ka’b differs in order and variant readings from that of ‘Uthman and also that of Ibn Mas’ud. Not all 114 surahs are present in his collation, and he purportedly adds two extra ones, as well as an additional verse. Doi states that the Syrian-Iraqi conflict was over textual order, an issue that arises again when we examine the Sunni-Shia dispute. Maududi, in his Introduction to Yusuf Ali’s translation and commentary, holds that the dispute was over dialect readings. Tabataba’i states that the problem arose because

… differences and inconsistencies were appearing in the copying down of the Qur’an; some calligraphers lacked precision in their writing and some reciters were not accurate in their recitation.

Ahmad von Denffer claims that the differences were largely a matter of pronunciation and spelling, and this is the common Islamic view. It is amazing that such minor distinctions could have caused so much controversy, and that insignificant differences could have compelled ‘Uthman to take the drastic action he did:

Anas ibn Malik

SAHIH AL-BUKHARI

Hudhayfah ibn al-Yaman came to Uthman at the time when the people of Sham and the people of Iraq were waging war to conquer Armenia and Azerbaijan. Hudhayfah was afraid of their (the people of Sham and Iraq) differences in the recitation of the Qur’an, so he said to Uthman, ‘O chief of the believers! Save this nation before they differ about the Book (Qur’an) as Jews and the Christians did before.’

So Uthman sent a message to Hafsah saying, ‘Send us the manuscripts of the Qur’an so that we may compile the Qur’anic materials in perfect copies and return the manuscripts to you.’ Hafsah sent it to Uthman.

Uthman then ordered Zayd ibn Thabit, Abdullah ibn az-Zubayr, Sa’id ibn al-‘As, and AbdurRahman ibn Harith to rewrite the manuscripts in perfect copies.

Uthman said to the three Qurayshi men, ‘In case you disagree with Zayd ibn Thabit on any point in the Qur’an, then write it in the dialect of Quraysh as the Qur’an was revealed in their tongue.’

They did so, and when they had written many copies, Uthman returned the original manuscripts to Hafsah.

Uthman sent to every Muslim province one set of what they had copied, and ordered that all the other Qur’anic materials, whether written in fragmentary manuscripts or whole copies, be burnt.

Zayd ibn Thabit added, ‘A verse from surat al-Ahzab was missed by me when we copied the Qur’an and I used to hear Allah’s Messenger (peace be upon him) reciting it. So we searched for it and found it with Khuzaymah ibn Thabit al-Ansari.

(That verse was): –

‘Among the believers are men who have been true in their covenant with Allah.'(33:23)

We learn from this that the collation of Zayd ibn Thabit ordered under Abu Bakr and held by Hafsa became the canonical Qur’an at the time of ‘Uthman by virtue of it being chosen by the political authority and by all other copies of the Qur’anbeing destroyed. It is noteworthy that the text did not become canonical under Abu Bakr. When one considers the reverence given to the Qur’an by Muslims, this destructive action on the part of the Caliph may imply how distinct many of the copies might have been from the chosen version, at least in regard to the kind of variants von Denffer proposes. Moreover, it is instructive that Zayd did not rely upon his memory of the text, but rather investigated various readings. However, the existence of variant copies, such as that of Ali, suggests that some Qurra under ‘Uthman had memorized different readings. It is also noteworthy that ‘Uthman’s action, restricting the recitation of the Qur’an to the Quraish dialect, overturned the permission of the Prophet to recite the text in different dialects. This in itself demonstrates the seriousness of the event; the Caliph would not have lightly acted in this way unless he faced a genuine emergency.

In the light of many Muslim jibes that Christians do not have the autographs of the Bible it is interesting to note that a Muslim scholar such as Ahmad von Denffer states that

Most of the early original Qur’an manuscripts, complete or in sizeable fragments, that are still available to us now, are not earlier than the second century after the Hijra. The earliest copy… dated from the late second century. However, there are also a number of odd fragments of Qur’anic papyri available, which date from the first century.

There is a copy of the Qur’an in the Egyptian National Library on parchment made from gazelle skin, which has been dated 68 Hijra (688 A.D.), i.e. 58 years after the Prophet’s death.

He goes on to say that ‘Uthman kept a copy for himself, and five were sent to major cities. What is extraordinary is the action ‘Uthman took in establishing an authorised text. Try as one might, it is impossible to get any true Muslim to write in, tear or burn any copy of the Qur’an. In fact, riots have often started in Muslim countries when it has been reported that someone has defiled the holy book in this way. The Hadith literature speaks about the miraculous qualities of the Qur’an, which include its being inflammable. It is therefore all the more astonishing that Islam records that ‘Uthman was successful in his auto da fe of existing copies. To understand the urgency of his action, we must recognise the emphasis Islam places on Ijmaand Muslim unity. Whenever a Muslim meeting is held, the issue of the unity of the Islamic world is at the top of the agenda. ‘Unity is strength’ is a genuine Muslim attitude. Muslims frequently blame their depressed political condition on their disunity. After all, the Gulf War would have been impossible if the Muslim Umma had been united, and America’s attitude to the Palestinian issue would doubtless be different if it had to take into consideration the opinion of a single, Islamic mega-state. Likewise, we can understand that ‘Uthman, given that Islam was still a young religion, and one that was in political-military conflict with its neighbours, would be concerned at anything which would weaken the unity of the nascent community, especially when internal conflict arose in the course of a military campaign. One should also remember that in Islam, there is no separation between religion and politics. Muhammad was a Ruler as well as a Prophet. The first Caliph, Abu Bakr, had to engage in jihad against rebels who refused to pay their Zakat religious tax. Taxation is a political activity, but here it referred to religion. Further, these uprisings are called the Riddah rebellions, a term used also to describe religious apostasy. The Sunni-Shia divide was originally a dispute about political succession. Malise Ruthven states:

The divisions of Islam, in contrast to those of Christianity, have their origins in politics rather than dogma. This is not to say that dogmatic and theological questions do not form part of these divisions. However, the questions over which they first crystallised were political to the extent that they were primarily concerned with leadership of the community. Having a religious ideology built on the social foundations of tribalism, the Muslims expressed their aspirations first in terms of group loyalty, and only afterwards in terms of the doctrinal and theological accretions surrounding these loyalties.

If the Muslim community split, not only would there have been a number of sects comparable to the divisions of Christianity, but by definition, Secular and Holy being synonymous, there would have been at least the danger of the emergence of separate Muslim states. The Sunni-Shia divide, for example, helped to preserve Shi’i Iran’s independence from the Sunni Ottoman caliphate. Had there been separate editions of Islam’s holy book, even if the differences were comparatively minor, the obligation to have a single Islamic state could not have been fulfilled, since the basis for state law in Islam is essentially the Qur’an and the Sunnah. If there is no unity as to the sacred text of Islam, there could not have been a united hermeneutic and thus ijtihad – legal/theological study seeking to establish a policy.

Moreover, it should be remembered that in Islam, the Qur’an is equivalent in position to Jesus in Christianity. Christianity centres on the Person and Work of Christ. We know from the history of the early Church the painful disputes that ensued over Christology, with various heresies such as Arianism, Monarchianism, Monothelitism, etc., all threatening the unity of the Church and the purity of its doctrine. The conflicts and councils that ensued from these challenges all testify to how crucial for the Church is the question ‘What think ye of Christ?’ Not for nothing was Hudhayfah so urgent in his cry to ‘Uthman to save the Muslims from the divisions suffered by Jews and Christians. If I may say advisedly, even if the Church did not have the Bible, it would still exist, because it has the Risen, reigning Christ. The role of the Bible is secondary to that of Christ. It witnesses to Him and His activity. Although oral tradition preserved the words and actions of Jesus intervening period, it is obvious that years passed before the complete New Testament was extant. The central act for Christianity is not the revelation of the Bible, but the Incarnation, Death and Resurrection of Christ, and the impartation of the Holy Spirit. The Christian emphasis on a personal relationship with Jesus and His supernatural intervention in the life of a believer witnesses to the Christocentric nature of Christian faith and experience.

Islam, by contrast, centres on the Qur’an. The Qur’an is the revelation that establishes Islam, that instructs men how to live according to the will of God. Without it, Islam does not exist. One cannot have Christianity without Christ, and one cannot have Islam without the Qur’an. Christian initiation, based on Romans 10:9, involves a confession that implies a supernatural experience of the Spirit of Christ, as is indicated by 8:9-11. The Muslim credal affirmation, the Shahada, states ‘La ilaha illa llah Muhammadur rasulu llah’ – ‘there is no God but God and Muhammad is the Messenger of God’. The Divine message Muhammad brought was the Qur’an, so if there is a dispute about its actual text, the effect is the same as conflict concerning the Person of Christ, since His Work is inextricably linked to, and flows from His Person. If I may borrow from 1 Corinthians 15:17, if the Qur’an is not revealed, Islamic faith is futile and Muslims are still in their sins. For the Qur’an to be revealed, its text must be pure. The Muslim scholar Bucaille makes this point in his polemical book; ‘It was absolutely necessary to ensure the spread of a text that retained its original purity: Uthman’s recension had this as its objective.’

In the light of this, we can understand what a desperate situation ‘Uthman faced, and why he took the extraordinary action of burning copies of Islam’s holy book. The doctrine of Ijma consecrated the action of the Caliph – the agreement of the Sahabah represented the voice of God, since the united Muslim community cannot err. What is so pertinent for our concern as Christians is the effect this has had in Islam’s view of Biblical canonicity. Given that the Qur’an is the paradigmatic Scripture for Muslims, it is natural for them to assume that the Muslim canonical process mirrors Christian historical experience. The Muslim polemicist ur-Rahim writes about the Council of Nicaea:

In 325 A.D., the famous Council of Nicea was held… out of the three hundred or so Gospels extant at the time, four were chosen as the official Gospels of the Church… It was also decided that all Gospels written in Hebrew should be destroyed. An edict was issued stating that anyone found in possession of an unauthorised Gospel would be put to death.

He goes on to allege:

According to one source, there were at least 270 versions of the Gospel at this time, while another states there were as many as 4,000 different Gospels… It was decided that all the Gospels remaining under the table should be burned… It became a capital offence to possess an unauthorised Gospel. As a result, over a million Christians were killed in the years following the Council’s decisions. This was how Athanasius tried to achieve unity among the Christians.

It need hardly be said that all this is pure fantasy, bearing no resemblance to actual events or decisions at the Council of Nicaea, which at any rate was not concerned with textual issues. It is noteworthy that the author gives no sources for his preposterous assertions. Yet this is the common Muslim idea of Christian canonical history, especially with regard to Nicaea. The trouble is that Muslim polemicists are not only convinced of a Christian conspiracy to pervert the Scriptures, and must find a convenient scapegoat such the Council of Nicaea, which purportedly destroyed the ‘Islamic’ Gospel. They are governed by the presuppositions of their own canonical history to imagine that like ‘Uthman’s commission, the Christians needed such an official event to decide upon their authoritative text. Given that consensus is so important to Muslims, it is natural for them to assume that the same must be true of Christians – note ur-Rahim’s comments about Athanasius. Following from this, it can be understood why Muslim polemicists would write what they do about the burning and destruction of variant New Testament texts: they are looking at Nicaea anachronistically in the light of ‘Uthman’s action to establish a single, authorised text. Like the Sunnah of the Prophet, the policy of the first four Caliphs of Islam – the Righteous Caliphs – is an obligated model for Sunni Muslims. It follows that their actions that should be the paradigm to be followed after them, and must have been the appropriate action to take in the years of the earlier Abrahamic faiths. Further, since the procedure for Islamic canonical orthodoxy was State-enforced, it is natural for Muslims to assume the same was true with regard to the Christian Scriptures, and likewise the penalty for disobedience. It does not seem to occur to Muslim polemicists that even if what they say about Nicaea were true, how could Constantine have enforced this decision outside his own borders, for example, among the Christians of Persia and Ethiopia? Moreover, since there are minor variants as to isolated verses, and Bible-translations – like Qur’anic translations, such as those of Yusuf Ali and Pickthall – are not identical in every way in their choice of words, although they have the same content, it is mystifying that the Christians in recent years have not resorted to such heavy-handed tactics as they purportedly did at Nicaea according to Islamic polemicists.

4. The Impact of the Sunnah

4.1 Classification of Hadith

The Sunnah, or the ‘path, way, manner of life’ records the sayings and doings of Muhammad, whose way of life became a norm for the entire Muslim community. Muhammad provided a pattern by the example of his life for others to follow as the Qur’an itself testifies. The life of Muhammad was the display of the teachings of the Qur’an, and thus was itself hermeneutical. On this basis, the words and acts of Muhammad were themselves revelatory as the practical outworking of the Prophetic Message. Moreover, many issues were not addressed in the Qur’an, and the Sunnah deals with these. This was especially pertinent before the collation of the Qur’an, when it was still fragmentary. Hence, Muhammad’s actions, his judgments, policies, words and silences are the norm of conduct and ethics for all Muslims. Muslims are prone to say of Muhammad that ‘his life was the Qur’an‘ or vice versa. As one Islamic scholar states

The Qur’an is both the foundation and fountain of Faith and, among the fundamentals of Divine Law, the Sharee’ah, its place is unique. Its purpose however is only to lay down the principles. Its elaboration and interpretation are left to the Sunnah and Hadeeth.

The Sunnah, the example of the Prophet in his words and deeds, is transmitted through the Hadith. A Hadith is divided into two parts:

1. Isnad: This word means ‘supporting’. It records the names of the persons handing down the tradition (the transmissional chain)

2. Matn: the actual information

We can see from the following text an example of this:

Abdullah ibn Umar

SAHIH AL-BUKHARI

Safwan ibn Muhriz al-Mazini narrated that while I was walking with ibn Umar holding his hand, a man came in front of us and asked, ‘What have you heard from Allah’s Messenger (peace be upon him) about an-Najwa?’

Ibn Umar said, ‘I heard Allah’s Messenger (peace be upon him) saying, ‘Allah will bring a believer near Him and shelter him with His Screen and ask him, ‘Did you commit such-and-such sins?’…

We see the chain of narration from ibn Muhriz to ibn Umar to Muhammad himself is the Isnad; the Matn refers to God’s discourse with a believer about sin. The Isnad became the testing point for the authenticity of a hadith. There were several criteria for a genuine tradition:

1. The narration must distinctly state something said or done by the Prophet.

2. The traditional chain must be able to be traced back to the original reporters and thus to Muhammad himself.

3. All the transmitters had to be men of excellent character and piety.

4. The tradition must not contradict the Qur’an or any other sound tradition.

The principal criteria for classification were:

1. Perfection or otherwise of the chain of transmission.

2. Freedom of the text from defect.

3. Acceptance of the text by the Sahabah (in the case of Sunnis), the Tabi’un (their followers) and the Tab’ Tabi’un (their successors). Obviously, with the Shia, the integrity of traditions depends upon their acceptance by the Imams.

There are three classes of hadith:

1. Sahih: This means a ‘sound’ or genuine tradition, with a reliable chain of transmission with no weaknesses.

2. Hasan: This is a ‘fair’ text, but not wholly reliable, since the narrators were not the best.

3. Da’if: A ‘weak’ tradition, because of internal defects and unreliable transmission.

Within this category are several sub-divisions:

1. Mu’allaq: Where a text omits one or two transmitters in the beginning of the Isnad.

2. Maqtu’: Reported by a Tab’i.

3. Munqati’: Broken traditions.

4. Mursal: Incomplete texts omitting Sahabah from the chain of Tab’i to Prophet.

5. Musahhaf: Texts with a mistake in words or letters of Isnad or Matn.

6. Shadh: Texts with reliable chains, but with meanings contrary to majority attested traditions.

7. Maudu’: Fabricated texts.

Other divisions, used especially by Tirmidhi, include the idea that Gharib can refer either to the isnad or the matn. It refers to a certain weakness in some respect.

It may refer to the only tradition known by a certain line of transmission, although the same tradition may be known by other line, this type being gharib regarding the isnad. It may refer to a tradition whose matn has only one transmitter, this type being gharib regarding both isnad and matn. It may refer to a tradition which comes only from a man who is considered reliable, or in which some addition to what is found in other lines of the same tradition is made by a man of this quality, such a tradition being called gharib sahih.

Gharib can also refer to the use of rare words in a text, although it is not so-employed in the Mishkat al-Masabih, an important hadith collection. The terms gharib hasan and hasan gharib are descriptions of texts which are recognised as hasan in terms of transmission and which does not contradict other transmissions, but has itself only one line of transmission, and is thus simultaneously considered gharib. Hasan gharib sahih and hasan sahih gharib are also found in the Mishkat, and seem to refer to a hasan sahih tradition which has some feature that is gharib. Hasan sahih describes a hadith whose isnad is hasan, but which is supported by another whose isnad is sahih.

4.2 Collection of Hadith

As time passed, more and more of these sayings were recorded, including undoubtedly a number of forgeries. In order to collect, sift and systematize this massive product, scholars started travelling all across the Muslim world.. For this reason, the dating for the collections is somewhat late. Strict rules were laid down to separate true ahadith from false. It should be noted that we have evidence from the Hadith literature itself that the transmission in some cases must have been oral at the beginning, rather than written. Although oral tradition was usually considered reliable, there was some reticence with regard to confidence on this issue among the narrators. Sunni Muslims have ever since regarded a particular six of these collections as authoritative:

Sahih Bukhari (d. 870)

Sahih Muslim (d. 875)

Abu Dawud (d. 888)

Al-Tirmidhi (d. 892)

An-Nasai (d. 915)

Ibn Madja (d. 886)

The most important collector of ahadith was undoubtedly Imam al-Bukhari of Bukhara in central Asia, 810-870 A.D. All of Bukhari’s collection is recognized as sound. His collection is called Jami’ al Sahih, divided into ninety-seven books with 3,450 chapters. He examined 600,000 purported examples of Hadith, memorised 200,000 but rendered all save 7295 as spurious. Many of the remaining are parallel traditions, e.g. the traditions by different narrators referring to the dread consequences of lying against the Prophet. It is significant that Muslims apologists often attack the veracity of the Gospels because of their different nuances, yet they can accept parallel hadiths which are often less similar than are the Gospels to each other.

Shia Muslims adhere to their own collections and regard many of the Sunni ahadith as forged. The most important Shia collections are the two collations of Mohammad Ibne Yaqoob Abu Jafar Kulaini (d. 939), Usool al Kafi and Forroh al Kafi.Others include Man la yahduruhu al-Faqih, by Muhammad ibn Babuya (d. 991); Tahdhib al-Akhkam, by Sheikh Muhammad at-Tusi, Shaykhu’t-Ta’ifa (d.1067); Al-Istibsar, by the same author. Many Shia texts specifically attack Sunni distinctives, particularly with regard to the purported vice-gerency of Ali. It follows from this that the Shia could not accept the authenticity of any traditions narrated by the Sahabah or showing them in a good light. Neither will the Shia accept any tradition which contradicts Shi’i theology, such as temporary marriage, even if the purported narrator had been Ali. For Shi’is, ahadith are usually transmitted through their Twelve Imams, the true successors of the Prophet, as opposed to the Sunni Caliphs. Even among Shi’ites themselves, there were fabricated traditions.

It can be seen that Islam had an early problem with the question of the authenticity of texts. Granted, we are dealing here with Hadith, rather than Qur’an, but as we have seen, the Sunnah interprets the Qur’an, and acts as a secondary source of authority. Invariably, Muslims refer to their authority as the Qur’an and the Sunnah. Hence, it is openly confessed that in their history they had problems with those who engaged in corruption of text, especially when we consider the mutual accusations of Sunnis and Shia on this issue. Given the correlation of the Books of God, it is not surprising that they assume the same is true of the Christian holy texts. Consider the problem of isnad. The Gospels are not written by Jesus Himself, but by others. This is not so insurmountable, since the authors were involved with Jesus and His ‘Companions’, but Muslims have encountered liberal Biblical scholarship which questions the authenticity of the traditional authorship of the gospels. Hence the chain of transmission is questioned. This is even more true with respect to the epistles of Paul, who was not at all associated with the earthly ministry of Jesus, and who did not write gospels, but epistles on his apostolic authority. Muslims do not take seriously his Damascus Road experience. Secondly, the issue of matn arises. We saw earlier with respect to criteria for soundness that the tradition must not contradict the Qur’an or any other sound tradition. This is true for both Sunnis, and Shia. As I stated in my earlier paper, The Attitude of the Qur’an and Sunnah to the Christian Scriptures, the Gospels appear to Muslims to be of the characteristics of Hadith literature. In this case, the Christian ‘hadiths‘ (as Muslims would see them) do not agree with the Qur’an. The New Testament is therefore judged unreliable.

5. Shi’ism and the Qur’an

5.1 Shi’ism – Origins and Politics

The essential distinction between Sunnis and Shia is their concept of the Imamate and its restriction to the Alids, the House of Ali. Shi’is claim their Imams, being the descendants of Muhammad through his daughter Fatima, to be the true successors of the Prophet. Ali is held to be the only genuine successor of Muhammad. After the death of Muhammad, Medinese Muslims assembled to appoint one of their number to the succession, but Abu Bakr arrived and successfully argued for a Meccan member of the Quraysh tribe as Caliph, and he himself duly received this honour. Shi’is argue that since so much of Abu Bakr’s claims relied upon the issue of kinship, the person with the strongest claim was Ali. It follows from this that later Sunni caliphs like Muwaiya and Yazid were guilty of sin in attacking the House of Ali. The implication is that Ali was to be both the chief aide of Muhammad and his successor. Another text echoes this, and it is important since it reflects the actions of Muhammad after the Farewell Pilgrimage of Muhammad in 632 which in Shi’i eyes designated Ali as the successor of Muhammad, and by implication, indicates that those who appointed or took the position of authority were guilty of rebellion against the Prophet and thus apostasy.

The word translated ‘patron’ in the hadith is Mawla, a strong term which is better rendered as ‘lord’ or ‘guardian’; it is used of God Himself. As with the previous text, this hadith is accepted by both Sunnis and Shia alike, and implies, in the eyes of Shia, that Ali was his designated successor and was recognized in this by Umar , the Caliph preceding Ali. Because the succession went someone other than Ali, it naturally follows that Abu Bakr, Umar and ‘Uthman were guilty of rebellion against Islam, since the faith is partly defined as obedience to the Apostle. Shi’is have an intense and emotional love for Ali and his two immediate successors Hasan and Hussain. All Muslims revere the memory of Muhammad’s grandsons. The implication is that those who oppose the House of Ali are guilty of opposing Muhammad, and thus God Himself. The text is so-employed by Shi’is. Moreover, what was said about the relationship of Ali to Muhammad is also stated about Hussain, the son of Ali, and the same is said of his brother Hasan. It follows that those who martyred Hussain were guilty of opposing Islam.

5.2 Sunni-Shia Conflict and Political Resolution

Since politics and religion are coterminous in Islam, it should not surprise us that throughout Islamic history, there have been frequent conflicts between Sunnis and Shia. In contemporary Pakistan, there have been terrible riots with much loss of life between the two confessions. The militant Sunni group Sipah-i-Sahabah have declared their hatred for the Shia, and the issue of Shia attitude to the Companions and the ‘Uthmanic edition of the Qur’an plays its part in this. One of the difficulties Iran has faced in exporting the Islamic revolution is the fact that it is a primarily Shi’i country. Saudi Arabia, being controlled by the militantly anti-Shia Wahhabi sect of Sunnis has used this in its propaganda against Iran, although the real reason for their mutual hostility is that Saudi Arabia is a conservative regime, widely seen as an American client state, whilst Iran is a radical, anti-imperialist Government. The largely Sunni but pro-Iranian Muslim Parliament of Great Britain, has prided itself on uniting Sunni and Shia. Its late leader, Dr. Kalim Siddiqui, had a reputation as an outspoken advocate of uncompromising Islamic radicalism, notably on the Rushdie issue. This impression tended to obscure that he was actually one of the finest Islamic political theorists of the twentieth century, and certainly one of the most acute Muslim minds to have arisen in the West to date. A major advantage is that he writes in English, and being a Western-educated political scientist and journalist, his works are easy for Occidental minds to understand. As with Ali Shariati of Iran, and Malcolm X in the USA, his influence in death is likely to exceed that he exercised in life. One area in particular that he made a significant contribution is his understanding of Khomeini’s concept of the Guardianship of the Jurisconsult. The idea that in the absence of the Mahdi, for whose manifestation both Sunni and Shia wait, the ruler of the Islamic State inherits all the political power of the Prophet, as practised by the revolutionary Government in Iran, means that ‘… for all practical purposes, on issues of Leadership, State and politics, there is no longer any difference between the Sunni and Shi’i positions.’

5.3 Sunni Polemics

Since the Sunni-Shia divide was primarily political in origin, the contribution of Khomeini and Siddiqi might indicate that a major bone of contention has been healed, and we can only pray that the peaceful relations the two Islamic sects have enjoyed in Britain and the West will continue. However, the divide encompasses more than political considerations. A relatively minor problem is that Shi’is do not believe the Qur’an is uncreated. The Shia, because they hold that the activeattributes of God, such as speaking, are not eternal, believe that the Qur’an, as the ‘speech’ of God, is created. To Shia, the Sunni view borders on polytheism. A major difficulty is that Sunni and Shi’i polemicists accuse each other of corrupting the Qur’an. Saudi Arabia has printed a number of anti-Shia booklets in English in recent years which allege that the Shi’is make this claim about the Sunnis – that the latter have tampered with the text by excising verses. For example, the Jamaican-Canadian Muslim convert, Abu Ameenah Bilal Philips, one of the most respected Islamic scholars in the West, has translated anti-Shia works which make this assertion, especially about the ‘missing’ Surah concerning Ali, Surah Wilaya, that the Shi’is are supposed to allege was excised from the Qur’an. A further claim is that Shi’is believe that yet another chapter Surah Nurain (forty-one verses), the ‘Chapter of the Two Lights’ (i.e. Muhammad and Ali) was removed. Sunnis allege that Shi’is believe that the authentic copy of the Qur’an, compiled by Ali, is in the hands of the Twelfth Imam and will be presented by him when he returns as Mahdi. In the meantime, Shi’is use the ‘Uthmanic Qur’an, but they interpret it in the light of their Hadith collections, which reinterpret texts in the Sunni edition of the Qur’an after a Shia fashion. According to Sunni polemicists, a Shi’i hadith purportedly states:

Jabir says, ‘I heard Imam Baqar… saying: One who says that he has collected the whole Quran is a big liar’.

It goes on to state:

‘Only Ali and the Imams collected it all and preserved it.’

It is noteworthy that even a respected Orientalist scholar such as Montgomery Watt echoes this belief.

The Shi’a, it is true, has always held that the Qur’an was mutilated by the suppression of much which referred to ‘Ali and the Prophet’s family. This charge… is not specially directed against ‘Uthman, but just as much against the first two caliphs, under whose auspices the first collection is assumed to have been made.

Shi’is deny these accusations, and state that they uphold the veracity of the present edition. The great Shi’i scholar Shaykh Saduq, (919-991 A. D.), stated (and with this agree the Shi’i scholars Allama Ridha Mudhaffar and Sayyid al-Murtadha)

Our belief is that the Qur’an, which God revealed to His Prophet Muhammad (is the same as) the one between the boards (daffatayn).

Jafri comments:

… the text of the Qur’an as it is to be found in the textus receptus,… is accepted wholly by the Shi’is, just as it is by the Sunnis. Thus the assertion that the Shi’is believe that a part of the Qur’an is not included in the textus receptus is erroneous.

5.4 Shi’i Qur’anic Beliefs

5.4.1 Emendations?

However, it appears that at times, whilst Shi’is agree that nothing has been added, some have indeed felt references to Ali have been excised. In Majlisi’s Hadith collection, S. 3:33′ adds ‘family of Muhammad‘ to the text. Surah 25:28 is apparently changed to read in Ali’s copy of the Qur’an, which will one day be revealed, ‘O would that I have not chosen the second as a friend‘, ‘the second’ referring to Abu Bakr, who was the second in the cave after Muhammad’s emigration from Mecca.. S. 3:110 is purportedly emended to read ‘You are the best of Imams‘, substituting ‘imma‘ (‘imams’) for ‘umma‘, (‘peoples’). Hence, even if Shi’is use the ‘Uthmanic recension of the Qur’an, their hadiths essentially emend it.

5.4.2 Allegorical verses

Linked to this is the issue of allegorical verses. S. 3:7 speaks of such verses, and the issue is specifically addressed in the Hadith. The division of these verses is called explicit or clear – in Arabic, mukham. The other kind are called mutashabih – implicit or allegorical. The first are held to be incapable of misinterpretation, whilst the second are not. The mukham verses have only one dimension, and are clear in meaning, the mutashabih are known only to God (in the eyes of Sunni scholars), have more than one dimension and require further explanation. The former include issues such as halal and haram,punishments, etc., whereas the latter deal with the divine nature, life after death, and similar concerns. Shi’is believe that the mutashabih verses actually have a deeper, mystical meaning, and that only the infallible Imams, recipients of divine guidance, had true knowledge of the latter kind. Since only Shi’i hadiths reveal this information, it could be argued that, in effect, Shi’is and Sunnis read something different from each other when they study the Qur’anic text, even if it is the ‘Uthmanic recension.

5.4.3 Textual Order

What does seem to be the case, is that Sunnis and Shia differ over the order of verses in the Qur’an. No-one denies that the present edition of the Qur’an is not in the same order as it was revealed. However, Sunnis believe that

Both the order of the ayat within each sura and the arrangement of the surat were finally determined by the Prophet under guidance from the Angel Gabriel in the year of his death, when Gabriel twice came to revise the text with him.

It is noteworthy, however, that von Denffer offers as the determining evidence for this assertion the statement of ‘Uthman that

… in later days, the Prophet used to, when something was revealed to him, call someone from among those who used to write for him and said: Place these ayats in the sura, in which this and this is mentioned…

Another Sunni scholar states of Muhammad with respect to textual order:

It is logical to suppose that there must have been a certain order in which he read all the verses. The Prophet also used to direct scribes as to the positioning of verses and Surahs in the Qur’an.

He goes on to refer to traditions mentioning the positioning of the last verse in the Qur’an, concerning usury. Hence, the question of textual order is crucial for Islam. According to Sunnis, the actual order is the result of divine inspiration – it is part and parcel of the Qur’an itself. Shi’is, however, deny that the ‘Uthmanic edition is true as regards its sequential order. We noted earlier the Sunni accusation about the Shi’i views of the compilation of the present text. However, Shi’is state that what their hadith actually says is the following:

I heard Abu Jafar (AS) saying: ‘No one (among ordinary people) claimed that he gathered the Quran completely in the order that was revealed by Allah except a liar; (since) no one has gathered it and memorized it completely in the order that was revealed by Allah, except ali ibn Abi Talib (AS) and the Imams after him (AS)’ (Usul al-Kafi, Tradition 607)

Hence, Shi’is utter the obvious truism

… the Quran that we use which was compiled by the companions is not in the sequence that has been revealed. In fact, the Sunni scholars confirm that the first Chapter… was Chapter al-Iqra’ (al-Alaq, Ch. 96)… Muslims agree that the verse (5:3) was among one of the last revealed… yet it is not toward the end of the present Quran. This proves that although the Quran that we have available is complete, it is not in the order that has been revealed.

The Qur’an which is in the correct order according to Shi’is is that of Ali, the first Imam and son-in-law of Muhammad. They hold that he was the first to compile the Qur’an. The Sunni polemicist Salamah agrees that Ali was one of the scribes, but only of the later, Medinan revelations. The Shi’is retort by claiming that the changed order of the Qur’an was the result of either deliberate purpose or ignorance on the part of the Companions. It is significant that von Denffer records the words of ‘Uthman as regards the question of order. Regarding ‘Uthman as they do, it is clear that they cannot accept the veracity of his statement, and they would be naturally suspicious of his edition. It is significant that a Sunni scholar such as von Denffer states that Ali wrote a copy of the Qur’an, which is held in Najaf, Iraq. Another Sunni writer, Suhaib Hasan, states

Ali had his own personal copy of the Qur’an in which he recorded Surahs in their chronological order. This was only one individual copy, and the accepted text of the Qur’an was that prepared by the first two Caliphs.

It is thus clear that Sunni and Shia agree that the Alid Qur’anic text is distinct from that of ‘Uthman at least as to order, and since textual order is an issue of revelation, we can recognize the seriousness of this division in Muslim minds. However, Ali’s text also included commentary and hermeneutical information from Muhammad

… some of which had been sent down as revelation but NOT as part of the text of Quran. A small amount of such texts can be found in some traditions in Usul al-Kafi… Thus the commentary verses and Quranic verses could sum up to 17000 verses.

This is crucial with respect to the issue of interpretation. Shia believe that Imams are the infallible interpreters of the Qur’an. According to this belief, they alone have the divinely-revealed hermeneutic and commentary on the text, as well as the proper order of the text. The transcript remains hidden in the possession of the Twelfth Imam until his manifestation. The concept is strange to Christian minds. The nearest parallel is in Apocalyptic literature, e.g. Rev. 17:7, where an angel explains the meaning of a vision. Obviously, if the Alid Qur’anic appendices are part of the inspiration accompanying the text, if the Sunnis do not possess this, they are lacking the fullness of revelation, and if the revelations are rejected, it could be argued that the Sunni Caliphs are somewhat less than faithful Muslims. Indeed, Shi’is claim Ali presented this transcript to the caliphs, but they rejected it. Tabataba’i echoes this, and appeals to the need for Muslim unity as the reason for his acquiescence. Ali then quoted S. 3:187 against them. On this basis, Shia accuse Sunnis of tahrif in the sense of displacing a verse or corrupting its meaning in the same way as the Jews did.

This, however, is not the end of the matter. The extra revelation Ali possessed disclosed the identity of the abrogated and abrogating verses, and also revealed the Mutashabih verses. Inevitably, this means that whilst the text of the ‘Uthmanic recension is complete, not only its order but the knowledge of the genre of each verse, as well as the scholarship of Sunni theologians as to these vital issues is somewhat off-beam. It is not hard to see why the issue raises the passions it does. Essentially, Sunnis see Shi’i claims as heretical fantasy, and both accuse each other of distortion.

A further point to consider in this regard is that the Shia claim that their assertions on the question of order are supported by some Sunni references on the issue. As we have previously seen, Aisha, one of Muhammad’s wives, narrated an incident in which reference was made to this. In particular, the collection of Abdullah ibn Mas’ud, one of the Prophet’s acknowledged reciters indicates variance of order, which is significant because he claimed to know the exact order of verses. His collection was distinct, as we have seen previously. However, the Shia use this to berate ibn Mas’ud since they claim that he asserted that the last two chapters of the Qur’an were not true Surahs, but merely prayers! Similarly, Shi’is point to Sunni ahadithwhich assert the incompleteness of the Qur’an. It should be noticed that the references to the ‘two valleys’ in Sahih Muslimare not in the Qur’an but there are further references in the Hadith. Likewise, Shi’is point to a sound Sunni tradition which relates Caliph Umar speaking of a verse of stoning in the Qur’an, despite the fact that there is no such verse in the present edition. Further, Shi’is assert that ‘Uthman, the Caliph who ordered the definitive collation of the Qur’an, was also guilty of mentioning the existence of Qur’anic verses which do not exist.

This is one reason Shi’is regard the Companions as perverters of the faith. Shi’is attack them anyway for engaging in innovation – departing from the path of the Prophet, which is essentially heresy. For example, ‘Uthman extended the journey prayer which Muhammad had shortened, and he changed the rules for pilgrimage. As a consequence of this, they necessarily are suspicious of the collections under Abu Bakr and ‘Uthman, especially since the Caliphs rejected the transcript of Ali, and in the case of ‘Uthman, burnt variant readings. This helps to explain the psychology of Muslim attacks on the Christian Scriptures. They emanate from a milieu in which accusations and counter-claims concerning textual corruption in some form or another have been advanced within the Muslim community against each other. It is not surprising that Christians are likewise targeted, because Shi’is see the actions of Sunni caliphs as both parallel to the historical practices of the People of the Book, and fulfilment of prophecy in this regard:

AbuSa’id al-Khudri

SAHIH AL-BUKHARI

The Prophet (peace b upon him) said, ‘You will follow the ways of those nations who were before you, span by span and cubit by cubit (i.e. inch by inch) so much so that even if they entered a hole of a mastigure, you would follow them.’

We said, ‘O Allah’s Messenger (peace be upon him)! Do you mean the Jews and the Christians?‘ He said, ‘Whom else?’ (Emphasis mine)

Conclusion

What was said earlier about the relationship between theology, history and psychology needs to be reiterated. As can be seen from the often harsh words Sunnis and Shia sometimes use against each other in regard to their respective hadithcollections and the collation of the Qur’an, the attacks on the text and canon of the Bible to a large extent reflect an internal dispute between Muslims on similar issues. Family disputes are often the most bitter, and since Christians are part of the ‘Abrahamic’ prophetic family, along with Sunnis, Shia, and Jews in the eyes of Muslims, it is unsurprising that the terrible hostility that has characterized internal Islamic conflicts spills over to us as well.

Of course, this is not the only reason for Christian-Muslim difficulties with respect to the Bible. The political conflicts of the Middle Ages, especially the Crusades, the colonialism of the nineteenth century, and Western domination of the current Muslim world have all intensified passions, especially since the Gulf War and the Bosnian conflict. Muslims see no difference between religion and politics, so they are inclined to see the actions of the Belgrade or the Tel Aviv regimes as evidence of the corruption of Christian and Jewish holy texts. In this respect, they tend to see Christian evangelistic work in the same light as the massacres at Srebenica or Qana – as acts of aggression, intended to destroy the Muslims. People who are prepared to commit genocide are quite likely to be capable of anything, and certainly would not shirk to engage in deceit. It is in this light we should understand why they can imagine that the ridiculous stories Muslim polemicists publish about the Council of Nicaea and the canon of the New Testament are true.

The main reason, however, is that Muslims see themselves, or more especially Muhammad, as the eschatological fulfilment of the predictions of the previous scriptures. They affirm the unity of the Abrahamic prophets. Since, however, the Jewish-Christian holy texts differ from that of Islam, it follows that Jews and Christians must be the black sheep of the Abrahamic family. They must have distorted their scriptures, and done so in a parody of the action of ‘Uthman to establish confessional unity. In order to answer them, we must ‘speak the truth in love’, explaining what actually occurred in the realm of canonicity. To do so effectively, we must understand their own textual and canonical history, and how it affects their perceptions of Christian canonicity.

Bibliography

A. Guillaume, Ibn Ishaq’s Life of Muhammad, 9th impression, OUP, Pakistan, 1990

A. Yusuf Ali, The Holy Qur’an: Text, Translation and Commentary, Leicester, The Islamic Foundation, 1975

Al-Afghaanee, Dr Ahmad, The Mirage in Iran, trans. A. A .B. Philips, Abul-Qasim Publishing House, Saudi Arabia, 1985

Ayoub, Mahmoud, Islam – Faith and Practice, Open Press, Toronto, 1989

Bucaille, Maurice, The Bible, the Qur’an and Science, North American Trust Publications, USA, 1978

Campbell, William, The Qur’an and the Bible in the light of history and science, Arab World Ministries, USA, 1986

Deedat, Ahmad, Is the Bible God’s Word?, 1987 UK reprint, Islamic Propagation Centre, Birmingham

von Denffer, Ahmad, ‘Ulum al-Qur’an, , Islamic Foundation, Leicester, 1983

Dimashkiah, Abdul Rahman, Let the Bible Speak, International Islamic Publishing House, Riyadh, 1995

Doi, A. Rahman, Introduction to the Qur’an, Hudahuda Publishing Company, Nigeria, 1981

Doi, A. Rahman I., Introduction to the Hadith, Arewa Books, 1981, Ibadan, Nigeria

Ghiyathuddin Adelphi, and Hahn, Ernest, The Integrity of the Bible according to the Qur’an and the Hadith, Henry Martyn Institute of Islamic Studies, Hyderabad, India, 1977

Guillaume, A., Ibn Ishaq’s Life of Muhammad, 9th impression, OUP, Pakistan, 1990

Ismaeel, Saeed, The Difference between the Shi’ites and the majority of Muslim scholars, World Assembly of Muslim Youth, Riyadh, 1988 edition.

Jafri, S, Husain M., Origins and Early Development of Shi’a Islam, Longman, London and New York, 1979

Maududi, S. Abul A’la, The Meaning of the Qur’an, Islamic Publications Ltd., Lahore, 1993 edition.

Momen, Moojan, An Introduction to Shi’i Islam, Yale Univ. Press, !985, New Haven and London.

Philips, Abu Ameenah, Ibn Taymeeyah’s Essay on The Jinn, Tawheed Publications, Riyadh, 1989

Pickthall, Muhammad Marmaduke, The Meaning of the Glorious Qur’an, Nusrat Ali Nasri for Kitab Bhavan, 1784, Kalan Mahal, Daryaganj, New Delhi, New Delhi-110 002, India, 5th Reprint 1993 (first published in Hyderabad, 1930).

Ruthven, Malise, Islam in the World, Penguin, London, 1984, 1991

Salamah, Dr Ahmad Abdullah, The Sunni and Shia Perspective of the Holy Qur’an, Abul-Qasim Publishing House, Saudi Arabia, 1992.

Siddiqi, Kalim, Stages of Islamic Revolution, Open Press (UK) Limited, London, 1996

Suhaib Hasan, An Introduction to the Qur’an, Al-Qur’an Society, London, 1989.

Tabataba’i, ‘Allamah Sayyid M. H., The Qur’an in Islam: Its Impact and Influence on the Life of Muslims, Zahra publications, London, 1987

The Holy Bible, New International Version, New York International Bible Society, Zondervan Corporation, Grand Rapids, USA, Eleventh Printing July 1980.

Tisdall, Rev. W. St. Clair, The Sources of Islam, T. & T Clark, Edinburgh

ur-Rahim, Muhammad ‘Ata, Jesus A Prophet of Islam, MWH London Publishers, 1977, 1979

Watt, Montgomery W., Introduction to the Qur’an, EUP, Edinburgh, 1970, 1977

The Secular Experience of God

By Kenneth Cragg

Published by Gracewing – Christian Mission and Modern Culture Series 1998 (74pp)

Reviewed by Jenny James

---

As a missionary-theologian and possibly Britain’s most creative Islamicist, Cragg is well-placed to describe how the three major Abrahamic religions do and might accommodate themselves to ‘secularity’ or ‘secularization’ – he uses both terms which are not entirely interchangeable. ‘Secularity interrogates them’, he writes. ‘ It is a vast commonizer, searching and shattering their privacies and presenting them all, alike and differently, with duties to their populations, their demographic factors, their political forms, and their economic obligations.’ Yet, while Christianity has had to come to terms with ‘the negligibility of God’ in those very societies for which it is particularly responsible, Islam on the other hand has the greatest problems. ‘What still remains mandatory to the Islamic mind is that this religious faith assumes, desires, and proceeds by state-and-power expression’ he writes 1.

That Islam now exists everywhere in a minority situation – contrary to its own instinct and establishment – is to say that it is already ‘de-Islamized’. That is because ‘Mohammed was his own Constantine’ 2. ‘The post-Hijra Islamic “establishment” at Yathrib (Medina) was an amalgam of faith and power so strong that apostasy from the one was treason tothe other. Submission to divine revelation meant submission to its power expression in the Ummah and Dawlah of Islam.’ And of the Islamic expansion: ‘The sanction was power in concert with preaching. Islam was thus the most political of all the great religions, and that without inhibition or any sense of compromise. Indeed, the logic of Muhammad’s Hijrah was precisely the legitimacy of religious power and the powered legitimacy of religion.’

How therefore can it adapt to modern realities and remain true to itself? Cragg is hopeful – but only by quoting those academics like Shabbir Akhtar and Fazlur Rahman who have been forced into a kind of exile from Islamic states – Malaysia and Pakistan respectively – where their work is anathema.

That being said, Cragg courageously and necessarily wrestles with the co-existence of different religio-political instincts within the modern context. He does this first by helpfully separating out two different definitions of ‘secularity’. He distinguishes between ‘secular’ as describing a state or society in which religious allegiance might freely vary within a common citizenship and share common civil and political rights ‘equally’, and secondly, ‘secular’ denoting a condition or attitude of mind that rejects or ignores divine transcendent reference altogether.’ i.e. ‘…there is only us’. He sees with the penetration of the long-practiced missionary the pathos and even the necessity of that denial, given the self-kenosis (a kind of denial, says Cragg) of God Himself. Yet, if the most deeply religious things – liberty, honesty and compassion – lead inevitably to privatization, since they cannot be coerced, what becomes of society’s cohesion, to those ‘norms, values and traditions by which alone bodies politic and social identify and know themselves?’ 3. The way the faiths answer this question will determine the future of the world.

While Cragg articulates the question with a rare sensibility for the yearning and integrity that is at the heart of the ‘secular mind’, his answers are surprisingly vague and unsatisfactory, given the enormity of what confronts him. And that is probably down to the unfamiliarity of the theologian and pastor with the disciplines of politics and sociology. It is not good enough to do as he does and consign those with more precise ideas to the lumpen category of ‘rigorists’, and ‘enforcers’. To see with Berger the religions’ role in ‘world-building’ is not to be a religious militarist. It is to examine the hard evidence that secular liberalism has already provided of its inability to safeguard both religious freedom and truth. 4. Cragg’s answer to the contest of faiths for political legitimacy lies in ‘state neutrality’ – a term he leaves totally unexamined as indeed he does the term ‘equal rights’:

‘this… political-national structure of religion can be secularized in the legal sense without that in any necessary way implying or requiring secular abandonment of religious belief, ritual, and practice. It has already been stressed that the secular state concept can, and should, be emphatically distinguished from any making irreligious of society. It is entirely valid to combine a system in which the state is neutral in respect to freedom and faith-allegiance, with some continuing tradition of faith, worship and religion.

There is a significant body of work by academic lawyers that demonstrates that the state is not, nor can be ‘neutral in respect to freedom and faith-allegiance.’ Different religions have already been granted lop-sided legal dispensation in respect to how they perceive their needs and their earthly trajectories. Cragg however side-steps the practical realities when he writes: ‘The case made here is that a single religion could properly continue to play the major role in the spirituality of secular statehood, on condition that it respected and recruited the contribution of faiths present in the body politic but not hitherto sharing its historic definition or its cultural assumptions…’ While he can see the disconcerting political logic of pluralism, and how asymmetrical are the different traditions in their treatment of minorities, it is not good enough to assume that this is simply a question of ‘spirituality’. What, without legal and constitutional underpinning, does that actually amount to? How does one contend for the ‘truth’ in the public domain except in practical, political terms? As Sanneh so penetratingly writes: ‘The secular programme for religious pluralism has focused primarily on rescinding the claims of Christian uniqueness, a strategy that lowers the threshold for the religious uniqueness represented by other religions, and opens the way for Muslim radicalism 5’.

Cragg’s approach is typically complacent: he assumes that ‘our’ type of body politic would go on because it has always gone on. As if those who seek to safeguard the religion that undergirds secularity are merely ‘those of a certain mentality’ and can therefore be banished to the margins of debate. The Cross is the clue, as much for Cragg as for Newbigin. However, unlike Newbigin who sees the Cross as the symbol of a struggle that cannot resort to violence, Cragg finds it in a kind of self-abnegation that cannot resort to politics. ‘Mission’, he says, ‘is done with the God of patience in a secularity thoroughly refusing… its sacred meanings’. It will be ‘guided by the clue we have studied concerning what that patience is as measured in the Cross…’ as ‘a mission that will kindle into life this perception in order to interrogate its neglect.’ One only has to look to the state of the church in its former heartlands – predictions abound that there will soon be no more Christians at all in the Holy Land – and the centuries-long spiritual deep-freeze over north Africa, where Tertullian and Augustine once strode, to ask: how much ‘interrogation of neglect’ is conducive of the common good? Shouldn’t we rather take up a Cross that is integral to the daily struggle of public, political witness and action than a Cross of our own inertia?

As Sanneh says: ‘The issue… has to be faced that the development of a democratic West was conceivable at all by virtue only of its Christian classical and Puritan developments, more specifically, by virtue of those marks… works and motives that belong with the… influence of the gospel. What is plain now is that society cannot be content with drawing on the reserves of Christian moral capital without attention to replenishing the source’ 6. That demands political will.

1. p. 17

2. p. 16

3. p. 6

4. See Newbigin, Sanneh and Taylor, 1998

5. 1998:65

6. p.71

When Fear is a Crime

By Jenny James – March 1997

---

Stereotyping Islam should be made a criminal offence, says a new report.

The Runnymede Trust, a liberal think-tank on race relations says the British so hate Muslims and Islam as they perceive them that both need special protection in law.

The report – a consultation exercise leading to a major publication in November 1997 – uses a word so new to define the problem that it is not in the latest – 1995 – edition of the Oxford English dictionary.

Yet “Islamophobia”, thought to have been coined by a Muslim researcher at the Policy Studies Institute, has existed in western countries and cultures for several centuries,’ claims the report.

Defined as “dread or hatred of Islam and Muslims” it has become “particularly dangerous”, and “must be tackled with great urgency”, it says.

Chief among the phobics it identifies are other liberals, namely Fay Weldon, the UK’s leading female author and feminist who is furious at being nobbled by what she calls a term of political correctness’.

They single out her monograph Sacred Cows (1989) written after the fatwah on Rushdie, in which she described the Qur’an as food for no-thought. It is not a poem on which society can be safely or sensibly based. It gives weapons and strength to the thought-police.’

Other targets are the Roman Catholic chat show host, Robert Kilroy-Silk who described Muslims as “backward and evil” in a Daily Express article, the Jewish columnist Bernard Levin, and Patrick Sookhdeo who campaigns for persecuted Christians overseas.

Weldon railed to Third Way: “If to object when one’s friend and colleague is sentenced to death by a foreign power is islamophobic, then yes and certainly”.

“If to make a comment on the Qur’an is, and to say I don’t think it is a proper document to base a modern society on, then call me what you like!”

The report is the work of Runnymede’s “Commission on British Muslims and Islamophobia’, which numbers Richard Chartres, Bishop of London and Ian Hargreaves, editor of the New Statesman among its members, as well as leading figures from other faiths and academia.

Philip Lewis, the Bishop of Bradford’s adviser on inter-faith relations who is both a Trustee and a member of the Commission, says Christians should welcome the fall out among liberals which the report represents.

Slamming Weldon’s comments as “religious illiteracy’, he told Third Way: “One of the most sophisticated societies in history was Muslim Spain. Fay Weldon is talking arrogant nonsense.”

He said the report was indicting such members of the liberal intelligentsia for their anti-religious sentiments.

“If that can contribute to a climate where religion is taken seriously in the public domain, that’s all to the good.”

The report draws a line between legitimate criticism of Muslims and Islam, and phobic’ generalisations.

Seven features of “Islamophobic discourse” would be the subject of new guidelines particularly for journalists, employers and foreign policy makers, unless there is sufficient uproar to block it:

1)Muslim cultures seen as monolithic and unchanging 2)Claims that Muslim cultures are wholly different from other cultures 3)Islam perceived as implacably threatening 4)Claims that Islam’s adherents use their faith mainly for political or military advantage 5)Muslim criticisms of Western cultures and societies rejected out of hand 6)Fear of Islam mixed with racist hositility to immigration 7)Islamophobia assumed to be natural and unproblematic “Confidence-building measures”, says the report, could enable Muslims to play a full part in political, intellectual, economic and cultural affairs.

“We are in the middle of a process so we have not come to a conclusion, but I think it may well press for incitement to religious hatred possibly to replace blasphemy, initially to protect Muslims”, says Lewis.

Research is beginning to show how particularly Pakistani Muslims have become demonised’ in the way the Irish were for 400 years up to Vatican II. Other research is showing how Britain’s ordinary Muslims have been marginalised and hidden in ghettos, under a a cloak of multiculturalism’. The Church has been quietly acting as brokers’ between them and wider society, on issues such as schooling, prison chaplains, civic celebrations and legal matters.

Lewis – whose book Islamic Britain has been widely acclaimed by sociologists – accuses liberal intellectuals of being locked into an individualist mode of being’ and asserts: “Identity is wrapped up with religious belonging.”

Christians should welcome a document that pointed out some of the crass ignorance of the intellectuals who talk about religion, he added.

“That won’t do any more. If we are going to have a fairly critical dialogue across religious communities, it’s not going to happen if it’s OK to be abusive about another person’s religious tradition. It’s not going to create a climate where we can take each other seriously and disagree with one another.”

Key Muslim lobby groups like the UK Action Committee on Islamic Affairs have been pressing for some years for an extension to the 1976 Race Relations Act to include discrimination on religious grounds.

They are also pushing for English law to recognise aspects of the shariah, now widely practised unofficially in variant forms throughout the country.

They gave a cautious welcome to the Islamophobia document, although the Muslim Parliament’s spokesman, Massoud Shadjareh, in the Muslim weekly Q News, accused the Commission of cherry picking’ its membership to exclude all but the most compromising figures in the community.’

Such comments do little to dispel what Weldon describes as a nervousness at saying the words Satanic Verses.

“I don’t think the way to peace is through understanding one another. I think we have tried that for 100 years and it hasn’t worked. If you come here because you like the schools or the jobs, or whatever reason you want to be here, then join in and try and make it a better sort of place.”

But joining in’ on Weldon’s terms means privatising your faith – which clearly won’t work for people whose legal and social profile is religious.

Theologian Lesslie Newbigin will say in a forthcoming book that the State needs to affirm more decisively its debt to Christianity if secularism is to remain tolerant of diversity.

He told Third Way: “This pamphlet is disappointing from a body with the reputation which the Runnymede Trust has. It fails to address the central issue: it does not recognise the real challenge which Islam is posing to our whole secular society and it simply keeps it on the level of “let’s avoid a punch up” which of course we would all agree with, but it does not really address the serious issues.”

“Certainly condemn hatred of Muslims, but we won’t effectively deal with that if we don’t face the genuine questions which Islam raises for our secular society, such as what, if anything, is the reason for our life together, many of which are also questions Christians must raise.”

When the Liberal Conscience Fails

By-line: JENNY JAMES

This article originally appeared in “The Third Way”, March 1996

---

Discrimination on grounds of religion is wrong, most Christians would agree. No-one should be victimised because of their beliefs. But is it as simple as that?

A new booklet was published in May 1996 by the British Government, advising minorities on how to cope with religious discrimination. It was produced as an emollient in response to pressure to change the law about racism, and recognise religious discrimination as a greater problem to those whose skins are brown but whose religion, they believe, is perceived as the greater ‘threat’.

Since the complaints about discrimination are coming from Islamic activists who have been unable to furnish evidence that it’s actually happening, some suspect a subtler, political agenda: an attempt to be recognised as a bigger group that cuts across race and is better able to command the debate.

Muslims have won concessions in Britain under the old racism agenda: now they’re seeking legal parity as both a race and a religion along with Jews and Sikhs whom they outnumber seven to one – although Islam, unlike Judaism and Sikhism, spans many races and cultures. To be regarded as Muslim confers more political clout than to be regarded as Bengali or Pakistani.

Called ‘Religious Discrimination: Ways to Challenge It’, the booklet has been put together by the Inner Cities Religious Council – an agency within the Department of the Environment (DOE), run by Anglican vicar David Horn.

The DOE refused to allow the writer to interview Horn, but it is known that the publication follows the government’s failure to endorse a European initiative in October 1995 to extend the 1976 Race Relations Act to include religion.

Britain alone out of the European Community’s 15 member states vetoed an Interior Ministers’ ‘joint action’ in Brussels making it a crime on the British mainland to incite religious hatred or discrimination.

The implications are complex – and ominous. Home Secretary Michael Howard is thought to have ducked out of a vote at the last moment, after representations that Salman Rushdie could have been prosecuted for The Satanic Verses under such a proviso.

The Commission for Racial Equality is uneasy too. Papers leaked to Q News – Europe’s first Muslim weekly – in October 1995 revealed that lawyers regard the measure as ‘neither feasible nor desirable’. They believe it would prove impossible to define religion for the purposes of an Act (do you include Druids? Moonies?) And there are some practices sanctioned or forbidden by religion that society as a whole might legitimately wish to discriminate against, such as polygamy for Muslims and the ban on blood transfusions for Jehovahs’ Witnesses. A 1992 review of the 1976 Race Relations Act spoke of ‘ramifications going well beyond the area of good race relations.’ They want a wider debate.

So what are people worried about? Is this a naive bid for power – the ‘Islamisation of Europe’ that the Islamic Foundation in Leicester speaks of – or more seriously, the beginning of the permanent polarisation of local communities along religious lines?

Massoud Shadjareh, Chairman of the Muslim Parliament of Great Britain Human Rights Committee says Muslims are now the largest ethnic minority in Britain and they should be dealt with as such. ‘Our identity is first and foremost religious’, he says.

That challenges the assumptions of secular Britain – where the government lists religion with gambling under ‘leisure activities’ in its annual Abstract of Statistics. Islam functions as a political system, regulating every aspect of life. It is governed by Divine Law – which often contradicts other law in Britain. How would one arbitrate between the two laws if it became illegal to discriminate religiously? One easy way out would be to govern Muslims under Islamic law – but this could lay the groundwork for a kind of sectarianism we have not seen on the British mainland for several hundred years.

This is not far-fetched. Some high-profile Muslim groups have already demanded concessions ranging from recognition of blasphemy, through an Islamic curriculum in mainly Muslim schools, to the outlawing of free comment about Islam and more.

For example, the Manifesto of the Muslim Parliament, published under the name of ex-Guardian journalist Kalim Siddiqi in 1990, declares: ‘The option of integration and assimilation that is on offer as official policy in Britain must be firmly resisted and rejected.’

The Manifesto calls for ‘a no-go area where the exercise of freedom of speech against Islam will not be tolerated.’ Sussex University student union, among others, has already revoked its free speech rule – it must be assumed that religious extremism has had something to do with it – and British history dons examining the origins of Islam have received death threats

Q News – Europe’s first Muslim Weekly – is campaigning for parity with Jews in the public consciousness. ‘We are concerned that you can be accused of being anti-Semitic against Jews, but not against Muslims, although we’re the same race.’

The CRE is flummoxed. A survey of 2,500 minority groups in 1994 failed to find evidence of discrimination that is anything other than racist – and existing law can cope with border-line cases.

An employer who refuses to allow his workers to take leave to celebrate Eid for example – the festival marking the end of Ramadan – can be prosecuted as a racist.

Some Muslim lawyers, however, have a much broader agenda. To be Muslim, they say, is to observe the Shari’ah, Islamic divine law. Your identity as a Muslim cannot be divorced from your obligations to that law. And until English law recognises Muslim ‘religious rights’ in such matters, it remains discriminatory.

The CRE in October 1995 set up a working party under Kashmiri Muslim Kurshid Drabu to look afresh at the question of religious discrimination.

The question of incorporating Shari’ah law within the English legal system as a way of protecting Muslims from each other is also being examined by some lawyers. To refuse would be, in the words of the new politically correct lexicon – assimilationist. A case in point is ‘limping marriages’ to do with polygamy which is legal in Islam, and practised in Britain. It has reached ‘alarming proportions’ in the States. A woman may obtain a divorce from the state, but be denied one by her husband under Shari’ah law. The husband can and frequently does marry again under Muslim polygamy rules, but the wife cannot. She faces rejection and destitution within her own community. Unless the state recognises Islamic divorce or talaq in order to regulate it (a man merely has to pronounce a short verbal formula three times to divorce his wife) – such women have no real protection. And until the state recognises it, argue some, the state is guilty of discrimination.

In a new book published in 1996 Verna Menski, an academic lawyer and expert in ethnic minority law at London University, says that Muslims are operating a kind of legal apartheid anyway.

He says that the state is still closing its eyes to ‘the unpalatable reality’ that many different Asian laws are in full though unofficial, operation on British soil.

Muslims are increasingly asserting their religious values and are willing to challenge the system rather than neglect their religious duties, he says, ‘opening the door to possible conflict over differing norms’.

One alternative is what Muslim lawyers call ‘Angrezi shariah’ – a hybrid obligation system, whereby, for example, a Muslim woman in 1990 successfully sued her former husband who had accused her of not being a virgin on her wedding night. She was awarded £20,000 in recognition of the slur on her and her family ‘bearing in mind the values of her community’.

A more worrying option is what Sebastian Poulter, Reader in Law at Sussex University describes as ‘multi-cultural tolerance’ – a cloak for oppression and injustice within the immigrant communities themselves.

What angers Muslims is a feeling of being dragooned into ‘English public policy’ with its undefined ‘shared values’ which are not actually shared by Muslims.

‘This leads to a situation where the law is divorced from reality and unable to claim the loyalty of the Muslim community – bringing the law into contempt’, says Menski.

Some Muslim academics see the solution to the problem in ‘adjustments’ to the relation between church and state. By this they mean disestablishment, with the monarch becoming ‘defender of faith’ – not just one faith, the removal of bishops from the House of Lords and an end to the ‘predominantly Christian emphasis’ in religious education in state schools.

‘It is clear that norms and values of a Christian background are in a privileged position, whereas those derived from Islam have to fight their way in.’

Writers such as Tariq Modood at the Policy Studies Institute, echoing Chief Rabbi, Dr Jonathan Sacks’ 1990 Reith Lectures, are against disestablishment.

‘The minimal nature of the Anglican establishment, its relative openness to other denominations and faiths seeking a public space and the fact that its very existence is an ongoing acknowledgement of the public character of religion are all reasons why it may seem far less intimidating to the minority faiths than a triumphal secularism’, says Modood in his book, ‘Not Easy Being British.’

And indeed, as the new communities have bunkered down over the last ten years, it has been the largely anti-religious voluntary sector and local authority activists that have helped to dig the trenches.

The consequences are serious. Councillors on local authority race equality committees who yesterday funded mosques as ‘community centres’ today note with regret that many Muslims have ‘marginalised’ themselves by refusing to cooperate within broader community policies. Philip Lewis, the Bishop of Bradford’s Advisor on Race Relations says Bradford has ‘a permanent under-class’ The concept of citizenship is all but redundant. Muslims mistrust secular politics. The time has come for political forums to become religious again.

Nigel Todd, Labour Chair of Newcastle City Council Racial Equality Working Group – a self-confessed atheist – says councillors are getting ‘hurt’ by being called racist every time they resist the exclusivist Islamic agenda.

‘If they don’t get their way they say you are racist. These are politically inspired accusations that are about achieving another agenda. The aggro is ruining people’s lives. Why should we bother any more?’

If the liberal conscience is growing weary, who will fill the breach as communities threaten to splinter for good? Are the churches ready? ‘How blessed are the peacemakers’ is likely to be a text for our times.

Criminalise Religious Discrimination, Say Muslims (Christian Herald Article: Part II)

Byline: JENNY JAMES

Originally appeared in “The Christian Herald” 10th February 1996

---

Q-News, Europe’s influential first Muslim Weekly newspaper, is campaigning for new legislation to make ‘religious discrimination’ a crime.

The paper, with other Muslim groups, believes religious discrimination and ‘Islamophobia’ are preventing the establishment of Islamic state schools.

They have repeatedly dismissed the Commission for Racial Equality who see the issue as race-based as ‘incompetent’ and ‘secular’.

Said a spokesman for the paper: ‘Some estimates say Muslims are 65% of the total ethnic minority community in Britain now – and we are concerned that you can be accused of being anti-Semitic against Jews, but not against Muslims, although we’re the same race.’

Home Office Minister Michael Howard has so far resisted moves for a law against religious discrimination, despite sympathy in the rest of Europe where race legislation is less effective than in Britain.

The Swiss have recently voted, in a referendum, in favour of a law against religious discrimination.

Michael Howard has asked for more evidence while arguing there is already ‘indirect provision’ under the 1976 Race Relations Act:

• Flexibility in workplace clothing was introduced in 1980 to allow for headscarves and trousers to be worn as uniform by women.

• In 1992 the company Precision Engineering was found to have indirectly discriminated when saying it did not want to employ any Muslims

• A tribunal in 1993 upheld the right of a Muslim worker to take unpaid leave to attend Eid.

Observers note that legislation would have to steer a careful path around practices considered barbaric in British culture – which are considered religious in others: female circumcision and public ritual slaughter for example.

The CRE also believes that the establishment of the Church of England could itself be seen as discriminatory in light of current demographic trends.

At the moment, 26 Anglican Bishops sit in the Upper House as a matter of right although some religious groups, including Muslims, already have more active members.

A new Religious Discrimination Working Party for the Church of England, which has so far met just four times, made representations to the General Synod Policy Committee in March 1996.

Its convenor Christopher Lamb, Anglican Inter-faith Secretary, believes it is ‘far-fetched’ to think legislation could backfire against free speech or wider constitutional issues.

‘I think it would depend on how it’s worded. What is in mind is a law that has to have a victim as is the case with race relations and gender legislation. I don’t think you could argue that the C of E actually makes victims in that way.’

The joint action document which was agreed to by 14 of the 15 European Interior Ministers in Brussels in January 1996 would seek to make a crime ‘public incitement to discriminate… in respect of the group of persons by reference to colour, race, religion or national or ethnic origin.’

Bishop Lessie Newbigin, who referred to ‘the Islamic mission’ in his Gospel and Culture lecture on 1 December 1995 at Kings College, London, said it was important to define discrimination.

‘If it means with respect to housing and healthcare, then of course we are all against it. If it means discrimination that you make claims and counter claims with regards to truth then it destroys all possibility of inter-faith dialogue.’

Some observers see the Qur’an and the Bible as disciminatory and even in some verses inciting to religious hatred, although Lamb discounts the possibility of legal complaints against holy scripture.

He says some religious publications might qualify – especially the anti-Christian videos of South African polemicist Ahmed Deedat, widely distributed from Islamic bookshops around Britain.

‘There is already in existence religious publications which are derogatory and some Christian material is liable to the same judgement,’ says Lamb. ‘We all have to be careful on that score.’

He and others are advising the Archbishop of Canterbury on framing legislation against intentional incitement to religious hatred which would be more workable than has proved the case in Northern Ireland.

Said a spokesman: ‘We are not opposed to such a law in principle, but we recognise that the government of the day would need to be persuaded that a) there is a significant mischief that is not covered by existing laws, and b) that technical problems of providing sufficiently tight definitions can be overcome.’

Meanwhile Michael Howard is busy meeting large numbers of Asian groups in the run-up to the next election.

The Asian business pound is significant to the British economy and Asian votes are going to be important in determining the outcome of the next election.

Says Myant: ‘Our single member constituency system gives ethnic minority power potentially greater weight than it might otherwise have.’

---

This article is re-printed by kind permission of the “New Christian Herald”.

Muslims Seek Power in Religious Identity (Christian Herald Article: Part I)

Byline: JENNY JAMES

This article originally appeared in “The Christian Herald” – 10th February 1996

---

Moves to meet the growing demands of Islamic pressure groups to outlaw alleged ‘religious discrimination’ in Britain are not being debated enough despite its far-reaching implications, it’s claimed.

Pressure, particularly from Muslim groups who now make up 65% of all Britain’s ethnic minorities, to be defined by religion rather than race, is mounting.

But the Commission for Racial Equality believes the implications of such legislation are only being discussed in obscure forums at European level – despite significant ramifications.

The issue was raised again at the Madrid Summit in December 1995 at which interior ministers agreed to press for a consensus on extending race law to religion – but the issue, which is of vital significance for British social policy, has gone largely unreported.

Britain has vetoed a ‘joint action’ agreed to by the 14 other members of the European Justice and Home Affairs Ministers Council – a parallel body to the European Commission set up under the Maastricht Treaty.

The matter of most concern to religious groups is the first clause which seeks to criminalise ‘public incitement to discrimination, violence or racial hatred in respect of the group of persons or a member of such a group defined by reference to colour, race, religion or national or ethnic origin.’

Michael Howard has objected to the words discrimination and religion – which extend existing law – until he is satisfied there is sufficient evidence to show that race relations legislation does not give adequate protection.

Member States would be required to adopt the Joint Action by June 1997 – and John Major said in Parliament on 18 December 1995 that all that stands between the measure and its becoming law are ‘technical issues still being worked out, but I do not envisage that they will cause any great difficulties.’

Says CRE spokesman, Chris Myant: ‘We would like to see a wider public debate – partly because the implications are so wide. We are not in a position to offer advice across this wide range of Muslim questions.

‘These are issues around which society would feel very strongly and it’s important that there be a wider debate. I don’t think there has been yet.’

Muslims believe they have more chance of securing their needs – particularly in education – as a religious group instead of under existing ethnic minority provision.

Says Massoud Shadjareh, Chairman of the Muslim Parliament of Great Britain Human Rights Committee: ‘When it comes to our needs like health and housing we are excluded. The Asian umbrella is being addressed but the Muslim community which constitutes the largest ethnic minority is not, and our identity is first and foremost religious.’

There are various issues at stake being tackled in different ways:

• incitement to religious hatred

• discrimination in terms of the delivery of services and employment

• discrimination that implies that one religion is inferior to another.

The CRE, recognising in its 1992 review of the 1976 Race Relations Act that the issue had ‘ramifications going well beyond the area of good race relations’ set up a Project Team to coordinate work around the whole issue in October 1995.

Run by Khurshid Drabu, a Kashmiri Muslim, the team has a three-fold remit including the backing of Max Madden MP’s Private Member’s bill against incitement to religious hatred – which exists in Northern Ireland but not the mainland.

The team will also:

• continue to look for suitable test cases to deepen and further understanding of the application of the Race Relations Act in cases which involve elements or religious discrimination

• seek to amend the Race Relations Act to clarify where discrimination on religious grounds may constitute indirect racial discrimination

As it stands the law itself gives people who believe they are victims of religious discrimination no automatic rights in law: They must make a complaint on a piece-meal basis by showing someone else has won a similar case, for example, where the CRE can define religious discrimination as racism by another name. And it is pledged to stamp it out – when it can find it.

But say the CRE, their efforts to secure hard evidence have largely failed.

A survey of major religious groups, previous test cases and law centres was carried out in response to pressure from Islamic groups in 1994.

It asked for first and second hand examples of problems being experienced in regards to faith, not covered by existing legislation in terms of jobs and services.

Says Myant: ‘We came back with very little material to show that an individual who was a follower of Islam and who experienced difficulty in getting a job for example, because he was a Muslim, or getting a service could not use existing legislation.

‘Clearly there was a problem for Jehovah’s Witnesses over invasive surgery on children which is prohibited.’

But he adds: ‘I am not quite sure what people mean by religious discrimination and we have to be a little bit careful.’

Observers believe the vexed question of Islamic schools – there are no grant-maintained Islamic schools as yet (1996) – has less to do with religious discrimination, and more to do with the availability of Muslim teachers – and broader integration issues.

Jorgen Nielsen, in the Journal for the Institute of Muslim Minority Affairs, writes: ‘It is clear that this way forward can never serve more than a minority, even if all the practical obstacles are overcome. This is not, of course, an argument against such schools in principle; so long as the facility exists in law and is used in practice by some religious communities it is invidious to prevent others from making use of the facility.

‘But the Muslim leadership cannot avoid the accusation that they will be racially divisive simply by pointing out that racism is unIslamic… A Muslim school in parts of Birmingham or Bradford would be racially segregated in effect even if not in intent.’

---

Part two of this article examining the Church’s response to the issue of religious discrimination follows.

This article is re-printed by kind permission of the “New Christian Herald”.

Was YHWH a New Name in Exodus 6:2-4?

Here is a PDF article on this subject:

[To be supplied - not available from ASRA website (“access denied” error)]

An Explanation of the Unipersonality of Christ for Muslims – Footnote 33

Gerry Redman

Back to Redman paper

Footnote:

Wahba, Fr. Matthias F., St. Antonius Coptic Orthodox Church, Hayward, California, USA:

Monophysitism: Reconsidered

Introduction:

The Coptic Orthodox Church of Alexandria, in which I am a priest, is one of the Oriental Orthodox Churches. These churches are the Coptic, Armenian, Syrian, Ethiopian, and the Malankara Indian Churches. The common element among them is their non-acceptance of the Council of Chalcedon of AD 451. Accordingly they prefer to be called ‘Non-Chalcedonian Orthodox Churches.’

The Council of Chalcedon caused a big schism within the church which lasted until the present. In addition, after the Arab invasion in the seventh century, the churches lost communication with each other. Through this long period, the non-Chalcedonians were accused of Eutychianism, and called ‘Monophysites’, meaning that they believe in one single nature of our Lord Jesus Christ. They never accepted this idea considering it a heresy. The purpose of this paper is to reconsider the issue…

Monophysitism and the Council of Chalcedon

… The definitions of the Tome were composed in a way that it could be interpreted by different persons, each in his own way. It is known that Nestorius, who was still alive in 451, accepted the Tome of Leo, while the Alexandrines rejected it.

The Council of Chalcedon, which is believed to have condemned Eutyches, did not deal with him but with Dioscorus, Patriarch of Alexandria. Eutyches himself was not present at the council. Scholars state that Dioscorus was deprived of office on procedural grounds and not on account of erroneous belief. At Chalcedon Dioscorus strongly declared, ‘If Eutyches holds notions disallowed by the doctrines of the Church, he deserves not only punishment but even the fire. But my concern is for the catholic and apostolic faith, not for any man whomsoever.’ …

Two Different Traditions

Dioscorus, then, was not a heretic. The majority of the bishops who attended the Council of Chalcedon, as scholars indicate, believed that the traditional formula of faith received from St. Athanasius was the ‘one nature of the Word of God.’ This belief is totally different from the Eutychian concept of the single nature (i.e. Monophysite). The Alexandrian theology was by no means docetic. Neither was it Apollinarian, as stated clearly. It seems that the main problem of the Christological formula was the divergent interpretation of the issue between the Alexandrian and the Antiochian theology. While Antioch formulated its Christology against Apollinarius and Eutyches, Alexandria did against Arius and Nestorius. At Chalcedon, Dioscorus refused to affirm the ‘in two natures’ and insisted on the ‘from two natures.’ Evidently the two conflicting traditions had not discovered an agreed theological standpoint between them.

Mia Physis

The Church of Alexandria considered as central the Christological mia physis formula of St. Cyril ‘one incarnate nature of God the Word’. The Cyrillian formula was accepted by the Council of Ephesus in 431. It was neither nullified by the Reunion of 433, nor condemned at Chalcedon. On the contrary, it continued to be considered an orthodox formula. Now what do the non-Chalcedonians mean by the mia physis, the ‘one incarnate nature?’. They mean by mia one, but not ‘single one’ or ‘simple numerical one,’ as some scholars believe. There is a slight difference between mono and mia. While the former suggests one single (divine) nature, the latter refers to one composite and united nature, as reflected by the Cyrillian formula. St. Cyril maintained that the relationship between the divine and the human in Christ, as Meyendorff puts it, ‘does not consist of a simple cooperation, or even interpenetration, but of a union; the incarnate Word is one, and there could be no duplication of the personality of the one redeemer God and man.’

Mia Physis and Soteriology

‘The Alexandrian Christology’, writes Frances Young, ‘is a remarkably clear and consistent construction, especially when viewed within its soteriological context. Mia physis, for the Alexandrians, is essential for salvation. The Lord is crucified, even though His divinity did not suffer but His humanity did. The sacrifice of the Cross is attributed to the Incarnate Son of God, and thus has the power of salvation.

Common Faith

It is evident that both the Chalcedonians and non-Chalcedonians agree on the following points:

1. They all condemn and anathematize Nestorius, Apollinarius and Eutyches.

2. The unity of the divinity and humanity of Christ was realized from the moment of His conception, without separation or division and also without confusing or changing.

3. The manhood of Christ was real, perfect and had a dynamic presence.

4. Jesus Christ is one Prosopon and one Hypostasis in real oneness and not mere conjunction of natures; He is the Incarnate Logos of God.

5. They all accept the communicatio idiomatum (the communication of idioms), attributing all the deeds and words of Christ to the one hypostasis, the Incarnate Son of God…

I conclude that the term ‘monophysitism’ does not reflect the real belief of the non-Chalcedonians. They prefer not to be called ‘monophysites,’ as far as the term may be misunderstood. They believe in one nature ‘out of two’, ‘one united nature’, a ‘composite nature’ or ‘one incarnate nature and not a ‘single nature’. There is no evidence that the term was used during the fifth century. Most probably it was introduced later in a polemic way on behalf of the Chalcedonian Churches. However, considering the past, the non-Chalcedonians are better to be called ‘mia-physites’ than ‘monophysites’…

Back to Redman paper