Discussion with a Christian

Discussion with a ChristianHome comparitive.gif (2947 bytes) 

A discussion with a Christian

Assalamu Alaikum Brothers and Sisters:

One day I received an E-mail inviting me to accept Christianity. Here
was my response to the Christian who sent me this invitation:

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

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

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

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

This leads to some very basic questions:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

************************************************************************

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

12)	Is the religion of Christianity the message of Jesus? Or is it 
	the message of various men that followed him who had the
	audacity to attribute words to God and to His cherished
	messenger Jesus? (i.e. Is Christianity a man-made religion?)

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

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

Listen to what the Qur’an says:

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

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

"(And remember) when the angels said: O Mary! Lo! Allah giveth thee glad
tidings of a word from Him, whose name is the Messiah, Jesus, son of
Mary, illustrious in the world and the Hereafter, and one of those
brought near (unto Allah)" (Surah al-Imran 3:45). According to this
passage, Allah’s Word manifested was the Messiah, Jesus the Son of
Mary... Now let’s once again compare that to the words of the angel
Gabriel in the New Testament, "You will be with child and give birth to
a son, and you are to give him the name Jesus. He will be great and will
be called the Son of the Most
 High..." (Luke 1:31 and 32).

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

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

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

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

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

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

Reggie Abraham

************************************************************

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

"This is intended for - Reggie Abraham:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

For future discussions you should know the following:

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

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

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

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

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

Salaam,

M.K.

**********************************************************************

As students (most of you who receive this E-mail are students) I invite
you to participate in this debate. I look forward to your participation.
Feel free to address any points that I have raised in greater detail; as
is obvious, I have not, due to time constraints, been able to respond
more fully. Also feel free to respond to any points and challenges which
Mr. Abraham and his colleagues direct at my statements.
 While this
discussion started with me, it is not mine to control. Give the dawah in
any manner that you deem appropriate, and consistent with the teachings
of Muhammad (pbuh). At the very least, we must endeavor to stop the
false statements made about Jesus.

Here is a list of Christians who are active participants in this dialog.
Send them and Mr. Abraham your contribution to the search for truth -
assuming you choose to write a response.

Abraham’s E-mail address:		Dorema@aol.com

Other Christian participants:	
jamoonlyte@juno.com
f3zqc@qcvaxa.acc.qc.edu
Gthazham@marshall.law.uconn.edu
Samuel_john@jpmorgan.com
Matthews_jacob@jpmorgan.com
Georgej@sable.adelphi.edu
FinneyC@mails.imed.com
Sgeorg01@kepler.ploy.edu
Araham@gpu.srv.ualberta.ca
Amen30@aol.com
Sea@eden.rutgers.edu

For a list of other Muslim students who have received this E-mail check
your "mail headers".
 Finally, feel free to forward this discussion to
whomsoever you feel might wish to contribute.

Assalaam Alaikum,
M.K.

PS - There have been other Muslim participants who have responded to Mr.
Abraham besides myself, and possibly those students found in your mail
headers. These participants include:

Meherally, Akbarally - amedamne@worldtel.com,		
Omar Antar - Oantar@muslimsonline.com, and
Hassan Khan - Hassan4@juno.com.

muntadalogo.gif (2234 bytes)

This
 Page was last updated on Tuesday, June 16, 1998

Islamic Information Office Comparitive Religion WebSite - isa@iio.org

Hosted by Muntada Computer Services webmaster@muntada.com