Systematic apologetics against Islam

[spina1953]

It’s not just that Muhammad was a traveling merchant. There were Christian caravans that connected the Hijaz as far south as Medinah with the miaphysite Ghassanid kingdom. One tribe with a Christian branch that traded that far south were the Azd. So the Hijaz included not only Christians, but Christians who viewed each other as herertical. Muhammad’s uncle was supposedly a dyophysite, who viewed the miaphysites as heretical, and many of the arguments they used sound a lot like Muslim arguments against Christology.

Hi fnr: I have to agree with you. I did not include them but now that you have mentioned it, there were many heretical Christian groups that also traveled the area. If I remember correctly it was outside of the Byzantium empire that many of the heretical Christians lived in order not to be persecuted for their beliefs. I also remember from reading history of the Arabic peoples of that time that most were pagans and while some did believe in one God, it was neither a Jewish or Christian God they believed in but one that was still in a pagan belief system. I also remember that Muhammad’s family, uncles etc. belied in many gods.

 

[jakasaki]

… snip…

I also remember from reading history of the Arabic peoples of that time that most were pagans and while** some did believe in one God, it was neither a Jewish or Christian God** they believed in but one that was still in a pagan belief system. I also remember that Muhammad’s family, uncles etc. belied in many gods.

Responding to the bold part of your post:

There were a group of Jahiliya Arabians called Hanifs back then who were not Jews or Christians, but believed in one God.

 

[spina1953]

Responding to the bold part of your post:

There were a group of Jahiliya Arabians called Hanifs back then who were not Jews or Christians, but believed in one God.

Hi jakasaki: Thanks as I could not remember what group of Arabians who believed in one god.

 

[fnr]

Additionally there are two historical events that are almost universally accepted by historians to have actually happened. The first is Jesus’s baptism by John the Baptist and the second is his crucifixion by Pontius Pilot. If anyone would like sources I would be more than happy to supply them! Beyond that everything is up in the air.

Well, it’s beyond the scope of the current thread, and I’d encourage us to start a dialogue on this topic by another thread. However, for now, I’ll mention that the two points you mention are not the only ones that are generally universally recognized by critical scholars.

For a more critical scholar’s perspective on the “bare bones” agreement on the Historical Jesus, I would refer you to Dale Martin’s online New Testament course from Yale University, which can be found on YouTube. Search YouTube for “Dale Martin historical Jesus” and you’ll get lecture #13 from his course. There he recounts elements that are generally agreed by critical scholars (Dr. Martin is a good friend of Bart Ehrman, albeit a confessed Christian). He mentions the following (I’m going from memory so please check the video):

• That Jesus grew up in Nazareth
• That Jesus was a halakhically-observant Jew.
• That Jesus was executed under the accusation INRI (Jesus of Nazareth, King of the Jews) or similar accusation
• That Jesus’ followers were armed during some parts of his ministry (e.g., his arrest)
• That Jesus included women in his inner circle, and interacted with them in a way that did not comport with gender norms of the time.
• That Jesus strongly condemned divorce.

For a more clearly orthodox perspective, I would suggest looking up Gary Habermas, whose “minimal facts theory” is based on a meta-analysis of the publications of critical Biblical scholars. You can easily look him up.

I personally find two scholars to have the best and most systematic understanding of the historical Jesus: N.T. Wright, as set forth in his book, Jesus and the Victory of God and John Meier, as set forth in his “A Marginal Jew” series. I find that they are less like than many other scholars to rely heavily on a need to redact the Gospels to support their historical reconstructions of Jesus. Others, such as the recent Zealot by Reza Aslan, rely heavily on a heavily-sculpted version of scripture that systematically excludes certain types of verses.

 

[peace_at_last]

Responding to the bold part of your post:

There were a group of Jahiliya Arabians called Hanifs back then who were not Jews or Christians, but believed in one God.

The Hanifs, followers of the religion of Abraham were not part of the Jahiliya Arabs.

 

[jakasaki]

The Hanifs, followers of the religion of Abraham were not part of the Jahiliya Arabs.

My post should have been…

during pre-islam, Jahiliya period, there was a group called the Hanifs who were followers and believers of 1 God - God of Abraham.

Doesn’t Jahiliaya refer to some sort of “ignorance” prior to Islam and the Quran calls them the Jahiliya -ignorant- Arabs or something like that.

 

[jakasaki]

Responding to the bold part of your post:

There were a group of Jahiliya Arabians called Hanifs back then who were not Jews or Christians, but believed in one God.

The Hanifs, followers of the religion of Abraham were not part of the Jahiliya Arabs.

My post should have been…

during pre-islam, Jahiliya period, there was a group called the Hanifs who were followers and believers of 1 God - God of Abraham.

Doesn’t Jahiliaya refer to some sort of “ignorance” prior to Islam and the Quran calls them the Jahiliya -ignorant- Arabs or something like that.

OK - now I remember where I read about “Jahiliyya Arabs”.

This term can be used in reference to the Arabic culture before the arrival of Islamic Revelation.

Before the Islamic conversion the Arabe tribes were nomadic, with a strong community spirit and some specific society rules. Their culture was patriarchal, with rudimentary religious beliefs.** Although there were some traces of monotheism in the “hanifs” figures**, their religious beliefs were based mostly on idol adorations[4] and social congregations once a year around the Kaaba for trading and exchanges. Since the term is, in its deep sense, used as a condition, and not as an historical period,[5] the Jahiliyya is used to described the period of ignorance and darkness that preluded the arrival of Islam. It refers to the general condition of those that haven’t accepted the Muslim faith.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jahiliyyah

 

[hasantas]

Would you be willing to supply your source for the illiteracy of Muhammad? Most of the historical and academic evidence I’ve seen indicates that, as a merchant, Muhammad would have been able to both read and write. It would have been required by his occupation.

There are thousands historical sources(books of Siyar Nabi, life history of prophet Muhammed). Muhammed had never written any verse by his hand there were writer of reveal. There were few people who could read and write and these were known well. Althoug if Muhammed could read He would never learn all acknowledges which even Christians and and Jewis pastor, rabbis and scholars did not know. İt takes so long time to get that acknowledges. But Muhammed came with words suddenly without any preparations that nobody can bring something like that. Quran is word of Allah. İf someone look at Quran carefully he will see that Quran can not be a humanbeing’s words.

 

[dronald]

There are thousands historical sources(books of Siyar Nabi, life history of prophet Muhammed). Muhammed had never written any verse by his hand there were writer of reveal. There were few people who could read and write and these were known well. Althoug if Muhammed could read He would never learn all acknowledges which even Christians and and Jewis pastor, rabbis and scholars did not know. İt takes so long time to get that acknowledges. But Muhammed came with words suddenly without any preparations that nobody can bring something like that. Quran is word of Allah. İf someone look at Quran carefully he will see that Quran can not be a humanbeing’s words.

The source you have provided was a translation of a work by Al-Waqidi who was born in the year 748 which would put his birth over 100 years after the death of Muhammad. That would place his efforts well after the death of Muhammad.

As for your other beliefs; while you are required to believe them as a Muslim, I believe this thread is about discussing Islam on a scholarly level. Since your claims hold no water, there’s no point in discussing them here.

“The Qur’an is the greatest book” is not an argument because it’s a claim without evidence. Rather, you’re just stating your opinion.

 

[hasantas]

Guilty as charged. But I am making an appeal to objective historical and philological analysis, which means that I’m open to all information.

I must confess that I start from a bit of factual disagreement with Islam and the Quran. That is, the answer to the question, “Did Jesus of Nazareth die on the cross?” Christians answer yes, Muslims answer no. Outside of Muslims, critical scholars, including non-Christians like Bart Ehrman and Amy-Jill Levine, universally agree that he did (Ehrman cites 11 independent testimonies to the crucifixion of Jesus in his book, “Did Jesus Exist?”). On the other hand, Muslims tell me that Jesus did not die, and (depending on whether you read just the Quran or a hadith) says that Allah changed the appearance of one of Jesus’ companions and allowed him to die instead, while raising Jesus up. The issue here is that using the techniques of modern historiography, I am compelled to look for a naturalistic explanation for events if I can (this is kind of a take on Occam’s Razor). Under modern historiography, the Christian belief that Jesus died on the cross requires no supernatural explanation. This makes it an objectively more probable explanation of the events depicted in the Gospels’ passion narratives than the Muslim account. If I’m thinking like a modern historian, I am compelled to conclude that Jesus died on the cross. As a result, I am forced to conclude that the Quran’s story is factually incorrect and possibly metaphorical (allowing it to remain “true” in the sense that the metaphorical interpretation presented conveys meaning – akin to the Jewish practice of midrash).
.

Quran (Allah) says Jesus did not die on the cross but someone else like him as figure. Christians say Jesus die on the cross. There is a same point that someone died on the cross. Quran(Allah) says Jesus get rised before cross, Christians say Jesus rised after cross three days later. The same point is that Jesus rised. Well which story is the more correct. Ofcourse the story which Allah(God) say is the most true. Because humanbeing can mistake easily.

 

[hasantas]

The source you have provided was a translation of a work by Al-Waqidi who was born in the year 748 which would put his birth over 100 years after the death of Muhammad. That would place his efforts well after the death of Muhammad.

As for your other beliefs; while you are required to believe them as a Muslim, I believe this thread is about discussing Islam on a scholarly level. Since your claims hold no water, there’s no point in discussing them here.

“The Qur’an is the greatest book” is not an argument because it’s a claim without evidence. Rather, you’re just stating your opinion.

Faith is at last and beyond point of science and mathematics. Ofcourse that does not mean to ignore logic. All evidences show that Muhammed is the Greadest of the Prophets. Can a Christian explain and state Trinity as a systematic apologetic?

 

[dronald]

Faith is at last and beyond point of science and mathematics. Ofcourse that does not mean to ignore logic.

Sure, but I want to stay on topic as not to offend the OP by bringing his work to an elementary argument.

All evidences show that Muhammed is the Greadest of the Prophets. Can a Christian explain and state Trinity as a systematic apologetic?

And I think this thread would be a perfect place to present such evidence.

 

[fnr]

Quran (Allah) says Jesus did not die on the cross but someone else like him as figure. Christians say Jesus die on the cross. There is a same point that someone died on the cross. Quran(Allah) says Jesus get rised before cross, Christians say Jesus rised after cross three days later. The same point is that Jesus rised. Well which story is the more correct. Ofcourse the story which Allah(God) say is the most true. Because humanbeing can mistake easily.

The problem here is that for me to say that the story in the Quran is true, I have to do something that modern historiography (and the Catholic Church when looking at miracle claims) strenuously tries to avoid: grabbing onto a supernatural explanation for an event when a naturalistic explanation will do the job just fine.

If I am a rigorous, objectively-minded historian, I will say that Jesus died on the cross. If I am a Christian, I will look to the Gospels and say that Jesus died on the cross. Here, there is absolutely no discrepancy between an secular historian and a faithful believer in God.

Only a Muslim will look at the crucifixion reported in the Gospels and say that the person who died on the cross wasn’t Jesus. In that case, rather than using the basic facts at hand and the most naturalistic theory to explain what happened, the Quran substitutes a miraculous explanation (which also happens to be impossible to verify or refute in any objective way). In that case, there is a discrepancy between a secular historian and the Muslim believer in God.

The methods and assumptions used by modern historians are referred to as historiography. At present, a graduate student in a Ph.D. program in history could not submit a paper that makes an historical claim solely by repeating what a holy book says. That student would need to base his claim on all the available information, including historical information from outside the holy book and/or a critical analysis of the text of the holy book. In Biblical analysis, this approach to historiography is called the “historical-critical method.”

To me, the only reason someone would believe that Jesus did not die on the cross, but that someone else died in his place looking just like him, is because that person is a Muslim who wants to believe that the Quran is true. However, to accept the Quran’s story of the non-death of Jesus is to reject not only the Gospels (the injeel), but the entire field of modern (secular) historical scholarship on the New Testament.

 

[spina1953]

It seems to me that since all of the Apostles except John were martyred for what they believed, none were willing to die for a lie, and did not preach any lies concerning Jesus. They saw His miracles that He did, they saw Him after he rose from the dead, John saw Him die on the cross, a witness to the death of Jesus. Mary His mother saw her son die on the cross as did many others. How in the world could they all be mistaken? And also why would they lie, these were God fearing people. What Muhammad learned about Jesus was from heretic’s who refused to believe that Jesus truly dies on the cross and promoted the idea that it was someone else that dies and that God would never let His Son dies because can not die etc… it is by faith that one believes not by reason since reason can always be wrong at any given time.

 

[hasantas]

The problem here is that for me to say that the story in the Quran is true, I have to do something that modern historiography (and the Catholic Church when looking at miracle claims) strenuously tries to avoid: grabbing onto a supernatural explanation for an event when a naturalistic explanation will do the job just fine.
…
…
To me, the only reason someone would believe that Jesus did not die on the cross, but that someone else died in his place looking just like him, is because that person is a Muslim who wants to believe that the Quran is true. However, to accept the Quran’s story of the non-death of Jesus is to reject not only the Gospels (the injeel), but the entire field of modern (secular) historical scholarship on the New Testament.

İf Allah did not inform anyone nobody would know if that man was not Jesus. So nobody lie because they narrated what God showed them. And all historiography studies will say that Jesus died on cross but He did not.

The statement of “Jesus died on cross” can belong to apostles although that issue is present in Gospels. But that statements can not belong to God or Jesus because that matter occured after Jesus depart. So yet the İslamic view is more reliable. Quran corrects misunderstanding(which occured by the time) in prior scriptures.

 

[hasantas]

It seems to me that since all of the Apostles except John were martyred for what they believed, none were willing to die for a lie, and did not preach any lies concerning Jesus. They saw His miracles that He did, they saw Him after he rose from the dead, John saw Him die on the cross, a witness to the death of Jesus. Mary His mother saw her son die on the cross as did many others. How in the world could they all be mistaken? And also why would they lie, these were God fearing people. What Muhammad learned about Jesus was from heretic’s who refused to believe that Jesus truly dies on the cross and promoted the idea that it was someone else that dies and that God would never let His Son dies because can not die etc… it is by faith that one believes not by reason since reason can always be wrong at any given time.

İf you can not see that Muhammed is the seal and greatest of prophet then we must start from a different point. But ı must put an emphasis on that Muhammed had never taken anything from Gospels or from other scriptures. Muhammed notefied and conveyed what Allah revealed by Jebrail(Gabriel). İf someone study for 40 years continuous he will not get % 1 of knowledges which Muhammed had. And it is funny that you say He took all these during some minutes by conversation with pastors. Did that pastors have scholarship as much Muhammed had for half the amount?

 

[dronald]

İf Allah did not inform anyone nobody would know if that man was not Jesus. So nobody lie because they narrated what God showed them. And all historiography studies will say that Jesus died on cross but He did not.

The statement of “Jesus died on cross” can belong to apostles although that issue is present in Gospels. But that statements can not belong to God or Jesus because that matter occured after Jesus depart. So yet the İslamic view is more reliable. Quran corrects misunderstanding(which occured by the time) in prior scriptures.

Islamic logic 101.

 

[spina1953]

There seems to be two problems about Muhammad. One is that first of all no one can prove that Muhammad received any revelations ;we only have Muhammad’s word that he did ,since no one was with him when these revelations that Muhammad claims he received them, just his word that he did is not proof. Secondly, Muhammad has blood on his hands, in that he fought and killed those who did not believe in him; while Jesus never killed anyone for not believing in Him nor did His Apostles kill anyone for that matter. The New Testament teaches against killing anyone, and while there has been those who have killed in the Name of Jesus, it was never what Jesus taught.

 

[spina1953]

In reading about the history of Muhammad by Muslim scholars and the rise of Islam, we know that Muhammad did not read or write, yet as a merchant he traveled and in his travels he listened to many people and their religious ideas and beliefs, most of which were told by heretic’s of the Christian faith, as well as from Jews who lived in and around Media and also in his travels. if Muhammad was really the prophet he claimed he was he would never have say that killing was ok nor violence of any kind and he would have also worked miracles, which in fact he did not if he really was a prophet of God.

 

[fnr]

İf Allah did not inform anyone nobody would know if that man was not Jesus. So nobody lie because they narrated what God showed them. And all historiography studies will say that Jesus died on cross but He did not.

The statement of “Jesus died on cross” can belong to apostles although that issue is present in Gospels. But that statements can not belong to God or Jesus because that matter occured after Jesus depart. So yet the İslamic view is more reliable. Quran corrects misunderstanding(which occured by the time) in prior scriptures.

It seems that you are resorting to a circular argument, which underscores the point that one needs to abandon an objective view of history in order to accept the Quran’s account. The argument that the account in the Quran is correct because, by definition, the Quran is correct.