As the holiday season comes to an end the debate between Christians, Muslims, Atheists, Hindus etc continues.
As I look back on 2012 I see many Islamic apologists attacking other faiths, as if for some reason that proves Islam is true. If I disprove Hinduism that does not mean Christianity is true? If I disprove all faiths that does not mean Christianity is true? No, you have to prove your faith is true.
Now many Muslims target the bible as a way to seek truth in Islam. However, my argument focuses on the double standards they use a long the way to prove their faith and that it is a must for them to use double standards, because if they were consistent they would have to throw out the Quaran as a divine historical text. Even though I am not going to go into too much detail in regards to the Islamic claims to divinity; I want to focus on Muslims irrational claims that when making an argument against another faith they have a similar problem that would also affect the Quaran and that the same standard they use to prove their faith fails to meet a consistent standard when making an argument against another faith
1. The Quaran claims that it has the historical words of Jesus of Nazareth; however, when we look at the Quaran we see certain words of Jesus in the Quaran showing similarities to the words of Jesus in apocryphal gospels such the Arabic infancy gospel and the infancy gospel of Thomas. For example:
The Quran says:
19:29-31 The people said, "How shall we talk with him, who is but an infant in the cradle?" Whereupon the child spoke out, "I am a servant of Allah: He has given me the Book and He has appointed me a Prophet, and He has made me blessed wherever I may be. He has enjoined upon me to offer Salat and give Zakat so long as I shall live.
Arabic infancy gospel
We have found it recorded in the book of Josephus the Chief Priest, who was in the time of Christ (and men say that he was Caiaphas), that this man said that Jesus spake when He was in the cradle, and said to Mary His Mother, "Verily I am Jesus, the Son of God, the Word which thou hast borne, according as the angel Gabriel gave thee the good news; and My Father hath sent Me for the salvation of the world."
In Sura 19:30, Jesus says, "I am the servant of Allah," but in the Arabic Infancy Gospel, he says, "I am Jesus, the Son of God."
It is clear we can see borrowing. The Arabic infancy gospel shows parallels with the Syriac infancy gospel. It created fables centuries after Jesus. The reason we know this is the fact the gospel shows no historical source it used. We can make a few assumptions but that is about it. The Arabic infancy gospel focuses on Jesus life as child, as we do not see this in the four canonical gospels in much detail. Many gnostic gospels did this to try and fit in the gaps. Now Christian scholars will admit that we do not know how Matthew and Luke knew about Jesus being born of Mary in Bethlehem unless they spoke to Mary or Jesus for it to be confirmed, as they were not at the birth or there during his early years in childhood. Now who would of spoken about Jesus speaking from a cradle in the first century for an oral tradition to pass over 400 years to someone in a foreign land to write it in one known gospel? The arabic infancy gospel. We know it is not historical, as how did anyone know this? You have to prove that the source it used had communications with Mary or Jesus, or an apostle that was told this by Mary or Jesus. The Arabic infancy gospel also show no relations to anything in 1st century palestine or even Palestine itself. IT makes claim that at a robber who will be crucified along with Jesus is called Dumachus, which shows no relation to any 1st century palestinian name. Bruce Metzger argues in New Testament Studies book that the Arabic Infancy Gospel shows a variant reading of the Acts of Pilate (third century book) that has a different person on the cross known as KECTAC. In the book of Hierotheus in the 12th century the robber on the cross is called Zumachus. We can clearly see an evolution of this robber on the cross, which is what late gospels did, they taken stories from gospels and evoloved them to their own theology.
This gospel had no access to 1st century Palestine nor the eye witnesses to Jesus themselves, therefore it is not historicaly true, meaning the Quaran is wrong.
However, many Muslims will argue that Jesus may have said the verse that is contained in the arabic infancy gospel that has made it's way into the Quaran, as it just got passed down through oral tradition and everything got mixed up and some historical sayings of Jesus are in many gospels but also unhistorical and the Quaran has come to correct them. But, how can you use this as an argument? For example Muslim will use produce a surah like it as an argument to show the Quaran is from God by using historical analysis, such as comparing ancient Arabic literature, Arabic linguistics etc to show it is supposedly from God, but then throw out all historical analysis when something shows the quaran is wrong by making an argument from silence, when as shown above the verse that is in the arabic infancy gospel that has made it into the Quaran did not come from the historical Jesus. Now I have no problem with making an argument from silence if there is no evidence to something, but when there is evidence something is an error or correct we should believe the outcome. So, why the double standard? We might as well just say the Quaran was revealed by the devil not God and that he is very intelligent and was able to disguise himself as an angel and reveal the Quaran to Muhammad. The bible says the devil will come in forms of Angels and deceive people. Could we not just say the bible is making an accurate prophecy? and that the quaran is not unique at all; Muhammad copied the science in the Quaran from a genius in Arabia who was also able to show amazing uniqueness compared to any other poet at the time and then Muhammad killed him and burnt all his other works and said it was from God and shocked everyone. Would you allow me to do this? I mean it could be true but you would just say what is your evidence? and I ask you what is your evidence the Arabic infancy gospel was able to know that Jesus spoke from a cradle which is in the Quaran?
Another common argument made by Muslims is the fact that we do not know who wrote the gospels, so how can we trust them?
Without even looking at the internal evidence we can just look at the external evidence. Papias an early church bishop knew one of the Lords disciples John the elder who was not part of the 12 but walked with Jesus. Papias tells us how he heard the gospel being preached by the elder; Papias tells us that Matthew who was an eye witness and a disciple of the Lord wrote the gospel of Mathhew. Mark was not an eye witness but wrote his gospel according to the interpretation of Peter the apostle. Papias does not specifically talk about the gospel of Luke or John, but may of originally wrote about John ( we only have parchments of the writings Papias) due to his relations with John the Elder, which is what Richard Bauckham argues in his book Jesus and the eye witnesses (2008).
Irenaeus an early church father who was a disciple of Polycarp who was a disciple of John the apostle and tells us that Matthew wrote Matthew, John wrote John etc. He mentions all four gospels and the current names we have to them. He tells us like Papias that Peter was the interpreter for Mark and Matthew was an eye witness, that Luke walked with Paul and his gospel was according to eye witness testimony. That John the evangelist wrote Johns gospel.
In John's gospel the author even claims to be an eye witness (John 20:21), so why should we not believe him? As John Meier states in his historical Jesus lecture that John knows Jewish customs, 1st century Palestinian names, Jewish dietary systems, Jewish Law, The Torah and Tanakh, 1st century Palestinian agriculture and archaeology, cities, towns, people etc. So why should he just be thrown out as an eye witness? even if we did not know the authors name that changes nothing. For example, if you have a gospel of Peter that said I am peter the apostle at the beginning of his gospel, but shown errors in Jewish customs etc, but then had an unknown author who claims to be an eye witness and knows everything you would know the unknown gospel is still more reliable. Therefore as D A Carson says in commentary of the gospel of John, 'I see know reason to doubt that the gospel of John was based on an eyewitness account'.
Now lets look at the Quaran authorship. Even though Muslims will say it comes from God and passed through Muhammad, we would say the same thing about the bible but instead of it being God saying it to a prophet it is the eye witnesses who walekd with Jessu telling us about the life of Jesus through what they saw and heard in different accounts through the Holy Spirit. Now, even though Muhammad passed on the Quaran, who established the quaran into a complete written text? Muslims will use the hadith to prove this not the Quaran. The hadith is a collection of works and sayings of Muhammad that is done through chains of narration (Isnad). Now scholars will use various things such as did this person know this person? were they in the same area? did they know the prophet or a companion of the prophet? reporters memory? etc, to determine the strength of the Isnad chain. (Asher Elkayam - 2009, The Quaran and Biblical origins)
Now look the Quaran uses historical anlysis using outside sources to show the Quaran's origin. Many Muslims will say we believe the Quaran and that is the most importance, but the hadith plays a vital role to the history of the Quaran's origins and transmission as a spoken recension and text. So why the inconnistency? why should we believe in Usman? and the 7 ahrufs? sayings of Muhammad? transmission of the Quaran after Muhammad death? the hadiths show of Quaran tradition? Christian scholars use similiar ways to authenticate the bible's authors. Papias knew John the elder who walked with Christ and Ireneous who was a disciple of Polycarp who was a disciple of John the apostle. Now disciple means learner, so they learnt from their teacher, so why trust Isnad chains when we see a similiar but also different tradition with the followers of Jesus and their disciples? Inconsistency.
Muslims may not even propose this and just say well the bible is corrupt, so that is why the Quaran came to correct and confirm what was lost. They may use verses that are in doubt such as Mark 16 9:20, 1 john 5:7. However, we can give good reason to the fact that they are not original .e.g. 1 john 5 7 was added in the 15h century. Mark 16 9:20 is in all our later manuscripts. even though I could go into greater detail, the point I am trying to make is the Muslims have similar problems. Muslims do not obtain the original Quaranic text of Usman or Hafsa's Quaranic text, as reported in Sakik al Bukhari. Muslims only have copies but also two early reciters of the Quaran who Muhammad saw as good , who have conflicting Quarans. They are Ibn Masud and Zaid Bin Thabit. Ibn Mauds copy had two less Surahs the Zaid Ibn Thabit but many Muslims will say they still have the same Quaran and both are God's word it is just Zaid Ibn thabit had the Quaran in the Quereyshi dialect and Zaid's extra verses are still God's word., which the Quaran was revealed, however, this is not something Muhammad approved, he said that Ibn Masud was able to recite the Quaran. So what is the meaning of all this? Well due to the fact Usman burning all the Quaran manuscripts that pre dated his standardised Quaran we cannot go back further than the standardised text of Usman, therefore we cannot obtain the original Quaran unless using textual criticism However, there is a problem, there were a bunch of Quaranic manuscripts that were found in Sana known as the Fogg's palimpsest manuscripts. Many Muslim will just say the different words that are found in the Fogg's compared to the Topsaki manuscript for example are just dialect differences. However, this is not what Gerd Puin an Islamic scholar points out in his book Die Dunklen Afange page 302. He says 'in Surah 5 aya 46 we can read people whose faith is assured, where as in the standardised text we read to those who fear God in Surah 5 aya 46. Now this is a vaiable variant (corruption of the text).
On page 315 Gerd Puin continues by saying that the same tradition of Ibn masud's quaran that is reported in the Fihrist shows similarities to the foggs palimpsest manuscript, due to variant readings. Even though Gerd Puin does not say it is in fact a copy of Ibn Maud's Quaran, the point is there are variant readings in the quaranic manuscripts. So why the inconsistency? when you have the same problem. Muslims may say, 'but the quaran means recitation and it does not matter if the text is corrupt, as it is recorded on the hearts of believers as they say it in their daily prayers'. However, Muslims do not say every word of the Quaran in their daily prayers and even if they did we need the manuscripts to show what the Muslim of 1st century and 2nd century hijra were reciting, so it plays a vital part.
From what has been demonstrated it is clear the there is clear inconsistencies in the Quaran and without Muslims being inconsistent they would have to throw the Quaran away, as it would fail to reach a consistent standard with other faiths.
God Bless
As I look back on 2012 I see many Islamic apologists attacking other faiths, as if for some reason that proves Islam is true. If I disprove Hinduism that does not mean Christianity is true? If I disprove all faiths that does not mean Christianity is true? No, you have to prove your faith is true.
Now many Muslims target the bible as a way to seek truth in Islam. However, my argument focuses on the double standards they use a long the way to prove their faith and that it is a must for them to use double standards, because if they were consistent they would have to throw out the Quaran as a divine historical text. Even though I am not going to go into too much detail in regards to the Islamic claims to divinity; I want to focus on Muslims irrational claims that when making an argument against another faith they have a similar problem that would also affect the Quaran and that the same standard they use to prove their faith fails to meet a consistent standard when making an argument against another faith
1. The Quaran claims that it has the historical words of Jesus of Nazareth; however, when we look at the Quaran we see certain words of Jesus in the Quaran showing similarities to the words of Jesus in apocryphal gospels such the Arabic infancy gospel and the infancy gospel of Thomas. For example:
The Quran says:
19:29-31 The people said, "How shall we talk with him, who is but an infant in the cradle?" Whereupon the child spoke out, "I am a servant of Allah: He has given me the Book and He has appointed me a Prophet, and He has made me blessed wherever I may be. He has enjoined upon me to offer Salat and give Zakat so long as I shall live.
Arabic infancy gospel
We have found it recorded in the book of Josephus the Chief Priest, who was in the time of Christ (and men say that he was Caiaphas), that this man said that Jesus spake when He was in the cradle, and said to Mary His Mother, "Verily I am Jesus, the Son of God, the Word which thou hast borne, according as the angel Gabriel gave thee the good news; and My Father hath sent Me for the salvation of the world."
In Sura 19:30, Jesus says, "I am the servant of Allah," but in the Arabic Infancy Gospel, he says, "I am Jesus, the Son of God."
It is clear we can see borrowing. The Arabic infancy gospel shows parallels with the Syriac infancy gospel. It created fables centuries after Jesus. The reason we know this is the fact the gospel shows no historical source it used. We can make a few assumptions but that is about it. The Arabic infancy gospel focuses on Jesus life as child, as we do not see this in the four canonical gospels in much detail. Many gnostic gospels did this to try and fit in the gaps. Now Christian scholars will admit that we do not know how Matthew and Luke knew about Jesus being born of Mary in Bethlehem unless they spoke to Mary or Jesus for it to be confirmed, as they were not at the birth or there during his early years in childhood. Now who would of spoken about Jesus speaking from a cradle in the first century for an oral tradition to pass over 400 years to someone in a foreign land to write it in one known gospel? The arabic infancy gospel. We know it is not historical, as how did anyone know this? You have to prove that the source it used had communications with Mary or Jesus, or an apostle that was told this by Mary or Jesus. The Arabic infancy gospel also show no relations to anything in 1st century palestine or even Palestine itself. IT makes claim that at a robber who will be crucified along with Jesus is called Dumachus, which shows no relation to any 1st century palestinian name. Bruce Metzger argues in New Testament Studies book that the Arabic Infancy Gospel shows a variant reading of the Acts of Pilate (third century book) that has a different person on the cross known as KECTAC. In the book of Hierotheus in the 12th century the robber on the cross is called Zumachus. We can clearly see an evolution of this robber on the cross, which is what late gospels did, they taken stories from gospels and evoloved them to their own theology.
This gospel had no access to 1st century Palestine nor the eye witnesses to Jesus themselves, therefore it is not historicaly true, meaning the Quaran is wrong.
However, many Muslims will argue that Jesus may have said the verse that is contained in the arabic infancy gospel that has made it's way into the Quaran, as it just got passed down through oral tradition and everything got mixed up and some historical sayings of Jesus are in many gospels but also unhistorical and the Quaran has come to correct them. But, how can you use this as an argument? For example Muslim will use produce a surah like it as an argument to show the Quaran is from God by using historical analysis, such as comparing ancient Arabic literature, Arabic linguistics etc to show it is supposedly from God, but then throw out all historical analysis when something shows the quaran is wrong by making an argument from silence, when as shown above the verse that is in the arabic infancy gospel that has made it into the Quaran did not come from the historical Jesus. Now I have no problem with making an argument from silence if there is no evidence to something, but when there is evidence something is an error or correct we should believe the outcome. So, why the double standard? We might as well just say the Quaran was revealed by the devil not God and that he is very intelligent and was able to disguise himself as an angel and reveal the Quaran to Muhammad. The bible says the devil will come in forms of Angels and deceive people. Could we not just say the bible is making an accurate prophecy? and that the quaran is not unique at all; Muhammad copied the science in the Quaran from a genius in Arabia who was also able to show amazing uniqueness compared to any other poet at the time and then Muhammad killed him and burnt all his other works and said it was from God and shocked everyone. Would you allow me to do this? I mean it could be true but you would just say what is your evidence? and I ask you what is your evidence the Arabic infancy gospel was able to know that Jesus spoke from a cradle which is in the Quaran?
Another common argument made by Muslims is the fact that we do not know who wrote the gospels, so how can we trust them?
Without even looking at the internal evidence we can just look at the external evidence. Papias an early church bishop knew one of the Lords disciples John the elder who was not part of the 12 but walked with Jesus. Papias tells us how he heard the gospel being preached by the elder; Papias tells us that Matthew who was an eye witness and a disciple of the Lord wrote the gospel of Mathhew. Mark was not an eye witness but wrote his gospel according to the interpretation of Peter the apostle. Papias does not specifically talk about the gospel of Luke or John, but may of originally wrote about John ( we only have parchments of the writings Papias) due to his relations with John the Elder, which is what Richard Bauckham argues in his book Jesus and the eye witnesses (2008).
Irenaeus an early church father who was a disciple of Polycarp who was a disciple of John the apostle and tells us that Matthew wrote Matthew, John wrote John etc. He mentions all four gospels and the current names we have to them. He tells us like Papias that Peter was the interpreter for Mark and Matthew was an eye witness, that Luke walked with Paul and his gospel was according to eye witness testimony. That John the evangelist wrote Johns gospel.
In John's gospel the author even claims to be an eye witness (John 20:21), so why should we not believe him? As John Meier states in his historical Jesus lecture that John knows Jewish customs, 1st century Palestinian names, Jewish dietary systems, Jewish Law, The Torah and Tanakh, 1st century Palestinian agriculture and archaeology, cities, towns, people etc. So why should he just be thrown out as an eye witness? even if we did not know the authors name that changes nothing. For example, if you have a gospel of Peter that said I am peter the apostle at the beginning of his gospel, but shown errors in Jewish customs etc, but then had an unknown author who claims to be an eye witness and knows everything you would know the unknown gospel is still more reliable. Therefore as D A Carson says in commentary of the gospel of John, 'I see know reason to doubt that the gospel of John was based on an eyewitness account'.
Now lets look at the Quaran authorship. Even though Muslims will say it comes from God and passed through Muhammad, we would say the same thing about the bible but instead of it being God saying it to a prophet it is the eye witnesses who walekd with Jessu telling us about the life of Jesus through what they saw and heard in different accounts through the Holy Spirit. Now, even though Muhammad passed on the Quaran, who established the quaran into a complete written text? Muslims will use the hadith to prove this not the Quaran. The hadith is a collection of works and sayings of Muhammad that is done through chains of narration (Isnad). Now scholars will use various things such as did this person know this person? were they in the same area? did they know the prophet or a companion of the prophet? reporters memory? etc, to determine the strength of the Isnad chain. (Asher Elkayam - 2009, The Quaran and Biblical origins)
Now look the Quaran uses historical anlysis using outside sources to show the Quaran's origin. Many Muslims will say we believe the Quaran and that is the most importance, but the hadith plays a vital role to the history of the Quaran's origins and transmission as a spoken recension and text. So why the inconnistency? why should we believe in Usman? and the 7 ahrufs? sayings of Muhammad? transmission of the Quaran after Muhammad death? the hadiths show of Quaran tradition? Christian scholars use similiar ways to authenticate the bible's authors. Papias knew John the elder who walked with Christ and Ireneous who was a disciple of Polycarp who was a disciple of John the apostle. Now disciple means learner, so they learnt from their teacher, so why trust Isnad chains when we see a similiar but also different tradition with the followers of Jesus and their disciples? Inconsistency.
Muslims may not even propose this and just say well the bible is corrupt, so that is why the Quaran came to correct and confirm what was lost. They may use verses that are in doubt such as Mark 16 9:20, 1 john 5:7. However, we can give good reason to the fact that they are not original .e.g. 1 john 5 7 was added in the 15h century. Mark 16 9:20 is in all our later manuscripts. even though I could go into greater detail, the point I am trying to make is the Muslims have similar problems. Muslims do not obtain the original Quaranic text of Usman or Hafsa's Quaranic text, as reported in Sakik al Bukhari. Muslims only have copies but also two early reciters of the Quaran who Muhammad saw as good , who have conflicting Quarans. They are Ibn Masud and Zaid Bin Thabit. Ibn Mauds copy had two less Surahs the Zaid Ibn Thabit but many Muslims will say they still have the same Quaran and both are God's word it is just Zaid Ibn thabit had the Quaran in the Quereyshi dialect and Zaid's extra verses are still God's word., which the Quaran was revealed, however, this is not something Muhammad approved, he said that Ibn Masud was able to recite the Quaran. So what is the meaning of all this? Well due to the fact Usman burning all the Quaran manuscripts that pre dated his standardised Quaran we cannot go back further than the standardised text of Usman, therefore we cannot obtain the original Quaran unless using textual criticism However, there is a problem, there were a bunch of Quaranic manuscripts that were found in Sana known as the Fogg's palimpsest manuscripts. Many Muslim will just say the different words that are found in the Fogg's compared to the Topsaki manuscript for example are just dialect differences. However, this is not what Gerd Puin an Islamic scholar points out in his book Die Dunklen Afange page 302. He says 'in Surah 5 aya 46 we can read people whose faith is assured, where as in the standardised text we read to those who fear God in Surah 5 aya 46. Now this is a vaiable variant (corruption of the text).
On page 315 Gerd Puin continues by saying that the same tradition of Ibn masud's quaran that is reported in the Fihrist shows similarities to the foggs palimpsest manuscript, due to variant readings. Even though Gerd Puin does not say it is in fact a copy of Ibn Maud's Quaran, the point is there are variant readings in the quaranic manuscripts. So why the inconsistency? when you have the same problem. Muslims may say, 'but the quaran means recitation and it does not matter if the text is corrupt, as it is recorded on the hearts of believers as they say it in their daily prayers'. However, Muslims do not say every word of the Quaran in their daily prayers and even if they did we need the manuscripts to show what the Muslim of 1st century and 2nd century hijra were reciting, so it plays a vital part.
From what has been demonstrated it is clear the there is clear inconsistencies in the Quaran and without Muslims being inconsistent they would have to throw the Quaran away, as it would fail to reach a consistent standard with other faiths.
God Bless
